Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,923

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand." Full Story

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113622 Jan 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are missing the point. ADesigner could do anything, but a system consistent with the nested hierarchy is NECESSARY for evolution with common ancestry.
If life was created ex-nihilo, there is absolutely no reason for the nested hierarchy to be essential. You could indeed have croco-ducks, and creatures with the features of bats and birds mixed, anything you like. A flowering fern, a fish with a 3-boned middle ear, whatever you (He) liked. Your creation makes NO prediction, therefore you can claim ANYTHING is consistent with it, therefore no particular pattern is evidence for (or against) it.
You will note the asymmetry here, just as I pointed out with Junk DNA, except this time the asymmetry goes the other way!
Common ancestry is bound by the nested hierarchy. If life does not display it, common ancestry is falsified.
Does life display it? Yes.
Was this why Linnaeus was able to classify the species as he did? Yes!
Good then, its evidence FOR evolution!(Though not specifically evidence against a Designer).
<quoted text>
Of course. The Designer could do anything He liked, including creating a pattern that happened to be fully consistent with common ancestry. But ONLY evolution specifically predicts the pattern we see.
Not to mention, you have a much harder time explaining why the elements of the genome - pseudogenes, ERVs, and ubiquitous protein sequences, ALSO follow the same nested hierarchy. That part, you cannot explain. We can! So:
1/ A pre-evolutionary classification system, not "biased" by evolutionary assumptions;
2/ The fossil record; and
3/ The evidence of the genome;
ALL agree on the same nested hierarchy which is a core prediction of common ancestry.
Or Common design/common designer. All your bumper sticker evolutionary bromides fall empty because they are just as easily and just as valid as arguments for creation and you still have no evidence of macroevolution. The way that God designed life mimicks the way engineers design things. The building reflects the blueprints just as you would expect. Plus, you still have no obserbved case where a genetic mutation created any new, or nascent limb or organ; you have entropy working in the opposite direction (everywhere else in the whole universe); You still have no reasonable set of fossils to show a progression from one kind of organism to the next; and you can't explain the complex information in the genome or the irreducbly complex machines found in cells.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113623 Jan 7, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not up on all the specific vocabulary, but you seem to be referring to "switches" that turn variable characteristics of genes on/off, more/less. Yes? Stuff that used to be considered to be junk DNA, but is now understood to have functions.
And I'm not sure how this would have anything to do with supporting creationism.
The theory of evolution depends on tons of junk to demonstrate the trial and error nature of mutation/selection over millions of years. Now we know there is no junk. Methylation alterations are highly complex and very specific DNA controls which must be in place from the beginning to control development, regulate cell replication, determine timing and extent of growth, etc. Recent research (as I referenced recently) shows that chimps and humans have completely different methylation alterations which creationist interpret as what we would expect - that we are not related to chimps (not only that, that it is impossible that we are related to chimps!)- while evolutionists have another gap to fill with more "just-so" stories.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113624 Jan 7, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
FYI an orbital period of 6 million years destroys your "they prove the earth is young argument". Of course, you can always come back witrh the "God is a LIAR and only made it "look" like those comets have really long orbital periods" counter "argument".
Man, you're even dumber than I thought.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113625 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution depends on tons of junk to demonstrate the trial and error nature of mutation/selection over millions of years. Now we know there is no junk. Methylation alterations are highly complex and very specific DNA controls which must be in place from the beginning to control development, regulate cell replication, determine timing and extent of growth, etc. Recent research (as I referenced recently) shows that chimps and humans have completely different methylation alterations which creationist interpret as what we would expect - that we are not related to chimps (not only that, that it is impossible that we are related to chimps!)- while evolutionists have another gap to fill with more "just-so" stories.
Why is it impossible for us to have a common ancestor with chimps?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113626 Jan 7, 2013
"A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But once each orbit a comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sunís heat to evaporate much of the cometís ice and dislodge dust to form a beautiful tail. Comets have little mass, so each close pass to the sun greatly reduces a cometís size, and eventually comets fade away. They canít survive billions of years.

Two other mechanisms can destroy cometsóejections from the solar system and collisions with planets. Ejections happen as comets pass too close to the large planets, particularly Jupiter, and the planetsí gravity kicks them out of the solar system. While ejections have been observed many times, the first observed collision was in 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levi IX slammed into Jupiter.

Given the loss rates, itís easy to compute a maximum age of comets. That maximum age is only a few million years. Obviously, their prevalence makes sense if the entire solar system was created just a few thousand years ago, but not if it arose billions of years ago.

Rescuing Devices

Evolutionary astronomers have answered this problem by claiming that comets must come from two sources. They propose that a Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune hosts short-period comets (comets with orbits under 200 years), and a much larger, distant Oort cloud hosts long-period comets (comets with orbits over 200 years).

Yet there is no evidence for the supposed Oort cloud, and there likely never will be. In the past twenty years astronomers have found thousands of asteroids orbiting beyond Neptune, and they are assumed to be the Kuiper belt. However, the large size of these asteroids (Pluto is one of the larger ones) and the difference in composition between these asteroids and comets argue against this conclusion."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v...

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113627 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it impossible for us to have a common ancestor with chimps?
Because the epigenetic DNA methylation alterations are completely different between chimps and humans and we could not have inherited the ones from chimps because they would cause numerous fatal epigenetic diseases if we had the same methylation alertations as chimps.(Among other reasons!)

http://www.icr.org/article/7157/

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113628 Jan 7, 2013
The AiG Statement of Faith

"~The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.

~The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

~The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

~The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe."

....and so on.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Real fine, unbiased scientific resource you got there, Cowboy![/SARCASM]

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113629 Jan 7, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
The AiG Statement of Faith
"~The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
~The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
~The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
~The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe."
....and so on.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
Real fine, unbiased scientific resource you got there, Cowboy![/SARCASM]
It's called honesty Kong. Your side should try it sometime. You should do the same for your unyielding committment to neo-darwinian evolutionary theory.(Of course that is your iron-fisted practice, you just can't be honest enough to admit it.)
Elohim

Branford, CT

#113630 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called honesty Kong. Your side should try it sometime. You should do the same for your unyielding committment to neo-darwinian evolutionary theory.(Of course that is your iron-fisted practice, you just can't be honest enough to admit it.)
LMAO!!! Thanks for the afternoon chuckle!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113631 Jan 7, 2013
http://www.icr.org/tenets/

Ditto for ICR....

"~The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological."

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113632 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called honesty Kong. Your side should try it sometime. You should do the same for your unyielding committment to neo-darwinian evolutionary theory.(Of course that is your iron-fisted practice, you just can't be honest enough to admit it.)
*IF* there was REAL evidence for some of the conclusions made by either source, science would be using it. But since neither AiG or ICR actually DO any research to speak of....

It's called "Intellectual Integrity".

Neither you, AiG or ICR (among others) have it.

It may be "honest"...and I'll give you that, but it aint unbiased, nor is it Science.

Have you ever wondered why REAL science doesn't reference ICR or AiG in their research papers?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113633 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But once each orbit a comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sunís heat to evaporate much of the cometís ice and dislodge dust to form a beautiful tail. Comets have little mass, so each close pass to the sun greatly reduces a cometís size, and eventually comets fade away. They canít survive billions of years.
Two other mechanisms can destroy cometsóejections from the solar system and collisions with planets. Ejections happen as comets pass too close to the large planets, particularly Jupiter, and the planetsí gravity kicks them out of the solar system. While ejections have been observed many times, the first observed collision was in 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levi IX slammed into Jupiter.
Given the loss rates, itís easy to compute a maximum age of comets. That maximum age is only a few million years. Obviously, their prevalence makes sense if the entire solar system was created just a few thousand years ago, but not if it arose billions of years ago.
Rescuing Devices
Evolutionary astronomers have answered this problem by claiming that comets must come from two sources. They propose that a Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune hosts short-period comets (comets with orbits under 200 years), and a much larger, distant Oort cloud hosts long-period comets (comets with orbits over 200 years).
Yet there is no evidence for the supposed Oort cloud, and there likely never will be. In the past twenty years astronomers have found thousands of asteroids orbiting beyond Neptune, and they are assumed to be the Kuiper belt. However, the large size of these asteroids (Pluto is one of the larger ones) and the difference in composition between these asteroids and comets argue against this conclusion."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v...
Sure, if you ignore the fact that some orbit other stars as well, and oh, that they're frozen and collect more frozen "junk" on their time away from stars. Oh, and that your orbital calculations are based on pi being 3.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113634 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called honesty Kong. Your side should try it sometime.
Honest in that they openly admit their bias; however, it is dishonest when you attempt to use them as an unbiased reference.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113635 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the epigenetic DNA methylation alterations are completely different between chimps and humans and we could not have inherited the ones from chimps because they would cause numerous fatal epigenetic diseases if we had the same methylation alertations as chimps.(Among other reasons!)
http://www.icr.org/article/7157/
Since we are not descendants of actual chimpanzees, how would we inherit anything from them?

Not to mention we're about 1% different from them genetically, sort of gives a ton of support for sharing an ancestor to them.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113636 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called honesty Kong. Your side should try it sometime. You should do the same for your unyielding committment to neo-darwinian evolutionary theory.(Of course that is your iron-fisted practice, you just can't be honest enough to admit it.)
Yes, but we employ the scientific method which weeds out bias like that. Big difference, what gets "accepted" has been run through a filter that removes bias and fraud, you just say "as long as it fits my belief" and that's that.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#113637 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called honesty Kong. Your side should try it sometime. You should do the same for your unyielding committment to neo-darwinian evolutionary theory.(Of course that is your iron-fisted practice, you just can't be honest enough to admit it.)
So says the proven liar.

You obviously would not know honesty if it sat on you face and broke wind

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113638 Jan 7, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
*IF* there was REAL evidence for some of the conclusions made by either source, science would be using it. But since neither AiG or ICR actually DO any research to speak of....
It's called "Intellectual Integrity".
Neither you, AiG or ICR (among others) have it.
It may be "honest"...and I'll give you that, but it aint unbiased, nor is it Science.
Have you ever wondered why REAL science doesn't reference ICR or AiG in their research papers?
Why would you make such a stupid statement Kong? Of course they do research. Peer reviewed. By PhD's. Why such bigotry and dishonesty? We have top quality researchers doing good work. Why do you wave it off so flippantly and arrogantly? What makes you so special? Yes I know why they don't refer to it. It is because of your iron-fisted beliefs - nothing else is allowed. You'd put us all away if you could. This is because of your fears. What you call science is religion "dressed-up" to look like science. You known that you cannot observe macroevolution just like you can't observe Oort Clouds. Yet you criticize us for believing in God who is real and the Bible which is real. You are the ones with the problem not us.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#113639 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you make such a stupid statement Kong? Of course they do research. Peer reviewed. By PhD's. Why such bigotry and dishonesty? We have top quality researchers doing good work. Why do you wave it off so flippantly and arrogantly? What makes you so special? Yes I know why they don't refer to it. It is because of your iron-fisted beliefs - nothing else is allowed. You'd put us all away if you could. This is because of your fears. What you call science is religion "dressed-up" to look like science. You known that you cannot observe macroevolution just like you can't observe Oort Clouds. Yet you criticize us for believing in God who is real and the Bible which is real. You are the ones with the problem not us.
OY VEY! HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! Good one!! Keep'em coming boy-o! Makes the afternoon do by a bit quicker.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113640 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but we employ the scientific method which weeds out bias like that. Big difference, what gets "accepted" has been run through a filter that removes bias and fraud, you just say "as long as it fits my belief" and that's that.
Yeah sure you do. As long as it supports the theory of evolution. Because the mainstream secular crowd cannot accept the notion that there was intelligence behind it, nothing even remotely suggesting that would ever get considered. They even go further than that. It is just waved off and ridiculed and mocked. It is extreme bias and prejudice. Look at the crap I have to deal with just because of my beliefs. Live would certainly be a lot easier if I would just accept evolution but then I would be living a lie.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113641 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, if you ignore the fact that some orbit other stars as well, and oh, that they're frozen and collect more frozen "junk" on their time away from stars. Oh, and that your orbital calculations are based on pi being 3.
Orbit other stars? Collect more dust/ice? Where did that come from? Pi based on 3?(mocking?) Now you're getting all nutty. You need to paste some links to references if you're going to make wild claims like those.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr replaytime 149,719
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr marksman11 141,001
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 2 hr emrenil 1,386
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Denisova 16,810
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 4 hr susanblange 693
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs SlowlyóThen Took Off 6 hr MikeF 16
Darwin on the rocks 22 hr The Dude 848
More from around the web