• Sections
Should evolution be taught in high sc...

# Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

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."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

One way or another

United States

#115123 Jan 25, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Jim, two questions.
To calculate the speed of light using your above method, you would have to know (a) the exact distance between the probe and instrument(s) where the light signal would be received,
and
(b) exactly when the light was emitted from the probe.
(a) How do you propose we measure this distance, a measuring tape?
(b) You'll answer you send a signal to tell the probe to fire the laser at the earth, right? Well, since the signal we sent would ALSO be travelling at the speed of light (which you say we don't know), how can we trust the time calculation?
It's called pre programming. The could program the probe to send the light beam to earth, when it reaches a specified amount of time in space, equalling the time needed to reach that place and then when the probe fires the laser, the probe can record the exact time and transmit that time back to earth at the same time the laser fires, simple.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

#115124 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea moron, that's why radio waves can move through walls and light can't.
It's a function of frequency, idiot.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

#115125 Jan 25, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>OK, I get it. Jim Ryan is alledgedly his real name I suppose. I never did catch why CW (Jim) was anti-science. Is it a symptom of his larger pathology or did he get injured in a bizarre chemistry set accident as a child?

Jim Ryan is his real name. He has (or had) a carpet business in Jacksonville. Carpet fumes may be his root cause.
One way or another

United States

#115126 Jan 25, 2013
Perhaps the moron can tell us which light frequency can pass through walls. Lmao

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#115127 Jan 25, 2013
"Carl Woese dies at 84; evolutionary biologist

Before Carl R. Woese, science divided the living world into two types of organisms: bacteria and everything else.

But the University of Illinois professor and colleagues in the 1970s discovered that microbes now called archaea look like bacteria but genetically are as different from bacteria as people and plants are. The discovery added archaea as a third domain of living things and helped pioneer the use of genetic sequences.

Woese died at his home in Urbana, Ill., on Dec. 30 from pancreatic cancer, the university announced. He was 84.

Hailed by colleagues as one of the great evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, Woese won the 2003 Crafoord Prize in Biosciences. That's the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for scientific areas not considered for the Nobel."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/...
Elohim
#115128 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Perhaps the moron can tell us which light frequency can pass through walls. Lmao
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

#115129 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Perhaps the moron can tell us which light frequency can pass through walls. Lmao
I didn't say that, you imbecile. Lower frequencies can pass through solid objects - like walls - with less attenuation than higher frequencies. VHF/UHF radio frequencies pass through walls with relative ease while extremely high frequencies - like light - generally cannot.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

#115130 Jan 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"Carl Woese dies at 84; evolutionary biologist
Bummer. Very bright guy.
Mugwump

Torthorwald, UK

#115131 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called pre programming. The could program the probe to send the light beam to earth, when it reaches a specified amount of time in space, equalling the time needed to reach that place and then when the probe fires the laser, the probe can record the exact time and transmit that time back to earth at the same time the laser fires, simple.
Seems a lot of hassle -

stopwatch and a torch should nail it.
One way or another

United States

#115132 Jan 25, 2013
The morons should not use deceit in the first place.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
HTS
#115133 Jan 25, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Naturalistic" compared to "SUPERnaturalistic"?
And how would you propose we go about testing the qualities and the source of supernatural phenomena?
"supernatural" is a meaningless term. Atheists believe in the supernatural, ie, time + matter = life.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
HTS
#115134 Jan 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I LOVE thinking up ways evolution could be falsified.
For example, if we found highly derived forms in the fossil record prior to any possible antecedents.
Or if we found clear violations in the nested hierarchy anatomically, for example a feathered creature with a 3-boned mammalian middle ear.
Or if we discovered that the nested hierarchies of variation found in pseudogenes, ERV's, and the non functional portions of ubiquitous proteins were inconsistent with each other and / or the fossil record.
But the more ways I see it could be falsified, the more clear it is that it hasn't been.
And FYI, none of that has anything to do with atheism. Evolution does not disprove God nor try to...but, evolution, geology, cosmology, astronomy, and physics do of course render some of the more outlandish claims in the Bible ridiculous. Not the same thing at all. If you believe so, then its the Bible you worship, not God.
You acknowledge that a feathered creature with three ear ossicles would convince you of the fallacy of evolution... yet you accept elements of chimerism such as monotremes only because they exist.
Now you're bringing up the failed junk DNA paradigm... which has been soundly debunked. And if you think the fossil record supports evolution, why are transitional fossils missing by the millions?
You say evolution has nothing to do with atheism? What kind of a gullible stooge would believe such nonsense? The philosophical consequences of a belief in evolution can be encapsulated in the following statement by William B Provine, Ph.D., a renowned historian of science and professor at Cornell University:
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."*

*(Provine W.B., "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life." Abstract of Prof. William B. Provine's 1998 "Darwin Day address, "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville TN, 1998).

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115135 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>"supernatural " is a meaningless term. Atheists believe in the supernatural, ie, time + matter = life.
No, "time + matter = life" would be natural, as in the natural method in which it can happen. Supernatural is anything outside of nature, basically anything that cannot be tested scientifically. Please learn English better.
HTS
#115136 Jan 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, "time + matter = life" would be natural, as in the natural method in which it can happen. Supernatural is anything outside of nature, basically anything that cannot be tested scientifically. Please learn English better.
intelligent creation is natural. It operates through laws that science doesn't understand. You can't explain through science how time + matter = life. You have faith... that is religion.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of \$100's

#115137 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>"supernatural " is a meaningless term. Atheists believe in the supernatural, ie, time + matter = life.
No, life does not require supernatural events to exist, it is all within nature's ability to create life.
One way or another

United States

#115138 Jan 25, 2013
Time and matter cannot be proven to equal life.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of \$100's

#115139 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>intelligent creation is natural. It operates through laws that science doesn't understand. You can't explain through science how time + matter = life. You have faith... that is religion.
Only the supernatural requires faith. There is no truth in faith. Just because science doesn't understand something, that doesn't mean a magic sky did it with fairy dust. That is known as the God of the gaps and he gets smaller every time science learns something new.

The supernatural is "beyond nature". So can you prove that anything "beyond nature" exists .... anything? Anything at all??... I'll wait.
HTS
#115140 Jan 25, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
No, life does not require supernatural events to exist, it is all within nature's ability to create life.
No... You've ASSUMED that a naturalistic explanation exists. There is NO SCIENCE behind any theory of abiogenesis.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115141 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>"supernatural " is a meaningless term. Atheists believe in the supernatural, ie, time + matter = life.
Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.

2b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sup...

At one point in the past, lightning was thought to be of supernatural origin. As we became more enlightened (no pun intended), we learned the causes of lightning, and learned to (partially) control its destructive power.

As such, lightning moved from the SUPERNATURAL realm to being a part of nature. EVERYTHING we know about life at this point has its roots in NATURAL causes, and there is no evidence whatsoever for a 'supernatural' agent.

Perhaps we'll one day recognize such an deity, and be able to ascribe characteristics to this deity that will allow us to be able to redefine Him/Her/It from 'OUTSIDE' of nature, to being a PART of nature.

Until then, all we have is the evidence that He/She/It (if existing) left for us to investigate, which is firmly within nature.
HTS
#115142 Jan 25, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Only the supernatural requires faith. There is no truth in faith. Just because science doesn't understand something, that doesn't mean a magic sky did it with fairy dust. That is known as the God of the gaps and he gets smaller every time science learns something new.
The supernatural is "beyond nature". So can you prove that anything "beyond nature" exists .... anything? Anything at all??... I'll wait.
Your idiotic charactures of God only reveal your base ignorance. No one is suggesting that "God" = "magic". And your suggestiion that science is "closing the gap" on the "god of the gaps" argument is equally ridiculous. I'll give you the atheist definition of "supernatural": Anything that excludes intelligent design... any proposal, regardless of how scientifically illogical, will be blindly accepted as long as it does not invoke an external source of intelligence. You can't explain through science how anyting evolved. All you can do is fabricate just-so stories. That's not science.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Science 67,215
Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 28,657
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr Confucius 368
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Subduction Zone 160,955
What location did life started in? 2 hr Confucius 11
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 2 hr Confucius 1,766
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Subduction Zone 221,262
Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 12 hr replaytime 332

#### Evolution Debate News

More Evolution Debate News from Topix »

More from around the web