Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115182 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Now you're guzzling the atheist kool-aid... imagining that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Without abiogenesis, Darwinism is reduced to nothing.
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. It is for the same reason that the theory of gravity does not rely on the origin of mass, and the germ theory of disease does not rely on the origin of germs.

Evolution doesn't care if life arose via natural causes or if it was magically poofed into existence by a God. All evolution requires is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Good luck.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115183 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I see you've been logging on to that worthless atheist website talkorigins. Every one of those "29+ evidences" has been soundly debunked, so my advice to you is to stop blindly parroting whatever BS you read on the Internet.
Oh, the irony.
HTS wrote:
Please tell me how any form of life could survive a minimum of hundreds of years on a comet.
It's frozen. However it's generally not thought to be life itself but rather organic compounds (which have been observed in comets by the way) which piggy-backed their way to Earth. Of course that's only one of a number of hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. Evolution on the other hand does not rely on abiogenesis.
HTS wrote:
You've ASSUMED that abiogenesis occurred, but have no science to back it up. That's RELIGION.
No assumption necessary. The geological record indicates Earth at one point did not have life. Now it does. It does not matter whether life arose by magic, natural causes, or some unknown third option. It is quite obvious to everybody except for the MONUMENTALLY stupid, that somehow, abiogenesis occurred.

Not that it has any bearing on the validity of evolution.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115184 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is not remotely "science". It is a metaphysical paradigm founded on an a priori rejection of intelligent design.
Completely totally and utterly incorrect. Evolution makes no theological claims as to whether or not any intelligent agent was or was not involved. Evolution would be quite happy if you had an intelligence guiding it if you liked.

But since you have no evidence...(shrug)
HTS wrote:
Nothing in the world of experimental biology has any relevancy to evolution whatsoever.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T5V...

Case closed. You just haven't caught up yet.

Of course you COULD be the very first fundie on the entire PLANET to debunk all that.

.

We'll wait.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115185 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Now you're guzzling the atheist kool-aid... imagining that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Without abiogenesis, Darwinism is reduced to nothing.
So, how do you propose that deogenesis happened? Without deogenesis you got nothing.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115186 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What "laws of chemistry" are in force that allow DNA to spontaneously self-organize? THere are none. Abiogenesis is DECLARED to exist, and intelligent design is DECLARED to be non-existent.
Since you are still on about how evolution is nothing as we can't (yet) specify abiogenisis - fancy answering my question - will post it again as you seem to have dodged (sorry I mean missed) it.
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubbish - but will give you a chance to back up your claim, consider the following 2 scenarios
A) God created the first life form (say a self replicating molecule), then used the process of evolution to diversify over the next 3-4 billion years
B) a particular set of conditions (as yet unknown) allowed a molecule to self-replicated the the process of evolution diversified life over the next 3-4 billion years.
Question : how would you refute the Scenerio B (with respect to evolution) without refuting Scenerio A)
Forget HOW life started, concentrate on the diversification part.
If you can't - your claim about how 'Darwinism' is wrong without abiogenisis is baseless.
Rational answers will be discussed.
BS will be ridiculed
Ready , set , go !
I'll make it easier for you - how would you differentiate between the two scenarios
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115187 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What "laws of chemistry" are in force that allow DNA to spontaneously self-organize? THere are none.
Oh, in that case you must be dead then. I suppose that would explain the content of your posts.(shrug)

You WERE aware that your ENTIRE EXISTENCE is made up of nothing more than biochemical processes, right? You are, in effect, a walking talking bag of chemical reactions.
HTS wrote:
Abiogenesis is DECLARED to exist, and intelligent design is DECLARED to be non-existent.
No, abiogenesis (an event) is DEMONSTRATED to have happened (quite obviously) at some point some time in the past, while ID is NOT demonstrated.

It's very simple.(shrug)

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115188 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>"EVOLUTIONDIDIT is your only explanation for abiogenesis, despite the fact that every proposal is scientifically illogical. You are only committed to your predetermined religion of atheism. You're pretending to use science to justify your worldview.
So, you don't accept biology as a science either, right? According to you, biology as a science could not exist without abiogenesis.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115189 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
None of your assumed laws that created and diversified life have been proven to exist.
Your definition of "natural law" is any speculation made by intellectuals that excludes intelligent design. Who are you to assume that God doesn't exist and doesn't comply with natural law?
Who are you to assume that there is something greater than the laws of the universe?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115190 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
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.
Not really, as they are quite expected since the transition from reptiles to mammals, when monotremes first appeared in the fossil record.
HTS wrote:
Now you're bringing up the failed junk DNA paradigm... which has been soundly debunked.
Not really, since you cannot demonstrate 100% function for the entire genome. It's also disingenuous of you, since some DNA that has function is actually NOT necessarily for the host organism's benefit (virus infections for example). It's ALSO quite disingenuous of you since the pattern of inheritance observed in DNA is what's important, and THAT is exactly what is expected by evolution, AND observed.
HTS wrote:
And if you think the fossil record supports evolution, why are transitional fossils missing by the millions?
Because fossilization is rare. Despite that we still have millions of transitionals. However even if we had no fossils at all, evolution would STILL be the only valid scientific theory based on the evidence. We don't even NEED the fossil record. The fossil record is just a bonus.
HTS wrote:
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).
Provine's philosophical opinions are his own, and have no bearing on the scientific veracity of evolution. In order to demonstrate you wrong about evolution, we can do two things:

1 - point out that in the preponderance of scientific literature on the subject, there is NO express assertion of atheism in any single scientific paper.

2 - point to just ONE theist who accepts evolution. I can think of at least four off the top of my head, who happen also to be scientists. Then we have the Clergy Letter Project with 12,000+ signers who accept evolution. And there is also the Catholic Church's stance on evolution.

So in short, you're just as wrongily wrongified wrong wrong as much as any other creationist can be wrong - which is VERY frequently, especially around these parts.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115191 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>intelligent creation is natural. It operates through laws that science doesn't understand.
If science doesn't understand it then that means no one on the planet understands it. That means no-one has to take it seriously.(shrug)

Unless of course you could be the first person on the entire planet who is capable of EXPLAINING ID and how it works.

I've been asking fundies that for 8 years. The scientific community has been asking for 20.

Or 3,000, depending upon how you look at it.

I'd love for you to do better.
HTS wrote:
You can't explain through science how time + matter = life. You have faith... that is religion.
That is not science's claim. It claims time + chemistry = life. I will presume you accept this postulation due to the preponderance of maternity wards across the country. Ergo the only reason NOT to accept it as a valid hypothesis for abiogenesis is for theological reasons.

Of course as we know, the validity of the theory of evolution does not rely on the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

If it does then I would very much like to know why you are also a gravity denier and germ theory of disease denier.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115192 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What "laws of chemistry" are in force that allow DNA to spontaneously self-organize? THere are none. Abiogenesis is DECLARED to exist, and intelligent design is DECLARED to be non-existent.
Who are you to say that abiogenesis is not chemistry?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115193 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No... You've ASSUMED that a naturalistic explanation exists. There is NO SCIENCE behind any theory of abiogenesis.
There is science behind it, hence why there are numerous scientific organisations across the world currently researching the subject. However it is acknowledged that currently there is no theory of abiogenesis which currently is in the hypothesis stage.

It still has no bearing on the validity of evolution. We know you wish the opposite were true, but it is in actuality that you move the goalposts back to abiogenesis because you're incapable of dealing with the evidence of evolution. Hence you have no choice but to go back to a time when we know we have a lack of knowledge in that area.

Science is okay with not knowing everything. It doesn't claim to know everything. It simply says "We don't know yet. What can we do to find out?"

It is in these gaps of knowledge where fundies like yourself put invisible magic Jewish wizards.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115194 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your idiotic charactures of God only reveal your base ignorance. No one is suggesting that "God" = "magic".
Actually, I am.
HTS wrote:
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.
No, the definition of supernatural is an undemonstrated assumption with unknown mechanisms that are incapable of passing the scientific method. Which is what IDCreationism is.

You can prove us all wrong by being the first person ever to explain to us all what the "scientific theory" of ID is.

Take your time.

.

You will.
HTS wrote:
You can't explain through science how anyting evolved. All you can do is fabricate just-so stories. That's not science.
Your baseless ignorant opinions are irrelevant. Evolution passes the scientific method, as demonstrated.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#115195 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
I see you're an atheist pigeon as well... blindly swallowing whatever BS is hurled your way by intellectual elites...
Actually, I AM an intellectual elite. Shhh...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115196 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>REgardless of whatever artificial definition you attach, evolutionists belieive in myth and miracle to explain any naturalistic explanation of life. You cannot invoke any law of science to explain how DNA came into existence, so why do you pretend that your stories are science and someone else's logical deducations are religion?
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
HTS wrote:
Intelligent design is the only proven force in the universe capable of creating complexity.
Plain completely and utterly totally false.

Take a flat lake on a calm day. The surface water is like a mirror.

Add wind. We get waves. Lots of complex shapes and patterns.

Complexity due to purely natural non-intelligent forces.

Of course you COULD say the "designer" was the one actually responsible for making the wind move rather than air pressure and changing temperatures or making the shapes in the water rather than air pressure and gravity, but then the ownness is upon you to explain the mechanisms behind that intelligence and the evidence they exist.

Wanna place any bets as to whether you'll be able to do that?

No, I didn't think so.
HTS wrote:
Why do you think it's scientific to imagine something, i.e., the spontaneous organization of life, that has no basis in scientific observation?
It has scientific basis. Once there was no life in the geological record. Now there is. Hence, abio.

It's still irrelevant to the validity of evolution. Which we're still waiting for you to address.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115197 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>"EVOLUTIONDIDIT is your only explanation for abiogenesis, despite the fact that every proposal is scientifically illogical. You are only committed to your predetermined religion of atheism. You're pretending to use science to justify your worldview.
Atheism is irrelevant to evolution. If evolution is scientifically illogical then perhaps you can address my previous post demonstrating common ancestry in a coherent rational scientifically objective manner.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115198 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Kong, I see you've been nailed to the wall. Now you're falling prey to the classical logical fallacy of the false alternative. You cannot logically defend a scientific theory by ranting about your disbelief in God. Your personal incredulity is irrelevant to science.
Your baseless theological alternatives are irrelevant to science. It's quite ironic after all, since they ARE an expression of your own personal incredulity, which as you pointed out, are irrelevant to science.

Biology has not been debunked just because you learned F A about it.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115199 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an atheist stooge. You accept abiogenesis on faith alone. I've read numerous articles on Abiogensis written by evolutionists. If you can show me one that scientifically demonstrates that any theory of abiogenesis relies on experimental facts, I'd be anxious to read it.
I see you ignored the content of his post in favour of a straw-man. However that is not surprising coming from creationists. We see it every day.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115200 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. Science doesn't know IF it happened... you've obviously concluded that it DID happen, without any scientific justification for such a conclusion.
Then perhaps you can provide an alternative explanation for the spontaneous appearance of life early on in the geological record?

Created by the "designer"?

Good. Then we both agree that abiogenesis occurred. We only differ on the methods responsible. Glad to see we've finally achieved at least some common ground.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115201 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your incessant strawman arguments are getting annoying.... And your vain attempts to belittle religion only reveal your insecurity with your own atheistic religion.
Atheism is irrelevant to science. But since you see atheists everywhere even when they aren't mentioned, and DO in fact equate Goddidit with ID, then invisible sky daddy is an appropriate description for a scientifically untestable designer.

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
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 5 min In Six Days 629
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 min One way or another 48,384
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 26 min Genesis Enigma 154,611
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr It aint necessari... 216,602
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 9 hr Porkncheese 6
Science News (Sep '13) Fri _Susan_ 3,980
News Does Mike Pence Believe in Evolution? Thu scientia potentia... 9
More from around the web