Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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.

Urban Cowboy

Arlington, VA

#115748 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
I stopped responding to Dogen a long time ago. Him and a guy named Dutchy are the nuttiest of the bunch. Chimney is the only one with any brains but he is also one of the most radical.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#115749 Feb 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, there should be no guilty verdicts in murder cases. Got it.
Using the tools of operational science is a good thing and has nothing to do with evolution's attempt to interpret history.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115750 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Atheism equals no morality. 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
Just because someone is a professor at a Ivy League school does not mean that he is correct. He could be a kook. Let's look at his foolish claims>

1. No god worth having exist. Hmm, he could be right there. So what? Is that supposed to be some kind of loss? Compare no god existing to the terribly vain and evilly egotistical god of the Christian Bible. Is he worth worshiping? I don't think so. Yet that is what your hellish after life is supposed to consist of.

2. no life after death exist. Yup, that is probably the case. And Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not real either. Time to grow up.

3. No ultimate foundation for ethics exist. Now that is clearly false. Do you seriously need to be told what is right and wrong? Actually Christianity is very attractive to many psychopaths so maybe for them the answer is yes.

4. No ultimate meaning for life exists. Again, how did this guy even get a degree. If you need to go to a god for your meaning in life it shows a very arrested moral development.

5. Human free will is non-existent. WTF!?!? How did he come to that idiotic conclusion. In fact many Christians, Calvinists for example, do not believe in free will. And they can put up a good argument for it. This guy can't.

Sorry, like most people you creatards like to go to for support, there is no "there" there.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115751 Feb 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Even better.
Have you seen Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory?
Best comedy on the tube ever.
lol Not yet, but Alex Jones is hilarious. I think that may be the one UC got his last ones from.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115752 Feb 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect you have access to something even more extreme and wacko than FoxNews. WND perhaps?
Erm ... you may want to hold that thought:


http://www.youtube.com/watch...

It's insane what people will put on television these days ... and more insane what viewers add to it.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115753 Feb 1, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
:) I think you're continuing to confuse being religious with being unenlightened. Just because one is religious does not make them unenlightened. Nor does being non-religious automatically label you as enlightened. The assumption that you are somehow on a higher level of enlightenment than any other human being on the planet is arrogant at best. After all, humility is the beginning of wisdom. I feel it's important for a person to know what they believe and why they believe it. Being challenged is simply a part of life. A part of growth. I'm perfectly okay with that. In fact, I welcome it. How else can I expect to grow? I too have friends who come from various backgrounds and religions. Respect for my fellow man has never been a problem for me. Religious views aside. I'd also like to thank you for bringing to my attention the things I need to learn. I trust that you'll sleep well.:)
While I am convinced that some form of morality is important for the survival of any society, I am also convinced that there is no moral framework that applies to all human society. Murder in one society is justice in another; privilege in one society is corruption in another. Etc.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115754 Feb 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have some sympathy for the militant atheists who are railing against dogmatically driven stupidity. But they are misguided.
I also have some sympathy for religious people who are riling against the arrogant abandonment of all traditional standards by ideologically driven militant theists. Militant atheism can be as dogmatic as the religions it opposes.
But for my part, I dislike dogmatism itself and regard rational empirical skepticism as its antidote.
Yes.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#115755 Feb 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Using the tools of operational science is a good thing and has nothing to do with evolution's attempt to interpret history.
Operational science. Cute. Isn't it odd that only people who intentionally misrepresent ACTUAL REALITY-BASED science use the term "operational science?"

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115756 Feb 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "real science" is not even science - it's history. You study history. What you always promote are theories about how things may have happened in the past. By definition, that is not science. We should focus on the present, the observable, testable, repeatable present. Everything else is history or even religion, to be honest.
If the past is not science, neither is the future.

The ToE provides evidence of what has happened. That is science. But the ToE does not claim to predict the evolutionary paths that will occur in the future for any species. You will get no one to bite on that strawman.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#115757 Feb 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Operational science. Cute. Isn't it odd that only people who intentionally misrepresent ACTUAL REALITY-BASED science use the term "operational science?"
We admit a duality of religion and science. You misrepresent ideology and history as "science", i.e., you guys are the ones at fault - not us.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115758 Feb 1, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My left eye received a fragment of metal that cut the iris – it was an intermittently cloudy day so that hurt. Another fragment (stone) lodged between the trapezium and metacarpal of my right thumb, also painful – it’s amazing just how much you use your thumb. Both injures very painful but not serious
I was with my aunt, she was originally uninjured but temporally deafened. She turned to me placed her hand on my shoulders while trying to ask what was wrong, I could see her lips move but could not hear. Right in front of my (good) eye a slate that the explosion had dislodged from the roof of the building we were standing outside peeled her arm to the bone from shoulder to elbow. She lost the arm
Unlike the IRA’a attack on nearby Warrington where children died, no one died in the Manchester bombing but over 200 people were injured.
Such nice people those murdering bastards who kill and maim on Saturday then go to church on Sunday for absolution from their god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_...
What really hurt was that not long ago the queen shook the hand of one of their leaders
http://www.maxfarquar.com/2012/06/imagequeen-...
OK it’s a photoshopped representation but this is what many of their victims see. There are plenty of real pictures and news coverage is available
I've always thought that there were mudering bastards on both sides. Some folks who grow up in war learn to love it. But at some point, in order to stop the carnage, the leaders must learn to shake hands and go home.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115759 Feb 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
My rant was more of a take off of your post rather than an argument.
Affluence can affluence can also make a strong contribution to spreading intolerant social values.
Again, a take off.
Yes. I thought about affluence being a driver for intolerance a half a second after hitting the post button. I suppose it has to do with an "us vs. them" frame of mind. It doesn't matter what side you are on, the other guys are "them".
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115760 Feb 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
And don't forget Cowboy, you still ain't bothered to deal with this yet:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
And now you got HTS here who can give you a hand too. And maybe he can answer those questions I'm gonna ask ya later, since you ain't bothered with those for over 2 years.
I'll just link to 'em this time, save me copy-pasting myself.

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/TCTDUMIJ55H2...

Worth noting that was last year.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115761 Feb 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You just contradicted yourself. Bigtime.
Uh, no, he did not. That's your job.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#115762 Feb 1, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious. I know the presence of the soul cannot be scientifically proven. It cannot be examined under a microscope, etc. Soul is defined as a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity. What do you call that moral or emotional nature or sense of identity? What title do you personally give it?
Personality or character. It will die when our body does.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115763 Feb 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Still holds true. Note that it also applies to creationists. The only difference is we honestly recognize it as such while evolutionists deny it.
No need to deny it. ERV's are in the present. They are tested in the present. Therefore either we CAN make scientific determinations on historical evidence, or it's not historical evidence but we CAN still make determinations regarding events of the past.

This is why science works. And even the courts don't buy your apologetics for "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" either.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115764 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Go boom.

Irony meter duz it.

I notice you didn't provide Cowboy the help he needed to deal with ERV's.

It always goes that way...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115765 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Atheism equals no morality.
No, strict adherence to theism equals no morality, for reasons already explained.

And subsequently avoided just like everything else.
HTS wrote:
The philosophical consequences of a belief in evolution
1 - Philosophy is irrelevant to the validity of science, period.

2 - Evolution is not atheism, period.
HTS wrote:
can be encapsulated in the following statement by William B Provine, Ph.D., a renowned historian of science and professor at Cornell University
His philosophical opinions are still irrelevant. Repeating them 6 months later doesn't change a thing.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115766 Feb 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Using the tools of operational science is a good thing and has nothing to do with evolution's attempt to interpret history.
Nice dodge, dodgemeister.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115767 Feb 1, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
You misrepresent ideology and history as "science", i.e., you guys are the ones at fault - not us.
Projection.

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
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 8 min Mad Tom 937
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 51 min Patrick 18,708
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 53 min syamsu 205,489
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Into The Night 43,411
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) 16 hr Chazofsaints 37
Questions about first life Aug 28 Upright Scientist 18
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Aug 28 Dogen 151,492
More from around the web