Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,187

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
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116889 Feb 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
45 million years for HLA-DRB1 interons. So if you are saying the garden of eden was 45 MILLION years ago, then yes, it is possible.
But the earliest apes were only 35 million years ago, so adam and eve would have looked like rodents.
Dogen, HLA-DRB1 is nothing more than another tired example of molecular homology... and that argument has been soundly debunked years ago. If you have some science to back up your ridiculous claim that man evolved from apes, then let's hear it. Your smokescreens aren't working.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116890 Feb 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are unwilling to provide evidence then you are pretty useless as far providing any useful contribution to this forum.
Dogen, you have failed to provide one iota of evidence that man evolved from lower forms of life. Instead of defending your religion of atheism, you attempt in vain to insult others.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#116891 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>THere is no science behind Darwinism... only bedtime stories.
List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design (and Creation but **FOR** the Theory of Evolution)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientif...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116892 Feb 12, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design (and Creation but **FOR** the Theory of Evolution)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientif...
A consensus opinion is not science. It is OPINION. When Einstein proproposed his theory of relativity, the CONSENSUS was proven WRONG.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#116893 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A consensus opinion is not science. It is OPINION. When Einstein proproposed his theory of relativity, the CONSENSUS was proven WRONG.
If one consensus was ever wrong, all must be wrong. If we all believed God did it with magic, that would be a consensus. The real question is, upon what is the consensus founded? If it's evidence, the consensus has weight. If it's not, it does not. The scientific consensus regarding evolution is founded upon evidence. Any claim about ID being valid is not based on evidence. When you have evidence (not logical fallacies or "but evolution is wrong!"), you come on back and share it with the world. You'd be the first to do so in the history of ever.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116895 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>High end physics requires adherence to standards of science. Evolution is nothing but stories fabricated by intellectuals who think they are practicing science.

High end physics requires adherence to standards of science.
Evolutionary biology requires adherence to standards of science.
Genetics requires adherence to standards of science.
Anthropology requires adherence to standards of science.
Paleontology requires adherence to standards of science.
Medical research requires adherence to standards of science.
Biochemistry requires adherence to standards of science.
Molecular biology requires adherence to standards of science.
Microbiology requires adherence to standards of science.
Entomology requires adherence to standards of science.
Biophysics requires adherence to standards of science.
Botany requires adherence to standards of science.

And ALL of the above fields (except high end physics) provide material support for evolution.

Every last one of them and many more.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116896 Feb 12, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If one consensus was ever wrong, all must be wrong. If we all believed God did it with magic, that would be a consensus. The real question is, upon what is the consensus founded? If it's evidence, the consensus has weight. If it's not, it does not. The scientific consensus regarding evolution is founded upon evidence. Any claim about ID being valid is not based on evidence. When you have evidence (not logical fallacies or "but evolution is wrong!"), you come on back and share it with the world. You'd be the first to do so in the history of ever.
Broad claims such as you are making are pointless. The entire foudation of Darwinism is founded on a PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation of observations. It is not a self evident fact that molecular homology, for example, indicates common descent. That conclusion is based on a metaphysical presupposition. If you read Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly made references to his belief that nature DISPROVES intelligent design. That is RELIGION.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116897 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A nickel's worth of free advice, Dogen... Storytelling is not science.

Why are you quoting me to me?

When you become literate in science enough to discuss, rather than just make empty assertions, please let us know.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116898 Feb 12, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If one consensus was ever wrong, all must be wrong. If we all believed God did it with magic, that would be a consensus.
Intellectual elites believe that EVOLUTIONDIDIT with magic... unless you can tell me how DNA can self-organize.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116899 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ, your pattern of logic is predictable. Your religion of atheism has been attacked, and you have nothing to say except to hurl childish insults. You call your opponents "liars", like a spoiled kid on a playground. You have no science to back up your claims. I have repeatedly made the challenge on this forum, and it remains unanswered... Show me the math... Show me how any proposed mechanism of evolutoinary transmutation is MATHEMATICALLY PROBABLE. If you think that evolution is science, then let's see the math.

The odds don't matter a hill of beans.

The fact of evolution is observable in genetics
The fact of evolution is observable in the fossil record
The fact of evolution is observable in the field
The fact of evolution is observable in the laboratory.

Evolution has known mechanisms.

Evolution meets ALL of the qualifications of empirical science:
Evolution is observable, testable, falsifiable, parsimonious, replicable and has high quality peer review.

Evolution has multiple evidences from multiple fields.

The Theory of evolution is one of the few practical theories that are over 100 years old.

The Theory of Evolution has withstood 140 years of scrutiny and NOT ONE theory or hypothesis counter to it has ever even been formulated!!!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116900 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen, HLA-DRB1 is nothing more than another tired example of molecular homology... and that argument has been soundly debunked years ago. If you have some science to back up your ridiculous claim that man evolved from apes, then let's hear it. Your smokescreens aren't working.

Sorry, wrong again.

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/molecula...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...

You love to make strong sounding assertions that you can't back up.

Much like the Black Knight
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_ (Monty_Python)
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116901 Feb 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The odds don't matter a hill of beans.
The fact of evolution is observable in genetics
The fact of evolution is observable in the fossil record
The fact of evolution is observable in the field
The fact of evolution is observable in the laboratory.
Evolution has known mechanisms.
Evolution meets ALL of the qualifications of empirical science:
Evolution is observable, testable, falsifiable, parsimonious, replicable and has high quality peer review.
Evolution has multiple evidences from multiple fields.
The Theory of evolution is one of the few practical theories that are over 100 years old.
The Theory of Evolution has withstood 140 years of scrutiny and NOT ONE theory or hypothesis counter to it has ever even been formulated!!!
Dogen, you're doing nothing more than parroting alot of empty rhetoric, only to summarize your ranting with the assertion that no alternative "scientific" theory has been presented. You fail to see the fallacy of your logic. It is the same false paradigm tht has resulted in scientific darkness for centuries. I don't need to propose an "alternative" explanation to disprove a scientific theory. You have philosophically rejected intelligent design, so you have no choice but to believe in evolution. You consider it "unscientific" to question a "scientific" hypothesis.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116902 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ, your pattern of logic is predictable. Your religion of atheism has been attacked, and you have nothing to say except to hurl childish insults. You call your opponents "liars", like a spoiled kid on a playground. You have no science to back up your claims. I have repeatedly made the challenge on this forum, and it remains unanswered... Show me the math... Show me how any proposed mechanism of evolutoinary transmutation is MATHEMATICALLY PROBABLE. If you think that evolution is science, then let's see the math.
No, unfortunately my opponents are idiots or liars. I can clearly demonstrate that too.

First let me tell you my definition of an idiot. An idiot is someone who is wrong and refuses to admit it when he is shown to be wrong. That would be both you and Russell, and most creationists here.

A very few are educated enough so that they know they are not telling the truth and they are worse than idiots. They are liars.

You, my fine feathered friend, are not smart enough to fall into the latter category.

I am always willing to help educate. And will even simplify it so that you can understand it. Usually the best place to start is the age of the Earth since it its easy to demonstrate that the Earth cannot be 10,000 years old.

So did you want to learn today, or will you fulfill my expectations?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116903 Feb 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, wrong again.
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/molecula...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
You love to make strong sounding assertions that you can't back up.
Much like the Black Knight
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_ (Monty_Python)
How about actually defending what you assert utilizing scientific logic, rather than blindly posting links to articles that you don't even understand...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116904 Feb 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
High end physics requires adherence to standards of science.
Evolutionary biology requires adherence to standards of science.
Genetics requires adherence to standards of science.
Anthropology requires adherence to standards of science.
Paleontology requires adherence to standards of science.
Medical research requires adherence to standards of science.
Biochemistry requires adherence to standards of science.
Molecular biology requires adherence to standards of science.
Microbiology requires adherence to standards of science.
Entomology requires adherence to standards of science.
Biophysics requires adherence to standards of science.
Botany requires adherence to standards of science.
And ALL of the above fields (except high end physics) provide material support for evolution.
Every last one of them and many more.
You're living in fantasyland. Nothing in experimental science requires acceptance of evolutionary transmutation.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116905 Feb 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, unfortunately my opponents are idiots or liars. I can clearly demonstrate that too.
First let me tell you my definition of an idiot. An idiot is someone who is wrong and refuses to admit it when he is shown to be wrong. That would be both you and Russell, and most creationists here.
A very few are educated enough so that they know they are not telling the truth and they are worse than idiots. They are liars.
You, my fine feathered friend, are not smart enough to fall into the latter category.
I am always willing to help educate. And will even simplify it so that you can understand it. Usually the best place to start is the age of the Earth since it its easy to demonstrate that the Earth cannot be 10,000 years old.
So did you want to learn today, or will you fulfill my expectations?
Pathetic dodge, SZ. You yet again fail to provide one iota of scientific evidence that evolution is even possible, let alone happened.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116906 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Dogen, you have failed to provide one iota of evidence that man evolved from lower forms of life.

False. And here is 1739 published journal articles on the same.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...

[QUOTE who="HTS"]<quoted text> Instead of defending your religion of atheism, you attempt in vain to insult others.

Funny I would do that since I am not an atheist and am a member (in good, though absentee, standing) of the Church of God (Anderson).

Evolution is a fact. The THEORY of Evolution is one of the hallmark theories of science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116907 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A consensus opinion is not science. It is OPINION. When Einstein proproposed his theory of relativity, the CONSENSUS was proven WRONG.

That is because, at first, Einstein had no evidence. As the evidence accumulated so did his standing in the scientific world.

Much the same course occurred for Sir Charles Darwin, with his mechanism for evolution.

If you want to push creationism then just find some scientific evidence for it. Or at least develop a Theory of Creationism. I wonder why no one has ever done so?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116908 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Pathetic dodge, SZ. You yet again fail to provide one iota of scientific evidence that evolution is even possible, let alone happened.
No dodge HTS, a sad fact. You don't even understand what constitutes scientific evidence. You are in no position to talk about who is using science and who isn't.

HTS, here is a true fact that any honest creationist will admit. There are literally tons of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creationism. And the lack of evidence for creationism is all the creationists fault.

So do you care to look like more of a fool and dispute that fact?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116909 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Broad claims such as you are making are pointless. The entire foudation of Darwinism is founded on a PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation of observations.

This indicates you are ignorant of the foundations of Evolution. I would suggest you do some reading in this area.

[QUOTE who="HTS"]<quoted text> It is not a self evident fact that molecular homology, for example, indicates common descent.

It is not a self evident fact that splitting an atom, for example, will release a mess of energy. Perhaps, if molecular homology the ONLY evidence for evolution you might have a point. However, it is only an ice cube off the iceberg of evidence.

[QUOTE who="HTS"]<quoted text> That conclusion is based on a metaphysical presupposition.

Um.... no. Not at all. Where do you get this nonsense?

[QUOTE who="HTS"]<quoted text> If you read Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly made references to his belief that nature DISPROVES intelligent design. That is RELIGION.

Origin DEMONSTRATED through OBSERVATION. That is science.

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) 4 min bohart 142,263
Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent De... (May '13) 54 min Kong_ 455
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 14,590
Why natural selection can't work 1 hr Dogen 24
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 8 hr ChromiuMan 941
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 10 hr ChristineM 795
Darwin on the rocks Tue The Dude 832
More from around the web