Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 175,339

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

#116885 Feb 12, 2013
Cash wrote:
It's a decent point except the basics of teaching evolution should be no different than the basics of physics. We can teach force, we can teach genetics.
Evolution is complex, as is high end physics, but it doesn't require a PhD to learn the foundations of either.
High end physics requires adherence to standards of science. Evolution is nothing but stories fabricated by intellectuals who think they are practicing science.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116886 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.
A nickel's worth of free advice, Dogen... Storytelling is not science.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116887 Feb 12, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you KNOW better than the science behind it? What are your qualifications to be able to verify that its lies?
You have my full attention
THere is no science behind Darwinism... only bedtime stories.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116888 Feb 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Russell, I have told you this before I will tell you this again.
Creationists have been shown time after time to be liars and to site lying sources. You have already been found guilty of this.
Therefore any post with a quote is a lie until proven otherwise. Here you are not innocent until proven guilty, creationists are guilty until proven innocent.
So, where was the link to the source of the quote?
You are still losing.
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.
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.

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
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 min KAB 139,155
Ohio one step closer to allowing creationism in... 12 min The Dude 199
Darwin on the rocks 34 min The Dude 783
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 46 min xxxooxxx 126,058
How Life's Code Emerged From Primordial Soup (Sep '09) Thu hpcaban 143
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Wed Ooogah Boogah 13,569
Where's the proof that natural selection occurs... (Feb '07) Nov 17 TurkanaBoy 194

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE