Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
113,841 - 113,860 of 171,391 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116900
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116901
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116902
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116903
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116904
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116905
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116906
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116907
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116908
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116909
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116910
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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'm not asking for hundreds of published journal articles. I'm asking for one piece of evidence that you yourself can logically defend through science.
If you think that antimicrobial resistence to antibiotics is a fact, then I would agree. That is change... not evolution. If you're saying that man evolving from a worm is a "fact", then I would ask you to prove what you say with science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116911
Feb 12, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Intellectual elites believe that EVOLUTIONDIDIT with magic... unless you can tell me how DNA can self-organize.

Intellectual elites believe that PHYSICSDIDIT with magic... unless you can tell me how a hydrogen atom can self-organize.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116912
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
You're still dodging, SZ. I'm asking for science, and all you do is rant about "tons of scientific evidence" for evolution. What you have is a massive house of cards.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116913
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Dogen, for the last time.... stop thinking that someone needs to provide evidence for an alternative theory to disprove the one that is in vogue. This is why respected scientists accepted spontaneous generation for centuries. It's better to say "I don't know" than to jump on the bandwagon and accept a theory that has no basis in science.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116914
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's just that it might be mildly interesting to have about a dozen separate, independantly done C-14 dating tests referreed by the U.S Supreme Court on some nice stinky fresh Dino meat. Settle this once and for all.
Oh my gosh. I'm amazed at how hope springs eternal for you. The idea that actual evidence for a young earth could be found with real science is well, just amazing.

Would the U.S. Supreme Court also decide it's about time to get a dozen or so independently done measurements on the earth to see if it is flat or round? Who knows--maybe all the science of the last few centuries was wrong. Someone should check.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116915
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

So, you have nothing. Why not just say so?

Science is self correcting.
All scientists WANT to break new ground.
You cannot disprove evolution nor even one aspect of it.
I have rejected ID for the same reason I reject the Easter Bunny.
It is scientific to question a scientific hypothesis. It is not scientific to deny the observed reality on which that hypothesis (or in this case 'established theory') is based.

You want to try again? Try harder. Your vacuous philosophical meanderings are boring me so far. Clubbing baby seals would be much more of a challenge.


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!!!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116916
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How about actually defending what you assert utilizing scientific logic, rather than blindly posting links to articles that you don't even understand...

My explanations, logic and scientific knowledge are orders of magnitude above your simple minded (and unsupported) assertions.

Unless you can refute the observed fact that organisms evolve over time then you are just stuck in the mud.

Try supporting your claims with evidence.

Oh,... sorry. I forgot. You don't have any.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116917
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you have nothing. Why not just say so?
Science is self correcting.
All scientists WANT to break new ground.
You cannot disprove evolution nor even one aspect of it.
I have rejected ID for the same reason I reject the Easter Bunny.
It is scientific to question a scientific hypothesis. It is not scientific to deny the observed reality on which that hypothesis (or in this case 'established theory') is based.
You want to try again? Try harder. Your vacuous philosophical meanderings are boring me so far. Clubbing baby seals would be much more of a challenge.
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!!!
Intelligent design is the only proven force in the universe capable of creating complexity. You cannot point to one example observed by man where random forces can create complexity. You compare the logical deduction of a higher power creating DNA to the "easter bunny". Yet you, by rejecting ID, are forced into imagining even more counterintuitive explanations for complexity. Why do you claim to believe in God, yet deny that he had anythiing to do with creation?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116918
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're living in fantasyland. Nothing in experimental science requires acceptance of evolutionary transmutation.

Except the fields listed below which all support evolution.

Evolution is a fact based on actual observation. Your empty assertions are still empty assertions and are not backed in any way by ACTUAL science.


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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••