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

#118314 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have apparently parroted that same false dogma until you believe it. SZ said that physics and chemistry REJECT ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA...and in the same breath says that they're "neutral to God". Your attempts at political correctness are transparent BS.
Political correctness is completely irrelevant. You simply don't understand science.

See, science doesn't CARE what you come up with. Gods, fairies, unicorns, ghosts, zombies, ewoks, whatever you like. It does NOT reject ANY of them out of hand. Even if they happen to have "magical" capabilities. ALL it requires is that whatever you propose is capable of passing the scientific method. That's it.

It's you who has the problem that you can't figure out a way to make supernatural phenomena pass the scientific method.

Science doesn't rely on PHILOSOPHICAL naturalism, but METHODOLOGICAL naturalism.

That includes evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118315 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>There is evidence of supernatural phenomena in nature. You just reject it. Perhaps you might comment on Wheeler's delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.

I am not up to discussing the consequences of quantum entanglement and I doubt you are up to understanding the issues of retrocausality.

What evidence for supernatural phenomena do you see in nature (ignoring the obvious oxymoron, that is)?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118316 Feb 20, 2013
Einstein on God:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "(Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein...

And that is how you quote properly. Not only did I quote without editing. I linked to the source so you could check it out for yourself.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#118317 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
go ahead and make a bigger fool of yourself.
You reject reality because you think an invisible Jewish wizard lied and did it all differently. Then you ignore evidence that makes no theological claims and call it all "atheism". Then when we ask you for scientific evidence of the supernatural you don't bother and STILL keep whining.

You couldn't possibly be in a worse position.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#118318 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Mike, your asinine logic has been soundly debunked repeatedly. You're saying...BELIEVE THAT MAN EVOLVED FROM A WORM because YOU DON't HAVE A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF GOD.
No, we accept evolution because of the evidence. And nobody has a scientific explanation of God.

Well, except for it being a cultural tool used to manipulate the gullible masses that is.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118319 Feb 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Chimney, I think the misunderstanding stems from our markedly contrasting worldviews. Notice the following form the Estes-Lynch article:
“A common assumption in evolutionary theory is that these mutations are not only irreversible at the molecular level, but have essentially irreversible consequences for population fitness.”
http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch119...
Immediatedly there are two completely different views: 1. NDE assumes that ALL DNA sequences are essentially, mutations; whereas creation science assumes it was designed and free of defects originally. 2. NDE assumes that if a harmful mutation occurs, that only a subsequent beneficial or other corrective mutation can reverse it; whereas creation science believes that there is plentiful built-in genetic variation that can compensate to extent adverse environmental/other situations. In conclusion, you were claiming that Sanford's position was that it is not possible to recover but in fact this was NDE's position! Sanford gave plenty of examples of NDE science but he clearly did not support that aspect of it.
Results of contrasting testable predictions = science!

A SCIENTIST starts with observation and BUILDS his world view from there. The scientific world view today is evolutionary because that is what the facts support.

So its not about world views. Its about two hypotheses offering different testable predictions, with one being confirmed (NDE) and the other (inevitable GE) being falsified!

Fitness in a genetically degraded population recovered when natural selection was reintroduced, something which NDE says is possible but which Sanford categorically claims is NOT possible. Read him again if you don't get that critical point - its his whole thesis in summary: the claim that natural selection cannot reverse the decline, and can at best slow it.

Your claim that there was "plentiful built in genetic variation" for fitness to recover is false. When natural selection was reintroduced, the continual entropic impact of further deleterious mutations in every generation would be slowed but not reversed according to Sanford, meaning fitness would have to continue to decline.

The only "world view" science has is that the physical universe is the senior reference point for our knowledge, rather than your world view which says the senior reference point is a sacred book.

Science's view of a 4.6 billion year old earth developed FROM the facts in the first place. At the outset it could have been 6000, 6 million, 6 billion, or indeed 6 trillion years...but the facts converged on a figure of 4.6 billion. We did not start with a "four billion year world view", we REACHED one empirically.

Do you understand this??? Its critical.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#118320 Feb 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Chimney, I think the misunderstanding stems from our markedly contrasting worldviews. Notice the following form the Estes-Lynch article:
“A common assumption in evolutionary theory is that these mutations are not only irreversible at the molecular level, but have essentially irreversible consequences for population fitness.”
http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch119...
Immediatedly there are two completely different views: 1. NDE assumes that ALL DNA sequences are essentially, mutations; whereas creation science assumes it was designed and free of defects originally. 2. NDE assumes that if a harmful mutation occurs, that only a subsequent beneficial or other corrective mutation can reverse it; whereas creation science believes that there is plentiful built-in genetic variation that can compensate to extent adverse environmental/other situations.
Actually evolution accepts there's plentiful genetic variation that compensates it. That idea contradicts your claims of an original "perfect" genome, which you've never been able to describe anyway, much less demonstrate.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#118321 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I stand corrected.
As usual.(shrug)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118322 Feb 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
But he did admit that he was wrong. Perhaps there is hope yet.
Yes, that is almost unprecedented for a creationist.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#118323 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why didn't Newton reject all supernatural claims? Why didn't Einstein reject all supernatural claims?
Why doesn't Francis Collins reject all supernatural claims? Why doesn't Ken Miller reject all supernatural claims? Why doesn't the Clergy Letter Project reject all supernatural claims?

Answer - theism and atheism are both irrelevant to science, period.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#118324 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Anytime I present a quote, someone pulls out the "quotemining card" rather than actually address the issue.
Anytime we present evidence you pull out another quote rather than address the issue.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#118325 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>There is evidence of supernatural phenomena in nature. You just reject it. Perhaps you might comment on Wheeler's delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.
Quantum physics is a favourite subject of woomeisters, despite the fact that it doesn't support magic.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#118326 Feb 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Results of contrasting testable predictions = science!
A SCIENTIST starts with observation and BUILDS his world view from there. The scientific world view today is evolutionary because that is what the facts support.
So its not about world views. Its about two hypotheses offering different testable predictions, with one being confirmed (NDE) and the other (inevitable GE) being falsified!
Fitness in a genetically degraded population recovered when natural selection was reintroduced, something which NDE says is possible but which Sanford categorically claims is NOT possible. Read him again if you don't get that critical point - its his whole thesis in summary: the claim that natural selection cannot reverse the decline, and can at best slow it.
Your claim that there was "plentiful built in genetic variation" for fitness to recover is false. When natural selection was reintroduced, the continual entropic impact of further deleterious mutations in every generation would be slowed but not reversed according to Sanford, meaning fitness would have to continue to decline.
The only "world view" science has is that the physical universe is the senior reference point for our knowledge, rather than your world view which says the senior reference point is a sacred book.
Science's view of a 4.6 billion year old earth developed FROM the facts in the first place. At the outset it could have been 6000, 6 million, 6 billion, or indeed 6 trillion years...but the facts converged on a figure of 4.6 billion. We did not start with a "four billion year world view", we REACHED one empirically.
Do you understand this??? Its critical.
Again, you refuted NDE, not Sanford.

“A common assumption in evolutionary theory is that these mutations are not only irreversible at the molecular level, but have essentially irreversible consequences for population fitness.”

http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch119 ...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118327 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've never said that science can prove a personal God. Einstein believed in intelligent design. And by the way, Newton wasn't a "wacko"... he was one of the most brilliant scientists in history. He just wasn't an atheist hack like so many modern physicists.
Einstein did NOT believe in intelligent design in terms of biological evolution. You guys are so desperate for support, you even quote mine easily checked sources.

And Newton denied the Trinity.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#118328 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've never said that science can prove a personal God. Einstein believed in intelligent design. And by the way, Newton wasn't a "wacko"... he was one of the most brilliant scientists in history. He just wasn't an atheist hack like so many modern physicists.
Ah, good. Then quantum physics, which is at the forefront of modern physics is "atheistic" and therefore you must reject it.

By the way, Newton was fond of alchemy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118329 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've never said that science can prove a personal God. Einstein believed in intelligent design. And by the way, Newton wasn't a "wacko"... he was one of the most brilliant scientists in history. He just wasn't an atheist hack like so many modern physicists.

Wacko may be too strong, but he studied alchemy, demonology, astrology,..... He was NOT a main stream Christian and would not be liked by modern fundies (I know that Fundamentalism, per se, has only been around about 150 years so "modern fundy" is a bit of an oxymoron as well).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118330 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Einstein: "The more I study science, the more I believe in God"
A belief in God is a logical scientific deduction, at least according to Einstein.

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." (Albert Einstein)

So science = god, in some ways.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118331 Feb 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you refuted NDE, not Sanford.
“A common assumption in evolutionary theory is that these mutations are not only irreversible at the molecular level, but have essentially irreversible consequences for population fitness.”
http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch119 ...
Your link does not work. But lets assume its genuine.

When a deleterious mutation occurs, its statistically unlikely that THIS mutation will be exactly reversed by another mutation. Hence, irreversible, including its singular effects on fitness.

The mechanism by which fitness is maintained and enhanced is that other beneficial mutations occur at other locations. Not a spot reversal at the same location.

This is not only part of the whole mechanism of drift, its also why species are not an absolute - they are a gene pool on a journey, gradually changing over time.

And you have not in the slightest shown any defense of Sanford's thoroughly discredited thesis with this attempt, BTW. Fitness recovers, Sanford is falsified. Still :-)

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#118332 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution emphatically denies any intelligent force. Ernst Mayr:
“Darwinism REJECTS ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”
*(“Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83,(July 2000),[emphasis added]
Prove that anything supernatural actually exists, anything at all, I'll wait ....
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118333 Feb 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Einstein did NOT believe in intelligent design in terms of biological evolution. You guys are so desperate for support, you even quote mine easily checked sources.
And Newton denied the Trinity.
Oh Really? What observation in science lead him to believe in God?

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... 1 hr In Six Days 625
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr SoE 48,383
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 5 hr Porkncheese 6
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 hr Dogen 216,597
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 hr scientia potentia... 154,610
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr _Susan_ 3,980
News Does Mike Pence Believe in Evolution? Thu scientia potentia... 9
More from around the web