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
115,181 - 115,200 of 172,137 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118263
Feb 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> There is no "cutting edge research" in the world of evolutionary biology... Only arrogant atheist hacks who are vainly attempting to justify a predetermined amoral worldview.

ROTFLMFAO.

Keep wishing on that star. Maybe someday they will recall the Nobel prizes related to evolution and genetics.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118264
Feb 20, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen, I think that evolution threatens his own personal god. His own personal god has "told" him that there are no other gods then that would mean there is no god, according to HTS's faulty logic.
He can't seem to believe that both evolution is true and the existence of God is true.

Yet he is trying to limit the power of his own personal god image by not letting him create evolution.

I am a big fan of irony, so this amuses me.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118265
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
Did you even read the article? Notice that they never described any mutations? They just assumed if the worms fitness improved they assumed beneficial mutations are the reason? That's BS. That's not even according to the evolution. There's no deleterious mutations being replaced with beneficial mutations. The more I understand this article, the dumber it gets. They never specify particular nucleotide loci or describe the lost or gained function. All they did was torture worms and then artificially created a genetic bottlenect forcing every recessive gene to be expressed and then scooped out a whole bunch of offspring to build a large population from each of those populations. Well, duh, the large population is going to rebound from the restored genetic variation and selection. Any accumulated mutations that all of the worms accumulated is still in their genomes, i.e., their amount of deleterious mutations have increased in total and will continue to accumulate. So there is no reversal and no stopping it. Eventually the mutations will still accumulate to the point where fitness will decline regardless of selection or population size up until the meltdown point. Chimney has misinterpreted Sanford and is misinterpreting this research. Research that takes great liberties in attributing fitness improvements to "beneficial mutations" which are not identified or demonstrated. It was the built-in genetic variety in the gene pool of the MA-R population that recovered their fitness!
The real article is easily obtained and studied. Why would anyone prefer your boneheaded interpretation to the actual document?

Gather what little self respect you have remaining and move on to some other screwball assertion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118266
Feb 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you assume to know what I believe in. For all you know, I might be a Hindu. ToE rejects ALL INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Neither Hindus nor Buddhists have any problem with evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_evo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_evo...
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118267
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And HTS, you have it backwards. Physicists and Chemists do not evoke god when they do experiments or make theories. They are God neutral. In fact if you knew science you would understand the Null Hypothesis. That basically says that if you do not have evidence for something it can be safely ignored or TREATED AS IF IT DID NOT EXIST. Scientists routinely use the Null Hypothesis and treat god as if he didn't exist. The experiments come out fine.
According to the Null Hypothesis, and the rules of debate as well, it is up to the person making the positive claim to prove they are right. Biologists, geologists, chemists, and physicists do not ever need to use a god when they do their work. In fact they do not know where one could be stuck into their work. All science treats god as if he did not exist. It does not try to disprove god, that is not its job. But it definitely does not prove the existence of god.
You are the one that keeps claiming god exists. Where is your evidence?
Nice back peddling, SZ... First you say physics and chemistry REJECT ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA, then you say they're "God-neutral".

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118268
Feb 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Nice back peddling, SZ... First you say physics and chemistry REJECT ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA, then you say they're "God-neutral".
I believe you are reading something into what he posted that he did not say. Scientific studies do not "reject" the supernatural, but scientists do because the supernatural is untestable. Everything is natural until it proves to be untestable, but so far every event and phenomenon has been testable.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118269
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
.
That said, the opinion of any one scientist in any field could affirm or disclaim God based on science, but that is an individual opinion and not an opinion of science.
Now, write the following sentence 1,000 times.
"Evolutionary biology does not affirm nor deny the existence of god"
"Evolutionary biology does not affirm nor deny the existence of god"
"Evolutionary biology does not affirm nor deny the existence of god"
"Evolutionary biology does not affirm nor deny the existence of god"
"Evolutionary biology does not affirm nor deny the existence of god"
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.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118270
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe you are reading something into what he posted that he did not say. Scientific studies do not "reject" the supernatural, but scientists do because the supernatural is untestable. Everything is natural until it proves to be untestable, but so far every event and phenomenon has been testable.
SZ said that physics and chemistry reject the supernatural. I'm only quoting what he said... Read the post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118271
Feb 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Nice back peddling, SZ... First you say physics and chemistry REJECT ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA, then you say they're "God-neutral".
Three critical errors in such a small post.

First, there was no back pedaling (I don't count using the wrong word as a critical error). You need to learn what that phrase means.

I did not say that physics and chemistry "REJECT ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA". First off I am unaware of any supernatural phenomena, none has ever been confirmed. If I am wrong on this I would welcome correction. Second science would not reject supernatural phenomena if they were observed. So chemistry and physics cannot reject what is not observed. This almost counts as two fails by HTS on its own.

Third, yes, chemistry and physics is God neutral. It neither confirms nor debunks the idea of God. What else would you expect something to do if it was God neutral.

It seems that HTS has the mistaken idea that if you do not actively support the concept of god that you are anti-god. A clear logical mistake.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118272
Feb 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ said that physics and chemistry reject the supernatural. I'm only quoting what he said... Read the post.
No, he said "Evolutionary biology does not affirm nor deny the existence of god"
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118273
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text
I did not say that physics and chemistry "REJECT ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA". First off I am unaware of any supernatural phenomena, none has ever been confirmed. If I am wrong on this I would welcome correction. Second science would not reject supernatural phenomena if they were observed. So chemistry and physics cannot reject what is not observed. This almost counts as two fails by HTS on its own.
Third, yes, chemistry and physics is God neutral. It neither confirms nor debunks the idea of God. What else would you expect something to do if it was God neutral.
It seems that HTS has the mistaken idea that if you do not actively support the concept of god that you are anti-god. A clear logical mistake.
Read your own post #118245
"Physics REJECTS ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA and causations. The theory of gravity explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”

Or

“Chemistry REJECTS ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA and causations. The theory of covalent bonding explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”

SZ...you're busted. If you're going to persist acting like the lying atheist that you are and flat out deny what you posted a few minutes ago, go ahead and make a bigger fool of yourself.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118274
Feb 20, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, did you?
Nope. I wish I had.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118275
Feb 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ said that physics and chemistry reject the supernatural. I'm only quoting what he said... Read the post.
Did I? Please reread the post. You will find that you just lied.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118276
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.
Perhaps if you could provide one example of supernatural phenomena, it could be considered. Lacking any, it doesn't matter.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118277
Feb 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Read your own post #118245
"Physics REJECTS ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA and causations. The theory of gravity explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”
Or
“Chemistry REJECTS ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA and causations. The theory of covalent bonding explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”
SZ...you're busted. If you're going to persist acting like the lying atheist that you are and flat out deny what you posted a few minutes ago, go ahead and make a bigger fool of yourself.
You Total Idiot!

Those are Dogen's posts not mine.

This is why creatards should always quote directly rather than trying to write what they think someone wrote.

What a maroon!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118278
Feb 20, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps if you could provide one example of supernatural phenomena, it could be considered. Lacking any, it doesn't matter.
What HTS provide evidence? He repeatedly shows that he does not know the meaning of the word. All he has are false accusations and conjecture.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118279
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps if you could provide one example of supernatural phenomena, it could be considered. Lacking any, it doesn't matter.
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.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118280
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118281
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You Total Idiot!
Those are Dogen's posts not mine.
This is why creatards should always quote directly rather than trying to write what they think someone wrote.
What a maroon!
I stand corrected... Then you agree that Dogen's busted?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118282
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, it's actually: Humans evolved from a chimp like organism many generations ago because the evidence suggests this happened.

Find evidence that suggests something else and you could have a case, but denying real evidence is delusional, which you demonstrate being delusional all the time.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••