Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

Elohim

Branford, CT

#120069 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Here Jesus declared the high cost of discipleship. He made bold claims to discourage the half-hearted. The "hatred" called for here is actually a lessor love. Jesus was calling his disciples to cultivate such a devotion to him that their attachment to everything else - including their own loved ones and their own lives - would seem like hatred by comparison. See Luke 16:13; Gen 29:30-31 for similar usages of the word "hate".
It is written to hate your family, not to "lessor love" them. Nice rationalization.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#120071 Feb 26, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text> It is written to hate your family, not to "lessor love" them. Nice rationalization.
No, not even close. Read it again. But then again, it is written that non-believers can not understand scripture. Their hearts and minds have been closed from it. Maybe that's the problem you're having.
One way or another

United States

#120072 Feb 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LG does not seem to appreciate that if you are lying to yourself (assumed successfully) then you are not actually 'lying'(per se) to others.
That's what you do. Funny how you evolutionists do all the deceit and then claim others are doing it.

Oh we'll, that's what the American school system teaches.

Lol, thank a teacher!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120073 Feb 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Any part of science that chooses to use the worthless evolutionary tag is being run by incompetent boobs, just like you.
The above being posted by someone who claims that "spin creates gravity".

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120074 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not even close. Read it again. But then again, it is written that non-believers can not understand scripture. Their hearts and minds have been closed from it. Maybe that's the problem you're having.
We probably need one of those decoder rings.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#120075 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not even close. Read it again. But then again, it is written that non-believers can not understand scripture. Their hearts and minds have been closed from it. Maybe that's the problem you're having.
LMAO!! I have read your bible more times than apparently you have. I have no trouble comprehending what is written. Funny how fundies say the bible is the literal word of god, except when it isn't. LOL!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120076 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. Biologists should care that human traits cannot be defined solely by DNA.
Why? Its enough that there are heritable traits that can be improved through mutation and passed on.
The collapse of genetic determinism demolishes the "DNA-is -everything paradigm founded on atheism, so dear to the hearts of DarwinBots.
Political crap, not scientific argument.
Why are we constantly being told that ToE can make scientific predictions when it cannot? The failed junk DNA debacle, the collapse of Lamarckism, the absence of gradualism in the fossil record... to name a few.
You mean, the junk DNA strawman argument propounded by creationists both distorting the original meaning of the word and now the findings of projects like ENCODE? You mean, the same Lamarkism that Darwinism set out to debunk in the first place? That's hilarious. You mean the absence of gradualism such as the near prefect gradual continuum between australopithecus and modern man, with at least five intermediate stages?

You are deluded. Go and learn what evolution really says, and predicts, then get back to us.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120077 Feb 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
First what makes you think it’s precise?
What is the mechanism to guide the behaviour?
Is it magnetic?
Is it aromatic
Is it evolutional?
Is it hereditary?
Is it genetic?
Is it learned?
You claim goddidit but you do not know so you make the guess that suites your belief
Just because evolution does not have an answer does not mean you take the easy way of – doh this is something we are too stupid to understand so god must have done it – No it means that there is a question that needs answering. And like many such questions over time it will possibly (but not definitely) be answered by science
Actually evolution provides answers for several of the points you raised, defence, disguise, deception and language are al evolutionary necessities and different species evolve to use different methods depending on environmental requirements.
Why do you assume that evolutiondidit when you have no answers?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120078 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not even close. Read it again. But then again, it is written that non-believers can not understand scripture. Their hearts and minds have been closed from it. Maybe that's the problem you're having.

I Corinthians 2:6-16

The problem is that believers have many different opinions as to what the scriptures mean.

Also, in historic context Paul is tooting his own horn. He is saying he knows and his detractors don't. Remember, Corinth was one of the many churches that did not initially embrace Paul but he managed to convert them to his views on Christianity (which were a minority viewpoint even at the end of the 1st century). Paul had most of the Church at Corinth on his side at the time of his letter, and he wanted to convert the rest of them to his views.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120079 Feb 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
We probably need one of those decoder rings.

Ironically, much of the bibles "spirit" is lost via literalism. So it is the fundies that don't understand the deeper meanings.

I love irony.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#120080 Feb 26, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!! I have read your bible more times than apparently you have. I have no trouble comprehending what is written. Funny how fundies say the bible is the literal word of god, except when it isn't. LOL!
I love it when atheists claim that. Look, you don't understand His meaning. I explained it you in clear language. That's it.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120081 Feb 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has found no evidence of creationism.
There exists no Theory of Creationism
There is no way to falsify creationism.
Creationism makes no testable predictions.
Etc.....
Scientific data cannot fall of a side of a ledger that does not exist.
It makes no sense to say that something that has not been fully and completely explained yet should be under the umbrella of magic poofing. Other explanations have not been explored.
Disease was once attributed to God, but now we have a better explanation. Death was once attributed to God, but now we have a better explanation. All natural disasters were once attributed to God(s)...
Since the dawn of the scientific era religion has succeeded in explaining nothing and science has explained everything we have learned in the past few hundred years.
Just a few years ago fundamentalism posited that there should be things that are irreducibly complex, yet nothing IC has been found. Fundamentalism guessed that "complexity" was proof of god, but no one has ever operationalized what "complex" means in science. Some fundies have placed a lot of chips on abiogenesis not occurring due to natural causes yet that field is making great strides. It seems another losing bet has been made. Time WILL tell.
UC has methodically presented scientific evidence of creative design... Migratory instincts of monarch butterflies. You incessantly parrot that no evidence exists, then completely ignore the hard evidence that is presented. You assume that a naturalistic explanation exists for e wry thing that you don't understand only because you are philosophically committed to naturalism.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#120082 Feb 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
We probably need one of those decoder rings.
No ring required. All it takes is faith (which seems very difficult for most people). But it also does say if someone blashpemies the Holy Spirit itself, there is no forgiving that. Basically the door is shut permanently. And those people will not be able to interpret scripture. I believe that.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#120083 Feb 26, 2013
HEY CHIMNEY:

It looks to me that there really is not a true transitional between the reptile and mammal jaw/ear bones. Also the species cited do not match up. Also there are many other differences unaccounted for between the reptile and mammal.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120084 Feb 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Its enough that there are heritable traits that can be improved through mutation and passed on.
<quoted text>
Political crap, not scientific argument.
<quoted text>
You mean, the junk DNA strawman argument propounded by creationists both distorting the original meaning of the word and now the findings of projects like ENCODE? You mean, the same Lamarkism that Darwinism set out to debunk in the first place? That's hilarious. You mean the absence of gradualism such as the near prefect gradual continuum between australopithecus and modern man, with at least five intermediate stages?
You are deluded. Go and learn what evolution really says, and predicts, then get back to us.
Darwin didn't set out to debunk Lamarckism... He believed in at least some of its principles and used it to explain the origin of instincts.

And this "near perfect gradual continuum" that you imagine exists between Australopithecus and modern man?! That is truly laughable. All you have are fragments of fossilized extinct apes and modern humans... Everything else is imaginary.

Dr. David Pilbeam (a well-known expert in human evolution) remarked in reference to evidence for human evolution...
“If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got, he’d surely say,‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.”

*Quoted by Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Penguin USA 1981

If you're committed to science, stop misrepresented what is known and what is conjecture.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120085 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you assume that evolutiondidit when you have no answers?

Why do you pretend that evolution didn't do it when you have no answers?



ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
First what makes you think it’s precise?
What is the mechanism to guide the behaviour?
Is it magnetic?
Is it aromatic
Is it evolutional?
Is it hereditary?
Is it genetic?
Is it learned?
You claim goddidit but you do not know so you make the guess that suites your belief
Just because evolution does not have an answer does not mean you take the easy way of – doh this is something we are too stupid to understand so god must have done it – No it means that there is a question that needs answering. And like many such questions over time it will possibly (but not definitely) be answered by science
Actually evolution provides answers for several of the points you raised, defence, disguise, deception and language are al evolutionary necessities and different species evolve to use different methods depending on environmental requirements.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120086 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when atheists claim that. Look, you don't understand His meaning. I explained it you in clear language. That's it.

And I pose that it is you that does not understand her meaning. You mind is clouded over with the cult of fundamentalism's dogma of literalism. The spirit could send you messages in 1250 pt. Helvetica bold font and you would not be able to see it.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120087 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> UC has methodically presented scientific evidence of creative design.

Post number, please. I don't believe UC methodically wipes his own butt, so you need some evidence.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>.. Migratory instincts of monarch butterflies.

Feeding habits of domestic goldfish!

So there.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You incessantly parrot that no evidence exists, then completely ignore the hard evidence that is presented.

I am still waiting for something to be presented.
A theory of creation
An observation of creation
Something that creation explains that evolution can't.
Empirical data in evidence of creation

If you can't convince me (someone who ultimately believes in creation) that god micromanages his universe in this fashion then how do you hope to convince someone who is more skeptical?

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You assume that a naturalistic explanation exists for e wry thing that you don't understand only because you are philosophically committed to naturalism.

I am inclined to science because science successfully explains things, makes predictions, is verifiable, is repeatable, does not violate the principle of parsimony, is observable, is testable,.....

Why would I give that up for magic poofing that has never been observed, never been tested, never been replicated, never explained anything, never........

[See Below]


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has found no evidence of creationism.
There exists no Theory of Creationism
There is no way to falsify creationism.
Creationism makes no testable predictions.
Etc.....
Scientific data cannot fall of a side of a ledger that does not exist.
It makes no sense to say that something that has not been fully and completely explained yet should be under the umbrella of magic poofing. Other explanations have not been explored.
Disease was once attributed to God, but now we have a better explanation. Death was once attributed to God, but now we have a better explanation. All natural disasters were once attributed to God(s)...
Since the dawn of the scientific era religion has succeeded in explaining nothing and science has explained everything we have learned in the past few hundred years.
Just a few years ago fundamentalism posited that there should be things that are irreducibly complex, yet nothing IC has been found. Fundamentalism guessed that "complexity" was proof of god, but no one has ever operationalized what "complex" means in science. Some fundies have placed a lot of chips on abiogenesis not occurring due to natural causes yet that field is making great strides. It seems another losing bet has been made. Time WILL tell.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120088 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No ring required. All it takes is faith (which seems very difficult for most people). But it also does say if someone blashpemies the Holy Spirit itself, there is no forgiving that. Basically the door is shut permanently. And those people will not be able to interpret scripture. I believe that.

Why would god write a book that he wants people to believe but require belief before they read it?

Blessed are those who have seen and believed.....

More importantly why would god create something for which evolution is the only rational explanation? Did he create life on April 1st?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120089 Feb 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you pretend that evolution didn't do it when you have no answers?
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
First what makes you think it’s precise?
What is the mechanism to guide the behaviour?
Is it magnetic?
Is it aromatic
Is it evolutional?
Is it hereditary?
Is it genetic?
Is it learned?
You claim goddidit but you do not know so you make the guess that suites your belief
Just because evolution does not have an answer does not mean you take the easy way of – doh this is something we are too stupid to understand so god must have done it – No it means that there is a question that needs answering. And like many such questions over time it will possibly (but not definitely) be answered by science
Actually evolution provides answers for several of the points you raised, defence, disguise, deception and language are al evolutionary necessities and different species evolve to use different methods depending on environmental requirements.
Oh, I see... you think that I sould believe your theory because you don't believe in God? Is that really following the scientific method?

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
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 min marksman11 167,937
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 48 min replaytime 93,390
Life started in an Alabama creek 6 hr Alabama science 1
The Design of Time is Prophecy and is absolute ... 11 hr Rose_NoHo 25
List what Evolution Discoveries have helped SCI... 12 hr Davidjayjordan 12
News Kenneth Miller finds good news in evolution 12 hr Davidjayjordan 1
Illuminati Elite never studied 'evolutionary LU... 12 hr Davidjayjordan 2