Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,193

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
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122778 Mar 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You would do well to read some of the scientific literature on the subject.
Pubmed has a few (67)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
A lot more here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
That's the problem

I have read the literature

Evo-story telling always comes apart at rhe seams when you actually check the fossils out

The trick is to keep focused on the facts....

Discard the evo-tales that accompany the description of the finds

THAT is not science

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#122779 Mar 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
Belief in God does not make one a liar or a fool. Only belief in ridiculous Cults such as Scientology or the literal interpretation of Genesis.
So you think that believing leprechauns are real does not make someone delusional.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122780 Mar 9, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a workable hypothesis based on chemicals that all beetles posses.
I am quite happy to accept this as workable hypothesis

As long as you accept mine

Yours and mine are no different

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122781 Mar 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If science had proof of evolution, such as a single line of horses, that showed SMALL changes---one after the next, evolution would be heralding it from the tops of every newspaper and media, in a splash like never before seen, because tens of millions of believers would abandon their religions and the gov would then usurp all the power, uncontested and then from all we see, do you believe they would be a benevolent god--uhh government?
Are there any modern horses in strata from 10 million years ago?

No

Are there any fossils from 10 million years ago that show strong resemblance to a horse but also some significant differences?

Yes.

Do these fossils extend back 20 million years ago?

No.

Are there any fossils from 20 million years ago that show some resemblance to the creature of 10 million years ago that itself showed strong resemblance to a horse but also some significant differences?

Yes.

Do THOSE creatures exist 40 million years ago?

No.

Are there any fossils from 40 million years ago that show some resemblance to the creatures of 20 million years ago that itself showed a lot of resemblance to a creature 10 million years ago that itself showed resemblance to a horse?

Yes.

Final question. Does this pattern suggest evolution through time or ex-nihilo creation of all kinds separately all at once right at the beginning?

You answer that one, if you can. Perhaps all you creationists can chip in and help, as we all know that "One way or another" has some cognitive limitations.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122782 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
It's okay to be a Christian
But just not like Jesus
Who believed in a literal creation..........
Since He was there
We don't know for certain what Jesus believed. The Gospels was not written by Jesus. And there were not just four gospels. They were chosen since they were the ones that seemed to make the most sense. None of the Gospels fully agree with each other and they even get some fairly important details wrong.

And there are even predictions of Jesus in the Gospels that were shown to be wrong in the time scale of the Gospels themselves. You should not let discrepancies between fact and the Bible disappoint you too much if you want to believe in the Bible.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122783 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the problem
I have read the literature
Evo-story telling always comes apart at rhe seams when you actually check the fossils out
The trick is to keep focused on the facts....
Discard the evo-tales that accompany the description of the finds
THAT is not science
No, the fossils support only the theory of evolution. Creationists have yet to find a way to explain the fossil record.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122784 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
It's okay to be a Christian
But just not like Jesus
Who believed in a literal creation..........
Since He was there
Its fine to be a Christian. If you can grant the obvious fact that most of what you know about Christ was written generations after His departure and you actually have no way of knowing what He believed about everything, or even that just because He said something, it was right.

Some people are Christians because they believe the general moral message He is purported to have offered is a good one. The same is true of all Buddhists, by the way, although they of course did not make the mistake of deifying their bringer of enlightenment.

I wonder at your need to believe that one man on this earth was ever unconditionally right about everything.

And frankly elevating Jesus to the status of God is a violation of the monotheism you also supposedly uphold and no amount of "mystery" can absolve you of this simple logical fact. Jesus cannot be both God and the "son of God" except in the sense that all humans are the children of God, if one believes in God. That is why the Jews rejected your Cult and the Muslims saw the need to correct it, putting Jesus in his rightful place as a "prophet".

Of course, I just go one step further. If there is a God, his creation is not described in fallible books and myths of humans, whether Bible or Torah or Quran, but revealed in the physical universe He created. When you read the book of nature, its clear that this universe is billions of years old and life evolved, no matter what primitive human societies believed before us.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122785 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the problem
I have read the literature
Evo-story telling always comes apart at rhe seams when you actually check the fossils out
The trick is to keep focused on the facts....
Discard the evo-tales that accompany the description of the finds
THAT is not science
So when you see the clear trend of the intermediate hominid species, from the early Australo's through habilis, erectus, heidelbugensis, archaic and then modern Sapiens, what part of this series of intermediates that conform perfectly to evolution's predictions do you find is "coming apart at the seams"?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122786 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are there any modern horses in strata from 10 million years ago?
No
Are there any fossils from 10 million years ago that show strong resemblance to a horse but also some significant differences?
Yes.
Do these fossils extend back 20 million years ago?
No.
Are there any fossils from 20 million years ago that show some resemblance to the creature of 10 million years ago that itself showed strong resemblance to a horse but also some significant differences?
Yes.
Do THOSE creatures exist 40 million years ago?
No.
Are there any fossils from 40 million years ago that show some resemblance to the creatures of 20 million years ago that itself showed a lot of resemblance to a creature 10 million years ago that itself showed resemblance to a horse?
Yes.
Final question. Does this pattern suggest evolution through time or ex-nihilo creation of all kinds separately all at once right at the beginning?
You answer that one, if you can. Perhaps all you creationists can chip in and help, as we all know that "One way or another" has some cognitive limitations.
Obviously it supports evolution and not the creation of all species at one time. We don't find modern horses 20 or 40 million years ago. We only find them recently. We don't find the 20 million year specie 40 million years ago or even further back, we only find them in a specific window. This again supports the theory of evolution and not the creation of all species at once.

What was the point of that post Russell. Were you aiming at your foot?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122787 Mar 10, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that believing leprechauns are real does not make someone delusional.
Your argument is funny but its little more than a straw man.

The underlying question is whether the universe created intelligence or intelligence created the universe.

Nobody really knows the answer to that.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122788 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the fossils support only the theory of evolution. Creationists have yet to find a way to explain the fossil record.
The Genesis Flood

What explanation have you?

And why have you ignored my post about the Coconino sandstone forming a knife-edge contact with Hermit shale?

Providing me with a picture of tundra or sand is not helpful nor honest

I had also linked pictures of Another formation also requiring an explanation

This time with 20 million years of missing erosion

http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol31...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122789 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you quite sure?
If I look into it .....
Will I be convinced of the veracity of your claim?
Evolutionists today speak of intermediates rather than transitionals, for good reason.

If you define a transitional as THE link between X and Y, you presume too much. Before you go running off on a creationist tangent, listen to my point.

When we look at the fossil record, we can often see a number of candidate transitionals and all we can say with clarity is that they are all intermediate, meaning they have traits that are measurably between X and Y.

Often any one of them could be THE transitional. Or, there could be another species that really was THE transitional but we haven't even discovered it yet.

However, what is not doubtful is that the fossil record shows the pattern of

a/ gradual divergence from modern species

b/ gradual convergence of contemporary species with each other towards a common root,

as we go back in the fossil record.

In the case of horses, recently raised, we see this pattern. We cannot be sure exactly WHICH of the many equine species provided exactly THE steps to the modern horse. But we can see a pattern of species gradually less horse-like and more generically similar to the root stock as we go back in time. Same with humans. Same with just about everything.

Creationism does not even begin to predict that, but evolution predicts it and explains it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122790 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The Genesis Flood
What explanation have you?
And why have you ignored my post about the Coconino sandstone forming a knife-edge contact with Hermit shale?
Providing me with a picture of tundra or sand is not helpful nor honest
I had also linked pictures of Another formation also requiring an explanation
This time with 20 million years of missing erosion
http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol31...
Nope. The Genesis flood cannot explain why the fossils appear in the order that they do. Nor can they explain how hundreds of millions of years worth of corals can accumulate in one year. Or forty millions of years of corals or all sort of other sedimentary rocks.

The sedimentary rock record cannot be explained by the Genesis flood. You will not find one serious creationist that even believes this.

I have not checked out your other picture yet but it seems you still don't understand even the extremely simple concept of erosion.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122791 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So when you see the clear trend of the intermediate hominid species, from the early Australo's through habilis, erectus, heidelbugensis, archaic and then modern Sapiens, what part of this series of intermediates that conform perfectly to evolution's predictions do you find is "coming apart at the seams"?
Please

Evo-whining becomes tiresome

Every contender in the so-called human ancestral lineage is either ape or fully human

Or a fake.........

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122792 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The Genesis Flood
How do you even begin to explain the pattern in the fossil record with a year long flood? Please do not make me laugh out loud with the "fastest runner to higher ground" hypothesis.

If you had the merest inkling of the depth and structure of the fossil record, you would know how ridiculous this is.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122793 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is funny but its little more than a straw man.
The underlying question is whether the universe created intelligence or intelligence created the universe.
Nobody really knows the answer to that.
That's a ridiculous question

How can nothingness result in intelligence

Never mind

I sympathize

I too once did mental gymnastics to avoid Him

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122794 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Please
Evo-whining becomes tiresome
Every contender in the so-called human ancestral lineage is either ape or fully human
Or a fake.........
All of them are fully ape. You are an ape. I am an ape. All humans are apes. Don't believe me, look it up.

What do you mean by "fully human".

Duane Gish, who just passed away, and another creatard identified Homo erectus as the missing link. So even they disagree with you.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122795 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously it supports evolution and not the creation of all species at one time. We don't find modern horses 20 or 40 million years ago. We only find them recently. We don't find the 20 million year specie 40 million years ago or even further back, we only find them in a specific window. This again supports the theory of evolution and not the creation of all species at once.
What was the point of that post Russell. Were you aiming at your foot?
Errrrmmm SZ, I wrote that post and it was addressed to our resident idiot Jim Ryan. So yes, it supports evolution!

BTW, I have not really found anything definitive on the pre-Cambrian pollen circa 1965 issue that Russell did raise. Its an interesting quandary.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122796 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Please
Evo-whining becomes tiresome
Every contender in the so-called human ancestral lineage is either ape or fully human
Or a fake.........
Oh dear. Backed into a corner, all you can say is there is an imaginary red line we should be putting somewhere in the sequence, but no creationist can even agree where (not surprising in an obvious continuum from apelike to human)...

Or the last resort, "its fake!!!! Piltdown Man!!!"

Can you be any less convincing?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122797 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Errrrmmm SZ, I wrote that post and it was addressed to our resident idiot Jim Ryan. So yes, it supports evolution!
BTW, I have not really found anything definitive on the pre-Cambrian pollen circa 1965 issue that Russell did raise. Its an interesting quandary.
It is well past my bedtime and I made a serious error. I kept reading that post and thought that Russell wrote it. Yet it clearly supported evolution.

My sincerest apologies. I wondered how a post that totally supported evolution could have been written by Russell.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min Dogen 141,688
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min polymath257 14,457
The conditions necessary for homo sapiens to sp... 1 hr NoahLovesU 5
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 8 hr Dogen 775
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 11 hr -TheExam- 13,957
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 18 hr NoahLovesU 1,954
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... Jan 22 TurkanaBoy 2
More from around the web