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.

Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125034 Mar 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us what you think a transitional fossil would look like.
Since they are none when there should be MILLIONS....I wouldn't really know

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125035 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Tsk tsk...
How low you go..
The sheer desperation to avoid admitting to your brother that you are wrong..
Anyway
Dr Sanford did not avoid the peer review process
He was co-editor of a book with up to 10 others
This book satisfactorily passed the publisher's review process
When it was realised that the authors and editors were ID proponents and creationists
ONLY THEN was the book...that had already been advertised on Springer Verlag's website for $175-00-----pulled off and labelled needing further review
That's utter bigotry
And guess what?
You're a CREATION RACIST BIGOT
Lay off the melodrama Russell.

Its not bigotry. Its the simple fact that creationist peer reviewers will review work based on its adherence to the Bible, as they openly admit on their websites.

Sorry mate, but that is not the criterion for scientific validity.

In science, the criteria for peer review are whether the thesis is consistent with previously verified empirical data, whether the measurement and data gathering used to justify the thesis free of errors and mistakes, and whether the conclusions offered follow logically from the empirical data and the premises.

Nothin' about "does it agree with Genesis" in there I am afraid.

So when Creationists claim their work is scientific, and have put the work through "creation criteria" and not accepted science criteria, they are JUST BLOODY LYING.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125036 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Since they are none when there should be MILLIONS....I wouldn't really know
Do you know the difference between an intermediate and a transitional?

I can give you a clue. Transitionals are a subset of intermediates. And we have millions of intermediates, while we cannot be sure which of them are necessarily THE transitionals and which are evolutionary dead ends.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125037 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
Never mind, its probably over your head.

But you started it with your evolution = racism nonsensical prattling.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#125038 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Since they are none when there should be MILLIONS....I wouldn't really know
So if you don't know what a transitional fossil is, why do you assume that you do know that none of them are?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125039 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
You're a CREATION RACIST BIGOT
Guess what?

"Stoopid lying cowards" is not a race.
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125040 Mar 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lay off the melodrama Russell.
Its not bigotry. Its the simple fact that creationist peer reviewers will review work based on its adherence to the Bible, as they openly admit on their websites.
Sorry mate, but that is not the criterion for scientific validity.
In science, the criteria for peer review are whether the thesis is consistent with previously verified empirical data, whether the measurement and data gathering used to justify the thesis free of errors and mistakes, and whether the conclusions offered follow logically from the empirical data and the premises.
Nothin' about "does it agree with Genesis" in there I am afraid.
So when Creationists claim their work is scientific, and have put the work through "creation criteria" and not accepted science criteria, they are JUST BLOODY LYING.
I would agree if that's what happens
But that is nit what happens

The book in question had passed Springer Verlag's review process

It was advertised on their website for sale for $175-00

AFTER being reviewed for publication by Springer Verlag reviewers

Then a critic noticed this and "alerted" the publisher that the editors and authors were ID proponents and creationists

THEN

The book was pulled off the website and "required more review"

Naturally all kinds of insinuations were made against the ID scientists and creationist scientists....

But how about the CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY of this case?

And there are plenty others

Plenty

Including discrimination against Mark Armitage of Triceratops soft tissue recent fame

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#125041 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree if that's what happens
But that is nit what happens
The book in question had passed Springer Verlag's review process
It was advertised on their website for sale for $175-00
AFTER being reviewed for publication by Springer Verlag reviewers
Then a critic noticed this and "alerted" the publisher that the editors and authors were ID proponents and creationists
THEN
The book was pulled off the website and "required more review"
Naturally all kinds of insinuations were made against the ID scientists and creationist scientists....
But how about the CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY of this case?
And there are plenty others
Plenty
Including discrimination against Mark Armitage of Triceratops soft tissue recent fame
You love your conspiracy theories.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125042 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree if that's what happens
But that is nit what happens
The book in question had passed Springer Verlag's review process
It was advertised on their website for sale for $175-00
AFTER being reviewed for publication by Springer Verlag reviewers
Then a critic noticed this and "alerted" the publisher that the editors and authors were ID proponents and creationists
THEN
The book was pulled off the website and "required more review"
Naturally all kinds of insinuations were made against the ID scientists and creationist scientists....
But how about the CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY of this case?
And there are plenty others
Plenty
Including discrimination against Mark Armitage of Triceratops soft tissue recent fame
OK then. Let's dig into this. What was the book's name and subject?

Note I am about to go out, so don't expect another response soon. But I will look into this if you give me info.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125043 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree if that's what happens
But that is nit what happens
The book in question had passed Springer Verlag's review process
It was advertised on their website for sale for $175-00
AFTER being reviewed for publication by Springer Verlag reviewers
Then a critic noticed this and "alerted" the publisher that the editors and authors were ID proponents and creationists
THEN
The book was pulled off the website and "required more review"
Naturally all kinds of insinuations were made against the ID scientists and creationist scientists....
But how about the CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY of this case?
And there are plenty others
Plenty
Including discrimination against Mark Armitage of Triceratops soft tissue recent fame
Try this out for size

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrlscienti...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125044 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
The book in question had passed Springer Verlag's review process
It was advertised on their website for sale for $175-00
AFTER being reviewed for publication by Springer Verlag reviewers
Then a critic noticed this and "alerted" the publisher that the editors and authors were ID proponents and creationists
THEN
The book was pulled off the website and "required more review"
Got to hand it to your buddies:

"Their (ID / Creationists)latest ruse is to hold a conference and publish a book of conference proceedings.

...Despite clearly being an ID book (more on that below), it was being published in the "Intelligent Systems Reference Library" series in Engineering and Applied Science, i.e., not in biology.

The more cynical (sensu Sir Humphrey) suspected this was an attempt to get the book through the Springer review process by sending it to an editor less likely to understand the context of the book and its proposal."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrlscienti...

Nice one Russell. Love the company you keep.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#125045 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you the reference.
If you claim to be a fan or "peer-reviewed" literature, you will know that Internet links are unscholarly.
Face it, SZ, you are defenseless. One of your own atheist stooges agreed that evolution leads to Totalitarianism.
Actually, internet links are used all the time in scholarly literature today. Oh, I suppose you wouldn't have known that, because you never actually READ scholarly literature. Bummer.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#125046 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Tsk tsk...
How low you go..
The sheer desperation to avoid admitting to your brother that you are wrong..
Anyway
Dr Sanford did not avoid the peer review process
He was co-editor of a book with up to 10 others
This book satisfactorily passed the publisher's review process
When it was realised that the authors and editors were ID proponents and creationists
ONLY THEN was the book...that had already been advertised on Springer Verlag's website for $175-00-----pulled off and labelled needing further review
That's utter bigotry
And guess what?
You're a CREATION RACIST BIGOT
Wait...so, this went through the peer-review process for biological publications? Oh, it didn't? It went through the peer-review process for ENGINEERING publications? Doesn't it strike you as odd that they'd submit a book that is ostensibly about biological origins and biodiversity to an engineering publishing office instead of a biology publishing office? Why would they do that? Likewise, if it has anything about the origins of the universe, why wouldn't it go through an astronomy/cosmology publishing office? You'd think you'd want your stuff reviewed by experts in the pertinent fields, to show just how solid your work is. Oh, but they didn't do that, did they? It's almost as if they had something to hide, and wanted to get published without being properly scrutinized by the people most likely to find the errors in their work, and then their book would appear authoritative without having been checked for factual accuracy. That hardly seems like the behavior of legitimate scientists. I'm sure there must be another explanation.

By the way, what percentage of the contributors to that book were Christians, and do you think that's a coincidence?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#125047 Mar 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you read this properly, and get my point.
Arguing from consequences - meaning "I reject this scientific theory because I do not like where I think it leads" is NEVER a valid rational argument. Truth is truth, deal with it.
But your claims are objectively false anyway, because somebody somewhere has claimed just about everything is for or against just about everything.
For example:
Hitler claims his feud against the Jews was backed by the Bible and could easily quote Martin Luther to that effect.
The white Africaaners believed the Bible explicitly backed their racist ideology in South Africa, and they were a very religious bunch.
Many socialists and communists have claimed that they are carrying out the Christian message of humility, sharing, and anti-greed.
----------
On the other hand, there are also great champions of freedom who were either atheist, or Deists with beliefs fully compatible with both God and evolution.
Jefferson and Franklin were Deists, and nothing like what you would call a Christian. Yet they were anti-totalitarian.
Karl Popper, an evolutionist, and a philosopher of science, was also a great champion of the OPEN SOCIETY, and against all top-down closed structures such as fascism and communism. For good reasons.
Ayn Rand, darling of the religious right today, was avidly ANTI fascism and communism. She was also militantly ANTI religion and vocally ATHEIST. She was pro-freedom, individualism, capitalism, and limited government. And HATED religion. That's the bit Fox News likes to gloss over.
A true rational skeptic, that is to say, a scientific thinker, knows that nobody else has all the answers either. Not Jesus, not Marx, not Hitler, and not Darwin or Einstein either. We are skeptical of grand claims by nature. Thus we do not accept top-down centralised control either of economies or minds. Nor fixed dogma in science.
Everybody has to figure things out for themselves, and nobody gets it 100% right. That also makes a rational skeptic virtually immune to grand claims that whole sections of the population are The Enemy (Jews, heathens, atheists, the landlords, liberals, you name it), and its generally only the dogmatic who make such claims and demand monstrous action because of it.
So really, you have NO POINT.
You are a Dogmatist trying to claim YOUR dogma is better than Hitler's or Lenin's dogma. Big deal. To me they are ALL dogmas. You might support a slightly more humane one, but you are still off track.
I accept evolution because the evidence supports it. I am not buying your arguments from consequences, they fail logically. I am not buying your dogma. I reject all dogma as a failed approach.
So, you're saying, "I reject physics because it led to the atomic bomb" is not valid reasoning? I call bullshit!
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125048 Mar 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I accept that the assemblage is wonderfully complex.
Now lets skip to your last paragraph. Its a false conclusion.
Why?
Because you CANNOT ascertain what all the possible alternative or partial functions of the various components you describe. That is the weakness in all IC arguments. Existing components with different functions can always be co-opted for new functionality.
You guys even get shown this in various examples, but you just keep looking for new examples to trot out. The argument seems to be "If you evolutionists cannot THINK of a simpler alternative function for these components RIGHT NOW then our case is proven (and if you DO offer an unproven possible function, you are just making up stories!)".
If you were objective, you would consider that since some very surprising and interesting pathways HAVE been discovered for some items regarded as "irreducibly complex", then simply throwing up another example proves nothing at all. Its merely an interesting puzzle to be solved, not a disproof of evolution.
To summarise: You might be right in that THIS function in a praying mantis would not be possible until all the pieces come together, you can NEVER argue with confidence that the simpler components are useless apart from in this one function you see in the praying mantis today.
That is why IC fails as an argument even in principle.
You have not refuted anything.
All you have done is proclaim that even though a functional continuum cannot be imagined by either you or me or anyone, it just might exist. That is religion, because it requires faith. That is certainly not logical science.
You've given a canned argument that could be used for any complex biological system, even if it is irreducible complex. Evolution, by your criteria, is impossible to falsify.
What you have done is ASSUME that every complexity has a gradualistic explanation before you've even evaluated it. That's why I keep saying that evolution is dogma, not science.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#125049 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not refuted anything.
All you have done is proclaim that even though a functional continuum cannot be imagined by either you or me or anyone, it just might exist. That is religion, because it requires faith. That is certainly not logical science.
You've given a canned argument that could be used for any complex biological system, even if it is irreducible complex. Evolution, by your criteria, is impossible to falsify.
What you have done is ASSUME that every complexity has a gradualistic explanation before you've even evaluated it. That's why I keep saying that evolution is dogma, not science.
IC is bunk with zero research. And its biggest proponent decided to forget about research and tour the church circuit instead. In the meantime we still got months of evidence you've been unable to refute with anything other than "JUST SAY NO!!!!"
HTS

Sidney, MT

#125050 Mar 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
IC is bunk with zero research. And its biggest proponent decided to forget about research and tour the church circuit instead. In the meantime we still got months of evidence you've been unable to refute with anything other than "JUST SAY NO!!!!"
Dude, your incoherent logic tells me that you're drunk on evo-koolaid again.
Come back when you've sobered up. You're embarrassing all of the other atheist stooges on this forum.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#125051 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, your incoherent logic tells me that you're drunk on evo-koolaid again.
Come back when you've sobered up. You're embarrassing all of the other atheist stooges on this forum.
Thanks for starting my day off with a laugh!! Anti-science anti-intellectuals say the funniest things.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#125052 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, your incoherent logic tells me that you're drunk on evo-koolaid again.
Come back when you've sobered up. You're embarrassing all of the other atheist stooges on this forum.
How is what he stated not accurate?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#125053 Mar 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
How is what he stated not accurate?
What did he say that made any sense?

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) 2 hr Darsey 170,156
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Into The Night 33,125
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Into The Night 95,424
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 7 hr 15th Dalai Lama 1,882
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 15 hr 15th Dalai Lama 27
Souls have weight .. 21 grams Experiment 18 hr Simon 20
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Sat Dogen 116