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
121,861 - 121,880 of 172,090 Comments Last updated 20 min ago

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125048
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125050
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125051
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125053
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
How is what he stated not accurate?
What did he say that made any sense?
Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125054
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What did he say that made any sense?
All of it. Anyone with a modicum of scientific education could.
HTS

Sidney, MT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125055
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Chimney, you apparently disagree with Chuck,
You have categorically rejected all examples of IC, even those that you haven't examined,
When you approach scientific investigation with a foredrawn conclusion, you are not practicing science...

Chuck provided a grossly simplistic explanation of eye evolution, glossing over critical obstacles. After hashing over the argument over 150, evo-tards have declared that the argument is "settled". It has never been settled. The problem of IC is bigger than it was 150 years ago, given man's ever expanding understanding of the complexity of all biological systems.
Mugwump

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125056
Mar 25, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
.
Want to post the quote in context - I.e the whole quote

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125057
Mar 25, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Chimney, you apparently disagree with Chuck,
You have categorically rejected all examples of IC, even those that you haven't examined,
When you approach scientific investigation with a foredrawn conclusion, you are not practicing science...
Chuck provided a grossly simplistic explanation of eye evolution, glossing over critical obstacles. After hashing over the argument over 150, evo-tards have declared that the argument is "settled". It has never been settled. The problem of IC is bigger than it was 150 years ago, given man's ever expanding understanding of the complexity of all biological systems.
So why, fake doctor, didn't you post the entire Darwin quote? Ignorance or dishonesty?
HTS

Sidney, MT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125058
Mar 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
So why, fake doctor, didn't you post the entire Darwin quote? Ignorance or dishonesty?
I read Origin of Species.
The quote was not taken out of context.
If you think that is to what Chuck meant, then explain yourself rather than setting up distractions.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125059
Mar 25, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I read Origin of Species.
The quote was not taken out of context.
If you think that is to what Chuck meant, then explain yourself rather than setting up distractions.
No, but you did dishonestly ignore the fact that we have explained the formation of all organs already, including your eye. You choose to ignore the explanations, that doesn't change the fact that the explanations do exist, and all well within the theory of evolution.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125060
Mar 25, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I read Origin of Species.
The quote was not taken out of context.
If you think that is to what Chuck meant, then explain yourself rather than setting up distractions.
I've read it as well.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct."

Please note the "But I can find out no such case." demonstrating that you were attempting to characterize Darwin as rejecting his own theory.

Do you need the rest of the section quoted as well?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••