Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#125412 Mar 26, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, neither theory requires an intelligent force (or rule it out, technically speaking) to be behind the scenes, it is not a rejection of god per se but simply it is not needed to provide explanatory power.
So want to re-think that one?
Oh, and you never answered my other question - let me post it again for you.
<quoted text>
We just had a long discussion about the evolution of the weaponry of the mantis shrimp... and no one can propose a plausible pathway of gradualistic transmutation that excludes intelligent design.
Nevertheless, it is insisted that a naturalistic (ie "atheistic") mechanism must exist.

In other words, you have FAITH that every species, known and unknown evolved WITHOUT God. That is not science...that is religion.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125413 Mar 26, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
microevolution is to macroevolution as micropregnant is to macropregnant. They are the same thing. The only difference is the amount of time passed.
So, according to your logic...
I can breed a crabapple into a larger sweet apple.
Therefore, I all I need is more time to breed a crabapple into a giraffe.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125414 Mar 26, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep interjecting your opposition to mentioning religion because religion is the core of your argument and you do not want to expose your beliefs to logical examination. IC IS RELIGION. Nice try to attempt to block anything that would put you on the defense, but it won't wash.
Your only argument for EVERYTHING is that you don't believe the evidence. But in the end, evidence is all there is for anything, nothing is proven but for evidence. And you have no evidence for IC.
My religion has nothing to do with the fallacy of evolution. The atheist hacks on this forum, yourself included, and the ones who incessantly interject religion.

I've been looking for the evidence for evolution... and it's non-existent. The evidence says that evolution is impossible for the same reason that it's impossible for a Monkey to type a Shakespearean play. Mutations cannot create or enhance genetic information. You have an elaborate paradigm founded on man's imagination... but when the rubber meets the road, every proposed mechanisms of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125415 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of gravity is not atheistic. A belief in God is irrelevant to the theory of gravity.
The theory of evolution is atheistic, because a founding tenet of ToE is no assistance from intelligent design.
The theory of gravity is atheistic, because a founding tentet of ToG is no assistance from intelligent falling.

It should be obvious to even HTS that evolution does not imply atheism.

What the theory of evolution shows is that your god, HTS, does not exist. That is the God that "spoke" the world into being, that made the critters and Adam, and flooded the Earth. Those beliefs have been shown to be fallacious. Not ALL belief in god or gods.

Do you understand the difference yet?

Evolution only shows that the god you believe in does not exist. Not all gods. I know I am repeating myself but sometimes it helps to hear it in slightly different wording.

There are even Christians who believe in Jesus, and the resurrection who believe the ToE because they do not believe in a god that lies. They can see that all evidence points towards evolution. If the Adam and Eve story is true then God had to plant evidence to the contrary and they don't believe in a god that is that wicked and evil. It seems that you do.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125416 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, according to your logic...
I can breed a crabapple into a larger sweet apple.
Therefore, I all I need is more time to breed a crabapple into a giraffe.
Have we ever said that? No, in fact we have told you that cannot happen and why it cannot happen.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125417 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We just had a long discussion about the evolution of the weaponry of the mantis shrimp... and no one can propose a plausible pathway of gradualistic transmutation that excludes intelligent design.
Nevertheless, it is insisted that a naturalistic (ie "atheistic") mechanism must exist.
In other words, you have FAITH that every species, known and unknown evolved WITHOUT God. That is not science...that is religion.
No, plausible pahtways are obviously in existence. Did you hold on to those links like I told you to? Yes a naturalistic, and no that does not mean "atheistic", pathway does exist.

We have evidence that it is possible. We don't even need to have shrimp fossils to have evidence. We have evidence that life evolved. When you start claiming "Maybe this one didn't evolve" you are engaging in "special pleading":

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-plea...

It is up to you to give evidence that it could not have evolved and listing biological traits whose evolution you cannot fathom is not evidence.

So no, we do not have faith, we have evidence. And lots of it.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#125418 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We just had a long discussion about the evolution of the weaponry of the mantis shrimp... and no one can propose a plausible pathway of gradualistic transmutation that excludes intelligent design.
Nevertheless, it is insisted that a naturalistic (ie "atheistic") mechanism must exist.
In other words, you have FAITH that every species, known and unknown evolved WITHOUT God. That is not science...that is religion.
So, in your view god in all his omnipotence couldn't have used evolution to produce the mantis shrimp, and we simply haven't deciphered The details of this particaular case (though believe articles have been posted - guessing you just ignore them)

This, broadly speaking is theistic evolution - useless scientifically of course but
A) refutes that evolution is atheistic in nature
B) seems to be the stance that the majority of Christians take .....

.. Which reminds me

Why are you avoiding my last question again, not gone into dodge mode already have you?
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Question : if ToE IS atheistic in nature, are those of faith that DO support it not real Christians ?
Fancy a rational considered response instead of your pointless blithering ?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125419 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
My religion has nothing to do with the fallacy of evolution. The atheist hacks on this forum, yourself included, and the ones who incessantly interject religion.
I've been looking for the evidence for evolution... and it's non-existent. The evidence says that evolution is impossible for the same reason that it's impossible for a Monkey to type a Shakespearean play. Mutations cannot create or enhance genetic information. You have an elaborate paradigm founded on man's imagination... but when the rubber meets the road, every proposed mechanisms of evolution is mathematically impossible.
But we have shown how an infinite number of monkeys using a form of natural selection could have written Shakespeare's plays.

Creatards always forget about either natural selection or variation. Of course that is probably what makes them creatards in the first place. And don't complain when we use a selector that selects for Shakespeare. You are the one who gave us an unnatural goal, it only makes sense to use an unnatural selector.

In nature the selector is much simpler. All it selects for is efficient life.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125420 Mar 26, 2013
Lastly, you have never shown evolution to be mathematically impossible.

Those "proofs" only come from creationists who do not understand evolution. The few that do understand evolution tell you idiots not to make that argument.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125421 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Have we ever said that? No, in fact we have told you that cannot happen and why it cannot happen.
A crabapple and a giraffe have substantial genetic homology... far greater than a microbe and a giraffe.
Yet you belief a giraffe evolved from a microbe.
You cannot explain any mechanism of evolution that would preclude such a transmutation. You have been claiming that everything in your world is random and non-directional.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#125422 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, according to your logic...
I can breed a crabapple into a larger sweet apple.
Therefore, I all I need is more time to breed a crabapple into a giraffe.
Yes, about 3,500,000,000 years ought to do it.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125423 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
But we have shown how an infinite number of monkeys using a form of natural selection could have written Shakespeare's plays.
Creatards always forget about either natural selection or variation. Of course that is probably what makes them creatards in the first place. And don't complain when we use a selector that selects for Shakespeare. You are the one who gave us an unnatural goal, it only makes sense to use an unnatural selector.
In nature the selector is much simpler. All it selects for is efficient life.
You don't have infinite monkeys nor infinite time...
and you don't have a force that can remove incorrect keystrokes.
All you have are your bedtime stories.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125424 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, plausible pahtways are obviously in existence. Did you hold on to those links like I told you to? Yes a naturalistic, and no that does not mean "atheistic", pathway does exist.
We have evidence that it is possible. We don't even need to have shrimp fossils to have evidence. We have evidence that life evolved. When you start claiming "Maybe this one didn't evolve" you are engaging in "special pleading":
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-plea...
It is up to you to give evidence that it could not have evolved and listing biological traits whose evolution you cannot fathom is not evidence.
So no, we do not have faith, we have evidence. And lots of it.
Why do you keep referring to those links when you know perfectly well that none of them provided an evolutionary pathway to the weaponry of the mantis shrimp?
I've repeatedly asked you to defend your contentions, and you keep parroting the same reponse.

You're the one engaging in special pleading. I listed the complex interdependent parts. What more do you want? How do I prove that something cannot evolve? Prove to me that a crabapple cannot evolve into a giraffe?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125425 Mar 26, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, about 3,500,000,000 years ought to do it.
Show me on paper how you plan to do it.
Are you sure you need 3.5 billion years?
Could you do it in 2.8 billion years?

I want to see the math on this one...
Go over the probabilities of each required mutation, what the selective values are, how man generations will be required, how many trees you'll need to plant, etc.

Let's see the numbers. I promise not to laugh.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125426 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We just had a long discussion about the evolution of the weaponry of the mantis shrimp... and no one can propose a plausible pathway of gradualistic transmutation that excludes intelligent design.
Nevertheless, it is insisted that a naturalistic (ie "atheistic") mechanism must exist.
In other words, you have FAITH that every species, known and unknown evolved WITHOUT God. That is not science...that is religion.
So I take it you have FAITH that every species, known and unknown evolved WITH God. True or false?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#125427 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me on paper how you plan to do it.
Are you sure you need 3.5 billion years?
Could you do it in 2.8 billion years?
I want to see the math on this one...
Go over the probabilities of each required mutation, what the selective values are, how man generations will be required, how many trees you'll need to plant, etc.
Let's see the numbers. I promise not to laugh.
Statistics are statistics, results are results. Life evolved here in 3.5 billion years and there is abundant evidence to show us this is what happened. There is no verifiable evidence that a magic sky daddy diddit with pixie dust.

I want to see the math on your theory.

Go over the probabilities of your magic sky daddy making himself out of nothing for no good reason. How many tries will he require? How many Earths will he have to make to create life? Where will he first encounter the pixie dust?

Let's see the numbers, and I promise not to laugh ... but snickering can not be avoided.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#125428 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
First, atheism is a religion.
Second, your "conspiracy theory" tactic is irrelevant. Scientific truth is not established on popularity.
Third, ToE is not science. One of the reasons for this is because there is no scientific accountability inherent in its study. Researchers can do and say whatever they please. Evolution has no relevance to day to day life whatsoever.
HAHAHAHAHAA!! Ignorance on parade!! Thanks for keeping me laughing all day!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125429 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A crabapple and a giraffe have substantial genetic homology... far greater than a microbe and a giraffe.
Yet you belief a giraffe evolved from a microbe.
You cannot explain any mechanism of evolution that would preclude such a transmutation. You have been claiming that everything in your world is random and non-directional.
And we have told you, and showed you, countless times that evolution can not go backwards. Nor is it very easy to drive evolution in a chosen direction.

So yes, we can explain such a pathway, in fact it one of the few places that an odds argument actually applies.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125430 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep referring to those links when you know perfectly well that none of them provided an evolutionary pathway to the weaponry of the mantis shrimp?
I've repeatedly asked you to defend your contentions, and you keep parroting the same reponse.
You're the one engaging in special pleading. I listed the complex interdependent parts. What more do you want? How do I prove that something cannot evolve? Prove to me that a crabapple cannot evolve into a giraffe?
Have you ever thought that the reason you keep getting the same answer is because you keep asking the same question?

Did I not warn you to keep a hold of those links?

And now you screwed up and want me to do your homework for you?

I have told you countless times that until you finish the evidence course that you can demand nothing from me. Until then you are merely a tard at my pleasure. If it pleases me I will post articles. I have no need, nor obligation, to please you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125431 Mar 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you have FAITH that every species, known and unknown evolved WITH God. True or false?
HTS does not know what he wants. All he knows is that he is against Darwinian evolution.

Sometimes he claims to believe in ID, but he denies common descent. ID in its purest form is merely guided evolution.

The problem is that ID in reality is merely creationism in sheep's clothing and is of course nonsensical. It is an example of creatards dressing up and playing scientist as the "Wedge Document" proved.

At times like this I just love the Dover trial.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr Eagle 12 - 2,570
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Aura Mytha 222,998
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Dogen 83,142
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 5 hr Dogen 142
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 5 hr 15th Dalai Lama 129
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 9 hr Reb Bacchus 40
Evolution is boring as Hell 10 hr Science 8
More from around the web