Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#125465 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you've said evolution has no direction.
Oogah Boogah says he can breed a crabapple into a giraffe.
It should be easy to drive evolution in a chosen direction if you can artifically select the best mutations.
They'll just magically appear.
All you have to do is grow crabapples and keep the offspring that are mutating in the direction of a giraffe...
It's really quite simple.
Simple. Good choice of words.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125466 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't know IF a naturalistic mechanism is possible.
The way your sentence was framed PRESUMES that a naturalistic pathway exists.
If a naturalistic pathway is impossible, then it logically follows that intelligent design must be a force. That is as far as science can go. Any specific aspects of that intelligent design falls under religion.

You don't do logic, I can see.

Argument: evolution happens either by nature or magic poofing.
1. Evolution happens (observation)
2. Nature accounts for all the observed phenomena that have been fully investigated.
3. magic poofing has never been observed.
4. no phenomena are explainable by magic poofing.
Therefore it is more likely that evolution is explainable by natural mechanisms. Following conclusion: A natural pathway likely exists.

Argument 2: ID is not science.
Science explains how things work (mechanisms)
ID has no known mechanisms.

Science is based on observation.
ID has never been observed to change anything.

Science requires evidence
ID has no supporting evidence.

Science is based on research.
ID has no (supporting) research.

Science requires peer review.
ID has no (supporting) peer review.

Science requires falsifiability.
ID is not falsifiable.

Science requires adherence to principle of parsimony (within reason)
ID fails parsimony.

Science is published in reputable journals.
ID is not published in reputable journals.

Conclusion: ID is not science.

Argument 3: Evolution is science.
Science explains how things work (mechanisms)
Evolution has known mechanisms.

Science is based on observation.
Evolution has been observed.

Science requires evidence
Science has supporting evidence.

Science is based on research.
Evolution has tons of research.

Science requires peer review.
Evolution is peer reviewed.

Science requires falsifiability.
Evolution is falsifiable.

Science requires adherence to principle of parsimony (within reason)
Evolution is parsimonious.

Science is published in reputable journals.
Evolution is published in reputable journals.

Conclusion: Evolution is science.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#125467 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
In other words, you have FAITH that every species, known and unknown evolved WITHOUT God. That is not science...that is religion.
Aren't you the clown that was just whining about someone interjecting religion into things?

Better have that foot looked at.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#125469 Mar 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you kidding me?
The quality (actually lack of) creationist "science" is well known.
It is not just that it is inferior in quality to real science, it is actually that they don't DO ANY science.
SERIOUSLY!
Here is a link to an issue of the "Journal of Creation"
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-253
See if you can find any ACTUAL RESEARCH in ANY OF IT!
Now, second guessing published research is NOT research. The is more pseudoscientific op ed.
FIND ACTUAL SCIENCE IN CREATIONIST PUBLICATIONS OR SHUT UP!
I'm laughing at the inferior intellect!
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Mine is that id fails as science. Does Springer have egg on their faces for putting it up to start with? Of course.
Science isn't perfect, but it is self correcting. Apparently science publishing is up to the same standard.
Nice (but late) catch Springer-Verlag.
NO NO NO - there is plenty of good science, and not an assumption in sight

(From your link - specifically Modern science in creationist thinking)

'If we accept all observations about the universe, realizing they are tainted with certain assumptions, which may be wrong, then creationists have a starlight-travel-time problem. This is true if we believe only 6,000 years have passed since the creation of the most distant light sources, and that they were all created at that time, as measured by normal Earth clocks, and we hold to the convention that the timer was started when the star was created. But if the timer was started when the light first arrived on Earth, when someone first saw the event, then this is the Anisotropic Time Convention,6 and there is no light-travel-time problem. There is nothing to answer'

Sarcasm aside - how come creationists have no shame when they read the above and claim creation.com to be a legit scientific source - even though it basically says

'Yeah, that's a problem - but if we make shit up - we don't have to address it'

the irony of course being that the above nuggets of creation non-science is just below an explaination of historical and operational science.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125470 Mar 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we can't conceive of a single naturalistic explanation for phenomenon X. Does that make God the default explanation for phenomenon X?
No.
However, in the case of natural systems of irreducible complexity such as the weaponry of the mantis shrimp, it appears that a naturalistic explanation is impossible. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that there is intelligent design.(It is not possible to scientifically conclude a specific version of intelligence such as a personal God, etc., through science).

It's more than not being able to conceive of a naturalistic explanation, it appears impossible.

Example: Suppose you visited a distant planet and found a perfect pyramid of symmetrically stacked bricks...
It is reasonable to assume that it was produced by intelligence, because a naturalistic explanation appears Impossible.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125471 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, once again wrong. Since a natural path has been shown to occur thousands of times at the worst we DEDUCE that a natural pathway exists.
Come on, you know better than this. You are in effect lying for Jesus again. He does not need your help.
No, a naturalistic pathway has been IMAGINED to exist thousands of times.
Macroevolution has never been proven to be possible.
Storytelling is not science.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#125472 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
However, in the case of natural systems of irreducible complexity such as the weaponry of the mantis shrimp, it appears that a naturalistic explanation is impossible. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that there is intelligent design.(It is not possible to scientifically conclude a specific version of intelligence such as a personal God, etc., through science).
It's more than not being able to conceive of a naturalistic explanation, it appears impossible.
Example: Suppose you visited a distant planet and found a perfect pyramid of symmetrically stacked bricks...
It is reasonable to assume that it was produced by intelligence, because a naturalistic explanation appears Impossible.
Going to break my rule and ask you again - 6th ones a charm
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 ?
Can't see why you keep dodging this

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#125473 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you've said evolution has no direction.
Oogah Boogah says he can breed a crabapple into a giraffe.
It should be easy to drive evolution in a chosen direction if you can artifically select the best mutations.
They'll just magically appear.
All you have to do is grow crabapples and keep the offspring that are mutating in the direction of a giraffe...
It's really quite simple.
Something would evolve to fill the niche now filled by giraffes. You can call it whatever you like, we'll figure that out after it is done, Mkay? Meet you back here in 3,500,000,000 years .....

dumb butt.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125474 Mar 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you just demonstrate how chemistry prevents particular chemical reactions from ever occurring?

Dr. Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist, wrote,

"No one to date has published data indicating that bonding preferences could have had any role in coding the DNA molecules."*

*[Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), p. 148.]

You are imagining that simple chemistry can create order. You have no science to back that up.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125475 Mar 26, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Going to break my rule and ask you again - 6th ones a charm
<quoted text>
Can't see why you keep dodging this
Anyone who is a Christian and believes in ToE is contradicting one of two things....
1. He denies the atheistic mechanisms of mutations and natural selection and believes that God is driving the evolutionary process.

or

2. He believes totally in ToE and believes in God but denies that God is the creator.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125476 Mar 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't do logic, I can see.
Argument: evolution happens either by nature or magic poofing.
1. Evolution happens (observation)
2. Nature accounts for all the observed phenomena that have been fully investigated.
3. magic poofing has never been observed.
4. no phenomena are explainable by magic poofing.
Therefore it is more likely that evolution is explainable by natural mechanisms. Following conclusion: A natural pathway likely exists.
Argument 2: ID is not science.
Science explains how things work (mechanisms)
ID has no known mechanisms.
Science is based on observation.
ID has never been observed to change anything.
Science requires evidence
ID has no supporting evidence.
Science is based on research.
ID has no (supporting) research.
Science requires peer review.
ID has no (supporting) peer review.
Science requires falsifiability.
ID is not falsifiable.
Science requires adherence to principle of parsimony (within reason)
ID fails parsimony.
Science is published in reputable journals.
ID is not published in reputable journals.
Conclusion: ID is not science.
Argument 3: Evolution is science.
Science explains how things work (mechanisms)
Evolution has known mechanisms.
Science is based on observation.
Evolution has been observed.
Science requires evidence
Science has supporting evidence.
Science is based on research.
Evolution has tons of research.
Science requires peer review.
Evolution is peer reviewed.
Science requires falsifiability.
Evolution is falsifiable.
Science requires adherence to principle of parsimony (within reason)
Evolution is parsimonious.
Science is published in reputable journals.
Evolution is published in reputable journals.
Conclusion: Evolution is science.
Impressive smokescreen
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#125477 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who is a Christian and believes in ToE is contradicting one of two things....
1. He denies the atheistic mechanisms of mutations and natural selection and believes that God is driving the evolutionary process.
or
2. He believes totally in ToE and believes in God but denies that God is the creator.
Thanks for the response - seems asking you 6 times does the trick, but your didnt really answer the question - so in the absense of a direct answer to my point let me assume the following.

Anyone (even a Christian) that accepts ToE is an atheist.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125478 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I would like to see the quote from Oogah Boogah himself. You don't have the best track record when reading others posts.
MikeF also thinks he can breed a crabapple into a giraffe. You're losing ground, SZ.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125479 Mar 26, 2013
i hate t rex wrote:
<quoted text> You're right, the odd's are pretty low. But that's not taking into account all the planets out there! We don't have any numbers on the average number of planets per star, so just try counting (oops, I forgot who I was talking too). If the odd's are better than you might think, if it's one in 3x10^21, than there are probably about 9 other planets out there with life in the universe. But really, I doubt life is THAT rare, life as we assume it may be, but not microbes like bacteria require a lot less everything than Eukaryotic cells. For you're next rebuttal, let's try including ONE fact, not rationalizations, FACTS, like you are stupid, or dinosaurs weren't born yesterday.
There's no mathematical justification for concluding that time and billions of planets can overcome any improbability. The theory of evolution is the only "scientific" theory that relies on ridiculously improbable events.

Listen to what Dick Dawkins said...

"What is more, as far as we know, it [the origin of life] may have happened on only one planet out of a billion billion planets in the universe... So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year.  If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet—because here we are talking about it."

*(Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, 1996, pp. 282–283, emphasis in original).

Sounds real scientific, doesn't it?
Anything as long as it's not intelligent design.....

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#125480 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
MikeF also thinks he can breed a crabapple into a giraffe. You're losing ground, SZ.
I believe you misunderstood me. What I said was it is possible to bred a turd into an internet troll and offered you as evidence.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#125481 Mar 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe you misunderstood me. What I said was it is possible to bred a turd into an internet troll and offered you as evidence.
I believe the appropriate phrase is 'not so much polishing a turd, but rolling it in glitter'
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125482 Mar 26, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the response - seems asking you 6 times does the trick, but your didnt really answer the question - so in the absense of a direct answer to my point let me assume the following.
Anyone (even a Christian) that accepts ToE is an atheist.
I didn't say that.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125483 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?
False... I don't believe that every species evolved. If's biologically impossible and it's inconsistent with the fossil record.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#125484 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>False... I don't believe that every species evolved. If's biologically impossible and it's inconsistent with the fossil record.
I see. So your unnamed (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) designer just instantly created all life. AKA Poof!

One question... Why did he kill almost all of them off?
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#125485 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
However, in the case of natural systems of irreducible complexity such as the weaponry of the mantis shrimp, it appears that a naturalistic explanation is impossible. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that there is intelligent design.(It is not possible to scientifically conclude a specific version of intelligence such as a personal God, etc., through science).
It's more than not being able to conceive of a naturalistic explanation, it appears impossible.
Example: Suppose you visited a distant planet and found a perfect pyramid of symmetrically stacked bricks...
It is reasonable to assume that it was produced by intelligence, because a naturalistic explanation appears Impossible.
How did you reach the conclusion that it appears impossible?

Heavier-than-air flight also seemed impossible, you know. Ignorance and incredulity are not evidence of impossibility. Not now, not ever.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min Richardfs 34,118
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 1 hr FREE SERVANT 32
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr ChristineM 14,843
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr MIDutch 151,284
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Aura Mytha 199,194
My Story Part 1 Fri JanusBifrons 1
Evolution in action Jun 20 Darth Robo 9
More from around the web