Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129405 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I see... So to accept your worldview of atheism, you are required to pretend that complexity does not exist... That DNA is no more complex than a snowflake.
Nope. Complexity is real. And evolution is a marvellous complexity generator.

The best you can argue is that by explaining something previously attributed to the miraculous action of God, that God is set back as a cause, but science has been doing that since the beginning.

There was a time when making the sun rise and keeping the planets in order was supposed to require the direct action of God every moment, and lightning and earthquakes were also the direct action of God. Now we know that the development of life's complexity is in the same class of naturally explainable phenomena as these other events where natural explanations have replaced God as the proximate cause. You are still free to believe that God is the ultimate cause of earthquakes and evolution.

So why pick on evolution? Perhaps you should be barking indignantly about all science. Oh wait, I remember. Its not GOD you are defending, its Biblical Literalism.

That's something completely different!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129406 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>... the language type functionality of DNA?
Nobody has to explain it because there is no language type functionality. There is a template dictated by the chemical properties of the nucleotides (or their RNA counterparts) interacting with the physical structure of the amino acids themselves.

There is no arbitrary symbolic element. The nucleotides are not free to decide that from now on, AAG will mean a completely different amino acid. Nothing LIKE the way humans can make an arbitrary noise like RED represent a colour of the spectrum.

Its a template, not a language. "language" and "code" are merely analogies, but never underestimate a creationist's willingness to take the wrong end of the stick and then knaw it to shreds.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#129407 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, Mugwump...
Snowflakes and crystalline structures are not complex, but are random displays caused by molecular forces.
An acorn is every bit as complex as an oak tree, because a seed has the entire genetic blueprint of a mature plant.
Have you even seen snowflakes and crystals? I wonder, because if you had, you would see there is nothing random about them.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129408 May 9, 2013
I still wonder at those who are unable to take the message of a moral genius like Jesus, and need to wrap it up in primitive mythology and promises of fairy-tales, before they can see its essential goodness and truth.

Are they saying that the only reason to be good is this silly promise?

Perhaps at some point in their lives they had a revelation...that the message of kindness and humanity made them feel whole and better, and restored their self respect and respect for others.

Why would that understanding magically come undone if the infantile promises of "heaven" were to disappear?

Instead these fools rail against science and stick their heads in the sand, and its evident from this that they never really got the point at all, but like naughty little children will only be good if you promise them a MacDonald's Happy Meal for dinner.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129409 May 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
He referred to it as a possibility for instincts, but absolutely did not refer to or rely on its validity to argue evolution by natural selection. He claimed, honestly, not to know the source of new variation, but evolution by natural selection of INHERITED, not ACQUIRED traits, was the central core of his whole theory.
Evolution was not a new idea. The mechanism he proposed of NON Lamarckian inheritance WAS the new idea. Its the whole reason Darwin became famous you dolt! He did NOT rely on Lamarck though he did not rule it out. Have you ever actually read Origin of the Species, or like most creatards are you just relying on extracted quote mines?
I read Origin of Species.
Darwin relied on inheritance of acquired traits in his attempt to explain the evolution of instincts.
Yes, Chuck had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that mechanisms of inheritance were unknown. But he relied on the assumption that instincts could be acquired by parents and passed on to offspring.
Now that we know that instincts cannot be acquired in this way, how do you explain the evolution of instincts?
LowellGuy

United States

#129410 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Are you telling me that DNA is not more complex than a snowflake?
Can you demonstrate that it is? If so, do so.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129411 May 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Complexity is real. And evolution is a marvellous complexity generator.
The best you can argue is that by explaining something previously attributed to the miraculous action of God, that God is set back as a cause, but science has been doing that since the beginning.
There was a time when making the sun rise and keeping the planets in order was supposed to require the direct action of God every moment, and lightning and earthquakes were also the direct action of God. Now we know that the development of life's complexity is in the same class of naturally explainable phenomena as these other events where natural explanations have replaced God as the proximate cause. You are still free to believe that God is the ultimate cause of earthquakes and evolution.
So why pick on evolution? Perhaps you should be barking indignantly about all science. Oh wait, I remember. Its not GOD you are defending, its Biblical Literalism.
That's something completely different!
You are assuming that a naturalistic explanation exists to explain complexity. You are assuming that evolution is true without demonstrating that it is true. You are attempting to pursuade me to have faith in evolution, when you cannot demonstrate that any of its mechanisms are possible. You have yet to make a proposal as to how natural causes can create complexity. All you are doing is attempting to appeal to my imagination. I'm a skeptic. Because man has found a naturalistic explanation as to why the sun rises and sets doesn't mean that a naturalistic explanation exists for every observed phenomenon in the universe, known and unknown.
LowellGuy

United States

#129412 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I see... So to accept your worldview of atheism, you are required to pretend that complexity does not exist... That DNA is no more complex than a snowflake.
Atheism has nothing to do with that.

Everything you say is the stupidest thing you've ever said.
LowellGuy

United States

#129413 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Did you actually read the article you referenced? What a load of BS. How does autocatalysis explain the language type functionality of DNA? No one is arguing that random arrangements of nucleotides could come together through autocatalysis. What does that prove? A monkey can indeed type random letters on keyboard. That observation in no way suggests that a monkey can type Shakespeare.
If we told you the answer was that God made it that way, would that solve it for you?

You already have shown yourself thick as shit about science, so clearly science will never satisfy you.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129414 May 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If we told you the answer was that God made it that way, would that solve it for you?
You already have shown yourself thick as shit about science, so clearly science will never satisfy you.
You obviously have no understanding of the article if you respond in such a childish, defensive way. The article was purported to explain how naturalism explains complexity. It failed. I call it out, and you throw a hissy fit.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129415 May 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I said its easy for random variation combined with a selection process to create complexity. Totally different thing. For the 100th time.
All you're doing is telling stories. I know what natural selection is believed to be capable of. You IMAGINE that natural selection can do what you think it can do. That is a hypothesis. Now, prove it.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129416 May 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism has nothing to do with that.
Everything you say is the stupidest thing you've ever said.
Why don't you try actually addressing the issue at hand instead of revealing your deep insecurity by your idiotic retorts?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129417 May 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
NO YOU CRETIN
Its YOU that is making a quantatitive judgement with respect to complexity.
Our argument is that it is hard to define complexity , harder to measure it and therefore impossible to assign its cause to design.
(Kong - sorry for jumping in but thought would heroically attempt to shield you from the onslaught of stupid - but you on your own now as my armor is ripped to shreds from a mere 5 posts from this dolt)
Your argument is a dodge. You are claiming that complexity is hard to define... therefore it must not exist. You are implying that there is no quantitative measure of complexity. You demand that I define it... yet you refuse yourself to acknowledge whether it does or doesn't exist. This is because you are not intersted in the pursuit of science... only in validating your atheistic religion.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129418 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is a dodge. You are claiming that complexity is hard to define... therefore it must not exist. You are implying that there is no quantitative measure of complexity. You demand that I define it... yet you refuse yourself to acknowledge whether it does or doesn't exist. This is because you are not intersted in the pursuit of science... only in validating your atheistic religion.
God you are stupid, complexity is hard to quantify (as your refusal to demonstrate why DNA is complex but a crystal is random attests).

I can't DEFINE beauty - but it exists (personally - Bjork) it is just somewhat subjective.

And your last dollop of BS about evolution being part of an atheistic religion / worldview.

Question - is the pope an atheist ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_...

Don't worry you don't have to answer, I can add it to the list of questions you are to scared to address.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#129419 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Did you actually read the article you referenced? What a load of BS. How does autocatalysis explain the language type functionality of DNA? No one is arguing that random arrangements of nucleotides could come together through autocatalysis. What does that prove? A monkey can indeed type random letters on keyboard. That observation in no way suggests that a monkey can type Shakespeare.
Why don't you explain the language type functionality of DNA.
Because I have no clue what you mean.
DNA is not a language, unless you speak protein.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129420 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>All you're doing is telling stories. I know what natural selection is believed to be capable of. You IMAGINE that natural selection can do what you think it can do. That is a hypothesis. Now, prove it.
All you're doing is telling stories. I know what GOD is believed to be capable of. You IMAGINE that GOD can do what you think it can do. That is a hypothesis. Now, prove it.[

you see the problem here - course not ......and now my patented HTS BS repellent (all rights reserved)

Question - is the pope an atheist ?

(HTS avoids questions that demonstrate he is the king of BS)

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#129421 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>All you're doing is telling stories. I know what natural selection is believed to be capable of. You IMAGINE that natural selection can do what you think it can do. That is a hypothesis. Now, prove it.
Natural selection is an OBSERVATION of outcomes. He has no need to prove it, it proved itself. You not knowing that makes you seem a dullard extraordinaire.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129422 May 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
God you are stupid, complexity is hard to quantify (as your refusal to demonstrate why DNA is complex but a crystal is random attests).
I can't DEFINE beauty - but it exists (personally - Bjork) it is just somewhat subjective.
And your last dollop of BS about evolution being part of an atheistic religion / worldview.
Question - is the pope an atheist ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_...
Don't worry you don't have to answer, I can add it to the list of questions you are to scared to address.
Now you're really getting desperate, Mugwump.
I don't give a rip what the Pope thinks. I'm asking for scientific evidence for evolution, and you have heretofore presented nothing.
All you're capable of doing is creating irrelevant distractions.
You think that snowflakes are no more complex than DNA.
In other words... a textbook of physics is no more complex than 1,000 pages of random letters. Is that your perception of reality?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129423 May 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Natural selection is an OBSERVATION of outcomes. He has no need to prove it, it proved itself. You not knowing that makes you seem a dullard extraordinaire.
Natural selection is observable in examples such as industrial melanism and antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Natural selection has never been observed to create complexity.
Rather than brand me as a "dullard extraordinaire", why don't you actually employ some scientific logic and address the issue?
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129424 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're really getting desperate, Mugwump.
I don't give a rip what the Pope thinks.

<snipped in a vain attempt to get HTS to concentrate on backing up his claims for a change>

?
So your claim that evolution is atheistic is BS, so why do you keep saying it if you can't defend your claim?

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Dogen 204,895
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr replaytime 18,534
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Into The Night 43,197
Questions about first life 6 hr FallenGeologist 1
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 7 hr It aint necessari... 914
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 17 hr Chimney1 151,481
Sun could not have formed as thought Thu U think Im wrong 19
More from around the web