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.

“Be strong ...”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

...I whispered to my coffee

#129454 May 10, 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.
Do you really have a comprehension problem or is it deliberate?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#129455 May 10, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?!? What exactly **IS** the "Complexity Factor Score" for snowflkes & DNA?
<quoted text>
Amusing, really, that you should make a post discussing somebody's perception of 'reality'.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting ow you atheist stooges make utter fools of yourselves as your cherished religion crumbles.
Yet again, when cornered by your own words that you cannot respond rationally to, you break out the "Atheist" card.

Must suck to be you.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129456 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The Pope's opinion should be irrelevant in a scientific discussion.
I have attempted to restrict all of my arguments to science.
You and all of the atheist stooges on this forum can never resist the temptation to interject religion into you posts.
This is because evolution cannot be defended without references to religion.
Theology was laced throughout Origin of Species, and evo-morons have been zealously preaching their religion in the same manner ever since.
You are the only one making references to religion, matter of fact, you cannot post anything without making references to your religion. Try it, posit something other than evolution that explains the progression of changes seen in the fossil record, genetics, and life today without using religion or "god" at all.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#129457 May 10, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the only one making references to religion, matter of fact, you cannot post anything without making references to your religion. Try it, posit something other than evolution that explains the progression of changes seen in the fossil record, genetics, and life today without using religion or "god" at all.
The only religion I ever make reference to is the religion of atheism that you so zealously espouse and try to pass off as science. I never refer to my personal religion. Scientific research leads to the conclusion that proposed mechanisms of evolutionary transmutation are impossible.
You guys, on the other hand, are always pulling out the "goddidit" retort, vainly attempting to justify what you believe to be a scientific theory by negative references to religon. Chuck Darwin did it, and his minions are still doing it today.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129458 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The only religion I ever make reference to is the religion of atheism that you so zealously espouse and try to pass off as science..
So is the pope an atheist ?

Since you keep avoiding this - let me outline the possible responses and their implication to your argument about Evo is just atheist propaganda

Response : No , the pope is NOT an atheist
Implication : your argument is TOTAL BS

Response : yes, the pope IS an atheist
Implication : the Vatican need to improve their screening process

Which seems more likely ?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#129459 May 10, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
So is the pope an atheist ?
Since you keep avoiding this - let me outline the possible responses and their implication to your argument about Evo is just atheist propaganda
Response : No , the pope is NOT an atheist
Implication : your argument is TOTAL BS
Response : yes, the pope IS an atheist
Implication : the Vatican need to improve their screening process
Which seems more likely ?
The pope is not an atheist.
Like many who believe in "theistic evolution", he capitulated to
the BS propagated by the MSM and believes that so many so called "scientists" can't be wrong.
Anyone who believes in theistic evolution denies the proposed mechanisms of evolution, ie, no intelligent design.

Mugwump, if you're really interested in the pursuit of truth, my suggestion would be to stop wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism. There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no God exists... so why do you wilfully choose to remain in base ignorance?
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129460 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The pope is not an atheist.
Like many who believe in "theistic evolution", he capitulated to
the BS propagated by the MSM and believes that so many so called "scientists" can't be wrong.
Anyone who believes in theistic evolution denies the proposed mechanisms of evolution, ie, no intelligent design.
Mugwump, if you're really interested in the pursuit of truth, my suggestion would be to stop wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism. There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no God exists... so why do you wilfully choose to remain in base ignorance?
Good grief - how is it possible to get so much wrong in so few words.

First theistic evolution doesn't reject an intelligence , just the opposite -it simply suggests that the intelligence is using evolution as its method of creating diversity - it's useless scientifically but only because theology it's outside the realms of what science can address.

Which comes to your next screw up - you suggest there is no scientific evidence that god does not exist (see above) this is true but doesn't mean a god exists (see Russell's teapot)

Why do I remain in base ignorance ? Because no-one has shown any evidence of a god (I know you said you had some ...... But you were making shit up of course)- are you suggesting that I am ignorant because I don't believe in the FSM?

It's simalar to how you equate atheism with religion - you may as well say NOT collecting stamps is a hobby (to re-use an oft quoted analogy)

It really is quite worrying that you get these simple concepts back to front - this isn't science , you don't need a scientific background - you just need to understand the basics of logic.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129461 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The pope is not an atheist.
Like many who believe in "theistic evolution", he capitulated to
the BS propagated by the MSM and believes that so many so called "scientists" can't be wrong.
Anyone who believes in theistic evolution denies the proposed mechanisms of evolution, ie, no intelligent design.
Mugwump, if you're really interested in the pursuit of truth, my suggestion would be to stop wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism. There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no God exists... so why do you wilfully choose to remain in base ignorance?
There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no God exists.

There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no IPU exists.

There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no FSM exists.

There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no Alien exists.

There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no Giant exists.

There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no Bigfoot exists.

Because there is no scientific observation or evidence that leads to an objective conclusion that something does not exist.

Does not mean it does exist, or that it may exist
It in fact means in all likelihood
it ...DOES NOT EXIST!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129462 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The molecular configuration of water creates symmetrical hexagonal shapes.
Random environmental factors account for the differences.
So you are saying that in the case of snowflakes, randomness is responsible for countless new variations in beautiful, structured complexity.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129463 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting ow you atheist stooges make utter fools of yourselves as your cherished religion crumbles.
Clearly, even if evolution is 100% spot on, and even if natural abiogenesis is one day proven to be possible as well, none of that amounts to one iota of proof against the existence of God. We all know that. Why don't you? Why would anyone propound a "philosophy" as you call it that did not even achieve what you claim their stated purpose is?

Obviously, its biblical literalism you are defending, not God. And just as clearly, there are more ways to understand God than might have been available to a bunch of primitive goat herders 3000 years ago.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#129464 May 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no God exists.
There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no IPU exists.
There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no FSM exists.
There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no Alien exists.
There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no Giant exists.
There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no Bigfoot exists.
Because there is no scientific observation or evidence that leads to an objective conclusion that something does not exist.
Does not mean it does exist, or that it may exist
It in fact means in all likelihood
it ...DOES NOT EXIST!
Err Ahhh .... I'm bringing this up because it is one of the facets of "populist physics" that makes my rectum itch.

If the universe is infinite in size, then there must be another Earth identical to our own, no matter how unlikely the probability because infinity times any small amount of probability is more than certainty.

That would mean no matter how small the probability of any of those above goofy things existing, it is certain they do exit somewhere in the universe.

'Scuse me ... I have to go scrub my anus with a wire brush now.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129465 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Its not that hard. Here are two separate facts:

1. If you make random, minor changes to an existing structure, those changes are either going to be

a/ slightly more complex or
b/ slightly less complex or
c/ of the same complexity.

It is self evident that a given change MUST be one of the above.

2. Independently, a particular change is going to be:

x/ beneficial to survival or
y/ deleterious to survival or
z/ have no effect on survival

These are two independent characteristics of any given change. Any change can be a combination of any member of (1) or (2).

Where a change is both (a) more complex and (x) is beneficial, it is likely to be a selected increase in complexity.

This is how complexity can increase, and iteratively continue to increase for millions of generations. However, note I am NOT saying that increased complexity will result in improved survival. Any given change can be (x)(y) or (z) above. Sometimes evolution will simplify, not always add complexity (see endemic parasites, and the examples of blind cave rats, or the ostrich wing, etc).

But obviously, its not magical or mysterious. Its a simple logical outcome of random variation (1) and natural selection (2).
LowellGuy

United States

#129466 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The pope is not an atheist.
Like many who believe in "theistic evolution", he capitulated to
the BS propagated by the MSM and believes that so many so called "scientists" can't be wrong.
Anyone who believes in theistic evolution denies the proposed mechanisms of evolution, ie, no intelligent design.
Mugwump, if you're really interested in the pursuit of truth, my suggestion would be to stop wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism. There is no scientific observation that leads to an objective conclusion that no God exists... so why do you wilfully choose to remain in base ignorance?
So, other than physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, immunology, zoology, oceanography, geology, paleontology, and archaeology, is there any field of science that gets it right?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129467 May 10, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Err Ahhh .... I'm bringing this up because it is one of the facets of "populist physics" that makes my rectum itch.
If the universe is infinite in size, then there must be another Earth identical to our own, no matter how unlikely the probability because infinity times any small amount of probability is more than certainty.
That would mean no matter how small the probability of any of those above goofy things existing, it is certain they do exit somewhere in the universe.
'Scuse me ... I have to go scrub my anus with a wire brush now.
Interesting point, Itchy Bum. Of course, we do not know if the universe is infinite. But considering it might be, perhaps AM should have said "here on this earth" for some of his claims.
LowellGuy

United States

#129468 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The only religion I ever make reference to is the religion of atheism that you so zealously espouse and try to pass off as science. I never refer to my personal religion. Scientific research leads to the conclusion that proposed mechanisms of evolutionary transmutation are impossible.
You guys, on the other hand, are always pulling out the "goddidit" retort, vainly attempting to justify what you believe to be a scientific theory by negative references to religon. Chuck Darwin did it, and his minions are still doing it today.
For the sake of argument, we'll concede that the theory of evolution is completely wrong. Explain the diversity of life on Earth without resorting to God or some manner of supernatural magic.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129469 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
Scientific research leads to the conclusion that proposed mechanisms of evolutionary transmutation are impossible.
Since 99.85% of biologists accept evolution, this must be some VERY obscure scientific research that you are referring to.

I suspect that its anything but scientific research you are referring to, but rather failed arguments such as "the second law prevents evolution" and other debunked foolishness, the kind of crap that never makes it through peer review and ends up in populist books with uncritical audiences.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129470 May 10, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Err Ahhh .... I'm bringing this up because it is one of the facets of "populist physics" that makes my rectum itch.
If the universe is infinite in size, then there must be another Earth identical to our own, no matter how unlikely the probability because infinity times any small amount of probability is more than certainty.
That would mean no matter how small the probability of any of those above goofy things existing, it is certain they do exit somewhere in the universe.
'Scuse me ... I have to go scrub my anus with a wire brush now.
Yes because in a infinite sequence there is going to be repeats.
In this case we have a known Earth in existence though.
Does this mean there will be repeats of the Russell's Teapot?
The galaxy of the infinite number of Russell's Teapots is just around the corner.

I don't recommended a wire brush, unless you're into that kinda pain. lol

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#129471 May 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes because in a infinite sequence there is going to be repeats.
In this case we have a known Earth in existence though.
Does this mean there will be repeats of the Russell's Teapot?
The galaxy of the infinite number of Russell's Teapots is just around the corner.
I don't recommended a wire brush, unless you're into that kinda pain. lol
That would be the implication of an "infinite universe". Obviously, I am not fond of that supposition.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129472 May 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not that hard. Here are two separate facts:
1. If you make random, minor changes to an existing structure, those changes are either going to be
a/ slightly more complex or
b/ slightly less complex or
c/ of the same complexity.
It is self evident that a given change MUST be one of the above.
2. Independently, a particular change is going to be:
x/ beneficial to survival or
y/ deleterious to survival or
z/ have no effect on survival
These are two independent characteristics of any given change. Any change can be a combination of any member of (1) or (2).
Where a change is both (a) more complex and (x) is beneficial, it is likely to be a selected increase in complexity.
This is how complexity can increase, and iteratively continue to increase for millions of generations. However, note I am NOT saying that increased complexity will result in improved survival. Any given change can be (x)(y) or (z) above. Sometimes evolution will simplify, not always add complexity (see endemic parasites, and the examples of blind cave rats, or the ostrich wing, etc).
But obviously, its not magical or mysterious. Its a simple logical outcome of random variation (1) and natural selection (2).
Your explanation constitutes a hypothesis. However logical it might seem, it needs to be validated by the scientific method, and it has not. You have not presented any observational evidence that natural selection can create complexity.

The problem with your explanation is that the probability of a mutation resulting in any increased complexity is extremely low.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#129473 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your explanation constitutes a hypothesis. However logical it might seem, it needs to be validated by the scientific method, and it has not. You have not presented any observational evidence that natural selection can create complexity.
The problem with your explanation is that the probability of a mutation resulting in any increased complexity is extremely low.
Actually it's 100%. And Katy demonstrated it 2 years before you even got here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...

Now it's time for you to:

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2067082496/h0B4A...

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) 12 min Dumoti 169,718
The “cumulative evidence” problem 23 min MADRONE 27
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr candlesmell 95,349
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... 16 hr JUST SAYING 60
E equals MC squared 17 hr Jim Ryan 15
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 23 hr Big Al 93
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... Sat Rose_NoHo 19