Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129758 May 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you realize that most of the famous scientists believed in God? Do you need to see the long list again?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/scie...
Did all of these scientists use their religion as an excuse to avoid learning? No, it was their religion that motivated them to learn as much as humanly possible. This was true back then and is true today. Believing in God is inspirational and is the springboard for innovation and scientific progress. Always has been and always will be. So if it weren't for people who believed in God, we would still be in the dark.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientists-wh...
http://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-one-...
Is it science or religion that led to their discoveries? Was it the Bible or the scientific method? Please, remind us all of the great discoveries that came about as a result of Christianity itself and NOT because of science. We don't care if someone believes in God, but belief in God has NEVER led to ANY discoveries.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129759 May 13, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
My evidence is called the Holy Bible. But again you have to believe in God and Heaven to believe in the bible.
So, you believe God is real because you believe the Bible is true, and you believe the Bible is true because you believe God is real.

http://0.tqn.com/d/altreligion/1/0/_/1/-/-/ci...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129760 May 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Remind us of how the Bible factored into Faraday's work with electricity. I don't recall seeing it in any of the equations or experiments, but maybe I missed something. Just show us how, with the Bible and/or Christianity, Faraday did his scientific work, and how it WASN'T the scientific method that was used.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#129761 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, wait, wait .... um, you don't get what mass is, do you? The planet's mass cannot increase by regurgitating mass that is already in the planet. Doesn't work like that.
But... But... He knows all about gravity!

{snicker}

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129762 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
But... But... He knows all about gravity!
{snicker}
Blasphemy! You know that angels hold everything to the planet, you're just afraid to admit it .... unlike the great replaytime.:P

So many jokes shall be had at his expense now.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#129763 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet Faraday went against religious superstition to do all that.
Do you have anything, anything at all, to support that idiotic statement?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129764 May 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fossils are not rare as phenomena. However, fossils of a particular species in relation to the number of specimens that have ever existed are exceedingly rare. For instance, how many stegosaurus do you think ever lived? Hell, how many woolly mammoths do you think lived? They only died out THOUSANDS of years ago, rather than tens of millions of years ago. How many fossils do we have of woolly mammoths compared to how many would have ever existed? What about the American bison? How many fossils of those do we have? Those were brought nearly to extinction less than a century ago. Surely we must have millions of fossils of those, right? No? We don't? How can that be? Oh, because FOSSILS ARE RARE. Dumbass.
You're missing the point. Fossilization is rare. However, fossils themselves are not rare. You have yet to logically explain why, out of over 100 million fossils, transitional species are selectively absent.
For example, over 1,000 fossils of pterosaurs have been found, spanning a supposed evolutionary time period of over 100 million years. Why are all extinct pterosaurs identified fully capable of powered flight? You can't simply say "fossilization is rare". You have over 1,000 specimens to look at. Explain why all of the transitional forms fortuitously escaped fossilization, while at the same time the flying forms didn't.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129765 May 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have anything, anything at all, to support that idiotic statement?
Have fun reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_in_rel...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129766 May 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary.
Homologous outcomes shaped by different genes show that natural selection will work on whatever is available (the existing structure) to produce outcomes that are optimised for the environment. Options are produced randomly, outcomes are selected from the random pool available.
Chimney, you're storytelling again.
You are making assumptions only because they fit with evolution.
Also, you're effectively contradicting the dogma that evolution pursues random courses of transmutation. You're stating that only certain, specific pathways can be followed. This presents enormous probability challenges to evolution.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129767 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're missing the point. Fossilization is rare. However, fossils themselves are not rare. You have yet to logically explain why, out of over 100 million fossils, transitional species are selectively absent.
For example, over 1,000 fossils of pterosaurs have been found, spanning a supposed evolutionary time period of over 100 million years. Why are all extinct pterosaurs identified fully capable of powered flight? You can't simply say "fossilization is rare". You have over 1,000 specimens to look at. Explain why all of the transitional forms fortuitously escaped fossilization, while at the same time the flying forms didn't.
All species are transitional.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129768 May 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution, with modification, has withstood 150 years of scrutiny. Your objections are a catalog of misunderstandings, and nothing that has not been raised and debunked before.
.
That is simply false.
Evolutionary biologists have been ignoring for 150 years mountains of hostile evidence against evolution because it is politically and philosophically fashionable to accept naturalism, and it is not politically correct to ascribe the complexities of nature to intelligent design.

What sort of "scutiny" are you referring to? In your explanation of convergence, you simply plug observations of nature into a predetermined evolutionary paradigm and believe that you have "withstood scrutiny". You ignore the impossibility of fortuitous mutations randomly appearing all at the appropriate times, to effectuate the same complex changes in independent species.

That is not withstanding scrientific scrutiny... it is self apparent rationalization with ad hoc assumptions.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129769 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is simply false.
Evolutionary biologists have been ignoring for 150 years mountains of hostile evidence against evolution because it is politically and philosophically fashionable to accept naturalism, and it is not politically correct to ascribe the complexities of nature to intelligent design.
What sort of "scutiny" are you referring to? In your explanation of convergence, you simply plug observations of nature into a predetermined evolutionary paradigm and believe that you have "withstood scrutiny". You ignore the impossibility of fortuitous mutations randomly appearing all at the appropriate times, to effectuate the same complex changes in independent species.
That is not withstanding scrientific scrutiny... it is self apparent rationalization with ad hoc assumptions.
Present such evidence then.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129770 May 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

At no time were there "thousands of scientists" looking at the physical evidence and concluding a geocentric universe. There were theologians insisting it was the case because they thought the Bible claimed it (and holding the swords), and what few natural philosophers were around at the time did not have sufficient evidence to refute them nor the permission to criticise freely.
<quoted text>
.
An analagous situation exists today. At no time are "thousands of scientists" looking at the physical evidence and concluding evolution by natural selection. What you have are secularists who have arbitrarily excluded intelligent design from consideration. If someone wants to believe in gradualism, that's fine. But to exclude intelligent design on the pretext that it's "not science" is, in and of itself, unscientific.
What scientific evidence exists that evolution can proceed in the manner you describe WITHOUT intelligent design? You have no evidence. You have conjectures. Can you selectively breed an ape into a human? Can you effectuate a single step of such evolution? No. If you look at the fossil record and imagine that it supports naturalism, you have not provided one iota of evidence that an intelligent force does not exist. So why is it ASSUMED not to exist? There is only one answer. Because intelligent design has been PHILOSOPHICALLY rejected.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129771 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Present such evidence then.
I'm not in the habit of copy/paste like so many DarwinBots. I have provided scientific logic to refute the existence of convergence by proposed evolutionary mechanisms.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129772 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
All species are transitional.
There you go again, blindly parroting evo-dogma.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129773 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, you're storytelling again.
You are making assumptions only because they fit with evolution.
Also, you're effectively contradicting the dogma that evolution pursues random courses of transmutation. You're stating that only certain, specific pathways can be followed. This presents enormous probability challenges to evolution.
No I am not. Lets take a concrete example. Streamlining in water. Fish, and vertebrates that have returned to the water, have arrived at similar solutions. Why? Because there are only so many solutions compatible with a vertebrate and bilateral symmetry.

Whatever different genes move a creature's structure in the direction of water efficiency will be selected when the creature spends a lot of time making its way through water.

Frankly, I do not see what is difficult in understanding this.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129774 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not in the habit of copy/paste like so many DarwinBots. I have provided scientific logic to refute the existence of convergence by proposed evolutionary mechanisms.
Now you are lying outright.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129775 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again, blindly parroting evo-dogma.
Alright, I like a good laugh, tell us what a transitional form would be to you.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129776 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is simply false.
Evolutionary biologists have been ignoring for 150 years mountains of hostile evidence against evolution because it is politically and philosophically fashionable to accept naturalism, and it is not politically correct to ascribe the complexities of nature to intelligent design.
Garbage. Evolution has withstood open and hostile challenge from all quarters including conventional science for 150 years. If a scientist ever makes a successful case against it he or she will be the most famous biologist on earth. Every aspect of evolution, every assumption, every claim, has undergone intense scrutiny.

Your numbnut attackers are for the most part merely parroting old and discredited arguments.

None of the "hostile evidence" you imagine you have stacks up, certainly nothing you or your fellows have presented on these forums or any of the laughable links offered.

Time to concede - evolution explains what we see and for the most part predicted it. Its a successful explanation. It happened. Get over it.

It funny. No other theory of science has been attacked with such acrimony, no other theory has such vitriolic detractors who cannot bear the possibility that it is correct. You are all desperadoes who think evolution might be putting your hoped-for promise of immortality at stake, and that is the reason for your irrational desperation.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#129777 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not in the habit of copy/paste like so many DarwinBots. I have provided scientific logic to refute the existence of convergence by proposed evolutionary mechanisms.
Translation: "I have nothing to present but religious dogma, my own projections, assertions,opinions and regurgitated refuted creationist B.S. but no actual scientific evidence".

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) 17 min Parrot Slayer 58,583
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 39 min Dexter 27,463
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Dogen 159,375
News Intelligent Design Education Day 11 hr Subduction Zone 8
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 11 hr Dogen 2,044
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 hr Regolith Based Li... 219,629
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Feb 23 Sentinel 1,758
More from around the web