Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179697 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.

_PrincessSusan_

“I could be Susan's sock!”

Level 8

Since: Jun 12

Lady J's Lead Acolyte

#130221 May 15, 2013
Of course no, don't you want to keep your children ignorant?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#130222 May 15, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Much if not most of what you claim has not been demonstrated, has been demonstrated. What I can't figure out is why science scares you so much. It must be the nature of some people to have a weak faith in their own belief system. Five hundred years ago, Galileo frightened Christianity so much with his ideas and research that he was convicted by the Inquisition. It turns out he was correct. Is that what you fear? That all this will once again turn out to be correct. All the evidence supports that position so relax. You can kick and scream all you want but this is happening.
Evolution is not science. It is dogma. I love science. Acceptance of evolution is founded on philosophy, not science.
Can you prove that an ape can evolve into a man?
Can you prove that life can form from non-living matter?
Can you prove that random mutations can create complexity?
Can you prove that natural selection can favor minuscule changes that are not even measurable by man?
Can you prove that man and carrots and kangaroos share a common ancestor?

All you can do is site the same old debunked arguments such as homology and imperfections of nature.
You can pretend that the fossil record documents gradualism when it doesn't.
You can imagine that a pterosaur evolved through a series of functional intermediate forms even though you can't conceive of any.
You can claim that radiometric dating documents the ages of fossils despite the fact that it has never been demonstrated to be accurate or reproducible.
You can pervert standards of statistics and probability to justify your religion.

I's obvious from your comments that you have minimal understanding of biology. Ultimately, all you can do is defer to the credentials of others, because you blindly believe what others say, provided that it conforms to your amoral worldview.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#130223 May 15, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I think you are hitting on the biggest problem I see here. Those opposing evolution and perhaps science in general, don't seem to understand the concepts that they are attacking. It is evident in the claims they make and questions they ask. I have seen many posts that make no sense and the poster falls back on "Look you can't even answer my post." When really, it is often gibberish.
It's an interesting point, most creationist arguments ultimately break down to some simple points:-

A) inference of design (without demonstrating a method of quantifying design)
B) misrepresentation of the theory (e.g. Random mutations being the only driver)
C) misrepresentation of other science (e.g. SLoT)
D) global conspiracies (e.g. HTS's 'atheist religious dogma' BS)

It's pretty much pointless refuting the specific points as they can (and do) fall back on the above 4 points, I find it more interesting to point out the logical and character flaws of the creationist - e.g. HTS constantly accuses others of making assertions without evidence - however I constantly list at least 5 such examples where he has done exactly that - but he ignores it.

What gets me, is that ultimately there is no conflict (and here i am excluding utility in a scientific context) between evolution and whatever faith one might adhere to (unless you are a biblical literalist etc) so why do creationists fight it

And I say the above as an athesist
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130224 May 15, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Angelina is 38 years old, still alive, and still healthy.
How many children could she have given birth to before succumbing to breast cancer (which she has yet to contract)?
If she had died at age 6, she would not have passed on this genetic condition, now would she?
....is any of this sinking in?
She didn't die at 6 and she did pass it on to her kids because she was selected naturally due to her fame and beauty which goes entirely against the theory. Is any of this sinking in?
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#130225 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
<snipped>
. I love science
<snipped>.
So back up your claim that HIV / AIDS has NEVER been contracted via needlestick

This is a claim you made (one of many that I keep listing) that you fail to back up with science .

So why do you claim to love science?

This goes to my point made in my previous post
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130226 May 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your absurd twisting of truth that makes you a contrarian. For instance, equating atheism with science.
Oh, come on Mike, he wasn't equating atheism with science, he was equating it with willful ignorance!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130227 May 15, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Harmful mutations tend, over the long term, NOT to accumulate, because they present a barrier to reproduction.
False. You obviously have no knowledge of biology or genetics.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#130228 May 15, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an interesting point, most creationist arguments ultimately break down to some simple points:-
A) inference of design (without demonstrating a method of quantifying design)
B) misrepresentation of the theory (e.g. Random mutations being the only driver)
C) misrepresentation of other science (e.g. SLoT)
D) global conspiracies (e.g. HTS's 'atheist religious dogma' BS)
It's pretty much pointless refuting the specific points as they can (and do) fall back on the above 4 points, I find it more interesting to point out the logical and character flaws of the creationist - e.g. HTS constantly accuses others of making assertions without evidence - however I constantly list at least 5 such examples where he has done exactly that - but he ignores it.
What gets me, is that ultimately there is no conflict (and here i am excluding utility in a scientific context) between evolution and whatever faith one might adhere to (unless you are a biblical literalist etc) so why do creationists fight it
And I say the above as an athesist
You hit on another point I have begun to notice. While I am not an atheist, those that I encounter on this thread and other threads, tend to appear educated, make intelligent posts, are not prone to ranting or vulgar tirades and often seem honest to me. While I realize this can't speak of all atheists, there is clearly a trend. I find that I can often discuss subjects openly and intelligently with the avowed atheists while I do not even get the hint of a reasonable understanding of the material from the avowed Christians or creationists or whatever they are. Mostly they rant dogma, discuss their high IQ's, brag about how much better they are, reflect happily about the ultimate outcome of their opponents and recently brag about their alledged sexual prowess. It is not uncommon for me to see them make threats. I don't recall ever seeing someone that claimed to be atheist that made threats or posted obvious lies.

Whatever the reason it seems that the atheist that post here are damned decent people to know.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#130229 May 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
She didn't die at 6 and she did pass it on to her kids because she was selected naturally due to her fame and beauty which goes entirely against the theory. Is any of this sinking in?
The gene causing her (potential) breast cancer -- while being deleterious -- did not prevent her from passing on her deleterious gene to her offspring.

She procreated.

Had the mutation been SO crippling, there's a much better chance she would not have had an opportunity to have offspring and that mutation would have died with her.

This does not invalidate the ToE.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#130230 May 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
She didn't die at 6 and she did pass it on to her kids because she was selected naturally due to her fame and beauty which goes entirely against the theory. Is any of this sinking in?
I have not followed this story much. So the genes that cause breast cancer have been determined and sequenced and the children of Angelina Jolie have been found to carry those genes.
The rest of your post makes no sense. Unless you care to undo that convoluted vowel movement and elaborate, it is just gibberish.
It sounds like you are trying to say that the passing along of this trait is against the theory of evolution. It is not. While this trait would reduce the fitness of the carrier, it does not eliminate that fitness. Those that carry the gene would be able to reproduce, but would reproduce fewer offspring. Eventually, the frequency of this would be reduced down or eliminated from the population. However, you forget the impact on modern technology on evolution. The last 100 years has changed the game in human evolution. None the less, this individual case does not refute evolution. I won't ask if this sinks in. I know the answer.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#130231 May 15, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The gene causing her (potential) breast cancer -- while being deleterious -- did not prevent her from passing on her deleterious gene to her offspring.
She procreated.
Had the mutation been SO crippling, there's a much better chance she would not have had an opportunity to have offspring and that mutation would have died with her.
This does not invalidate the ToE.
Exactly.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#130232 May 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
False. You obviously have no knowledge of biology or genetics.
True. You obviously have no knowledge of biology or genetics.

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#130233 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not science. It is dogma. I love science. Acceptance of evolution is founded on philosophy, not science.
Can you prove that an ape can evolve into a man?
Can you prove that life can form from non-living matter?
Can you prove that random mutations can create complexity?
Can you prove that natural selection can favor minuscule changes that are not even measurable by man?
Can you prove that man and carrots and kangaroos share a common ancestor?
All you can do is site the same old debunked arguments such as homology and imperfections of nature.
You can pretend that the fossil record documents gradualism when it doesn't.
You can imagine that a pterosaur evolved through a series of functional intermediate forms even though you can't conceive of any.
You can claim that radiometric dating documents the ages of fossils despite the fact that it has never been demonstrated to be accurate or reproducible.
You can pervert standards of statistics and probability to justify your religion.
I's obvious from your comments that you have minimal understanding of biology. Ultimately, all you can do is defer to the credentials of others, because you blindly believe what others say, provided that it conforms to your amoral worldview.

Sure you love science, you love denying everything about it.
I already told you , you don't want proof.
You want the rapture.
You just wont be happy until you inside a god.
Maybe one day one will eat you so you will be inside it.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#130234 May 15, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
So back up your claim that HIV / AIDS has NEVER been contracted via needlestick
This is a claim you made (one of many that I keep listing) that you fail to back up with science .
So why do you claim to love science?
This goes to my point made in my previous post
You need to show me proof that AIDS has been contracted by a needlestick accident.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#130235 May 15, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The gene causing her (potential) breast cancer -- while being deleterious -- did not prevent her from passing on her deleterious gene to her offspring.
She procreated.
Had the mutation been SO crippling, there's a much better chance she would not have had an opportunity to have offspring and that mutation would have died with her.
This does not invalidate the ToE.
Many analogous examples can be sited.
What about the gene that causes cystic fibrosis?
Before modern medicine, children with CF rarely survived to adulthood.
Why hasn't that gene been extinguished from the population?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130236 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What "method of selection"?
You have no proof that natural selection can do what you imagine it to do.
Why do you make such stupid statements when you know that you do not even understand the simple concept of scientific evidence.

The method of selection is well known to anyone who has studied evolution. Too bad that does not include you.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#130237 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not science. It is dogma. I love science. Acceptance of evolution is founded on philosophy, not science.
Can you prove that an ape can evolve into a man?
Can you prove that life can form from non-living matter?
Can you prove that random mutations can create complexity?
Can you prove that natural selection can favor minuscule changes that are not even measurable by man?
Can you prove that man and carrots and kangaroos share a common ancestor?
All you can do is site the same old debunked arguments such as homology and imperfections of nature.
You can pretend that the fossil record documents gradualism when it doesn't.
You can imagine that a pterosaur evolved through a series of functional intermediate forms even though you can't conceive of any.
You can claim that radiometric dating documents the ages of fossils despite the fact that it has never been demonstrated to be accurate or reproducible.
You can pervert standards of statistics and probability to justify your religion.
I's obvious from your comments that you have minimal understanding of biology. Ultimately, all you can do is defer to the credentials of others, because you blindly believe what others say, provided that it conforms to your amoral worldview.
You clearly do not understand science, evolution or even what dogma means. If you claim to love science, that love is in no way expressed in your understanding of this material.
I think I have a very good understanding of science, biology and evolution. I haven't deferred to the credentials of others unless you mean referencing the literature. I feel pretty confident about my credentials but thanks for caring. This last statement is the telling statement. Here is where you sink back to your proper level. When all else fails these are the claims you make. It is nothing more than childish name calling. How sad. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130238 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to show me proof that AIDS has been contracted by a needlestick accident.
And another How's That for Stupid moment. There are many doctors who have become victims of AIDS who do not seem to have followed the kind of lifestyle that leads to AIDS. On a related note a doctor friend of mine has Hepatitis C, another disease that hits the medical care group rather hard. He even remembers the operation where he caught it.

There is a very good reason that surgeons are rather reluctant to work on AIDS patients. It is too easy to cut yourself during surgery.

Now a needlestick has to be fairly recent, outside of the body the AIDS virus does not survive very well. But there is no reason to think you can't get it from a needlestick.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130239 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Many analogous examples can be sited.
What about the gene that causes cystic fibrosis?
Before modern medicine, children with CF rarely survived to adulthood.
Why hasn't that gene been extinguished from the population?
I am not an expert on CF, but if it is caused by more than one gene that would be one explanation. Many genes are not pure "bad genes". They can be bad genes in some environments and good genes in others. The problem is not as simple as you want it to be. In genomes they have "islands of survivability".
HTS

Mandan, ND

#130240 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you make such stupid statements when you know that you do not even understand the simple concept of scientific evidence.
The method of selection is well known to anyone who has studied evolution. Too bad that does not include you.
I am we'll aware what is IMAGINED that natural selection can do.
I'm asking for experimental science, not bedtime stories.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 min River Tam 20,366
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 min It aint necessari... 152,334
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner 13 min Demon Finder 7
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min Shavin Marvin 210,266
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Into The Night 45,575
Science News (Sep '13) 18 hr Voyeur 3,629
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
More from around the web