Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180376 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.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#136667 Jun 18, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it God or leprechauns? Prove it.
I never asserted that I could prove specific attributes of an intelligent designer.
I am saying that the existence of the great complexity of life logically leads to the conclusion that some intelligent force was required to create. If evolution created species, then an end goal appears to have been required...ie, INTELLIGENCE

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#136668 Jun 18, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>But the point is, I do not believe Shem is a myth. I think we can agree most of the nations in the middle east have a common ancestor. Peace.
You can believe whatever you want. If you want to interact with different people you will have to be able to tell fact from fiction. Genetic diversity alone busts the Noah's Ark myth. Forget about the fact that we cannot find an area for a local flood, much less a global one.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#136669 Jun 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Every creation that man observes requires intelligent design.
Intelligent design is the only proven force in the universe capable of creating complexity.
The logical fallacy is in your court.
You assume that a process that has never been observed can create complexity.
My conclusions are founded on observation
Really? Define "creation".
HTS

Englewood, CO

#136670 Jun 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's all you gotten out of the conversation, you've missed a lot.
Fact #1: A great many people who accept evolution also believe in god. Therefore, believe or disbelief in god is immaterial.
Fact #2: Whether evolution is true or not has no bearing on the existence of any god. God may have used evolution as his method.
Fact #3: Intelligent Design or Creationism (as if there is a difference) must stand on their own. Neither becomes the default explanation should evolution be overturned.
This is the great lie of evolution.
There is always a disclaimer that evolution and God are compatible.
Yet intelligent design is ALWAYS excluded as necessary in defining mechanisms of evolution.
Mechanisms are not just "unknown"... The dogma is "evolutiondidit without God"
LowellGuy

United States

#136671 Jun 18, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>You're comparing apples and oranges. Most of the nations in the middle east have a common ancestor. Not all names are based upon real, tangible things.
DNA invalidates the Noah story. What do you call it when you believe things that are demonstrably false?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#136672 Jun 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is questioning whether or not genetic drift occurs.
You seem to think that beneficial mutations will inevitably occur that will result in adaptive complexity.
Yet you have not provided a single example of such a process having been observed.
Everything you're saying requires vastly improbable mutations, which have never been observed, to appear at the appropriate times. While it is theoretically possible for a monkey to type Shakespeare, it is extremely improbable.
Why do you give evolution a pass? What do you assume that a complex integrated genetic code could just appear out of nowhere through random mistakes?
Genes are defined by many nucleotide sequences, sometimes thousands. Therefore, your paradigm of gradualistic improvement through mutations is baseless...it is impossible.
You keep fixating on nested hierarchies, yet fail to explain how this proves evolution. How is nested hierarchies inconsistent with a model of intelligent design?
We have been over this before. The only reason that you think that the odds against the observed mutations is because you make the mistake of assuming a goal for evolution. Evolution does not have a specific goal, its only goal is survival. That is a very very broad goal. We can show that the mutation rate is more than high enough.

If you want to posit an odds argument again I will be happy to show you its fatal errors. What is nice about finding a fatal error in an odds argument is that no math is needed to debunk it. Once you make a mistake of that sort there is no point in going any further.
LowellGuy

United States

#136673 Jun 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Every creation that man observes requires intelligent design.
Intelligent design is the only proven force in the universe capable of creating complexity.
The logical fallacy is in your court.
You assume that a process that has never been observed can create complexity.
My conclusions are founded on observation
You assume creation, which biases the answer. It isn't"who created this," it's "how did this come to be?" It's dishonest to build the answer into the question.

Do you care if you are dishonest?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#136674 Jun 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I never asserted that I could prove specific attributes of an intelligent designer.
I am saying that the existence of the great complexity of life logically leads to the conclusion that some intelligent force was required to create. If evolution created species, then an end goal appears to have been required...ie, INTELLIGENCE
Here are your two mistakes in this post:

1. You assume an end goal to evolution. If you make that assumption you will run into all sorts of errors. How many times do you have to be told that the goal of evolution is only survival?

2. The rest of your post is an argument from ignorance. You have yet to post any evidence that supports your claim. "I don't understand therefor God" is not evidence. Nor is "You don't understand therefore God". You have no evidence that supports your claim.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#136675 Jun 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Things are very different in South Florida. They still have trilobites, don't you know?
lol He has to be pretending, any fool can see the difference.
Believer

Manchester, TN

#136676 Jun 18, 2013
The God of the Bible is Spirit/Father The Bible tells us that GOD IS LOVE!
Those of us that are Believers in Christ believe He was God in the flesh living among men at a particular time, place, and culture predetermined by God/Spirit of Love before the creation of the Earth. The Holy Spirit is that part of God that enables us to know and understand God.

To worship or know God we must seek Him in SPIRIT and in TRUTH. WE BELIEVE THAT A MAN MUST DESIRE TO KNOW God in Spirit, and can know Him because we are the only creatures God made in His likeness (mind/body/spirit).

The Bible tells us that ALL men are sinners and that none are righteous. It also tells us that there is only one sin for which man cannot be forgiven. That sin is rejecting that part of God that you have been given access to experience and know Him through.
We have ALL been given a desire to know the Truth. To miss the Truth you have to make a conscious decision to determine in your own mind that God's Spiritual Truth is only a fairy tale for naive human beings.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#136677 Jun 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the great lie of evolution.
There is always a disclaimer that evolution and God are compatible.
Yet intelligent design is ALWAYS excluded as necessary in defining mechanisms of evolution.
Mechanisms are not just "unknown"... The dogma is "evolutiondidit without God"
This is the great lie about gravity.

There is always a disclaimer that gravity and God are compatible. Yet intelligent falling is ALWAYS excluded as necessary in defining mechanisms of gravity.
Mechanisms are not just "unknown" ... The dogma is "gravitydidit" without God.

Hey!! It works just as well that way!!
HTS

Englewood, CO

#136678 Jun 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I knew evolution was correct long before I stopped believing in God.
If you knew what scientific evidence was you would not keep making so many "How's That for Stupid" posts.
You assume that all mechanisms of evolution, known and unknown, exclude God.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#136679 Jun 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the great lie about gravity.
There is always a disclaimer that gravity and God are compatible. Yet intelligent falling is ALWAYS excluded as necessary in defining mechanisms of gravity.
Mechanisms are not just "unknown" ... The dogma is "gravitydidit" without God.
Hey!! It works just as well that way!!
What total BS.
Gravitational theory does not exclude God.
ToE does.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#136680 Jun 18, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume creation, which biases the answer. It isn't"who created this," it's "how did this come to be?" It's dishonest to build the answer into the question.
Do you care if you are dishonest?
If you found a complex artifact in the jungle, you would "assume creation" because of your observations that complexities require intelligence to form. My logic is no different than that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#136681 Jun 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume that all mechanisms of evolution, known and unknown, exclude God.
Wrong again. We assume nothing. Do I assume that God is not pushing down on objects that are falling? Not me. I base my DEDUCTIONS upon observation and logic.

Show us evidence for god and we will investigate it. If it is valid we will switch in a heartbeat.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#136682 Jun 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What total BS.
Gravitational theory does not exclude God.
ToE does.
Gravitational theory excludes god just as much as the theory of evolution does. Show me where the presence of gods are taken into account in the theories of gravity.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#136683 Jun 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What total BS.
Gravitational theory does not exclude God.
ToE does.
You are in a three way tie , for dumbest flucker on this thread.
Oh wait you're two of them. lol
Believer

Manchester, TN

#136684 Jun 18, 2013
Over and over some here continue to accuse Believers of being dishonest. I suggest you look up the definition of the word before using it again against people who are (as you are) expressing their true feelings and opinions on a forum designed for that kind of debate!
Once you know the definition of the word dishonest, it will be you who is dishonest in using it if you continue as you have been.
I would not be wrong in considering you a liar if you were to say I am being dishonest about my Faith in God.
Say it is your opinion that I am wrong all you want to, but don't imply that those who are here defending their Faith are being dishonest!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#136685 Jun 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I never asserted that I could prove specific attributes of an intelligent designer.
I am saying that the existence of the great complexity of life logically leads to the conclusion that some intelligent force was required to create. If evolution created species, then an end goal appears to have been required...ie, INTELLIGENCE
There is no end goal. It's simply what works.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#136686 Jun 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the great lie about gravity.
There is always a disclaimer that gravity and God are compatible. Yet intelligent falling is ALWAYS excluded as necessary in defining mechanisms of gravity.
Mechanisms are not just "unknown" ... The dogma is "gravitydidit" without God.
Hey!! It works just as well that way!!
Here is your argument again applied to gravity. How is that any different from your argument applied to evolution.

You are making a mistake and I know what it is. You are ASSUMING that your God is the one and only one, the correct one. Evolution debunks your version of God. Therefore you think it is anti-God.

There are many versions of god that the theory of evolution does not debunk. But you have already decided that those are false or incorrect. So, if you claim that evolution goes against god you have to show how.

Define "God". What do you mean when you say "God". I can assure you that evolution probably does debunk your God, that does not mean that evolution is anti-god. It is only anti-your god.

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) 29 min marksman11 163,060
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 hr Agents of Corruption 222,265
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,461
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 12 hr Science 1,412
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 hr Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web