Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#138957 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you may consider him whatever you like but the fact remains that Bill Gates is not qualified as a scientist, he never even completed college
The irony is he'd call this "Man-On-Fire" an idiot just for that part, but also regard him as insane for denying science while using the machines brought to him by science.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#138958 Jun 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer what? You posted no questions at all.
But you just demonstrated how desperate you are now. Survival traits selected for are those which benefit the species, not the individual.
Nope. They are selected if they benefit the individual, not the species. A minor modification is, if they benefit your own kin, who carry a large proportion of your own genes.

No statistical evolutionary model based on "survival of the species" works. The excessively altruistic individuals would get weeded out rapidly to the benefit of the selfish ones. We live in an equilibrium where we will be selfish with the capacity and desire to help others who can potentially benefit us or our close kin, especially children. We form alliances with allies and will come to their aid in the expectation that they will aid us if the need arises.

Frankly, most people given the option of pressing Button A to save their own child or Button B to save 100,000 villagers in China will press Button A.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#138959 Jun 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, you deny the very science that tells you how "healthy" the planet is.
Yet you avoid just answering two questions.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#138960 Jun 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The irony is he'd call this "Man-On-Fire" an idiot just for that part, but also regard him as insane for denying science while using the machines brought to him by science.
Where do you see me denying science? Be real specific in your answer.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#138961 Jun 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
He's an agnostic atheist. He's also not a scientist, and would think you a moron for calling him one. He's a capitalist, and a marketing genius, or for your layman terms, a businessman. However, your using what other people claim he said as the evidence supporting your conflated assertion demonstrates that you don't care about the facts, you will use any lie or twist any word or notion just to justify your own idiotic religion. What Bill believes actually has little to do with your assertions, because you are just wrong. He is evidence that you don't have to be religious to do good things, and that is all.
Oh now you change your story. Before you said he was just atheist. I did not call him a scientists. I just put what was on that site.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#138962 Jun 26, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
Bill Gates - In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.
http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php...
Gates was born into a Protestant Christian church, but is now conclusively an agnostic. We may be able to even consider him a scientist.
http://hollowverse.com/bill-gates/
His answers are exactly what I would say in an interview.

Believe in a Soul? "I don't have any evidence on that."

That, friend, is a rational skeptical empiricist giving a polite "no". To a skeptic, no evidence = no reason to accept something. That is the whole point of a scientific attitude. You abandon the concept of "belief" and simply accept that there are things you do not know, and other things you know with varying degrees of confidence based on the evidence that exists. But at the same time you will tend to dismiss claims by others of "higher knowledge" or revelation because its been shown to be contradictory and unreliable as a means of acquiring knowledge.

Skepticism is a totally different paradigm than religious thinking. Its not a question of choosing to believe something different as per Christian versus Muslim. Its abandoning the idea of "belief" altogether.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#138963 Jun 26, 2013
One reason people don't listen to much of what you evolutionists say or believe is that you cannot even agree among yourselves. One will swear one thing is absolutely correct and then another well say not really it is this way and not that. With discord among yourselves how do you expect your words to be taken seriously?

Example: Some believe the planet is very healthy due to science while others know it is in worse shape than it has been in many hundreds of years.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#138964 Jun 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you may consider him whatever you like but the fact remains that Bill Gates is not qualified as a scientist, he never even completed college
By all accounts he is a man with a scientific viewpoint, a rational empirical skeptic. A man of science, if not a technically scientist.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#138965 Jun 26, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a strawman. It is that you can't answer it. If you say yes you would go in then you show emotions are a weakness, emotions would kill you off and thus survival would stop. If you say you would walk away then you would be considered cold hearted, uncaring and cruel.
I believe at least that I answered it. In more general terms, behavior tends to work more by "rules of thumb" than by careful analysis of every situation. What you lose in accuracy, you gain in speed. Thus its in general more pro-survival, especially in emergencies.

If it really was better for our survival to coldly analyse every situation before acting, we would have evolved that way. Instead we evolved bonds of kinship and friendship because in general they work better. Thinking can be slow. Feeling is immediate and compels one to action. Statistically it works better in surviving, even if sometime it might lead you into a burning building.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#138966 Jun 26, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
One reason people don't listen to much of what you evolutionists say or believe is that you cannot even agree among yourselves. One will swear one thing is absolutely correct and then another well say not really it is this way and not that. With discord among yourselves how do you expect your words to be taken seriously?
Example: Some believe the planet is very healthy due to science while others know it is in worse shape than it has been in many hundreds of years.
I missed the post where anyone claimed that the Earth was healthier, at this time, due to science.

But generally, "evolutionist" if you must use that word only refers to someone who accept the evidence and logic of the theory of evolution. They could have any damned opinion they like on just about anything else.

When you get down to it, where evolutionists might agree is on the principle that even in our disagreements, its the collection of evidence and the application of logic that will sort out our disagreement in the end.

And BTW, there is a small subset of so called "evolutionists" who may believe evolution dogmatically. But the vast majority (e.g. 99.85% of trained biologists) accept it because the evidence stacks up, and for no other reason.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#138967 Jun 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The irony is he'd call this "Man-On-Fire" an idiot just for that part, but also regard him as insane for denying science while using the machines brought to him by science.
Kitty here is a simple challenge for you. It should be simple by the way you talk.

List the top 15 things that have helped man kind and/or made life better that is credited to evolution. Links will be needed for evidence.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#138968 Jun 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The irony is he'd call this "Man-On-Fire" an idiot just for that part, but also regard him as insane for denying science while using the machines brought to him by science.
You place everyone who disagrees with your view immediately into enemy mode and launch into sarcasm and ad hominem.

Man on Fire actually raised some interesting questions. The issue of altruism is tough one and not to be brushed off with absurd dogmatic claims like "evolution works for the survival of the species, not the individual". That is patently false and illogical, and disproven long ago. Evolution CANNOT work that way.

But if you want to start the Church of Evolution instead of applying your mind to the issues, feel free.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#138969 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I missed the post where anyone claimed that the Earth was healthier, at this time, due to science.
But generally, "evolutionist" if you must use that word only refers to someone who accept the evidence and logic of the theory of evolution. They could have any damned opinion they like on just about anything else.
When you get down to it, where evolutionists might agree is on the principle that even in our disagreements, its the collection of evidence and the application of logic that will sort out our disagreement in the end.
And BTW, there is a small subset of so called "evolutionists" who may believe evolution dogmatically. But the vast majority (e.g. 99.85% of trained biologists) accept it because the evidence stacks up, and for no other reason.
My comment was - Just a few simple questions then.
1. Do you think the earth is less or more polluted that is was 200 years ago?
2. Do you think that man has added to the preservation of earth or added to the demise of earth in the last 200 years?
No matter how much man advances, with out a good, clean, healthy, solid earth to live on he is and will be nothing in the end.

KittenKoder's reply was - Yet, you deny the very science that tells you how "healthy" the planet is.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
One way or another

United States

#138970 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the probability wave function spreads "everywhere". When a photon interacts with other particles, like those in your eyeball, the wave function collapses to a single location, which can only be predicted according to the probabilities in the original wave function. Its quantum physics and at that level particles behave nothing like the large scale reality you expect to see every day. And you will not ever bother to learn anything about it.
There IS a case of individuals seeing single photons, and that was in Rutherford's famous experiment where he "split the atom". He had observers sitting in total darkness for half an hour than observing the tiny flashes as alpha particles bounced off gold nuclei, emitting a single photon in the process. This is how he learned about the internal structure of the atom, one of the most famous experiments of all time.
Children change the subject when they have nothing to offer to the subject at hand.
"A dust tail like Earth's could produce a bigger signal than a planet does. And it could alert researchers to a planet too small to see otherwise."
Earth has a dust tail not because the planet itself is particularly dusty, but rather because the whole solar system is. Interplanetary space is littered with dusty fragments of comets and colliding asteroids. When Earth orbits through this dusty environment, a tail forms in the rear, akin to swaths of fallen leaves swirling up behind a streetsweeper.
"As Earth orbits the sun, it creates a sort of shell or depression that dust particles fall into, creating a thickening of dust – the tail – that Earth pulls along via gravity," explains Werner. "In fact, the tail trails our planet all the way around the sun, forming a large dusty ring."

A computer simulation of Earth's dust tail/ring seen from a vantage point outside our solar system. Colors indicate density; purple is lowest, red is highest. Credit: Christopher Stark, GSFC [larger image]
Spitzer's recent observations have helped astronomers map the structure of Earth's dust tail and figure out what similar "tell-tale tails" attached to alien planets might look like.
Like our own solar system, other planetary systems are infused with dust that forms a dusty disk encircling the central star. And like Earth, exoplanets interact with their dust disk gravitationally, channeling and drawing strange features into it.
"In some stars' dust disks there are bumps, warps, rings, and offsets telling us that planets are interacting with the dust," explains Mark Clampin of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "So we can 'follow the dust' to the planets. So far, we've seen about 20 dust disks in other solar systems. And in some of those cases, following the dust has already paid off."
Clampin, Paul Kalas, and colleagues were looking for a planet around the bright southern star Fomalhaut when they unexpectedly found a dust ring. The shape of that ring led them to their goal. "We suspected that the ring's sharp inner edge was formed by a planet gravitationally clearing out the surrounding debris," says Clampin. "We tracked the planet by this 'footprint' in the dust." (See the footprint here.)
Another Hubble image shows a dusty disk around Beta Pictoris, a star in the constellation Pictor, or "Painter's Easel," pictured below:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-...

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#138971 Jun 26, 2013
Let's make this challenge open to every evolutionists.

Here is a simple challenge for you. It should be simple by the way you talk about evolution and how it is the backbone of science.

List the top 15 things that have helped man kind and/or made life better that is "Credited To Evolution". Links will be needed for evidence.
One way or another

United States

#138972 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he is not attempting to prove evolution by disproving Noah's Flood.
He is attempting to point out that your alternative explanation, the reason you and so many others reject the findings of biology, geology, physics, and astronomy, is demonstrably false. Therefore it is not an adequate basis for rejecting all these fields.
And he is right. Noah's Flood is comprehensively disproven. Its not even just a lack of evidence for the Flood, its evidence that actively falsifies the possibility.
Then show something in the sciences above, that can't get along without evolution.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#138973 Jun 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The irony is he'd call this "Man-On-Fire" an idiot just for that part, but also regard him as insane for denying science while using the machines brought to him by science.
I had notice that, MOF employs the rather typical hypocrisy of his sort.
One way or another

United States

#138974 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your vain, idiotic attempts to equate supporting evolution with "disproving God" only underscore that its not God you are in love with, its the myths of ancient Jews.
Nothing ANYONE has said here attempts to disprove the existence of God.
You're a child that acts like a bully, needing attention.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#138975 Jun 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The irony is he'd call this "Man-On-Fire" an idiot just for that part, but also regard him as insane for denying science while using the machines brought to him by science.
Bill gates brought me my machine and as you said he is no scientists.
One way or another

United States

#138976 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he is not attempting to prove evolution by disproving Noah's Flood.
He is attempting to point out that your alternative explanation, the reason you and so many others reject the findings of biology, geology, physics, and astronomy, is demonstrably false. Therefore it is not an adequate basis for rejecting all these fields.
And he is right. Noah's Flood is comprehensively disproven. Its not even just a lack of evidence for the Flood, its evidence that actively falsifies the possibility.
That's because none of you have anything positive about evolution, that you try to use negatives about others.

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) 4 min One way or another 40,407
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 min IB DaMann 15,899
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 59 min THE LONE WORKER 201,180
Where does instinct fall within random mutations? 2 hr Chazofsaints 3
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 2 hr Chazofsaints 10
Can We Guide Evolution? 3 hr Chazofsaints 9
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 3 hr Chazofsaints 7
More from around the web