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.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#138990 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure others will provide good answers, but to me its not relevant. Science is not just there to provide us with a better toothpaste, its an exploration of the universe we live in. We do get better toothpaste too, but thats a bonus.
So how has evolution has given us better tooth paste?
One way or another

United States

#138991 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most atheists are technically agnostic, just as I am. One cannot logically rule out the possibility of God, but I do not believe in God. Bill Gates has expressed the same view, so does not do the right thing "just in case", he does it because he knows its constructive and he likes the human race. He does it because he can.
Funny how its Christians who MUST ascribe some selfish motive to any good action. Tell me, do you do good things because you feel it is the right thing to do, or only because you hope God will notice and send you to heaven?
No, there are more reasons.
One way or another

United States

#138992 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are missing the bigger picture.
Your emotional response is a rough-n-ready tool that will produce a positive outcome more often than a negative one, which is why its selected by evolution.
I could just as easily say a Christian should leave them to burn, especially if he knows that they are saved Christians as well, because they are going to a better place. Therefore he can stick around and produce more good little Christians too, and send even more souls to heaven! But that makes no sense either.
The bonds that would possibly lead you into that fire are the same ones that IN GENERAL serve to help protect you and your kin and raised your total odds of survival, day after day. Usually you have no way of knowing what the odds of success are in a given situation. So you love each other, help each other, and the total odds are improved over the long term by this communal effort to help each other, bonded by ties of love and attachment.
Everyone is always missing the bigger picture with you chimney, by all you've said here and charging in like an ignorant child in a china shop, no one can understand all you are, right?
One way or another

United States

#138993 Jun 26, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
So how has evolution has given us better tooth paste?
The tooth paste evolved.:-)

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#138994 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most atheists are technically agnostic, just as I am. One cannot logically rule out the possibility of God, but I do not believe in God. Bill Gates has expressed the same view, so does not do the right thing "just in case", he does it because he knows its constructive and he likes the human race. He does it because he can.
Funny how its Christians who MUST ascribe some selfish motive to any good action. Tell me, do you do good things because you feel it is the right thing to do, or only because you hope God will notice and send you to heaven?
The true believers will give no matter if they can or not. They will give sweat to help if they can't give anything else. The rich, many of them when they get old start giving hoping it will undo all they bad they have done to get to where they are at. If they were not the very rich, they would not give and that is shown in many by they only started giving once they had way way more than they needed and life was getting shorter.
One way or another

United States

#138995 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Said the poster child of your first sentence.
One way or another

United States

#138996 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who reads one paragraph in a science magazine article then thinks he knows more about:
immunology
child psychology
cosmology
astronomy
physics
biology
climate science
than all of the rest of the world's experts in these subject put together?
So Jim, when I put your attitude so plainly, and truthfully, directly to you, who is the real idiot know-it-all here? Its not me, buddy.
I show evidence, you have nothing but criticism and childishness.

Lenski's antibiotic claim.

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Lenski should have had the sense to reverse the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistant bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. One or both should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.

As the smartest people say, leave no stone unturned!
One way or another

United States

#138997 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Get over yourself Jimbo. "Science" i.e. Astronomers have never claimed that space was a perfect vacuum. Too bad you have launched an entire attack against scientists yet again on the basis of your faulty understanding.
I showed you the links providing current estimates of the actual amount of material in the "vacuum" of space. Yes, by actual scientists.
You spoke of photons. I mentioned the probability wave function in direct response to your - as usual - abusive and bullying questions. Now you claim its changing the subject. You brought it up.
I never bully anyone unless they continue to lie, including lies about what others have said on this forum, or they run ad hominem attacks first. Its called tit for tat. You insult me, you little prick, and you are fair game for whatever comes back.
Since that is all you do, then that is all you will get in response. You are a liar and a willing ignoramus, and your motivation is hatred of anyone who knows more than you, which is just about everyone over the age of seven.
Yes, science has claimed that space was a perfect vacuum, but science seems too ignorant to understand, just like you chimney.

Tell us how that can be chimney. Oh I'm sorry, all you have is copy and paste.

That's ok, run along chimney.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#138998 Jun 26, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
So how has evolution has given us better tooth paste?
Did I say it did? Why does it matter?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#138999 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is always missing the bigger picture with you chimney, by all you've said here and charging in like an ignorant child in a china shop, no one can understand all you are, right?
No, Jimbo, considering a point, providing an explanation in response to MoF's question. He is free to agree or counter.

Perhaps you would like to go back and look at his question and consider a reasoned response yourself, instead of trying to score cheap points. You always try that, and fail miserably with your misguided attacks. Time for a new approach from you, this one never works.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#139000 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, science has claimed that space was a perfect vacuum, but science seems too ignorant to understand, just like you chimney.
Tell us how that can be chimney. Oh I'm sorry, all you have is copy and paste.
That's ok, run along chimney.
No Jimbo. Science has not claimed that space is a perfect vacuum. You have claimed that science has claimed it. Then you have argued with your own claim. Then you have tried to pretend that I and others said space is a perfect vacuum. Then you have called us liars for not admitting that we said space was a perfect vacuum. You will not find a single post where anyone ever said space is a perfect vacuum.

The perfect vacuum exists only between your ears.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#139001 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I show evidence, you have nothing but criticism and childishness.
Lenski's antibiotic claim.
Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
Lenski should have had the sense to reverse the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistant bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. One or both should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.
As the smartest people say, leave no stone unturned!
No, Jimbo.

Lenski did Original Work. It was an experiment conducted over many years with strict controls and careful recording of the outcomes, which showed the effects of natural selection on E coli bacteria under particular conditions.

You on the other hand have merely misunderstood a brief summary of Lenski's Original Work, made some wild conjectures about how you know so much better than he did, what he SHOULD have done, in your opinion.

Then had the arrogance to call your armchair criticism of his Original Work, your "original work".
One way or another

United States

#139002 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say it did? Why does it matter?
So you're just a child that says anything that comes to mind, like your statement that science never claimed that space was a perfect vacuum.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#139003 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.
"Note: This is not a complete list, but aims to provide a comprehensible overview of the diversity among denominations of Christianity. As there are reported to be approximately 41,000 Christian denominations,[2] many of which cannot be verified to be significant...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christia...

"Since Westcott and Hort compiled their own Greek New Testament (published in 1881) there has been over two hundred and fifty English Bible versions."

http://uk-christians.net/forum/topics/bible-v...
One way or another

United States

#139004 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No Jimbo. Science has not claimed that space is a perfect vacuum. You have claimed that science has claimed it. Then you have argued with your own claim. Then you have tried to pretend that I and others said space is a perfect vacuum. Then you have called us liars for not admitting that we said space was a perfect vacuum. You will not find a single post where anyone ever said space is a perfect vacuum.
The perfect vacuum exists only between your ears.
No, I haven't and you can't produce such evidence, because you're lying, but hey, bring the evidence and prove the above.

I did claim that science claims that space is a perfect vacuum.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#139005 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Said the poster child of your first sentence.
I will discuss any point made reasonably, reasonably.

When, instead, you comes here offering nothing but baseless attacks and your pathetic little hatreds, time after time, I will respond in kind, or not bother to respond at all.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#139006 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I haven't and you can't produce such evidence, because you're lying, but hey, bring the evidence and prove the above.
I did claim that science claims that space is a perfect vacuum.
I already posted you links showing scientists' estimates of the amount of matter in outer space, just yesterday in fact. That is proof that they do not claim space is a perfect vacuum.

I have never, ever, read any science that made the claim you say science made.

In other words, you were wrong about your claim and all you have done ever since is argue against a phantom of your own creation.

Level 1

Since: Apr 12

Kolkata, India

#139007 Jun 26, 2013
I very much agree with the observation made in the post. There are certain things that can not be taught at the school level.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#139008 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're just a child that says anything that comes to mind, like your statement that science never claimed that space was a perfect vacuum.
Show proof that science, or any poster here, has ever claimed that space is a perfect vacuum.
One way or another

United States

#139009 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Jimbo.
Lenski did Original Work. It was an experiment conducted over many years with strict controls and careful recording of the outcomes, which showed the effects of natural selection on E coli bacteria under particular conditions.
You on the other hand have merely misunderstood a brief summary of Lenski's Original Work, made some wild conjectures about how you know so much better than he did, what he SHOULD have done, in your opinion.
Then had the arrogance to call your armchair criticism of his Original Work, your "original work".
I just pointed out his ignorance. He spent over 20 or 30 years by now and never once thought to reverse his experiment with that part of his test and, he manipulated the bacteria to make them eat citrus. Yea, he pretended it was an accident that they became citrus eaters, on purpose. He doesn't have the mind for intelligent science, as he proved.

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) 33 min Stewart 169,949
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 1 hr Darsey 13
SEX did not EVOLVE (Nov '17) 8 hr Rose_NoHo 257
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 hr candlesmell 95,390
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 9 hr Davidjayjordan 1,847
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 12 hr Rose_NoHo 106
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 13 hr Rose_NoHo 26