Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179619 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.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#139367 Jun 27, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it's not going anywhere. It was something started by Jim Ryan. None of his crap ever goes anywhere. He's just a silly diversion. Much like playing with a yo-yo.
Whether you join in or not is your choice. It matters not.
of course it matters,
don't you know that my blogs are being filtered
to over 900 billion people.
of course it matters,
bull [email protected]

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#139368 Jun 27, 2013
I am listening to a Dawkins' lecture right now and he made a point that is very pertinent to this thread. In the U.S. to teach you do need a degree in pedagogy, or how to educated children, you do not need a degree in the material that you are teaching. And sadly that is so true. I know a guy who was studying to become a physics teacher in high school. I asked him how much math the needed. I know he was taking algebra, but I do believe that is it. I know no calculus was needed and he had no plans to even touch the subject. I don't think he even took any trigonometry.

In evolution that applied since many science teachers had no biology and were afraid to teach the controversial parts of a science that they did not understand.

I guess that I was lucky to have teachers that were actual biologists in high school.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#139369 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. There have been countless experiments that have shown that life could happen. You have even commented on some of them. For example the Urey-Miller experiment showed that with an early Earth atmosphere that amino acids could form and be concentrated. Your side said that it was not possible for even amino acids to form naturally. Of course once shown wrong they quickly moved their goal posts.
And you openly lie for Jesus. It has been shown to you countless times how new biologic information can form. Not only that we have experimental evidence that new biologic information does form.
You keep telling us that we have faith and yet we can pull up experiment after experiment showing evidence that we are right.
It is obvious that you still have no clue to the meaning of the word "evidence".
What a joke... As if "amino acids" = "Life"
You obviously have no understanding of the complexity of biology to make such an ignorant conjecture.

You have never shown how biological information can form.
You have raw conjectures unsupported by any scientific laws.
You specifically have offered no mechanism of creation of novel genetic information.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#139370 Jun 27, 2013
supernova's are dead stars
that are forced through space to endlessly
search for energy fields,
to reignite as dwarf suns
typically of an Nebula
or Oort cloud.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#139371 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a joke... As if "amino acids" = "Life"
You obviously have no understanding of the complexity of biology to make such an ignorant conjecture.
You have never shown how biological information can form.
You have raw conjectures unsupported by any scientific laws.
You specifically have offered no mechanism of creation of novel genetic information.
Once again you show that you are a total idiot.

Your argument is equivalent to saying that it was impossible to go to the Moon since the Wright brothers never made it there.

The Miller-Urey experiment was only the first in a long string of experiments. Many of them successful, many of them not successful.

Learn how science is done you ignorant fool.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#139372 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I am listening to a Dawkins' lecture right now and he made a point that is very pertinent to this thread. In the U.S. to teach you do need a degree in pedagogy, or how to educated children, you do not need a degree in the material that you are teaching. And sadly that is so true. I know a guy who was studying to become a physics teacher in high school. I asked him how much math the needed. I know he was taking algebra, but I do believe that is it. I know no calculus was needed and he had no plans to even touch the subject. I don't think he even took any trigonometry.
In evolution that applied since many science teachers had no biology and were afraid to teach the controversial parts of a science that they did not understand.
I guess that I was lucky to have teachers that were actual biologists in high school.
Dawkins says a lot of things to a lot of people.
he's concurrently working through my theories of
GSZ evolution.
Mugwump

UK

#139373 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is the theoretical explanation of intelligent design "religion"?
It is unprovable .......
So we clarify (again) it ain't science

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#139374 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is the theoretical explanation of intelligent design "religion"?
It is unprovable and unknown.
You have no scientific laws that you can invoke to explain how single cell life evolved into humans.
You have chosen one faith over another.
I agree that a theoretical explanation for the origin of the universe suggesting "intelligent Design" does not constitute religion. Its simply a hypothesis.

The same is not true of ID versus evolution.
LowellGuy

United States

#139375 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I am listening to a Dawkins' lecture right now and he made a point that is very pertinent to this thread. In the U.S. to teach you do need a degree in pedagogy, or how to educated children, you do not need a degree in the material that you are teaching. And sadly that is so true. I know a guy who was studying to become a physics teacher in high school. I asked him how much math the needed. I know he was taking algebra, but I do believe that is it. I know no calculus was needed and he had no plans to even touch the subject. I don't think he even took any trigonometry.
In evolution that applied since many science teachers had no biology and were afraid to teach the controversial parts of a science that they did not understand.
I guess that I was lucky to have teachers that were actual biologists in high school.
USA! USA! USA!
Mugwump

UK

#139376 Jun 27, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
of course it matters,
don't you know that my blogs are being filtered
to over 900 billion people.
of course it matters,
bull [email protected]
900 billion

Poe
LowellGuy

United States

#139377 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a joke... As if "amino acids" = "Life"
You obviously have no understanding of the complexity of biology to make such an ignorant conjecture.
You have never shown how biological information can form.
You have raw conjectures unsupported by any scientific laws.
You specifically have offered no mechanism of creation of novel genetic information.
Denying demonstrable reality neither refutes science nor proves your magical stories true.
Mugwump

UK

#139378 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>

You specifically have offered no mechanism of creation of novel genetic information.
Gene duplication followed by mutation

Next
LowellGuy

United States

#139379 Jun 27, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
supernova's are dead stars
that are forced through space to endlessly
search for energy fields,
to reignite as dwarf suns
typically of an Nebula
or Oort cloud.
Ohhhhh...right. Magic.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#139380 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's irrelevant what version of intelligent design they believed in.
They believed in a higher power.
The notion that science does not lead one to believe in a higher power is false.
You cannot invoke any laws of science that validate your belief in atheistic evolution.
You are required to place faith in unknown laws.
That is religion.
No, Einstein admitted the possibility of God while remaining agnostic.

But yes, it DOES matter what form. It matters fundamentally.

Claiming a scientist accepting the possibility of God is in ANY WAY the same thing as believing in Genesis is pure balderdash.

You claimed that plenty of great scientists believed in Genesis. Still waiting for your list...looks like you are backtracking already.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#139381 Jun 27, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Gene duplication followed by mutation
Next
I think we have told him this one hundred times.

Do you think that 101 did any good?
LowellGuy

United States

#139382 Jun 27, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
Dawkins says a lot of things to a lot of people.
he's concurrently working through my theories of
GSZ evolution.
Of COURSE he is, because one of the world's foremost experts on evolutionary biology regularly consults with random retards on the interwebs. Stephen Hawking is reviewing my new book that completely dismantles all of cosmology.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#139383 Jun 27, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Gene duplication followed by mutation
Next
What a joke...
You haven't explained anything.
The genetic material to create intelligence was not wrought by "gene duplication"
If so, she me on paper how that occurred.
I said "novel genetic information"
LowellGuy

United States

#139384 Jun 27, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
biological systems that show up on the
environmental scene very late on
in this space quadrants history,
is liable to be an actual example of
poly-morposes and not regular adaptation.
Please publish a picture of your correspondences with Dawkins. Include everything he sent you. Evidence or STFU.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#139385 Jun 27, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
of course it matters,
don't you know that my blogs are being filtered
to over 900 billion people.
of course it matters,
bull [email protected]
900 billion, huh? How many planets would that cover, bull [email protected]?
Mugwump

UK

#139386 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>I think we have told him this one hundred times.
Do you think that 101 did any good?
Must admit , my first degree (not boasting - second was IT - doesn't count) wasn't in medicine - but was a related field.

And pretty damn sure the medical students shared some of the same genetics lectures as me.

I mean - surely in the US doctors have similar educational backgrounds as UK

And HTS is a doctor .....

Oh sorry ,
got it now ,
move on ,
nothing to see here

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 32 min DanFromSmithville 197,475
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Patrick 13,305
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr renee 31,308
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Don Barros Serrano 150,998
Rome Viharo debunks evolution 11 hr Support of Rome V... 1
Evolution in action Fri MIDutch 1
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... May 25 bearings 2
More from around the web