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 Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143079 Jul 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has NOT been observed in DNA.

Incorrect. Evolution is found in many ways in DNA. I listed only a few of them.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> DNA has been ASSUMED to validate evolution based solely on philosophical arguments.

Incorrect. Again as I have already noted. Evolution makes predictions and in DNA we find that many of those predictions are correct.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Take ape DNA, for example. What would you predict chimp DNA would look like if evolution were false?

If evolution were false we don't even know if DNA would exist. But since there are no other scientific theory of origins the question is rather moot.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> All you can say is that chimp DNA is "consistent" with evolution. It is also entirely consistent with ID, so you have nothing.

By ID you mean creationism. Just call it what it is. ID only fools people already gullible enough to fall for creationism.

Creationism cannot predict anything therefore it predicts nothing. See writings of Karl Popper for details.

DNA is not only consistent with evolution but evolution also makes predictions about what will be found in DNA.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Your contention that ID is not science is IRRELEVANT. I never said it was, so why do you keep beating a dead horse?

Then why bring it up in a scientific discussion? The best way to refute a scientific theory is with another scientific theory that better explains the data. Why try to weave creationism into the mix when it is not science?
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Evolution has been observed in the laboratory?

Yes, directly once and indirectly thousands of times.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You invariably fail to define "evolution". Lenski's experiment does not provide the slightest hint of evidence that man evolved from a microbe.

Again with the straw-man.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> So why do you persist in ridiculous, unwarranted extrapolations?

Because they are facts. You hate the facts so you try to distort what they mean.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Evolution has been "observed" in the fossil record? That is patently false. Only by selective interpretation of data, which is scientific fraud.

This is just a lie. To prove it then try explaining the fossil record with creationism. Make sense? why not? Because with creationism you have species A which dies out then species B is created created which is ALMOST identical but not quite. Then species B which dies out then species C is created created which is ALMOST identical but not quite. Then species C dies out then species C is created created which is ALMOST identical but not quite.......
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Evolution is NOT falsifiable by your criteria. Any obstacle, such as those I've presented, will be immediately rationalized away by the contention that either my imagination or credulity is insufficient, or that man has not yet figured out how nature can be constrained to the predetermined paradigm of Darwinism. Every single challenge that I've presented is swept under the rug without being answered.

All false. Evolution is easily falsifiable.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving_evolu...

You want me to repost the list so you can try again?

I bet you do just a poorly the second time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#143080 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
And, btw, correctly interpreted science usually provides better proof FOR rather than against creation!
Wrong of course.

If you had any evidence you would have presented it.

The fossil record supports evolution, not creation.

There are several, different, unrelated hierarchies in biology that support evolution. They do no support creation.

There was no Adam and Eve, there was no global flood. There was no Noah's Ark. These myths have been debunked for many many years.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143081 Jul 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ToE has nothing to do with experimental biology.

There is actually an entire subfield called Experimental evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution&... ;

biology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/Garland/Experi...

And one you will really hate: On the utility of evolution in experimental biology and medicine

http://aghunt.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/on-the...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143082 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:

The links you provided provide rhetoric and straw-man fallacies, but no refutation.

Got anything else.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143083 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:

Appeal to incredulity fallacy.

Again, no science and no refutation.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143084 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
Evolution should NOT be taught as fact in schools. It is only theory and extremely weak theory at that! Macro-evolution is based on Darwin's logical fallacy of hasty generalization (among others) and has NO proof to back it up.

Evolution has been observed in all time frames.

It has been observed in DNA, in the fossil record, in field studies and in Laboratories.

Evolution has multiple lines of independence evidence (one of the holy grails of science).

Like the electromagnetic spectrum of which we can only directly see visible light only microevolution is much like that. It is the portion of evolution that is directly visible, but with other methods "macroevolution" is just as visible.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143085 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely! God created science when He created the universe, time, and everything else. Science cannot contradict its creator; therefore, when "science" opposes the Bible, the science must be erroneous. Science is about observation and repeatability. Operational science is what develops useful tools and techniques in so many different areas of life. Evolution on the level of molecules to man has not and cannot be observed and is all part of historical science.

Maybe the Bible opposes the creator.

Evolution is part of historical science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143086 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice ad hominem! No less than what I expected. Thanks!

Kong may have been somewhat colorful in his metaphors, but he was essentially correct. Those sites do not have accurate science on them but rather exist to rationalize fundamentalist views on Christianity.


Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Both icr.com & creation.com are hack sites that wouldn't know science if Einstein sat on their faces.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143087 Jul 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
More:
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."
[Galileo Galilei]

But isn't this what the temptation in the garden story is all about?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143088 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I believe in the Bible (and it wasn't talking snakes, it was a serpent BEFORE they were cursed and became snakes!) You only attacked the source's credibility; that is actually genetic fallacy. Their arguments are sound and they have PHD's and are fully qualified! Have you ever even read any of their refutation of evo?

I have read whole books by them. They are as funny as Bill Cosby at his stand-up comedy best.

The serve the purpose for which they were written, to be pablum for the ignorant believing masses.

Real Christians have no need for such claptrap.

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#143089 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, thanks! Galileo, a Christian, proves a point most any creationist would make: we CAN use reason and intellect to prove creation over evo.
Insanity is a thing not understood by those with it's affliction.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143091 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
1 I need not prove my faith. I could provide evidence but you would simply deny it. Many scholars have tried to prove the Bible and Jesus/God untrue and have turned TO Him as a result. Read any of their books and you can see the proof as easily as I have, IF you would actually open your mind to it!
2. The Bible may have minor insignificant discrepancies as a result of copyist errors (mostly just numbers), but the major doctrines are sound. The Bible does not have to cover ALL areas of science, etc. to be true (however what it does cover IS correct!). That's like saying you can't believe any historian if he makes a few insignificant errors about the weather in a given time period! The Bible isn't meant to be a science book anymore than an ancient history historian is concerned about meteorology.
The Bible was written by many men over a long period of time, but they were inspired in their writing by God directly. Had they not been so inspired, what is the likelihood the Bible would have emerged so incredibly consistent and sound in its major doctrines and had so many of the predictions come true? And please don't refer to any supposed contradictions or errors in the Bible; these have been sooooo overused and refuted!

I bet I can list more scholars who have turned away from the bible by trying to prove it than the other way around.

The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies. Fortunately for me I don't read it for consistency.

Actually, most of the "predictions" the bible makes are actually written AFTER the fact. Even then it STILL gets many details WRONG.

For example the Bible's account of the siege of Tyre has numerous errors and that "prophecy" appears to have been written AFTER the actual events it predicts.

That is pretty bad.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143092 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, thanks! Galileo, a Christian, proves a point most any creationist would make: we CAN use reason and intellect to prove creation over evo.

When?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143093 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Great point...oh wait, you didn't make one! Another ad hominem. Can you all on here do anything but put others down? Do you have any proof for YOUR assertions, or do you all just rely on fallacious arguments? Give me one example of proof for evolution on a macro level (not speciation or natural selection; no creationist disagrees with those), just one!

speciation = macroevolution.

Dang man. don't blame us because you don't like the smell where your head is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143094 Jul 19, 2013
one way or another wrote:
Gosh, its so nice to see such an intelligent crowd, that can speak to the simple. Things in life, like psychology.
So you were never taught to think for yourselves, no big deal, you and your kids will always have cut and paste.
Thank the government school system.

You're just jealous.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143095 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
And, btw, correctly interpreted science usually provides better proof FOR rather than against creation!

This is just a creationist lie.

Don't bore us.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143096 Jul 19, 2013
one way or another wrote:
In the end times, the priests, preachers and rabbi's, will lead their flocks astray.
There is no evolution.

From your perspective I understand why you would think that.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#143097 Jul 19, 2013
one way or another wrote:
In the end times, the priests, preachers and rabbi's, will lead their flocks astray.
There is no evolution.
There is no creation.....
The Son of Jumper

Morgantown, KY

#143098 Jul 19, 2013
If not for natual evolution,I be eating at KFE.

(An upper IQ Joke)

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#143099 Jul 19, 2013
The Son of Jumper wrote:
If not for natual evolution,I be eating at KFE.
(An upper IQ Joke)
natual ? We are assuming you mean natural , but it ruins the premise.
If not for nocturnal evolution , Id be forever eating in the day time.

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
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 1 hr In Six Days 625
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr SoE 48,383
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 5 hr Porkncheese 6
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 hr Dogen 216,597
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 hr scientia potentia... 154,610
Science News (Sep '13) 20 hr _Susan_ 3,980
News Does Mike Pence Believe in Evolution? Thu scientia potentia... 9
More from around the web