Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 20 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

#143018 Jul 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot logically argue that evolution of whales is true because they weren't, as you say, "poofed, fully formed into existence".

Evolution of whales is evidence based science built upon genetic and fossil evidence including transition species in the fossil record.

creationism is based on magic poofing.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> If you think evolution of whales is science, then why not actually demonstrate that a land mammal could be selectively bred into a whale, given millions of years.

It not only happened with whales, but aquatic evolution has also occurred with dolphins, manatee, otters, hippopotamus and seals (to different degrees).

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You keep saying I'm ignorant of biology because I don't blindly accept dogmas that have never been demonstrated to be valid.

No, we think you are ignorant of biology because you are ignorant of biology. You evidence this on a daily basis.




“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#143019 Jul 19, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I assume you were laughing because I mispelled calvary?

And a million other reasons.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#143020 Jul 19, 2013
Christinsanity wrote:
<quoted text>
I tried to use this for an avatar once but Topix declined it.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/az4...
Geezus is everywhere ;)
Too Christian!!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#143021 Jul 19, 2013
Christinsanity wrote:
<quoted text>
I tried to use this for an avatar once but Topix declined it.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/az4...
Geezus is everywhere ;)
Besides, if you are not the lead Christian, the scenery never changes.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#143022 Jul 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is not religion...I agree.
Evolution is not science. It is religion.
No it isn't. It's part of the study of Biology. You ought to know that being a "doctor".
HTS

Englewood, CO

#143023 Jul 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
See point above. Vacuous diatribe.
Here is a recap of just a few of my earlier points that you have not substantially responded to.
There is NO research that supports ID. The few studies that have been attempted all FAILED. Do I need to repeat that to anyone?
Evolution meets all the criteria of science. It is observable, testable, falsifiable,...
Genetics gives proof that the human race is (from the LCA with Chimps) over 5 million years old.
Genetics proves that human diversity that is currently observed would have taken over 100,000 years to develop from 2 individuals IF that were possible.
But that is NOT possible. The Minimum Viable Population necessary for long term survival of a species with human length DNA is over 4,000 members!
Human population has been increasing (again according to genetics) for about 70,000 years when there was a genetic bottleneck (a large decrease in population size and genetic variability).
Evolution is OBSERVABLE!!! Evolution has been observed in the genomic (DNA) record, in the fossil record, in field studies AND in the LABORATORY.
I repeat these not because I expect you to respond to them (you never really have so I no reason to expect you to now), but more to rub it in.
Evolution has NOT been observed in DNA.
DNA has been ASSUMED to validate evolution based solely on philosophical arguments. Take ape DNA, for example. What would you predict chimp DNA would look like if evolution were false? All you can say is that chimp DNA is "consistent" with evolution. It is also entirely consistent with ID, so you have nothing.
Your contention that ID is not science is IRRELEVANT.
I never said it was, so why do you keep beating a dead horse?
Evolution has been observed in the laboratory? You invariably fail to define "evolution". Lenski's experiment does not provide the slightest hint of evidence that man evolved from a microbe. So why do you persist in ridiculous, unwarranted extrapolations?
Evolution has been "observed" in the fossil record? That is patently false. Only by selective interpretation of data, which is scientific fraud.

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.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#143024 Jul 19, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>No it isn't. It's part of the study of Biology. You ought to know that being a "doctor".
ToE has nothing to do with experimental biology.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#143025 Jul 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think evolution of whales is science, then why not actually demonstrate that a land mammal could be selectively bred into a whale, given millions of years.
What do we actually predict if whales evolved from land mammals? We would hope that intermediates turned up showing a reasonable progression. We now have them. We would predict evidence in the genome that carried some history of land life in the sea beasts too. Like in so many other genuine predictions of evolutionary history, these have been fulfilled.

We have ambulocetus and others.

We have a whale genome with all the olfactory genes still there but utterly useless to the animals.

We even observe atavisms - occasional appearances of hind legs in whales with musculature and bone in place, though deformed. Not something a "separate kind creationist" would predict.

Then we have you, HTS, with your own special, personal predictions that you think evolution has to meet.

You demand that we show a mutation or a short series of them, "breeding" the required changes to create a sea living mammal out of a land mammal, as your own personal criterion of evolution's truth.

That is why scientists simply ignore your kind of criteria - because they are not genuine predictions of what we, today, should observe, if the theory of evolution is true, so there is simply no need to consider them. You may continue to invest all kinds of irrelevant BS as your criteria for as long as you live, and nobody will give a fig.

Evolution generates real predictions that have been met. It has generated falsification predictions too, and they have not been met. End of story.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#143026 Jul 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has NOT been observed in DNA.
DNA has been ASSUMED to validate evolution based solely on philosophical arguments. Take ape DNA, for example. What would you predict chimp DNA would look like if evolution were false? All you can say is that chimp DNA is "consistent" with evolution. It is also entirely consistent with ID, so you have nothing.
Your contention that ID is not science is IRRELEVANT.
I never said it was, so why do you keep beating a dead horse?
Evolution has been observed in the laboratory? You invariably fail to define "evolution". Lenski's experiment does not provide the slightest hint of evidence that man evolved from a microbe. So why do you persist in ridiculous, unwarranted extrapolations?
Evolution has been "observed" in the fossil record? That is patently false. Only by selective interpretation of data, which is scientific fraud.
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.
It seems that smarter Christians than you (and there are many) accept evolution as fact.

http://www.baylor.edu/about/ ...

"Baylor University, a private Christian university and a nationally ranked research institution, provides a vibrant campus community for more than 15,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship."

http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php ...

"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

Since: Feb 13

United States

#143027 Jul 19, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>Too Christian!!
I know, right ;)

Since: Feb 13

United States

#143028 Jul 19, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>Besides, if you are not the lead Christian, the scenery never changes.
As a dyslexic agnostic, I always wondered if there was a Dog.

Question answered :)
Elohim

Branford, CT

#143029 Jul 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ToE has nothing to do with experimental biology.
That would be news to the biologist doing experimental research of evolution.
Mugwump

Leeds, UK

#143030 Jul 19, 2013
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?
....

.
Whilst its good that you acknowledge that ID isn't science - is does blast a whole in your 'ToE is athesitic BS'

Obviously I have pointed this out before, so will just repost - saves me typing something that you are just going to ignore anyway yet again as it highlights your epic logic fail.
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
And another thing -you accept that ID isn't science (well done), but insist that ToE rejects god.

So you are arguing that ToE is athesitic because it doesn't consider something that is scientifically irrelevant ??

Seriously - feet / bullet holes - how do you do it - some kind of mobility scooter - walk on your hands ?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#143031 Jul 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has NOT been observed in DNA.
DNA has been ASSUMED to validate evolution based solely on philosophical arguments. Take ape DNA, for example. What would you predict chimp DNA would look like if evolution were false? All you can say is that chimp DNA is "consistent" with evolution. It is also entirely consistent with ID, so you have nothing.
Your contention that ID is not science is IRRELEVANT.
I never said it was, so why do you keep beating a dead horse?
Evolution has been observed in the laboratory? You invariably fail to define "evolution". Lenski's experiment does not provide the slightest hint of evidence that man evolved from a microbe. So why do you persist in ridiculous, unwarranted extrapolations?
Evolution has been "observed" in the fossil record? That is patently false. Only by selective interpretation of data, which is scientific fraud.
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.
For one thing, if evolution were false we would not share the same exact site for countless ERV's.

Evolution is falsifiable, we have given examples in the past. Of course if it is true it will never be falsified. That is the whole point of finding how something can be falsifiable. There are other ways that evolution could be falsified. The problem for you guys is that none of your tests ever show evolution not to be true.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#143032 Jul 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ToE has nothing to do with experimental biology.
And you can't get much more "How's That for Stupid?" than that.
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#143033 Jul 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What do we actually predict if whales evolved from land mammals? We would hope that intermediates turned up showing a reasonable progression. We now have them. We would predict evidence in the genome that carried some history of land life in the sea beasts too. Like in so many other genuine predictions of evolutionary history, these have been fulfilled.
We have ambulocetus and others.
We have a whale genome with all the olfactory genes still there but utterly useless to the animals.
We even observe atavisms - occasional appearances of hind legs in whales with musculature and bone in place, though deformed. Not something a "separate kind creationist" would predict.
Then we have you, HTS, with your own special, personal predictions that you think evolution has to meet.
You demand that we show a mutation or a short series of them, "breeding" the required changes to create a sea living mammal out of a land mammal, as your own personal criterion of evolution's truth.
That is why scientists simply ignore your kind of criteria - because they are not genuine predictions of what we, today, should observe, if the theory of evolution is true, so there is simply no need to consider them. You may continue to invest all kinds of irrelevant BS as your criteria for as long as you live, and nobody will give a fig.
Evolution generates real predictions that have been met. It has generated falsification predictions too, and they have not been met. End of story.
This stuff has been easily refuted!

http://creation.com/a-whale-of-a-tale

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapte...
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#143034 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#143035 Jul 19, 2013
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.
Mugwump

Leeds, UK

#143036 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
But refuted by a source that proclaims if science contridicts scripture - then the science can be discarded without examination.

"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

Do you think this is a legitimate stance to take scientifically ?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#143037 Jul 19, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
Both icr.com & creation.com are hack sites that wouldn't know science if Einstein sat on their faces.

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) 27 min Ooogah Boogah 161,745
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 18,847
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 1 hr Paul Porter1 1,665
No Place For ID? 4 hr Denisova 71
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 13 hr Paul Porter1 13,692
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 14 hr Zog Has-fallen 3
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of Sat Chimney1 14
More from around the web