Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

Mugwump

Leeds, UK

#144275 Jul 26, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Science does agree with me. Christian Scientists don't but they aren't really scientists, they are religinuts.
Have to disagree here, if you mean scientists who are Christian (or whatever faith) then they on the majority DO agree with you (evolution / old earth).

If you mean creation scientists , then you are correct, but they aren't really scientists as
A) don't submit to peer review
B) proclaim their religious bias up front
C) support something that is unfalsifieable (intelligent design)

Minor clarification (so it will be lost on HTS)

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#144276 Jul 26, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooooh. You forgot "atheist religion", etc.

I was mentally including that under 'dogma'.

As in "atheist dogma".

But I should tie that together a little better for my millions of readers.

[wrong forum for this joke, but it still makes me laugh]

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#144277 Jul 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's laughable to watch a spineless atheist pretend to be insensed by moral incertitude...as if your baseless worldview acknowledges any absolute standards of right and wrong.

Worldviews are not the basis of morals. Morals are the result of genetics and life experiences.

If you want to bring worldview into this then why are atheists more moral (on average) than the devoutly religious?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#144278 Jul 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand perfectly the depth of your logic.
Anything that is taught in high school must be true.
Anything that is not taught in high school must be false.

I have offered to point you to a book on logical reasoning if you ever choose to aquatint yourself with that subject.

That offer still stands.


You seem to be a proponent of Rush Limbaughian logic.

Example:
If the sky is purple
and If hottentots where a size 6
Then Liberals suck.

Your logic works along similar lines, I perceive.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#144279 Jul 26, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Have to disagree here, if you mean scientists who are Christian (or whatever faith) then they on the majority DO agree with you (evolution / old earth).
If you mean creation scientists , then you are correct, but they aren't really scientists as
A) don't submit to peer review
B) proclaim their religious bias up front
C) support something that is unfalsifieable (intelligent design)
Minor clarification (so it will be lost on HTS)
No, I mean Christian Scientists http://christianscience.com/
HTS

Mandan, ND

#144280 Jul 26, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
<sigh>

A) why SHOULD science (evolution) consider non-scientifically valid concepts (whether to reject them or include them)- should evolution also refute the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Zeus etc?
Strawman...
No one has ever suggested that science can consider any specific intelligent being.
Science can evaluate the presence or absence of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#144281 Jul 26, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
If nature proves your god exists, why doesn't everyone living in nature believe in your god? See! You just failed the disinterested third party check. FAIL!!!
Everyone agrees Nature exists. Nature is the only verified potential creator of life.
It really is that simple.
I never suggested that nature proves that "my God" exists.
I said that nature shows proof of "God", ie, intelligent design.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#144282 Jul 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
RNA is naturally forming.
<quoted text>
It's called Chem-is-try. Look it up.
At times like this it is really hard to restrain myself and not call you a dumba$$.
RNA does not form naturally as a genetic code. RNA tetraloops and the like contain no information.
There is no known property of chemistry that causes self assembly of molecules into a genetic code without a pre existing genetic code.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#144283 Jul 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand what falsification is.
Arguing against a stupid but prevalent unscientific notion is not falsification. It is a public service.
Tell us again how much you know about science. I like your new stuff but sometimes we want the classics.
You're a veritable moron, Dogen.
Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, and Dobzhansky and many others all feverishly argue that evolution should accepted because they found I'd incredible.

Another example... D.M.S. Watson, a British paleontologist, wrote,

"The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data, for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

*(Watson D.M.S.[British palaeontologist], "Adaptation", Nature, No. 3119, Vol. 124, August 10, 1929, pp.231-234).[emphasis added]

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#144284 Jul 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Strawman...
No one has ever suggested that science can consider any specific intelligent being.
Science can evaluate the presence or absence of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Fine, how does it do that?

Be prepared to become famous, no creationist has been able to show how this is done to date.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#144285 Jul 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a veritable moron, Dogen.
Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, and Dobzhansky and many others all feverishly argue that evolution should accepted because they found I'd incredible.
Another example... D.M.S. Watson, a British paleontologist, wrote,
"The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data, for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
*(Watson D.M.S.[British palaeontologist], "Adaptation", Nature, No. 3119, Vol. 124, August 10, 1929, pp.231-234).[emphasis added]
How do we know that this creatard is quote mining?

Because he forgot to link the valid source.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#144286 Jul 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I never suggested that nature proves that "my God" exists.
I said that nature shows proof of "God", ie, intelligent design.
And once again, how does it do that?

You have made another empty claim. No creatard has ever managed to show this, do how you propose to show proof of intelligent design?
Mugwump

Leeds, UK

#144287 Jul 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Strawman...
No one has ever suggested that science can consider any specific intelligent being.
Science can evaluate the presence or absence of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Let me introduce you to someone whom vehemently disagrees with you.

HTS, meet HTS sure you will get on like a house on fire as you are both dumb as a bucket of frogs.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I've reiterated at least a dozen times...
I'M NOT CLAIMING THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS SCIENCE.
So, I don't need to offer any scientific evidence of God.
Am intrigued about how you get around with so many bullet holes in your feet, crutches, mobility scooter ?
defender

Chicago, IL

#144288 Jul 27, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text><sigh>

Still avoiding the point I see - the above post was just a repeat of the earlier one so irrelevant let me remind you of the point I am making - you said.

HTS wrote, "<quoted text>
The "theory" of abiogenesis proposes that life evolved from non-living matter without intelligent design.
What evidence do you have of that?
Nothing.
Science tells us that such a proposal is impossible.
"

Now you said that the 'theory' of abiogenisis proposes an absence of ID (not sure why you quoted the word theory - obviously you being a scientist as you stated you would know the difference between theory and hypothesis(es))

You also agree that there is no way of falsifying ID as it can explain anything (though NOT apparently the designer using evolution as part of 'his' intelligent design)

You also agree that ID is NOT science.

So

A) why SHOULD science (evolution) consider non-scientifically valid concepts (whether to reject them or include them)- should evolution also refute the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Zeus etc?

B) how can we present evidence (scientific) that rejects something that is not scientific in the first place - would you use scientific evidence to refute which was the better poet , Wordsworth or Keats?

You say yourself that you are a scientist (presume part time as your medical duties must keep you busy) so understand the concept of what IS and IS NOT science - so forget all the quotes and other people's opinions - just draw on your 20 years of scientific experience and confine your self to addressing the above points.

Or dodge again
ID is simply self evident... Why should science have to refute it?
The only people who have a problem with ID are the members of evolutionism... Evolution is an unproven theory. Thats all... Evolutionism (Wicca) is the God hating mother nature worshipper's religion that has laid claim to this broken model and is now used as a cornerstone for their beliefs...

If later today scientist discovered that aliens had visited earth millions of years ago then all the sudden ID would be accepted as a theory...

It's clear that life on earth could not have come to be by natural processes.... HTS is right it's simply not happening... It's the 900 pound gorilla in the room you ignore...

Life is designed... Now by who or what is a different debate altogether... But you see science isn't what you care about anyway is it?
defender

Chicago, IL

#144289 Jul 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Do you seriously think that it's scientifically logical to conclude that a force does not exist because you cannot see it?

Do you seriously think it is scientifically logical to conclude that a force exists that no one can see? Are you like retarded?
Or just severely brain damaged?
No.., because you cannot prove it... You cannot tell the difference between scientific fact and wild ass speculation yet call others retarded?
Your hateful insults expose you nicely... HTS has kicked your behind up one side of the street and down the other and you can't take it...
defender

Chicago, IL

#144290 Jul 27, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>The irony is HTS insists because science can't fill in ALL the 'gaps'(I.e. evolutionary pathways for EVERY organism)- we should insert Intelligent Design, which isn't (in his own words) science as an alternative.

Or that because abiogenisis is currently some come competing hypotheses - rather than a scientific theory we should insert ID, even though he can't provide evidence for a particular (well any really) creator.

As you point out - logic isn't HTS's strong point.
Umm... It's funny how these little gaps you speak of are only the most important cornerstones of ToE...
defender

Chicago, IL

#144291 Jul 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>No, abiogenesis does not explicitly deny creationism. But creationism is not science and cannot be tested.

HTS wrote, "<quoted text>What evidence do you have of that?
Nothing."


This is not correct. All compound things are made of mater and energy. Life is made of exactly the same things as everything else in the universe.

There is nothing unique, in that respect, to life.


HTS wrote, "<quoted text> Science tells us that such a proposal is impossible."


I must have missed that in all the science classes I took in college. Can you cite a scientific source that says abiogenesis is impossible?

Bear in mind that if you cite the SLoT then I will be justified in presuming you do not understand what you are talking about.

Likewise if you cite the LoB I will be forced to the same conclusion.

I am sure I have explained why these don't work in arguing against abiogenesis in the past, but I will repeat the information if you need.
Lol... It's ok to argue with Dogen just as long as you play by his rules!!
defender

Chicago, IL

#144292 Jul 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>No one is saying DNA is not complicated.

As EVERYTHING else that has been discovered appears to have a natural source why would assuming life has a natural source be off track, per se?

http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-...

Atheism is a red herring. As many people who work in biology, evolutionary biology, genetics, etc are from theistic religions, how does this qualify as atheism?
Umm... SZ said DNA is simple...
defender

Chicago, IL

#144293 Jul 27, 2013
Ok the Abiogenesis debate is awesome but we've covered it enough... Can we move on?... I have some questions that I'd love ask...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#144294 Jul 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Strawman...
No one has ever suggested that science can consider any specific intelligent being.
Science can evaluate the presence or absence of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

So the question is why is there a plethora of evidence supporting a natural origin (in so far as the universe might be natural) and none at all for design?

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) 6 min Dogen 81,506
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 54 min Science 2,188
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 59 min Science 32,892
Did humans come from Sturgeons? 12 hr Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee 12 hr Science 1
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 18 hr Science 164,261
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web