Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,180

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." Full Story

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#149006 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I can interpret it perfectly and still have the same conclusion. You don't have jack squat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =H_YK9wVK6IQXX

Sorry man, but science has the evidence and the theory that explains the evidence.

That is what science does.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#149007 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer obviously lies in the mutations. I think I need to demonstrate that mutations as a mechansim are incapable of driving macroevolutionary development. Actually, several researchers have already done this for me, although this is not necessarily what they intended to do.

I think I have mentioned this before, but there multiple mechanisms that generate evolutionary change. You seem to like to fixate on one and ignore the rest.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#149008 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So I accomplished exactly what I set out to do. And if I can establish that there are no positive mutations, I have my second part fulfilled as well.

But there ARE positive mutations. You try to redefine your way around this, but the fact remains.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Havana, FL

#149009 Aug 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And, that answer is SO obvious that you alone have realized it, while the entire scientific community, including every geneticist, biologist, botanist, zoologist, and biochemist has somehow missed it. Yes, that sounds about right. The greatest discovery in biology in the last 10 years wouldn't come from the biological sciences community, but from a fucking METEOROLOGIST. And, what's the evidence this meteorologist has compiled to support this "obvious" answer?
<quoted text>
Oh, right...NOTHING.
Why should "they" give a rat's-ass? They are committed to the Primary axiom. They will not even look for it. It's going to take a skeptic. Hasn't this always been the case?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Havana, FL

#149010 Aug 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your skepticism and doubt are not based on the evidence.
What science has found is a continuum of fossils between modern humans and their distant ancestors.
There is more difference WITHIN than BETWEEN species of hominids.
The fact that creationists cannot draw a line between what is clearly "ape" and what is clearly human makes the point. The transition is gradual over many species.
This list is pretty interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_ev...
All I see is a bunch of goofy pictures.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#149011 Aug 26, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
But, if the metal had not been mined, you wouldn't have a car to study. And, while "studying" that car, don't you think at some point it might become important to you and your ability to understand what you are looking at to know where the metal came from, how and who designed it, and most importantly the purpose the designer had in mind for tat particular model?

Nope, where the metal came from is of no interest to the mechanic. If fact much of it is recycled anyway. Once you are talking about the car models, etc you are talking (in this metaphor) about evolution.

The initial design would call for a certain grade or range of grades of steal.

Now, knowing exactly how life came about might be interesting or may even give us some insight into evolution, but that is not necessarily so. For example the earliest car had wheels, a seat and a mechanism for steering ... all in line with cars today. However the automobile was not formed out of thin air. It was a MUTATION of the horse drawn buggy (with some bicycle elements thrown in). Carriages evolved from carts, which came from.......

You can actually look at transportation as a whole and develop a "tree of transportation" from it.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#149012 Aug 26, 2013
If the Evo morons had proof of positive mutations, we should see them across the spectrum. Funny how the Evo morons have not one they can prove.

Well, the Evo fairy musta told em.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#149013 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should "they" give a rat's-ass? They are committed to the Primary axiom. They will not even look for it. It's going to take a skeptic. Hasn't this always been the case?
No. It has always taken an open minded person. That leaves you right out.

Newton, not a skeptic. An experimenter, an observer, the same goes for Galileo, Ampere, Mendel. Just about any major scientist that you can name.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#149014 Aug 26, 2013
In fact if you look at even Einstein you will find that he was wrong when he was skeptical and correct when he applied experimentation and observation together and then drew conclusions.

Einstein was very skeptical about quantum mechanics and he was wrong.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Havana, FL

#149015 Aug 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But there ARE positive mutations. You try to redefine your way around this, but the fact remains.
Not really.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Havana, FL

#149016 Aug 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
So, when you compare them to a demographically similar population they actually do not do as well a kids that went to good private schools.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#149017 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should "they" give a rat's-ass? They are committed to the Primary axiom. They will not even look for it. It's going to take a skeptic. Hasn't this always been the case?

You don't seem to understand how science works. Science is a competition. One does not develop a reputation in science by rubber stamping other peoples work. One looks at what has and has not been done with an eye for either weakness so as to overturn a model or for strength to build further upon. The attention grabbers are the ones that take down the old and replace it with something better.

Most fields of science are well beyond the capacity of a humble but loveable underdog to walk in with a paradigm altering idea. As much as Hollywood loves the idea of a bunch of misfits winning the big game it does not happen often in real life.

If I am playing chess against someone who I know has never read a chess book nor ever played in a rated tournament I know I am going to beat them. Not because I have a superior intellect but simply because my past education and experience has given me all the tools I need and the tools I know they don't have!

Scientists (Ph.D's) have years of accumulated knowledge in their areas, they have read the research, DONE the research, worked with others as well and better trained,..... They simply are not going to miss something the former weather girl from Channel 6 can see.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#149018 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really.

I feel for you brother.

Nobody wants to acknowledge that the universe is comprised of invisible purple ping-pong balls either.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#149019 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
All I see is a bunch of goofy pictures.

Exactly. The untrained eye cannot see what is obvious to the trained eye.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#149020 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =H_YK9wVK6IQXX

Good summary.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Havana, FL

#149021 Aug 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to understand how science works. Science is a competition. One does not develop a reputation in science by rubber stamping other peoples work. One looks at what has and has not been done with an eye for either weakness so as to overturn a model or for strength to build further upon. The attention grabbers are the ones that take down the old and replace it with something better.
Most fields of science are well beyond the capacity of a humble but loveable underdog to walk in with a paradigm altering idea. As much as Hollywood loves the idea of a bunch of misfits winning the big game it does not happen often in real life.
If I am playing chess against someone who I know has never read a chess book nor ever played in a rated tournament I know I am going to beat them. Not because I have a superior intellect but simply because my past education and experience has given me all the tools I need and the tools I know they don't have!
Scientists (Ph.D's) have years of accumulated knowledge in their areas, they have read the research, DONE the research, worked with others as well and better trained,..... They simply are not going to miss something the former weather girl from Channel 6 can see.
Yeah but evotards have their heads-up-their-ass.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Havana, FL

#149025 Aug 26, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Once Evolution is disproven, he can concentrate on harnessing perpetual motion and perfecting his Time Machine.
Smartass. Evolution has already been disproven a number of times by well-qualified scientists. I don't have any delusions of who I might influence or what I might accomplish. I am only doing this for my own growth and understanding. I have no such ambitions you evotards claim I have.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149026 Aug 26, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Once Evolution is disproven, he can concentrate on harnessing perpetual motion and perfecting his Time Machine.

LOL now see.... that IS funny "HAHAHAH!"

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#149027 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Flesh-eating Evotarded voodoo Darwin Zombies" ATTACK!!!
Dee made this especially for you.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#149028 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you already forgot that home schooled were better adjusted, better socialized, got better grades, and had higher graduation rates?
Public schooled, eh?
I didn't forget, you just didn't keep up. I said that parental involvement promotes better student performance and that parking a kid in front of an led screen is no substitute for social interaction.
The average student in public school might or might not have encouragement and structure at home, but a home schooled pupil does by matter of course. What conclusion do you draw of your study then - that it was biased by not addressing these home environment factors or that it was completely accurate and impartial?

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
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 9 min Chimney1 948
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min Subduction Zone 142,407
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 min thetruth 14,606
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 7 hr karl44 796
Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent De... (May '13) 11 hr Kong_ 455
Why natural selection can't work 11 hr Dogen 24
Darwin on the rocks Tue The Dude 832
More from around the web