Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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
KAB

United States

#155767 Oct 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Conformational data is simply a matter of answering the questions honestly. Do you dare?
Dogen wrote:
Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised
Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis ....
Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.
Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.
&#8234; The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
&#8234; Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
&#8234; Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
&#8234; The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
&#8234; The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
&#8234; The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
&#8234; The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
&#8234; The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
&#8234; The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
&#8234; Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
&#8234; The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
&#8234; The group is preoccupied with making money.
&#8234; Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
&#8234; Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
&#8234; The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
__________
JW meet all of the above.
If answering the questions honestly is all you require for confirmation, then JWs meet perhaps one of the criteria you provided.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#155768 Oct 1, 2013
Aunt Bee wrote:
<quoted text>

Atheists are not helping the situation by calling Christians uneducated, ignorant, liars who are so stupid and cowardly they choose to believe in fairy tales so they can believe when they die they will go to "never never land" to live with Tinker Bell and Peter Pan!
Excuse me, but that isn't "helping" the situation, it's clarifying it.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#155769 Oct 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If answering the questions honestly is all you require for confirmation, then JWs meet perhaps one of the criteria you provided.
You refer to that "one" which follows "Dogen wrote:" and precedes "______".
Yes KAB, we know... you have often stated that you only respond to "one" thing at a time.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#155770 Oct 1, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Looking at it again, it is clearly neither chimerism nor conjoined twins, but some sort of developmental issue.
Most true chimeras are just like those with 'ordinary' genetics. The only difference is that they have two distinct cell lines in their bodies. It is typical for say, the liver to be one cell line, and the blood a different cell line. Chimerism is typically only discovered when some other condition triggers an investigation (or, for example, tests for parentage determine that a mother is not 'related' to her children).
In some cases, hermaphroditism happens because two cell lines are involved in the development of the genitals. It is also possible that the testes or ovaries have both cell lines, which can produce an intersex condition. In any case, for chimeras, there is only one 'person' involved, but with two sets of genetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genet...
There is only one person yes, but your genetics is what makes you.
Fact remains a chimera would have been two different organisms as in fraternal twins had they developed in separate amniotic sacs , that's why they have two peoples DNA. The other thing is they can be XX/XY genetically , an impossibility in "ordinary" genetics
the whole thing is 2 sets of dna or more, that means 2 distinct organisms or more.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#155772 Oct 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one person yes, but your genetics is what makes you.
I disagree. it is my personality that makes 'me'. My genetics determines a lot, but not everything. My experiences, my development, and my interactions also determine a lot about me.
Fact remains a chimera would have been two different organisms as in fraternal twins had they developed in separate amniotic sacs , that's why they have two peoples DNA. The other thing is they can be XX/XY genetically , an impossibility in "ordinary" genetics
the whole thing is 2 sets of dna or more, that means 2 distinct organisms or more.
I disagree. Look for example at the marmosets described in my link. MOST marmosets are chimeras. They have DNA from fraternal brothers. That doesn't make them two individuals. It makes them one individual with two sets of genetics. There is only one organism with two sets of genetics.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#155773 Oct 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one person yes, but your genetics is what makes you.
Fact remains a chimera would have been two different organisms as in fraternal twins had they developed in separate amniotic sacs , that's why they have two peoples DNA. The other thing is they can be XX/XY genetically , an impossibility in "ordinary" genetics
the whole thing is 2 sets of dna or more, that means 2 distinct organisms or more.
If you had a liver or heart transplant, wouldn't you still be "one organism"?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#155774 Oct 1, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well sure, I wouldn't argue against a god who would never mess with gravity or the speed of light or the SLoT. But I wouldn't argue for that god either, as it would seem to be unnecessary.


From a scientific point of view I would agree. I am not compelled by scientific necessity in this case but by suchness. Neither past nor future exist; only this moment.

The fan blows.
The people talk.
Is more expected?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#155775 Oct 1, 2013
Max_80 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is absolute total NONSENSE" for you are claiming to no someone that the rest off the world does not... This observance has never taken place.

That is simply not true. I can provide references if you like, but I suspect you will not look at them.
Max_80 wrote:
<quoted text> Evolution is a process of we're one species, "evolves" into another".

No. This might be fine for a 5th grader, but this is not proper understanding of evolution. What we call a "species" is simple a photograph. One moment in time of a population.
Max_80 wrote:
<quoted text> This theory happens via a mutation of information being added....

No. "information" is a term that can be used in a metaphorical since but it is not correct. A new species (photograph) can has less "information" than a previous species (photograph).
Max_80 wrote:
<quoted text> you show me this "mutation" process were a creature of its own kind, has been observed "evolving" Into another kind. You cannot....

No can you show me a movie without showing it to me a frame at a time. There are no "kinds" since populations are always changing.
Max_80 wrote:
<quoted text> You also went onto say 'fossil records'.(The old carbon dating) malarkey!

??? Most fossils are not dated using carbon dating. The ones that are use multiple and overlapping dating methods to ensure accuracy.
Max_80 wrote:
<quoted text> Well if you new anything about this method the gentleman who designed this way of measuring the age of "something" said that this way itself is (FLAWED) remember the seal lion they dated,(came up 250,000 years old..... It was still alive.

GIGO. C-14 dating cannot date something at 250,000 years old. It maxes out at 60,000.
Max_80 wrote:
<quoted text> Petrifaction this method can be carried out in a matter off days. Not thousands of years.

It depends upon conditions. Fossilization generally takes much longer than days but less than thousands of years.
Max_80 wrote:
<quoted text> But don't get me wrong i am not saying evolution is a total whitewash, I am saying this. Natural selection and the (survival of the fittest). Well Mr Darwin got it wrong" Oh and I read Francis S Collins book' with great detail". A man who findings changed the hearts of the hardiest Atheists such as Anthony Flew!

This last section makes no sense. And reading a book is not the same thing as understanding it. The last point seems to be that one (1) atheist has become a theist. It is hard to imagine that is significant in a world where people become theists and atheists every day. I personally believe in God though probably not the same one as you believe in (in terms of characteristics).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#155776 Oct 1, 2013
Max_80 wrote:
<quoted text>
lol you speak as if you no me, and it's actually 58,000 -62,000 years (not 60,000- maybe your ignorance proceeds you"
.... And ps the seal statement was a typo. It was 2,500 ". Mr Willard Libby of 1949 later stated himself "the elements used for this dating process are anything but true or sound... At the risk of being called "ignorant" again lol
I shall not delve into the readings or
(the guessing game of fossil dating) but I will say this, neither you or I can fundamentally, comprehensibly say that the tools, and technology we have today are 100% unquestionable.

Most of the dating techniques we have are reliable to about 3% when used individually and somewhat better when used in combination. So not 100% but maybe 97%.

C-14 specimens must be collected and isolated from contamination for there to be any chance of getting a valid reading.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#155777 Oct 1, 2013
Max_80 wrote:
<quoted text>
And do not misplace "ignorance" with a seeker, learner, of the origins off life". Oh and too refer too my previous factual statement 'if Mr Willard Libby denounced his "so-called" method of carbon reading' then what else have these (Government funded scientists "got wrong" ).

Is that the problem with science? Government funding? Well then you will be pleased to know that not all science is dependent upon government funding.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#155778 Oct 1, 2013
Max_80 wrote:
<quoted text>
Il say this about yourself". Certainly as a "person" and a total ass off a person at that, if you yourself believe in God, you certainly do not no him, for your heart speaks volumes in your "so-called" writings here!!! For someone as myself whom has been researching and seeking for such a small period off time, I know a lot" you with your pigeon busting out chest arrogance" well it is revolting I was almost sick in my mouth when I read your oily words.... Another point I shall stream too make is. You are arguing with yourself here, who said that a greater mind, omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, transcendent believer did not believe in "evolution". The findings of the team spear headed by Francis Collins, was just flabbergasting too many scientists" the way that the DNA makeup rotates, in a right-angled manner and its perfectly positioned molecules,
(JUST AS THE SAME WAY, proteins, silicon, Quarks, and so on...... Are in our universe made 50 decade dedicated apologetic atheists such as Flew publicly announce the changing off his mind
"there is an intelligent being behind the cosmos" Hawkings was quoted as saying " If we can fully understand the universe, then we will fully understand the face off God"
Einstein himself was mis-quoted over and over (much too his rage as being an atheist). He himself said.
"At the very least I am a "Pantheist"
So I I'n no way said that great minds and scientists, Are wrong in their findings this is the greatest question of man kind and always will be.... But the difference between someone like you and me, I's that my searchings will be with a smile and humility!!! Oh and I might add with the Holy Spirit as my guide.... Yours will be with arrogance, muttering too ones self, and a dim light that you will see from Time too time that you shall never have any idea what this may be!" Such a pity....
happy findings my grumpy growler lol.... Oh ps by the time i am at the stage you are in your "MR SEEKER" process I shall be the intelligence you dream off my friend. May the God of Judaism bless you.

What is your native language?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#155779 Oct 1, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. it is my personality that makes 'me'. My genetics determines a lot, but not everything. My experiences, my development, and my interactions also determine a lot about me.
<quoted text>
I disagree. Look for example at the marmosets described in my link. MOST marmosets are chimeras. They have DNA from fraternal brothers. That doesn't make them two individuals. It makes them one individual with two sets of genetics. There is only one organism with two sets of genetics.
This is true in some cases, where there was minimal adsorption, and there exist two of them. Of even with bone marrow recipients, or even other possibilities where there are the presence of foreign dna but not a total fusion.

It's evident when a total fusion of two distinctly different DNAs has taken place though. Especially if they are different sexes or extremely, different species. This what I mean is when you really do have a fusion of two different zygotes in a single embryo.
I after all this have learned like anything , there are a spectrum of shades to this subject. More than I ever guessed at first, enough to classify what I refer to as a tetragametic chimera.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17026615

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#155780 Oct 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If answering the questions honestly is all you require for confirmation, then JWs meet perhaps one of the cult criteria you provided.


I am afraid they meet all of them. They meet more than the moonies.

Dogen wrote:
Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised
Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis ....
Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.
Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.
&#8234; The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
&#8234; Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
&#8234; Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
&#8234; The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
&#8234; The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
&#8234; The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
&#8234; The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
&#8234; The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
&#8234; The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
&#8234; Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
&#8234; The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
&#8234; The group is preoccupied with making money.
&#8234; Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
&#8234; Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
&#8234; The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#155781 Oct 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your native language?
Don't you no that is a question were not supposed to ask?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#155782 Oct 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had a liver or heart transplant, wouldn't you still be "one organism"?
Yes, but technically a chimera.
I made a mistake in my last post, a tetragametic chimera is the fusion of two embryo, while a fusion of two zygotes in one embryo is also a chimera.
My distinction of a twin fusion could be either but is definite
in the latter. I see both cases as two people in one, but with
the tetragametic chimera there is no way you can view it medically as a single organism, but two twisted into one.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#155783 Oct 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you no that is a question were not supposed to ask?

Do you mean it is a non optional social convention?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#155785 Oct 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean it is a non optional social convention?
I think some respect for spelling is a non optional social convention!

Must sleep.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#155786 Oct 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
From a scientific point of view I would agree. I am not compelled by scientific necessity in this case but by suchness. Neither past nor future exist; only this moment.
The fan blows.
The people talk.
Is more expected?
Okay, I think I understand suchness...Like the first Rainbow Gathering in Grandby, CO.(1970). Holding hands in a circle with about 5000 other folks, some naked, some wearing granny boots and glasses, all saying Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm as one voice, Being Here Now.

And I do get that for many, church does the same thing. It's not science, but suchness does have value.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#155787 Oct 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if the big guy hadn't confused all the languages, we wouldn't have this problem now would we? Another failure to plan ahead.
Pax vobiscum.
Pax vobiscum,...does that refer to the little frosted mini-bites, or to the classic big ones?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#155788 Oct 1, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Pax vobiscum,...does that refer to the little frosted mini-bites, or to the classic big ones?
Uhhh... Mmmm... Yes!

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 36 min deutscher Nationa... 133,660
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 57 min Kong_ 650
How would creationists explain... 16 hr TurkanaBoy 393
Science News (Sep '13) 16 hr positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web