Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178618 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.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Tarentum, PA

#156358 Oct 9, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I do admit that the math in this conversation is way past my understanding. So of course I have to look at other factors to see if there is anything that I can get a handle on.
There is one thing that should stand way, way out to anyone who has any interest in science. That point is: If Creager is properly using statistical entropy to show that evolution violates the SLoT, wouldn't his work make him a contender for the Nobel Prize? This should be right there with the Higgs Boson, right?
So why are all the classic physicists ignoring him?
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#156359 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.
Yeah.

That would probably happen.

<snicker>
Mugwump

Consett, UK

#156360 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.
Says the guy that insists volcanos produce a million times more CO2 than mankind.

Then ran a mile when I pointed him to a research paper showing the opposite.

So remind me again who spreads the anti-science propaganda UC.

(To appleboy - told you you would get a BS answer)

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156361 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.
Al Gore has not received any Nobel Prize in SCIENCE.

And anyone who can say in the space of a few sentences that cooling something lowers entropy THEREFORE it is the "order of the applied energy" that lowers entropy is simply a stranger to logic.

Make no more excuses for Creager, that is exactly what he claimed. Reread his analysis and discussion and perhaps even you will see it, and see how damned silly it is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156362 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.

Hysterical. You don't even know the difference between Nobel prizes in Science vs. other areas. Gore did not win a Nobel prize in any science field. He won the Nobel Peace Prize which is based on subjective criteria.

You also don't understand what science is or how it works if you don't understand that evolution and "Big Bang" cosmology are pro science and only liberal in the sense that conservatives hate science.

Creager with crap himself with joy at even being nominated. Not that it will ever happen. To win a Nobel prize in science requires one to actually accomplish something in a scientific field.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#156363 Oct 9, 2013
serendipity created the big bang.

a "happy accident" caused the beginning of the universe.

post astro phenix days all TV and all DVD is live.

to explain the complexity to the problem:

and we need the special theory to causality to do this,
plus vis quite a lot of Euclidian linear geometry.

the laptop may well be showing DVD pictures of a by gone age,
nothing new there.

but linking your time and it together in a live link up.
that is surreal.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#156364 Oct 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
One reason he is wrong that evolution violates the SLoT, is that
one of the criteria when for searching for extraterrestrial life.
Is to look for systems that show signs of an entropy reduction.
The biosphere is a system that reduces entropy , because organisms on Earth scavenge some of the waste products of others.
Microbiologists say DNA has the ability to correct code, but natural selection also weeds out part of negative entropy.
Then there is the fact that if DNA becomes too disordered it would would not produce a living organism. So there are many examples as to why evolution and life itself are somewhat immune to gathering and passing on negative entropy.
Yes, but in some of UC's rare lucid moments he has actually agreed with these basic observations. He has admitted that evolution does occur and that speciation does actually occur. His problem with evolution is that there has never been a documented occurrance of something on the order of a reptile transmorgifying in one generation into a bird. He claims that this is proof that macro evolution is impossible.

We need to encourage his occasional moments of clarity and to ask him to apply his above average math ability to those rare instances.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#156365 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.
We'd both agree that Al Gore is a bit flakey, but I don't think he got his Nobel Prize for breaking new ground in science. It was for his efforts to bring the issue of global warming off the back burner and place it in front of the average American.

Would you consider 99 percent of scientists to be extreme left-wingnuts? That doesn't leave much room for the center, or for that matter, right-wingnuts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156366 Oct 9, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but in some of UC's rare lucid moments he has actually agreed with these basic observations. He has admitted that evolution does occur and that speciation does actually occur. His problem with evolution is that there has never been a documented occurrance of something on the order of a reptile transmorgifying in one generation into a bird. He claims that this is proof that macro evolution is impossible.
We need to encourage his occasional moments of clarity and to ask him to apply his above average math ability to those rare instances.

But in true contradictory fashion that we have come to expect of UC, he states that humans don't evolve. We only degenerate.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156367 Oct 9, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We'd both agree that Al Gore is a bit flakey, but I don't think he got his Nobel Prize for breaking new ground in science. It was for his efforts to bring the issue of global warming off the back burner and place it in front of the average American.
Would you consider 99 percent of scientists to be extreme left-wingnuts? That doesn't leave much room for the center, or for that matter, right-wingnuts.

To be truthful, most of the scientists I have known have been a bit left of center. But higher education and higher intelligence correlates with being more "liberal", so that seems expected.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#156368 Oct 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But in true contradictory fashion that we have come to expect of UC, he states that humans don't evolve. We only degenerate.
He is probably just basing that on his own life.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#156369 Oct 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
To be truthful, most of the scientists I have known have been a bit left of center. But higher education and higher intelligence correlates with being more "liberal", so that seems expected.
It varies. My adviser was fairly conservative. He used to have Rush Limbaugh playing on the radio when Rush first started out. I had no idea who Rush even was at the time.

Still, he (my adviser) accepted the evidence for global warming and evolution.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#156370 Oct 9, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We'd both agree that Al Gore is a bit flakey, but I don't think he got his Nobel Prize for breaking new ground in science. It was for his efforts to bring the issue of global warming off the back burner and place it in front of the average American.
Would you consider 99 percent of scientists to be extreme left-wingnuts? That doesn't leave much room for the center, or for that matter, right-wingnuts.

Always best to go to the source to answer questions like that. Turns out you're exactly right.

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/...
Mugwump

UK

#156373 Oct 10, 2013
one way or another wrote:
It is the height of stupidity to claim global warming, but then to claim that can be sequestered, when you can't prove the theory, is not only stupid, but dangerous and harmful to the
Economy.
Gov's only know tax and spend. That is why empires fall.
So rationally explain why AGW isn't happening?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156374 Oct 10, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
So rationally explain why AGW isn't happening?
He already did! You can't prove the theory therefore its the height of stupidity and empires fail becuase they only know tax and spend. They do this by spinning, and spin is the cause of attraction and is controlled by intelligent bacteria working through Jews, who gang up in an anti American way to fabricate false evidence for evolution. Havent you learned ANYTHING?
Mugwump

UK

#156375 Oct 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
He already did! You can't prove the theory therefore its the height of stupidity and empires fail becuase they only know tax and spend. They do this by spinning, and spin is the cause of attraction and is controlled by intelligent bacteria working through Jews, who gang up in an anti American way to fabricate false evidence for evolution. Havent you learned ANYTHING?
My bad :-)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#156376 Oct 10, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
So rationally explain why AGW isn't happening?
Rationally? Ryan? Seriously? You are one huge optimist.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#156378 Oct 10, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We'd both agree that Al Gore is a bit flakey, but I don't think he got his Nobel Prize for breaking new ground in science. It was for his efforts to bring the issue of global warming off the back burner and place it in front of the average American.
Would you consider 99 percent of scientists to be extreme left-wingnuts? That doesn't leave much room for the center, or for that matter, right-wingnuts.
Well, here's the way I see it. If the Nobel Committee can make a big enough blunder to award a dimwit blowhard like Al Gore - an award for creating a pseudoscience agenda for Global Warming, a guy who got D- on his only college science course ever taken and has no credibility and no qualifications to speak of on the subject at all- then this reflects on the Board of Directors of the whole Nobel establishment, and reflects on and affects all other areas, like science, that are awarded.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156379 Oct 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, here's the way I see it. If the Nobel Committee can make a big enough blunder to award a dimwit blowhard like Al Gore - an award for creating a pseudoscience agenda for Global Warming, a guy who got D- on his only college science course ever taken and has no credibility and no qualifications to speak of on the subject at all- then this reflects on the Board of Directors of the whole Nobel establishment, and reflects on and affects all other areas, like science, that are awarded.
Well let's just congratulate Prof Higgs on his groundbreaking work regarding the origins of mass nearly fifty years ago, which had to wait so long for experimental verification. I doubt whether his political views have anything to do with it and I am confident that the science committees that award the science prizes have provided a pretty good reflection of the true pioneers in science over the last century.

Well done Higgs and the team at CERN!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156380 Oct 10, 2013
one way or another wrote:
It is the height of stupidity to claim global warming, but then to claim that can be sequestered, when you can't prove the theory, is not only stupid, but dangerous and harmful to the
Economy.
Gov's only know tax and spend. That is why empires fall.

Science does not prove theories.

It is more harmful to the economy, in the long run, to do nothing about a problem as it grows worse.

Governments know more than tax and spend. They also know borrow and spend.

Empires (your term) rarely fall due to tax and spend. There are many reasons empires fall and financial issues are only one of them.

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) 9 min messianic114 164,408
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 12 min marksman11 141,358
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 min Zog Has-fallen 19,074
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 32 min kenedy njoroge 1,872
When is Quote Mining Justified? 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 26
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 11 hr GTID62 86
Poll Do you believe the universe is granular? (Aug '11) 13 hr cpshrivastava 31
More from around the web