Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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

#159021 Nov 30, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>I'd love to see those mechanisms. I certainly haven't seen one that qualifies as a mechanism. I don't believe we do have them; all we have are vague assumptions based on an assumed association of consciousness with matter.

Then I suggest consulting the research on consciousness.
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text> Dude brought up the example of a developing fetus. He says the zygote is not conscious. OK then that means that the bunch of cells that make up the zygote are a bunch of unconscious molecules that are multiplying and increasing in complexity. When does that unconscious blob assume the first aspect of consciousness? After the first neuron is completely formed? After the entire network is formed? What happens at the instant that the blob changes from a completely unconscious thing to something with the slightest bit of "consciousness"? Anybody? Details?

Here you have to pick your definition of consciousness. One possible characteristic of life is that it reacts to its environment. If so then that could be considered to be a type of consciousness. Even plants respond to touch.
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text> There, prove to me it is molecular and not a quantum phenomenon and I might start believing your way

You are free to believe what you want regardless. Look at Urb, he completely ignores science in favor of his favorite myth. Easy peasy. But going with the science there is no reason to rule out neurological connections as being responsible for at least the illusion of consciousness. quantum effects in the brain certainly occur, but suggesting that is the phenomenon we call consciousness is premature at the very least.

Again, what consciousness IS varies with the research. One area you might find interesting are Buddhist researchers working in the area of consciousness.

Of course in Buddhism consciousness is non-symbolic, so liner thinking would be excluded from formulation. It is also not autonomic so would not include things like the brain controlling organs and hormones.

Search for Jeffery Martin and Harvard and research and you should hit pay dirt.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#159022 Nov 30, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You and him both are confusing the term, conscious and self consciousness and conscious entity are different levels of consciousness. As well as a self conscious entity. Take a mushroom for example, it is conscious, but not self conscious, though an entity not a self conscious one , at least not on a level we recognize one to be. Compared to a sea star which is more conscious but much less than a brained creature. Then we have brained creatures which are entities and are conscious on higher levels than a sea star but still not self conscious. We humans have the highest level of self conscious and are entities , but we may not have the highest levels of consciousness with our earthly abilities. Though we have learned to overcome some of these limitations. For instance I think deer are way more conscious than humans by natural perception alone.
As they can hear and see well beyond human ability.
So there is a mechanism for consciousness, it is the ability to perceive and process exterior information of our surroundings.
Evolution has honed different levels of this consciousness in life. It's only partly mental and neural, the rest is mechanical and by the input of information by perception with our sensory devices.

Pokey and I are looking at non-symbolic consciousness (I think.... still checking). Your definition of consciousness is more the generic biological variety, but you do a good job of describing it.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#159023 Nov 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Lodge has spoken on several occasions about his belief as an evangelical Christian, and credits his faith with preventing him from sinking into the dangerous elements of the rock music business."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lodge_ (musician)
I didn't know that Lodge was a fundie, but I've always thought of the Moody Blues as one of the greatest bands of the 20th century, especially with their cosmic opera creation myth stuff. Very moving.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#159024 Nov 30, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>Talkin about "zero energy universe"? A "quantum fluctuation in vacuum space"? So, vacuum space is 'nothing'? You sure about that? Even poly admits that there is no such thing as 'nothing'; he's admitted it to me in the past. Well there might be a such thing as a dimension of 'nothing', somewhere in existence, but not that we can determine. Like I said if something is born of 'it' than that 'it' is something, not nothing.
Nope, I would not be sure about that. I don't even have an opinion about it. But it is interesting, and there are many highly educated people who do favor that hypothesis. It's sort of the other way around--I'm not totally sure that we don't live in a zero energy universe.

I was not arguing for something. Sometimes I just like to put out ideas. Just for thinking.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#159025 Nov 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Pokey and I are looking at non-symbolic consciousness (I think.... still checking). Your definition of consciousness is more the generic biological variety, but you do a good job of describing it.
Pokay seeks to make the consciousness something totally beyond physical description and human comprehension.
This is not the case, there is nothing physical beyond human comprehension, there is that which is beyond human description ATM, but advance makes all mystery within description.

Neuroscience is within the grasp of human ability, as is consciousness as a product of life's ability of cellular communication, and memory . It's not such a mystery to me anyway.
I can see how it happens, though I cannot explain why it happened.
This is the only mystery of understanding. The mechanics can be explained and understood, but for what reason is anyone's guess.

The mystery of "why" life came to be may never be understood.
But "how" life, and consciousness came to be can be understood.
And we will understand how it works, though never understand why splitting an atom releases so much energy.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#159026 Nov 30, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>Emergent consciousness just means that it is a property of matter rather than something more of a quantum nature that could be as eternal as energy itself. Since we have no working mechanism for it then both possibilities are equally probable.
Like, rather than being something that exists eternally, emergent consciousness is something that emerges from matter once the matter becomes complex enough, or so the theory goes, you know, like in a developing fetus. Consciousness in the squirrel might be fundamentally the same as ours. Who knows?
<quoted text>Now that is the most logical thing I've heard anyone of your opinion say in a long time. I can really appreciate that. Thank you. If only that can rub off on some of the others here.....
So ok, yes I'm pretty sure that consciousness is an emergent quality. But I would also think that the mechanism for consciousness would be the same as the mechanism for having arms and legs. It does seem to be explainable in terms of biochemistry.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#159027 Nov 30, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't know that Lodge was a fundie, but I've always thought of the Moody Blues as one of the greatest bands of the 20th century, especially with their cosmic opera creation myth stuff. Very moving.
I thought I'd give you something to think about. Yes, I have all of their albums and agree with you. But thought it ironic so just felt like sharing.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#159028 Nov 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can go on preaching and philosophizing all you want. But the truth is, you just witnesses the death of another comet, and with out the use of the (evolution rescue theory) Oort Cloud, the universe cannot be that old.
How old do you think it is?
Mugwump

Glasgow, UK

#159030 Nov 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who told you that the Oort Cloud exists and the universe 14 billion years old? What evidence did they show you? That's right, none.
Urb, can you answer a simple question.

The age of the universe, solar system and earth are based on various branches of science , physics, geology, orbital mechanics , and so on and so forth.

Now considering that these are the same branches that seem to work perfectly well to give us GPS, launch satellites , put rovers on the moon and so forth ......

How come it gets it so woefully wrong in NOT aging the universe at 6k years but does a bang up job for everything else ?

Have asked this kind of question before but you normally just come up with a handwave about some conspiracy to protect an ideology of an atheistic worldview.

Thought you may want to come up with a more adult response.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#159031 Nov 30, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>How old do you think it is?
About 6,000 years of course.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#159032 Nov 30, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Urb, can you answer a simple question.
The age of the universe, solar system and earth are based on various branches of science , physics, geology, orbital mechanics , and so on and so forth.
Now considering that these are the same branches that seem to work perfectly well to give us GPS, launch satellites , put rovers on the moon and so forth ......
How come it gets it so woefully wrong in NOT aging the universe at 6k years but does a bang up job for everything else ?
Have asked this kind of question before but you normally just come up with a handwave about some conspiracy to protect an ideology of an atheistic worldview.
Thought you may want to come up with a more adult response.
It is because your question is pure bull dung.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#159033 Nov 30, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure you've heard this one before: One hypothesis concerning the universe says that if the total gravity of the universe and the total matter of the universe are equal, then they cancel each other out to "0". Nothing. That's how something can come out of nothing, because it's nothing to begin with.
I'm not sure what to think of it. Maybe the hypothesis is worth nothing, but it's interesting.
Wow, that's some really bent reasoning you have there, boy.

They don't "cancel each other *out*", they are simply perfectly balanced. If they cancelled each other the universe would no longer exist.

The universe did not rise from nothing just as it will not return to nothing in the future.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#159034 Nov 30, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, that's some really bent reasoning you have there, boy.
They don't "cancel each other *out*", they are simply perfectly balanced. If they cancelled each other the universe would no longer exist.
The universe did not rise from nothing just as it will not return to nothing in the future.
It may seem like bent reasoning to you, but the math works. Check out the video of Lawrence Krauss on "A universe from nothing" or get his book of the same title.
Mugwump

Glasgow, UK

#159035 Nov 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is because your question is pure bull dung.
What is bull dung about asking why physics, astronomy, geology etc all seem to work with the exception of getting the age of the universe off by a factor of several million?

As I said , I was hoping you could give an adult response.

Want to try again?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#159036 Nov 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
About 6,000 years of course.
lol!

Now I KNOW you're Chimney's puppet.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#159037 Nov 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It may seem like bent reasoning to you, but the math works. Check out the video of Lawrence Krauss on "A universe from nothing" or get his book of the same title.
Krauss is FOS.

Only a dumb ass would buy that jerk's book.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#159038 Nov 30, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't know that Lodge was a fundie, but I've always thought of the Moody Blues as one of the greatest bands of the 20th century, especially with their cosmic opera creation myth stuff. Very moving.

Love the Moody Blues. They are much like Rush though toward the pop more than the rock end of the spectrum. Jazz, blues and rock roots, tip of the hat to classical, heavy use of myth and metaphor to highlight very practical and reality based issues..... The list goes on.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#159039 Nov 30, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
What is bull dung about asking why physics, astronomy, geology etc all seem to work with the exception of getting the age of the universe off by a factor of several million?
As I said , I was hoping you could give an adult response.
Want to try again?
Ask a reasonable question and I'll be glad to answer it.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#159040 Nov 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
About 6,000 years of course.
So all your talk about loving science is just window dressing. Science says the earth and the universe are older and you have only the unsupported conclusions of fundamentalism to base your view on.

But hey, don't let me interfere with you fantasy by trying to inject reality into the picture.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#159041 Nov 30, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Pokay seeks to make the consciousness something totally beyond physical description and human comprehension.

Yea, I know. Consciousness is interesting enough that one does not need to mythologize it. He takes an interesting subject and goes overboard with it.

[QUOTE who="Aura Mytha"]<quoted text> This is not the case, there is nothing physical beyond human comprehension, there is that which is beyond human description ATM, but advance makes all mystery within description.

I don't know about that. Certainly we have been very successful at describing and understanding the universe if the last couple of hundred years are any indication. We may get to a point where it is beyond our comprehension and even coherent description, but worry about that will not keep me up at night.

[QUOTE who="Aura Mytha"]<quoted text> Neuroscience is within the grasp of human ability, as is consciousness as a product of life's ability of cellular communication, and memory . It's not such a mystery to me anyway.

You are ahead of me then. Consciousness research is on the cutting edge of neuroscience. We have descriptions of how it works that, when tested, don't seem to fully match what we experience.

I certainly think it is explainable and we won't have to resort to voodoo or magic poofing to get there, but I understand there are a number of questions to be answered. But why should that be a surprise? Science is like that: one answer....2 new questions....

[QUOTE who="Aura Mytha"]<quoted text> I can see how it happens, though I cannot explain why it happened.
This is the only mystery of understanding. The mechanics can be explained and understood, but for what reason is anyone's guess.
The mystery of "why" life came to be may never be understood.
But "how" life, and consciousness came to be can be understood.
And we will understand how it works, though never understand why splitting an atom releases so much energy.

I am reminded of the story of the Taoist Farmer.

Here is one version of it:
http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/Taoist_Fa...

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) 4 min Chimney1 205,343
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 18,682
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) 10 min Chazofsaints 37
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 49 min THE LONE WORKER 43,368
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr Chazofsaints 923
Questions about first life Sun Upright Scientist 18
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Sun Dogen 151,492
More from around the web