Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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 can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#159318 Dec 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And before that one land mass there were many. Pangaea was a temporary phenomenon, a cycle of separation and joining that has been going on repeatedly for the last few billion years. It will happen, and break apart, yet again in the future.
Nobody knows if the original continental formations were fragmented or in one place.
This is just the last 550 million years - 1 eighth of earth's history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Cm5giPd5UroXX
Don't you mean the last 6,000 years. All this moving around took place in the last 6,000 years. Europe and North America moved away from each other at about 1.6 kilometers per year. I wonder why they didn't write about it. Seems like they would have. They were writing all that other science stuff in the Bible.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#159319 Dec 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The Bible spoke of one large landmass thousands of years before Wegner's Continental Drift Theory:
"And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear: And it was so." Genesis 1:9
That's just because they didn't know about the other continents.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#159320 Dec 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you mean the last 6,000 years. All this moving around took place in the last 6,000 years. Europe and North America moved away from each other at about 1.6 kilometers per year. I wonder why they didn't write about it. Seems like they would have. They were writing all that other science stuff in the Bible.
They didn't write much about it because they were busy learning theology--and you know it takes lots and lots of hard work learning lots of theology to be able to come up with good science.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#159321 Dec 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Not only that but there are more than the 2 possibilities you mentioned.
3. the universe or its precursors have always existed.
4. the whole concept of "origin" and cause/effect is flawed once time is understood to be a plastic variable. We may not have even been able to conceive of a system that completely sidesteps this. You say that is a cop out but your claim that God is eternal and /or self created is no different.
No, your logic is flawed. Your (3) and (4) are the same as It all came from "Something". So I repeat, you have only two options to choose from: 1. Something or 2. Nothing. We don't know is not an option, it's a copout.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#159322 Dec 4, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just because they didn't know about the other continents.
That's ridiculous. First of all, the Creator knows how the world was made. Second of all, Moses certainly was aware of large bodies of water and other land masses. Thirdly, even if he didn't, why would he state it clearly one way vs. the other? Why would he say that? Never, mind. I forgot. Non-believers are unable to understand the Bible.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#159323 Dec 4, 2013
I could go on for a long time with scientific facts know from the Bible long before we figured out that it was correct. Here's another:

Ezekiel 5:5

"This is what the Soverign Lord says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the CENTER of the nations, with countries all around her."

Also, Ezekiel 38:12, "Living at the Center of the land."

Well guess what, Dr. Andrew J. Woods found from an extensive study that spot to be mathematically as the geographical center of all landmasses on the earth! Computers were used to make this calculation, since it involves not only continental land but also all the islands and is very complicated.

In 1973, Andrew J. Woods, a physicist with Gulf Energy & Environmental Systems in San Diego, used a digital global map and calculated the coordinates on a mainframe system as

"39°00&#8242;N 34°00&#8242;E, 1000 km north of Giza and 150 km southeast of Ankara, Turkey."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_cen...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#159324 Dec 4, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text>Well at least your admitting that it is "ill defined". How then can you guys state with confidence that consciousness is a molecular phenomenon? That's the whole problem. Saying 'consciousness is molecular' is a guess until it isn't. I'll repeat, with gravity you guys don't seem to try defining it beyond what the evidence shows. That's all I can say to all of you and all I can do is keep repeating it if you don't get it. Trouble is you can't accept the truth. Consciousness just has to be limited to a molecular phenomenon doesn't it?
And my point is that we need to agree ahead of time what types of things we are considering and what types of things we are not considering. The term 'consciousness' isn't just ill-defined: it is ambiguous: different people have very different intuitions about it. I think that is because there is more than one phenomenon going on and that it is important to distinguish them.

Let me be clear: in no way of interest to me is an atom or a rock conscious. The 'consciousness' I am interested in primarily simply isn't active in such objects. Instead, it is active in animals with complex nervous systems.

We also seem to have a problem with terminology. To be a quantum process means that to explain the phenomenon requires the use of quantum mechanical ideas such as wave functions, entanglement, and the uncertainty principle. I very strongly doubt that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon in this sense. The scale is just too large for consciousness and the relevant temperatures too high: the quantum effects would get immediately washed out. Of course *all* phenomena are ultimately reducible to quantum phenomena, but this is frequently not the best way to understand them.

Next, to be a molecular phenomenon means that the to explain the phenomenon requires understanding the particular chemistry of the materials involved. This is one step up from a quantum phenomenon, but the molecules are generally treated classically or as 'black boxes'. Again, I doubt that consciousness is a molecular phenomenon. While the activities of the different molecules will determine whether they are stimulants or depressants on various parts of the nervous system, my intuition is the particular molecular properties are not as relevant as their effects on the whole. So, while serotonin and norepinephrine have very different effects, I think the specific mechanism for those effects is less relevant to consciousness than the effects themselves.

It was also suggested that consciousness is an electro-chemical phenomenon. I see this as being approximately the same level as molecular, but with the acknowledgement that electrical forces are important for conductivity of the neurons. Again, the neurotransmitters are at this level.

The next level up would be the cellular level. This is the level concerned with how cells signal each other, how they grow and reproduce, etc. This is the level of the nerve cells, synapses, and conduction along axons. Even here, I find the level to be below that required to understand consciousness. It seems to me that an understanding at this level is important, but it is somewhat like understanding a computer operating system by looking at transistors.

I would suggest that consciousness is a phenomenon of connection between signaling and processing units (such as neurons) and is closer to being software than it is to being hardware. The difference is that the brain is not a stored program computer: the neural connections and their changes provide the continuing substrate on which the program of consciousness runs.

Now, this leads me to the intuition that it is possible computers or some other machine will be conscious in the future. I am much less certain about the prospects of transferring consciousness from a brain to a computer: the architectures are just too different. But imagine the speed-up if it is every accomplished!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#159325 Dec 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your logic is flawed. Your (3) and (4) are the same as It all came from "Something". So I repeat, you have only two options to choose from: 1. Something or 2. Nothing. We don't know is not an option, it's a copout.
No, if (3) the universe has always existed, then it did not 'come from' anything. It simply always was. You can certainly understand the concept because you believe the same thing about your deity: it always was and didn't come from anything. So it is a *possibility* that the universe has this property and 'God' is an irrelevant addition to the hypothesis.

As for (4), that causality isn't relevant, this is clear: causality is part of the time structure of the universe. If there isn't time, there isn't causality and so no 'coming from'.

You are the one jumping to conclusions, which is the actual 'cop-out'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#159326 Dec 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I could go on for a long time with scientific facts know from the Bible long before we figured out that it was correct. Here's another:
Ezekiel 5:5
"This is what the Soverign Lord says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the CENTER of the nations, with countries all around her."
Also, Ezekiel 38:12, "Living at the Center of the land."
Well guess what, Dr. Andrew J. Woods found from an extensive study that spot to be mathematically as the geographical center of all landmasses on the earth! Computers were used to make this calculation, since it involves not only continental land but also all the islands and is very complicated.
In 1973, Andrew J. Woods, a physicist with Gulf Energy & Environmental Systems in San Diego, used a digital global map and calculated the coordinates on a mainframe system as
"39°00&#8242;N 34°00&#8242;E, 1000 km north of Giza and 150 km southeast of Ankara, Turkey."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_cen...
I notice you dishonestly left out the next sentence:

"In 2003, a revised calculation using the higher resolution ETOPO2[6] global digital elevation model (DEM) with data points every 2'(3.7 km near equator) led to a more precise result of 40°52&#8242;N 34°34&#8242;E (180 km northeast of Ankara) and thereby validated Woods' calculation."

Neither is anywhere close to Jerusalem.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#159327 Dec 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on, think a little bit Poly. In
"He draws up the drops of water,
which distill as rain to the streams;
The clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind. Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds, how he thunders from his pavilion?"
You have the complete cycle; 1. Cloud, 2. Evaporation, 3. Rain, and 4. Cloud. "He *DRAWS UP THE WATER*(evaporation)....*WHICH DISTILL AS RAIN (condensation) TO THE STREAMS"*
I mean, how much clearer could it be? Or do you just like to be difficult?
It's almost as if your ideology requires you to say, "whatever the Creationists say, take the opposite position, even if it goes counter to all logic, common sense, and truth."
Again Urb, your quote is a modern adaptation. The Torah does not state what you claim.
Don't you remember being told that when you start with a false premise you will reach a false conclusion?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#159328 Dec 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The Bible spoke of one large landmass thousands of years before Wegner's Continental Drift Theory:
"And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear: And it was so." Genesis 1:9
The writers of Genesis also said that the Earth was created prior to every other observable celestial body. Do you really find it so amazing that they were ignorant of all but the one large land mass they lived on?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#159329 Dec 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I could go on for a long time with scientific facts know from the Bible long before we figured out that it was correct. Here's another:
Ezekiel 5:5
"This is what the Soverign Lord says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the CENTER of the nations, with countries all around her."
Also, Ezekiel 38:12, "Living at the Center of the land."
Well guess what, Dr. Andrew J. Woods found from an extensive study that spot to be mathematically as the geographical center of all landmasses on the earth! Computers were used to make this calculation, since it involves not only continental land but also all the islands and is very complicated.
In 1973, Andrew J. Woods, a physicist with Gulf Energy & Environmental Systems in San Diego, used a digital global map and calculated the coordinates on a mainframe system as
"39°00&#8242;N 34°00&#8242;E, 1000 km north of Giza and 150 km southeast of Ankara, Turkey."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_cen...
"The exact center of the earth, insofar as Mr. Woods’ calculations could determine, was found to be near Ankara, the present capital of Turkey, at latitude 39° and longitude 34°, on the same latitude as Mount Ararat and essentially the same longitude as Jerusalem."
http://www.icr.org/article/50/

Talk about grabbing at straws! Hilarious!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#159330 Dec 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice you dishonestly left out the next sentence:
"In 2003, a revised calculation using the higher resolution ETOPO2[6] global digital elevation model (DEM) with data points every 2'(3.7 km near equator) led to a more precise result of 40°52&#8242;N 34°34&#8242;E (180 km northeast of Ankara) and thereby validated Woods' calculation."
Neither is anywhere close to Jerusalem.
Exactly!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#159331 Dec 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's ridiculous. First of all, the Creator knows how the world was made. Second of all, Moses certainly was aware of large bodies of water and other land masses. Thirdly, even if he didn't, why would he state it clearly one way vs. the other? Why would he say that? Never, mind. I forgot. Non-believers are unable to understand the Bible.
"Again, the devil takes him up into an exceeding high mountain, and shows him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them..."

Matthew 4:8

So, either the world was flat -- in order to see 'all the kingdoms of the world', OR, "The World" consisted ONLY of their little corner of the planet upon which they lived.

Or the whole damn story is just that: A story.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#159332 Dec 4, 2013
To weigh in on the "conscious" end of this thread, here's an interesting article from a couple of weeks back:

A neuroscientist's radical theory of how networks become conscious.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/1...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#159333 Dec 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on, think a little bit Poly. In
"He draws up the drops of water,
which distill as rain to the streams;
The clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind. Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds, how he thunders from his pavilion?"
You have the complete cycle; 1. Cloud, 2. Evaporation, 3. Rain, and 4. Cloud. "He *DRAWS UP THE WATER*(evaporation)....*WHICH DISTILL AS RAIN (condensation) TO THE STREAMS"*
I mean, how much clearer could it be? Or do you just like to be difficult?
It's almost as if your ideology requires you to say, "whatever the Creationists say, take the opposite position, even if it goes counter to all logic, common sense, and truth."
Sorry, but this is quite a stretch. Anyone can see that water comes from clouds. So the water has to get up into the clouds. This passage is saying that God is the one doing this. This is NOT evaporation, it is God making the clouds out of water. There is no awareness of a cycle in this passage.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#159334 Dec 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, it's like just totally unfounded, man! I mean we see mice on Earth but how the hell do we know that they were a product of Earth and don't actually have their origins on the moon? Moon is cheese theory, man. Teach the controversy. That's what I say.
Not the same at all and you know it. Where we have molecules we have quantum realities. I know you can't admit it though, you guys have dedicated yourselves to the 'cause' even if it means bending the truth to promote it.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#159335 Dec 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't by any chance watch this BS did you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =MJBmWvuTrVYXX
Please; I'm not trying to insist on *my* beliefs; I am only talking about yours, and the fact that you think they are facts when they are not.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#159336 Dec 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Electrochemical would be better than molecular, though molecular is not inaccurate.
We are built of molecules and neurological transmission occurs on that level. When scans of brain activity are done they show consciousness as well as the content of consciousness (though not much of the specifics yet..... but they are getting there). Note that scans show more than discursive thinking, but also the background awareness without object.
Again, look at the links I gave you.
There you go still assuming consciousness is a product of the brain. Sure we can assume the brain is associated in a big way and maybe consciousness even is a product of the brain but you don't know that. Period.
This is incorrect.
You've got some nerve. How so it is incorrect? I say that about you too but at least I specify what is incorrect.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#159337 Dec 4, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy enough to refute. Simply provide evidence of a consciousness that is not molecular.
What of mine is there to refute when all I am saying is that *you* have no substantial evidence that consciousness is a product of molecules. I'm not trying to say it is quantum; I'm only saying that until there is enough evidence of a mechanism you can't say that a molecular mechanism is more probable than a quantum one.

No one can spell out the mechanism. Just because we have complicated networks, that somehow gives you the right to assume they produce consciousness rather than functioning as a conductor of it?
Your 'point's understood. It is your evidence that is in question.
Again, I am not making a claim. I am telling you that you cannot claim consciousness is of molecular origin until you know that op be true.
There is not - as yet - any reason to conclude that consciousness exists at any level lower them the molecular unless you can demonstrate that there is some characteristic at the quantum level that corresponds to the molecular.
Likewise there is no reason to conclude it exists on a molecular level either, just because we see electrons flowing. We plain ol don't know what consciousness is.

I'm not saying it exists on the quantum level I'm saying we have no idea what it "exists on".

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) 1 min DanFromSmithville 171,580
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 1 min In Six Days 20
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 min DanFromSmithville 142,483
Darwin, Marx, and Freud 1 min Paul Porter1 2
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 54 min Paul Porter1 213
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 58 min Paul Porter1 20,497
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 7 hr Zog Has-fallen 4
More from around the web