Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180392 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.

KAB

United States

#166892 Feb 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Accepting evolution is not faith based. No faith is required. It is evidence based. It is based upon the scientific method which has earned respect from its past results.
Religion on the other hand is the opposite of that. There is no correlation between being religious and being good. In fact statistics indicate the opposite is true. More likely to go to prison, there is no doubt about that one, it is huge, more likely to get divorced if you are religious. Probably also more out of wedlock births and abortions among the religious too. Those stats are a little harder to find, but it only makes logical sense.
Aren't you among those who maintain that science cannot confirm anything?

Regarding religion, you provide no data, but I happen to think you are datalessly correct, at least for the most part, on this one. I have virtually no respect for religion as the world generally knows and practices it. The religion of the Bible is another matter, not practiced by almost all of those professing a relationship to it. In fact, the Bible itself has disdain for what the world generally knows as religion (Revelation 18).

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#166893 Feb 19, 2014
Cash wrote:
It's a decent point except the basics of teaching evolution should be no different than the basics of physics. We can teach force, we can teach genetics.
Evolution is complex, as is high end physics, but it doesn't require a PhD to learn the foundations of either.
The teaching of evolution should start as soon as the teaching of science does, at an age appropriate level.
While a 3rd grader won't be able to understand complex genetics, they can probably understand about traits and how some traits help animals survive, while others don't.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#166894 Feb 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, accepting abiogenesis is based upon logic and experience. We know that life evolved. Only a few utter morons oppose this idea at all. Logic and experience show us that there are no supernatural causes in our world. Abiogenesis is a logical deduction.
And just in case you need to be reminded, you have never shown any scientific idea to be wrong. All you have shown is that you have no understanding of science at all.
We do not "know" that life evolved. You're confusing dogma with scientific observation.
Abiogenesis is not a logical deduction.
It has not been observed, and it has not been demonstrated to be possible. Unorganized matter left to itself remains unorganized. Millions of years has never been proven to be the panacea to overcome all improbabilities.
Spontaneous generation, which you believe in, is believed to be impossible except by a few utter morons. You apparently have no concept of the true complexity of biology. The spontaneous binding of atoms into molecules has nothing to do with the spontaneous self assembly of a genetic code.

So let's get something straight...
Abiogenesis is impossible in observable timescales... agreed?
Therefore, you must believe that billions of years is the answer.
Do you have any mathematical justification for that assumption?
KAB

United States

#166895 Feb 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I had college level courses in counseling, as I'm sure you also have had. So we are both familiar with TA. So I do understand that in many situations it is appropriate to initiate an adult authority /child student transaction format. I'm sure that this is a vital tool in your ministry. This works well when both parties agree that it is appropriate.
TA methods can also provide an advantage for those trained in controlling the outcome of a discussion by controlling the relationship of the individuals in the discussion. One very good way to get control of the relationship is to ask leading questions and dole out selected bits of information. If the other person bites on this, it helps to firm up the authority/student relationship, putting the initiator in command of the outcome. And if an individual bites on this, it lends credibility to the initiator leaving out any contradicting information, for the sake of keeping things as simple as possible for the student.
So no. If you have a claim to make, do so. The issue for us here is science, not church doctrine.
My claim, actually a fact confirmed by you, is that you make general assertions about the Bible which you are unwilling to confirm. If this is going any further, the ball is in your court to provide that confirmation.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#166896 Feb 19, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
The teaching of evolution should start as soon as the teaching of science does, at an age appropriate level.
While a 3rd grader won't be able to understand complex genetics, they can probably understand about traits and how some traits help animals survive, while others don't.
The teaching of evolution should be relegated to departments of religion. It is not science...not even close.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#166897 Feb 19, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
I will repeat the question , or form it in a different way by a series of related questions for you to ignore (more economical that way)
1) can you provide evidence that suggests abiogenesis is impossible?(References)
2) life has ALWAYS existed on earth ? Yes or No
3) explain the mechanisms of EVOLUTION that are required for ABIOGENISIS (references required, so we know it's not just your opinion)
4) since we can't definitively say how the basic elements came into being, are observable mechanisms involving those basic particles (let's call it PHYSICS) simalarly bogus.
I will remind you that you challenged me for EVIDENCES, not necessarily proof...

1) Evidence that abiogenesis is impossible: No known forces exist that could result in spontaneous molecular bonding to result in a genetic code. Reference: Charles Thaxton, physical chemist, wrote, "No one to date has published data indicating that bonding preferences could have had any role in coding the DNA molecules."
It is self evident that a complex genetic code cannot be created through random molecular interactions. The spontaneous self assembly of DNA, since no bonding preferences have been demonstrated, could not possibly have occurred because of laws of probability. It is the same obstacle one is faced with if he proposes that a monkey could type a Shakespearean play. The burden of proof certainly lies with a proponent of abiogenesis to prove otherwise.
2) I don't believe that life has always existed on the earth. I cannot prove it.
3) Mechanisms of evolution required for abiogenesis: All proponents of abiogenesis agree that for abiogenesis to have occurred, it would have had to occur gradually by imperceptable steps. The estimated timeframe for formation of the first single cell life is about 1 billion years. That was not one billion years of trial and error molecular interactions, finally suddenly resulting in a fully developed cell. Hundreds of millions of years of living organisms that preceded bacteria would have had to exist. They would have been autonomous self replicating entities, and therefore would have been considered living forms. Therefore, they have to be included in the ToE. I don't need to provide any reference for this, unless you think that a bacterium suddenly sprang in to existence from non-living matter.
4) Please rephrase the question. I don't understand its relevance.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#166898 Feb 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not "know" that life evolved. You're confusing dogma with scientific observation.
Abiogenesis is not a logical deduction.
It has not been observed, and it has not been demonstrated to be possible. Unorganized matter left to itself remains unorganized. Millions of years has never been proven to be the panacea to overcome all improbabilities.
Spontaneous generation, which you believe in, is believed to be impossible except by a few utter morons. You apparently have no concept of the true complexity of biology. The spontaneous binding of atoms into molecules has nothing to do with the spontaneous self assembly of a genetic code.
So let's get something straight...
Abiogenesis is impossible in observable timescales... agreed?
Therefore, you must believe that billions of years is the answer.
Do you have any mathematical justification for that assumption?
We do not have the data to confirm that abiogenesis is possible or impossible in observable timescales. And there is no known limit to complexity in nature. If you have some data to verify such a limit, please include that in your reply.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#166899 Feb 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Yet again, my challenges remain unanswered.
That is a lie.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I have repeatedly reminded you that all proposed pathways of abiogenesis involve hundreds of millions of years of evolution involving presumed self-replicating, living life forms that preceded bacteria.
You are mixing two different things; chemical evolution and biological evolution. Chemical evolution can be quite rapid if the mix is right. Studies of chemical evolution have had amazing results in that they have produced results faster than expected. Biological evolution is more hit and miss but you are correct in that the earliest bacteria we have discovered so far probably has a quarter billion years of ancestors we have not yet found.

But we have discovered over 3 BILLION years of life in the last 65 years. In 1950 the earliest known life was in the Cambrian! What will we discover in the next 65 years?

65 years ago creotards could point to the earliest life being very complex and ONLY 500 million years ago. Today your situation is much worse. Now we go back 3.7 BILLION years and life is progressively more simple the further we go back. Most creotards still want to believe the earth is 6,0000 years old and life poofed into existence fully formed, but we can refute that (and make it look really stupid at the same time).


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You guys keep parroting the same old worn out dogma about gravity and the origin or mass. Unless you think that bacteria formed from non-living matter in one gigantic step, you remain responsible to address how simpler living entities lead up to bacteria.
Why is that our responsibility? That is the job of science and it is being worked on. Abiogenesis is a science (actually a combination of sciences) that is in its infancy. You can ask science to answer questions, but you cannot make it preform on demand. Science is more like a cat than a dog.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You cannot arbitrarily divorce yourselves from one billion years of presumed evolutionary history by simply regurgitating the same illogical argument... that abiogenesis is irrelevant to ToE. For once, address these concerns with scientific logic.
That is a simple fact and not illogical. It would seem that you cannot understand very elementary things if you have a problem with the division of sciences. ToE is not predicated on abiogenesis. ToE only concerns itself with what happens to populations of living organisms over time.

Does that mean people who work in fields related to evolutionary biology are not interested in abiogenesis? By no means! People are very interested. But it does not effect how evolution works, nor does it effect the validity of the ToE.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#166900 Feb 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know that much about JW's.
I do observe that you pretend to be interested in science, but can never resist bashing religion.

JWs are cult members. They are controlled by a central power. They are not religious insomuch as they are simply compliant.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> It only demonstrates how deeply insecure you are with your own worldview.
You are a spineless atheist, Dogen.
I am trying to help our friend Yellow KAB extract himself from a cult so he can find Christ. So, as you say, "spineless atheist".
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You consistently deny being an atheist, because it's not politically fashionable to self-identify as such.

Quite the contrary. I have friends who are atheists who would love for me to join them is areligious bliss. If you think me a man of fashion you don't know me at all.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Yet in virtually every argument you present you deny the existence of intelligent design.

ID is for pseudoreligious bumpkins. It is a perversion of creation. It is processed to be palatable to those with no pallet. It is meat in a can.

I am a creationist at my core. But that is my belief system. I have plenty of room in my brain for my beliefs AND for scientific facts. God created (sic) a universe capable of gravity, capable of electromagnetic forces, capable of lifeing and capable of evolution.

I would [very smug in tone] love to see your puny little god of the gaps do that trick!

Denial of intelligent design is atheism.

Denial of intelligent design is just rational. ID is pablum for the simpleton masses. It fails as religion. It fails as science. It even fails as philosophy.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> If you actually believe in a God, why do you emphatically deny evidence of His existence.
If God wanted to give evidence he would do so. Since he has not it is obviously not a concern of his. Who am I to tell Yahweh he is wrong? You can do that. You can suffer the consequences.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#166902 Feb 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Re-read my challenge, you bonehead.
I've read it, dickhead.
HTS wrote:
I've already refuted all of your idiotic arguments.
You haven't refuted a damn thing. And it wasn't an argument. It was an explanation that even a 5th grader could understand. Too bad it was beyond your grasp.
HTS wrote:
If you think bacteria poofed into existence in one step from non-living matter, then abiogenesis would be a separate study from ToE.
I've never made that claim nor do I accept it to be a valid claim.

I suggest you take up farming as a profession. You seem to be very good at spreading manure but not much else.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#166903 Feb 19, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My claim, actually a fact confirmed by you, is that you make general assertions about the Bible which you are unwilling to confirm. If this is going any further, the ball is in your court to provide that confirmation.
My claim that the bible is no more valid than any other religious document stands. You cannot provide any unfalsifiable evidence to support the claim that it was inspired by a creator. If you can, do so. But so far you have hand waved off everything others have pointed out to you as errors in the bible. Why would you do any different in this conversation?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#166904 Feb 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Re-read my challenge, you bonehead.
I've already refuted all of your idiotic arguments.
If you think bacteria poofed into existence in one step from non-living matter, then abiogenesis would be a separate study from ToE.

You have refuted nothing. You are more of a spambot troll than an actual contributor to this forum. You screem "Did!, Did not!" like a child but never provide evidence, nor science and further you do not seem to understand those who do.

No one said bacteria poofed into existence in one step. That is your straw-man. We have ALL consistently said just the opposite.

Abiogenesis is separate from biological evolution as you need a bio to have biological evolution. Duh.

Till you have a bio (life) biological evolution does not exist.

I could explain that to a 4 year old. Why can't you get it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#166905 Feb 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to define complexity. I've already defined it as a system of intricate integrated parts. Molecular forces forming molecules from atoms does not qualify, and you know it.

Complexity means it is more than simple.

By your definition soda pop is complex.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#166906 Feb 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Forces forming molecules from atoms is what we call chemistry.
Your definition, a system of intricate integrated parts, is just stringing words together. They must not teach physics in your medical school.
You can only run so many classes in a double-wide.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#166907 Feb 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know the difference between conjecture and experimental science. You don't "know" what the conditions of the universe were 13 billion years ago. Stop pretending that your reckless conjectures are scientifically based. It is nothing more than your religion of atheism.
Wrong. Theism and atheism have nothing to do with the science. The Big bang model has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of deities or universe-creating-intelligence s. The universe is and has been expanding and is about 13.7 billion years old. It was once much hotter and denser than it is now. In fact, it was hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to happen universally. Such conditions are not ones where life can exist. This is the science. many scientists who know this are still theists.
Radiometric dating of three billion year old rocks is not science...it is nothing less than raw conjecture.
Again, simply false. It is based on the known nature of radioactivity and the types of conditions that can change decay rates. It is also based on the known affinities of the various chemicals to crystallize together. That is much more then mere conjecture. It is science that can be validated today and tested for consistency.
Evolution is not remotely "solid". You speak of the "exact mechanisms of change" being up for debate.
What a joke.
We know from a wide variety of data that species change over geological time. That is evolution. We know that new species arise and other species go extinct. That is evolution. We know from modern data how genetic differences exist in modern species and how the distribution of genes changes over time. We can model situations with these characteristics and find that the two ends are consistent. Again, this is verifiable and testable science whether you like the conclusions or not. And again, the exact mechanisms, whether via natural selection, genetic drift, a founder effect, or something else are not completely known, but are being actively investigated.
You haven't even provided a mechanism as to how a species can gain genetic information through mutation. Not only has such a phenomenon NEVER been observed, it is mathematically impossible. You have no science to back up the fundamental assumptions of Darwinsim.
Simply false. A duplication of genes gives an increase of information. A subsequent mutation gives new characteristics. This is not just 'mathematically possible', it has been observed in the real world, modeled via computer simulations, and verified through extensive testing.
Mugwump

London, UK

#166908 Feb 19, 2014
On Above - apologies

And obviously, "Evidence that abiogenesis is impossible" is boll(*ks, if replicated in a lab - there is evidence of how it COULD have happened.

I realise that I misread your response , that was my question , you just failed to answer it - my bad

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#166909 Feb 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to define complexity. I've already defined it as a system of intricate integrated parts. Molecular forces forming molecules from atoms does not qualify, and you know it.
Then DNA is not complex.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#166910 Feb 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The teaching of evolution should be relegated to departments of religion. It is not science...not even close.
And that's not debate. It just more manure.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#166911 Feb 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How utterly laughable.
You exhibit faith in abiogenesis.

You confound faith and logic.

abiogenesis happened. you admit it. I admit it. everyone admits it.

Fact 1: The universe once did not have (and could not support) life.
Fact 2: There is now life in the universe.
Conclusion 1: Life came into being at some point in time between the beginning of time and today.

Conclusion 1 is logical proof for abiogenesis.

If you cannot dispute fact 1 or fact 2 then you cannot dispute the conclusion. DON'T bother to blather about how C1 is untrue if you cannot dispute the facts that lead to th conclusion.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You eschew data and evidence.
You invariably fail every meager attempt to provide any evidence for evolution.
All you do is bash religion, spew idiotic insults, and regurgitate debunked dogma.

Since that is a lie no response in necessary.
Mugwump

London, UK

#166912 Feb 19, 2014
Sorry , long day - on the rephrased question that HTS keeps dodging - should be :-

If we cant say how basic particles came to be
(analogy basic particles ~ first life),

And you cant show that the mechanisms involved in (say) BB
(analogy BB ~ Abio) are the same as the mechasims of gravity
(analogy gravity ~ Evolution)

**********
Is gravity and indeed the field of physics simalarly bogus?
**********

Know he wont respond - but have time to kill

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 Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 31 min 15th Dalai Lama 436
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 41 min 15th Dalai Lama 161,077
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 44 min Honest 67,777
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 1 hr Honest 928
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr Dogen 448
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr River Tam 28,721
What does the theory of evolution state? 7 hr River Tam 186
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 hr Regolith Based Li... 221,400
More from around the web