Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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

Miami, FL

#169950 Mar 9, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The LITERAL interpretation of the Bible is inconsistent with reality.
Snakes and donkeys do not talk, there really was no global flood, humans have never lived over 123 years -- certainly not 900 years, there was no man living in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days, sun did not stop in the middle of the sky for a day, and so on.
The bible is not a history or science book.
Kong, there are multiple lines of evidence that people did live that long. Consider the natural decay curve and plot of ages over time. It fits with a correlation coefficient of 0.90 which is very good. That is, if you plot lifespan against the born centuries after Noah, y = 5029.2X^-1.4322, r = 0.9025. Data this precise is very unlikely to have been fabricated (by ignorant goat herders!) Also, remember that creation science has discovered that mutations accumulate in the genome just as they do as we age and ultimately die. Therefore, in the beginning the genome was perfect and would have slowly begun to accumulate mutations. In the Bible, God set a limit for age at 120 at some point, and guess what, that is what it seems to be! Also interesting is the natural decay curve found in the declining lifespans correlates to the present genomic degeneration as reported by Dr. Crow (1997). He reported that the fitness of the human race is presently degenerating at the rate of 1-2% per generation due to the accumulating mutations.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#169951 Mar 9, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
From facts.
Nope. Your closing statement:
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Now, no matter how much time is involved, such a complex and highly orchestrated behavior could not have happened by chance.
*IS* the argument from incredulity, and not a fact.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#169952 Mar 9, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know? That is just your uninformed opinion, which means nothing.
And you have only one book that makes those assertions, without any independent evidence supporting them, and with plenty of evidence against those assertions.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#169953 Mar 9, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
The BuyBull is FULL of errors of fact, geography, history, science, plus numerous inconsistencies.
Just a sample:
New Testament Contradictions
http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carls...
This has been tried by millions over thousands of years and nobody has been able to produce a single one. Trust me, you are not going to be the first.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#169954 Mar 9, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, there are multiple lines of evidence that people did live that long. Consider the natural decay curve and plot of ages over time. It fits with a correlation coefficient of 0.90 which is very good. That is, if you plot lifespan against the born centuries after Noah, y = 5029.2X^-1.4322, r = 0.9025. Data this precise is very unlikely to have been fabricated (by ignorant goat herders!) Also, remember that creation science has discovered that mutations accumulate in the genome just as they do as we age and ultimately die. Therefore, in the beginning the genome was perfect and would have slowly begun to accumulate mutations. In the Bible, God set a limit for age at 120 at some point, and guess what, that is what it seems to be! Also interesting is the natural decay curve found in the declining lifespans correlates to the present genomic degeneration as reported by Dr. Crow (1997). He reported that the fitness of the human race is presently degenerating at the rate of 1-2% per generation due to the accumulating mutations.
Humor us with a link to this "data", please.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#169955 Mar 9, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
And you have only one book that makes those assertions, without any independent evidence supporting them, and with plenty of evidence against those assertions.
There are numerous different authors and there is plenty of independent corroborating evidence. You are just very uninformed and highly biased. Listen to what the experts say. Lee Strobel documented interviews with the world's top Bible scholars on this very subject. He was an atheist like you and needed convincing and convinced he was.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#169956 Mar 9, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time one of you guys pulls out the "argument from incredulity" card, you are acknowledging that you have run out of scientific explanations and that evolution should be accepted on faith.
To be precise, the "argument from incredulity" card is the last gasp of those USING that card, that THEY have no other viable logic to rely upon.

That would be you guys.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#169957 Mar 9, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Humor us with a link to this "data", please.
Why should I bother with your attitude? Your mind is a closed book. I'd rather ride my bike to the beach and get some fresh air, sunshine, and exercise!
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#169958 Mar 9, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There are numerous different authors and there is plenty of independent corroborating evidence. You are just very uninformed and highly biased. Listen to what the experts say. Lee Strobel documented interviews with the world's top Bible scholars on this very subject. He was an atheist like you and needed convincing and convinced he was.
Ah yes, Lee Strobel the "former atheist" (((wink, wink))) who could not help but be convinced by the overwhelming evidence for Jesus. LOL!

Review of Lee Strobel THE CASE FOR CHRIST
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowde...

A Critical Look at Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith
http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_dolan...

Another Case Not Made: A Critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator (2005)
http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_dolan...
HTS

Salt Lake City, UT

#169959 Mar 9, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
To be precise, the "argument from incredulity" card is the last gasp of those USING that card, that THEY have no other viable logic to rely upon.
That would be you guys.
Your identical logic can be used against you.
You reject God because of personal incredulity.
Don't you get it?
You are peddling this as "science"... yet you demand that a skeptic show FAITH in your creed.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#169961 Mar 9, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your identical logic can be used against you.
You reject God because of personal incredulity.
Don't you get it?
You are peddling this as "science"... yet you demand that a skeptic show FAITH in your creed.
Not that its any of YOUR business, but I'm agnostic. Not athiest.

Meaning I have NOT "rejected God", but Instead I DO remain open to the existence of a Supreme Deity.

I just lack the evidence I require to make the leap to "Theist".

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#169962 Mar 9, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Why should I bother with your attitude? Your mind is a closed book. I'd rather ride my bike to the beach and get some fresh air, sunshine, and exercise!
We'll remind you later.

Run away! Run away!

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#169963 Mar 9, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of gravity doesn't reject intelligent design.
The theory of evolution REJECTS a priori all intelligent design. That is atheism, no matter how you slice it.
Single cell life is irreducibly complex. You have not refuted that. You keep bringing up the immune system as a diversion.
I can systematically prove that many biological systems are irreducibly complex. I merely started with the easiest target...single cell life. Until you can refute that, there is no sense in changing the subject.
Biological systems are systems of chemistry. And all matter is reducible at least to the particle. If string theory holds true, all matter is reducible to individual strings. That is IC, no god required. You have been refuted.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#169964 Mar 9, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose that's because people are often more complicated than you would wish them to be. Some holidays have thousands of years of history behind them, changed and modified to fit society's needs as society changes. In conventional western society, the religious roots of christmas are ignored by large segments of the population in favor of the commercial and social aspects. Turns out, it's good for the economy and makes winter a bit easier to deal with. No religion required.
I note that rather than create your own secular celebration from scratch you are content to continue using the leftover(?) trappings from false religious notions. I hope you'll understand if the word hypocrite finds its way into this consideration.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#169965 Mar 9, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I will proceed to demonstrate how other systems are IC, with the understanding that you have conceded defeat on single cell life.
I'll start with the vertebrate eye, since it has been popularly declared that the IC of the eye has been disproven.
Let's start with a "light sensitive spot", which is always the first proposed step of eye evolution. That system is IC. It requires photoreceptor cells, a nerve to the brain, the ability of the brain to interpret the signal, and behavioral modifications to appropriately act upon that signal.
How can a "light sensitive spot" be reduced to simpler parts? What sort of "mutation" creates a light sensitive spot, a nerve, integration in the brain to process the signal, and behavioral modification to act on the signal? Unless all of those elements proofed into existence by chance in one generation, any mutation leading to a light sensitive spot would be removed by natural selection. Thus, the eye is irreducibly complex.
I can do the same thing with many other systems. I've already discussed the mantis shrimp, and my arguments remain unanswered.
Touch sensitive spots. Chemical receptors. Chemical actions. You have been refuted.
HTS

Salt Lake City, UT

#169966 Mar 9, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Biological systems are systems of chemistry. And all matter is reducible at least to the particle. If string theory holds true, all matter is reducible to individual strings. That is IC, no god required. You have been refuted.
You are making a grave error of logic.
In the first place, life has not been shown to be reducible to chemistry. No one has created life from scratch. Man is far from it.
Even is man was smart enough to create life, how does that prove that no intelligence is required to create life?
Showing that life is reducible to chemistry does not prove that no intelligence created it. You are wallowing in the darkness of atheism, and it has perverted your basic logic.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#169968 Mar 9, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Hooter is a clown and everyone knows it. Yourself included and if you had the guts to break ranks you would admit that.
I have no objection to you ignoring me. I figure you have little choice since I cream you every time you post. You may have some guns, but you got nothing but blanks to load them with. That makes you an impotent warrior.
Remember, your flood myth has been refuted 11 times, just since I started counting last year. Your actual score is, I am sure, much worse than that.
Much of what I've seen HTS post is not helpful, but at least he's on the right side.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#169969 Mar 9, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are peddling this as "science"... yet you demand that a skeptic show FAITH in your creed.
AGAIN, we have EVIDENCE for evolution, hard, empirical, factual EVIDENCE for our side.

You, when asked for real, actual evidence of the existence of your Christian God, SAY there is plenty, then say nothing more. Or burble something about near death experiences, as if THAT was hard, empirical evidence of the existence of the Bible God.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#169970 Mar 9, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see the difference between acknowledging a holiday and acknowledging a belief.
Acknowledgement is one thing. Proselytizing is quite another. Did the distinction fly over your pointy little head?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#169971 Mar 9, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
As part of a comparative religion class, it would be quite appropriate to talk about beliefs. As part of a sociology class, it would be appropriate to talk about how religion has influenced society. As part of an overall culture, it is appropriate to have some holidays. As part of a science class, it has no place.
Agreed. In any case, favoring one religion over another is expressly forbidden. Regardless of the class.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 min scientia potentia... 157,755
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min The Northener 52,201
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 7 min scientia potentia... 1,206
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 11 min scientia potentia... 497
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr scientia potentia... 218,826
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr scientia potentia... 24,885
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
More from around the web