Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#170138 Mar 10, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but there is a difference between religion and false religion. I refer to false religion as that embracing beliefs which are demonstrably incorrect. Those espousing beliefs which can neither be demonstrated to be correct or incorrect constitute the rest of religion.
Engaging in religious practices in public school should not be allowed if teaching religious notions is not going to be allowed.
I understand that is your BELIEF. But the majority of christians and non-christians do not agree with your version.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#170139 Mar 10, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Belief is taught in science class; the belief that evolution is the correct complete explanation. Teaching that alone is indoctrination if there are competing explanations which have not been confirmed incorrect.
In science classes, science must be taught. There are an infinite number of possible competing explanations that cannot be confirmed to be incorrect along with the bible version. Do you think the Great Turtle Creation Story should be taught in science classes? But if you don't like that one, there's lots more to choose from.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6375/
KAB

Wilson, NC

#170140 Mar 10, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. As I said, they are untestable. The problem is that 'supernatural' is an untestable concept. No probabilities are applicable and the simple lack of understanding of the relevant natural phenomena (and the consequent inability to determine the probabilities) doesn't make the supernatural any more testable, even in contrast.
Gotta love those generalities!
Don't you think the probability of a sunrise each day can at least be bounded as greater than some minimum threshold?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#170141 Mar 10, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care whether 10th grade sutdents debate ToE vs Design or not.
ToE is one explanation. Design is another. Both are in harmony with the data, but apparently only one is currently being taught as if it was the only possibility.
The data, even above the science community, decides what is in harmony with it.
For example, if the data allows a possibility (e.g. Design) then no matter what anyone, including the science community decides, Design deserves an appearance in the classroom. Consider, has the science community ever been wrong?
No. Design is not another scientific explanation. It is a religious explanation.

And yes, of course the science community has been wrong on many things throughout history. But it keeps moving forward on the basis that the best answers come from objective data rather than religious myths.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#170142 Mar 10, 2014
Eddie Izzard - Religion, Science, And Atheism
HTS

Mandan, ND

#170143 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I get my morality from considerations of what makes for human harmony and happiness. Some parts of the Bible are consistent with this such as the Golden Rule and learning to forgive.
Other parts, the bits with wholesale genocide, slavery, and some myths about a petty tyrant God who would kill everything on the planet, are morally repugnant, not to mention in places ridiculous.
The same could probably be said for every primitive religion on Earth, but applies just as much to the Bible.
No objective basis for morality can be claimed by atheists. Hence, the widespread justification of abortion on demand. Ernst Haeckle preached that "scientific knowledge" justified abortion as well as infanticide and racial cleansing.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#170144 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. The ToE only rejects a priori design in the development of life once a self replicator exists, and it does so because the process of evolution by mutation and natural selection does not require intelligent intervention. The ToE has NOTHING to say about whether a priori design is required for the first self replicator or for the universe itself.
Perhaps if you stopped confusing the ToE with some "atheist world view" which is another question entirely, you might start making sense. You also confuse "God" as a concept and a possibility with "The Bible" as a book with a parochial and limited understanding of the God concept as espoused by some ancient Jews.
I make no such confusion. Evolution rejects all intelligent design...form an amorphous intelligent force to the God of the Old Testament.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#170145 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No objective basis for morality can be claimed by atheists. Hence, the widespread justification of abortion on demand. Ernst Haeckle preached that "scientific knowledge" justified abortion as well as infanticide and racial cleansing.
LOL.
Theists claim an objective basis for morality.
But they can't all be right.
Who are right?
The ones who think the people who flew the planes into the WTC were doing something right or the ones who think they were doing something wrong?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#170146 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No objective basis for morality can be claimed by atheists. Hence, the widespread justification of abortion on demand. Ernst Haeckle preached that "scientific knowledge" justified abortion as well as infanticide and racial cleansing.
Let's see some valid links that back up those claims. Idiot creatard sources will be laughed at and seen as an admission of defeat.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#170147 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

And there is no scientific evidence for God. Not one jot. Not one aspect of the physical universe that we can look at and say "there is evidence that no natural process could possibly have resulted in this". That is not arrogance, or lying, and its not even a claim of atheism, merely agnosticism.
You haven't examined all of the evidence, so you cannot honestly make such a statement.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#170148 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Every single process of life from cell division to metabolism to photosynthesis, you name it, is reducible to chemistry. You will have a hard time defining life apart from these processes, because that is what life seems to be - a collection of processes driven by energy.
<quoted text>
You have not proven that life is reducible to chemistry.
That is a hypothesis, and you could be right.
Your worldview holds that chemistry alone is what defines life.
However, you cannot create life, and until you can, you only have a belief.

And even if life is reducible to chemistry, that doesn't offer the slightest evidence that no intelligence was required to create it.
Do not fear the truth

Morris, OK

#170149 Mar 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see some valid links that back up those claims. Idiot creatard sources will be laughed at and seen as an admission of defeat.
Have you ever heard of Giordano Bruno? He was correct in his thoughts and theories though lacking the technology, he could not back them up. People like you burnt him at the stake for fear of the truth..
HTS

Mandan, ND

#170150 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it can be explained by evolution, perfectly well.
But since YOU think it cannot, then you can only attribute it to a process planned by God. Even the supposed "Fall" cannot explain it, since according to you the Fall is only a matter of the corruption of previously Good Things, which would not include an elaborately planned process like this.
The same argument you use to claim its not evolution must also point to a sadistic, nasty God.
You can keep it.
You cannot explain it "perfectly well"... You can't even try because you know that any feeble attempt would be laughed at.
Instead, you yet again interject religion into the discussion, arguing that evolution should simply be accepted on faith because of your core disbelief in God.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#170151 Mar 10, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance of the Bible aside, you are very naive and immature. And your biggest hangup seems to be the notion of judgement from a just and fair judge. You say you get your morality from "considerations"? That makes no sense. Where is or what is "considerations"? Let's accept that for a moment even if logically unsound. Is there no judgement or punishment in your worldview? That's preposterous and impracticable; impossible really. You just have no sound arguments at all.
Judgement is relative. Small children want to get on Santa's "Nice List." A suicide bomber wants to do whatever it takes to carry out the mission so that he can get all of those 72 virgins.

Culture has a lot to do with what people think is right or wrong. The key word you used, "worldview" is important to be put in perspective. There IS judgement, perhaps punishment, for those who break the laws of society in the world that we live in. But there's no evidence that any judgement takes place in the mythical world of thousands of different religions.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#170152 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot explain it "perfectly well"... You can't even try because you know that any feeble attempt would be laughed at.
Instead, you yet again interject religion into the discussion, arguing that evolution should simply be accepted on faith because of your core disbelief in God.
Why are you dishonest? All of your arguments are based on religion and your belief in god. There is no actual evidence to back them up.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#170153 Mar 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
What is amazing is that all of these creatards try to claim scientists that support the theory of evolution are "limiting the power of God" or some other such nonsense. The fact is they aren't. That statement is beyond moronic.
What scientists are trying to do is to find out how life got to its present state regardless of whether god or gods exist or not. If God exists it is a study of how God did it. If God does not exist it is still a study of how life got to its present state.
For some reason these idiots think that pointing out the mythical aspects of Genesis is an attack on God. Perhaps it is an attack on their personal view of God, but that only shows that they are wrong.
But it is reasonable for them to get their knickers in a knot. The idea of mutations and natural selection casts grave doubt on the idea of a specific purpose for life. Not to mention that whole thing about the vastness of time, and humans only being around for the last few ticks of the geological clock. They would begin to suspect that humans getting to heaven is not what the ToE is all about.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#170154 Mar 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there's judgement. It's done by humans. If you don't believe me go rob a bank and see what happens.
You can just tell them that God is on your side. That might work.
Do not fear the truth

Morris, OK

#170155 Mar 10, 2014
Why is this thread called "Should evolution be taught in high school?"
It should be renamed to "Preach what you believe". That is all everyone is doing. No one knows. As far as our universe and other galaxies, science might know of 1% or less of it all so they have no more of a clue that the god worshipers. "Preach what you believe" should be the name of this thread. It should be rather humiliating to both to even claim that you know half of what you say is real for it is nothing but mere belief.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#170156 Mar 10, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No objective basis for morality can be claimed by atheists. Hence, the widespread justification of abortion on demand. Ernst Haeckle preached that "scientific knowledge" justified abortion as well as infanticide and racial cleansing.
Morality is subjective. That's why many practicing christians support abortion and many confirmed atheists are against abortion.
Do not fear the truth

Morris, OK

#170157 Mar 10, 2014
Though all of you have two big common traits. 1. Most of what you preach you have never personally seen, only read in a book(s) or been told so. 2. It is a belief of those words that you have either read or have been told that you choose to believe and from there preach about your belief.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min Aura Mytha 35,463
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 min Reason Personified 14,986
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Regolith Based Li... 199,520
Complex Systems May Evolve More Slowly - Calcul... 2 hr Creationtruth 3
Evolution is merely a subroutine 3 hr Creationtruth 1
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Kenedy njoroge 151,365
My Story Part 1 4 hr Regolith Based Li... 3
More from around the web