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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170178 Mar 11, 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.
Of course they can. If you were right then all you creationists wouldn't be massive liars for Jesus.(shrug)

Explain orthology to me Hooter.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170179 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I make no such confusion. Evolution rejects all intelligent design...form an amorphous intelligent force to the God of the Old Testament.
Oh, but ID is SCIENCE, nothing at all to do with religion, nope! Nosirree-bob! It's just them lying atheist Darwinists who say it is!!!

Right?

If evolution is atheism then so is gravity.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170180 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't examined all of the evidence, so you cannot honestly make such a statement.
Then pray tell, exactly what evidence have we missed that demonstrates the existence of invisible magic Jews via the scientific method?

Take your time.

Explain orthology to us Hooter.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170181 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
<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.
Neither abio nor evolution reject ID a priori. Both would be perfectly happy if there be some "intelligence" that started it all.

It's just you have no evidence.(shrug)

Explain orthology, Hooter.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170182 Mar 11, 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.
You're lying again. We present evidence for evolution and you reject it by caricaturing it as atheism. One day you might respond to what we DO say instead of what we don't say.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170183 Mar 11, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can just tell them that God is on your side. That might work.
Though that is a valid justification for many fundies, it hasn't been considered to be a wise defence in most Western courts at least.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170184 Mar 11, 2014
Do not fear the truth wrote:
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.
Yeah. Uh, except for the fact your computer works.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170185 Mar 11, 2014
Explain orthology Hooter.

What does it mean?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170186 Mar 11, 2014
Whatever happened to LowellGuy?

:-/
HTS

Sidney, MT

#170187 Mar 11, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
. If you want to know biology, you have to understand evolution, because evolution explains biology. You may choose not to accept it for whatever personal reasons you like, but you have .
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the understanding of experimental biology. It has only been a hindrance in the acquisiiton of knowledge.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#170188 Mar 11, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

The only evidence that would count is where we find natural processes that can give rise to the simplest versions of life, and evolution drives increases in complexity from there.Which, BTW, is exactly what abiogenesis research is attempting to do.
You have no scientific evidence that abiogenesis is possible. You have a belief.
You continue to artificially separate abiogenesis from evolution, while ignoring the hundreds of millions of years of proposed SELF-REPLICATING LIVING ENTITIES that lead up the the first living cell.
You are also assuming that your stories about evolution driving ever-increasing complexity throughout the ages constitutes science. You have no proof of this. To this point, the best evidence I'v e seen on this forum is Lenski's E. Coli experiments, which are hardly compelling.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#170189 Mar 11, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

So no, evolution does NOT reject *all* intelligent design. It *concludes* that no intelligent design is necessary to understand what we see in biology. One that can direct things 'below the radar' is still allowed. One that gets things running and leaves the universe alone after that is also allowed.
For that matter, an intelligent designer that lives in the multiverse and belongs to a race of super-intelligent beings and made our particular universe as a high school art project and then forgot about it is allowed.
Most of what "we see in biology" cannot be explained by laws of science.
Do you know how the migratory instincts of sea turtles evolved?
Do you even understand how they navigate across open ocean?
Can you explain, without glossing over details, how a feather evolved from a scale?
Can you prove that such a complexity could occur without intelligence?
[the list could fill volumes]
You have nothing more than a philosophical belief that evolution can create complexity.
You may call your "evidence" compelling, but it is not scientific evidence.
The commonly proliferated dogma that "science" has destroyed the need for God is one of the biggest lies propagated in institutionalized biology today. You simply fill in all the unknowns with "evolution did it without God".
HTS

Sidney, MT

#170190 Mar 11, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

Our inability to assemble the chemicals in the right amounts, in the right locations, right configurations, etc, does not mean that life isn't chemistry. In mnay ways, that is the difference between engineering and science.
<quoted text>

----------
I agree. However, many evolutionists assume that because life "appears" reducible to chemistry, that chemistry is all that there is. That is not scientific. Until they can actually demonstrate through experimentation, ie, create life, then all they have is a hunch.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#170191 Mar 11, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

----------
This gets to something I have noticed about religious people on these threads: they don't really care about the science or how things work as long as they can argue for the existence of an intelligence that made us. That seems to be their main focus, with any and all arguments pointed to that one goal. Any arguments that leads to that goal is accepted; any argument that moves away from that goal is rejected.
I have a feeling it would be acceptable to these people if we said that species changed over time under the direction of an intelligence and we are the end result of that plan. The actual facts do not seem to matter; the actual processes are irrelevant. All that matters is that there is someone in control. Once that is agreed to, all else is acceptable.
If God is directing the evolutionary process, then I would assume that he would somehow direct the appearance of the correct mutations that would be necessary for all of the complexities of nature to be created. If you allow the notion of a God directing evolution, then you need to stop insisting that chance alone is capable of creating complexites of a genetic code. That defies common sense. If evolution was actually "neutral" to the possibility of God, then the ToE would not dogmatically state that "mutations + natural selection + millions of years" are capable of explaining everything that there is. That one-size-fits-all dogma is simplistic and totally inadequate in answering the challenges that are posed. You cannot apply it to all biological systems because the vast majority of such proposed transformations remain unknown.

I would believe in gradualistic evolution directed by God if I saw scientific evidence of it. The problem is, the fossil record does not support it. Furthermore, there are far too many examples of irreducibly complexity which span virtually the entire living world, to consider any sort of gradualism possible.
KAB

United States

#170192 Mar 11, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, humans design things. We plan things out and use the laws of nature to make them. Some animals also plan, so they can also design.
But you know that isn't what we are talking about. We are discussing the possibility of a design for the universe as a whole and whether there is any evidence for such. To make a case for an intelligence acting, we have to deeply understand the possible natural phenomena that may be relevant. In the absence of any actual detection of an intelligence, the default is non-design. Furthermore, in the absence of any evidence for a supernatural, any evidence for an intelligence would by default be for a natural one.
So, suppose that at some point in the future, we have looked at all possible pathways to life and found that none of them are feasible given the environment of the early earth. The next step would be to look for natural possibilities off the earth as an origin for life. The default would be a natural origin that was then transferred to earth. This transfer could have been either via a design from a different natural intelligence or without design, and spontaneously.
It is only after all the possibilities of non-intelligent origins for life on earth have been exhausted (or another intelligence actually being detected) that the possibility of a natural, but designed transfer of life to earth should be considered seriously.
And, it is only after all *natural* possible origins for life have been exhausted that anything supernatural should be considered. Needless to say, we are very, very far from being able to make such a determination. Given the successes of our abiogenesis attempts, it is reasonable to assume, tentatively, that the origin of life was both on earth and without design.
Not surprisingly, you seem to be looking in only one direction, assuming natural possibilities until proven they won't work. Suppose instead you tested for supernatural possibilities and found confirmation. Might that not shortcut the arduous examine-natural-only approach?
KAB

United States

#170193 Mar 11, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Better check with Eugene Shubert. He claims to be a middle school math teacher but there is no teaching certificate on file for him in the state of Texas. He says you don't need one for private schools.
If your reference is to a private school situation, how is it pertinent to a public school consideration?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#170194 Mar 11, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not surprisingly, you seem to be looking in only one direction, assuming natural possibilities until proven they won't work. Suppose instead you tested for supernatural possibilities and found confirmation. Might that not shortcut the arduous examine-natural-only approach?
How would one test for and confirm 'supernatural possibilities'?
KAB

United States

#170195 Mar 11, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll let you by for the moment with the use of the word "belief" However, one is scientific the other religious. Religious beliefs are not taught.
<quoted text>
And that is exactly why you have your head on backwards. There is no reason at all to teach any old bullshit because it has not been confirmed to be incorrect. By your ridiculous criteria, Bigfoot and Nessie MUST be taught. As well as Purple Ping-pong Ball theory
Design is no more (perhaps less) a religious belief than evolution. Design is scientific.
Also, not everything is taught in public school. Unless subject matter to which Bigfoot and Nessie relate is being taught, there is no need to independently introduce them.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#170196 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. However, many evolutionists assume that because life "appears" reducible to chemistry, that chemistry is all that there is. That is not scientific. Until they can actually demonstrate through experimentation, ie, create life, then all they have is a hunch.
Wrong. Completely wrong. We know the laws of chemistry. We can look at the processes of living things and see that those processes are, at base, chemical processes. So, for example, reproduction of DNA is a chemical process. We know the chemical steps that are taken in this process in a fair amount of detail. We do not have to make DNA ourselves to be able to say it is a chemical or that the processes it enters into are chemical processes.

And this is *much* more than a hunch. It is a research paradigm that has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams from 100 years ago. Even 70 years ago, nobody knew that genetics was chemically based (although there were speculations). Now, we know that for an absolute fact. Go back 50 years ago and we knew DNA was the genetic material, but didn't know the translation process from DNA to protein. Now we do. And guess what? It is completely a chemical process. Metabolism is another aspect: the foods we eat are broken down chemically to provide energy in a chemical form that is used in other chemical reactions to build tissues, etc. We know many of these reactions in exquisite detail, from the reactions themselves, to the enzymes that catalyze them, to the control molecules that turn the reactions on and off. ALL of this is chemically based.

To say, as you do, that life being a chemical process is 'just a hunch' is ignoring most of biochemistry and modern biology.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#170197 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If God is directing the evolutionary process, then I would assume that he would somehow direct the appearance of the correct mutations that would be necessary for all of the complexities of nature to be created.
So not *you* are the one assuming what a deity would and would not do. Why not set the whole universe up from the start so that the 'random' mutations just happen to be the ones required? If the randomness and the controls are observationally indistinguishable, then science has nothing to say further.
If you allow the notion of a God directing evolution, then you need to stop insisting that chance alone is capable of creating complexities of a genetic code. That defies common sense.
What we observe is that the changes we see are indistinguishable from chance occurrences. if God can direct things by working 'under the radar', then these results are still consistent with an interactive God.

Again, these are NOT my viewpoints. But your claim that evolution precludes a consistent belief in a deity is simply false.
If evolution was actually "neutral" to the possibility of God, then the ToE would not dogmatically state that "mutations + natural selection + millions of years" are capable of explaining everything that there is.
But that is what the evidence actually says. it *is* capable of explaining everything we can see. If your deity can work in such a way that the process *seems* random, but is still directed, then there is no issue.
That one-size-fits-all dogma is simplistic and totally inadequate in answering the challenges that are posed. You cannot apply it to all biological systems because the vast majority of such proposed transformations remain unknown.
On the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that the observations we have made so far will continue to hold (like the sun rising tomorrow). it isn't an absolute proof, but once again, science can never claim an absolute proof of a general proposition.
I would believe in gradualistic evolution directed by God if I saw scientific evidence of it. The problem is, the fossil record does not support it. Furthermore, there are far too many examples of irreducibly complexity which span virtually the entire living world, to consider any sort of gradualism possible.
That is your opinion and it is duly noted. When you get a PhD in biology, you can present your findings at professional meetings and see how the debate unfolds. For that matter, you don't actually *need* a PhD. Simply submit a paper to a conference or a journal and see how the debate runs.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 45 min Eagle 12 14,801
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 48 min DanFromSmithville 27
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 51 min DanFromSmithville 33,856
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 53 min DanFromSmithville 199,157
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Don Barros Serrano 151,276
My Story Part 1 9 hr JanusBifrons 1
Evolution in action Jun 20 Darth Robo 9
More from around the web