Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#170225 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the understanding of experimental biology. It has only been a hindrance in the acquisiiton of knowledge.

As evolution has provided a foundation for biology and medicine it has hardly been a hindrance.

You are so silly.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#170226 Mar 11, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. So how does Adam & Eve and the "fall" fit into that philosophy?
Previously answered.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#170227 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no scientific evidence that abiogenesis is possible. You have a belief..
I am getting really tired of correcting you on this. You are wrong. I have shown you why. You just keep parroting the same nonsense over and over as if typing words can make the facts go away.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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..

No, you don't understand. The first living entity is the first living entity. Don't confuse self replication with living. Self replication is only one of the 7 characteristics of a living thing.

There is no ARTIFICIAL separation between abiogenesis and evolution. They are different fields of study.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You are also assuming that your stories about evolution driving ever-increasing complexity throughout the ages constitutes science..

It is observable, measurable, testable,....... therefore it IS science. Numbnuts.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
Really? That proves you have not been paying attention.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#170228 Mar 11, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Previously answered.

Translation: Previously sputtered about like an incoherent idiot.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#170229 Mar 11, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No argument. But Dr. Bullshit claims there is. Though after asking him for it a least a dozen times, he's fail to produce. I wonder why that is.
He has lots of hand waving, does that count?
KAB

United States

#170230 Mar 11, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Comparative Religion is taught, at least at the university level.
http://jsis.washington.edu/advise/file/Compar...
But I would be suspicious of any comparative religion course funded by a smaller community level.
I would also be suspicious of any evolution-is-the-complete-answ er indoctrination course funded at any level.
KAB

United States

#170231 Mar 11, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that is your BELIEF. But the majority of christians and non-christians do not agree with your version.
What is the majority's belief? Don't teach the religions, just celebrate their holidays? I'm committed to leaving that to the hypocrites.
KAB

United States

#170232 Mar 11, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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/
Is the Great Turtle Creation Story in harmony with all the available physical data?
KAB

United States

#170233 Mar 11, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What is unscientific about design?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#170234 Mar 11, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Previously answered.
Really? I must have missed it. Please explain how inflicting punishment on all of mankind is justice.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#170235 Mar 11, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
He has lots of hand waving, does that count?
He IS good at that. And screaming "Atheist!"
Mugwump

Edinburgh, UK

#170236 Mar 11, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No argument. But Dr. Bullshit claims there is. Though after asking him for it a least a dozen times, he's fail to produce. I wonder why that is.
Asked him the same question many times (ok , tend to give up when creationists dodge more than 5 times).

He was insisting he had not just evidence for god but SCIENTIFIC evidence.

However, and I am going out on a limb here , and probably doing him a HUGE injustice.

But when he says he has evidence , or anything really ... He is just making sh1t up yet again.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#170237 Mar 11, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What is unscientific about design?
Design is apparent, shaped by evolution.
But intelligent design is just as easily demonstrated to be false.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170238 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the understanding of experimental biology. It has only been a hindrance in the acquisiiton of knowledge.
In that case you should have no problem in explaining orthology.

Take your time.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170239 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
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.
Then all you need do is show us one, just one planet Earth with zero life.

I can.

4 billion years ago.
HTS wrote:
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.
Your incredulity is irrelevant. We've not only presented the evidence time and again, you've refused to address it.

Explain orthology Hooter.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#170240 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
Just plain wrong. Science leaves the gaps as gaps. It is you who attempts to fill the gaps with God Did It With Abrahamic Bible Verses.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170241 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
Most of what "we see in biology" cannot be explained by laws of science.
Oh, it must all be magic then.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
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 provide us with a complete list of every single meal Jesus had for his whole 33 years?
HTS wrote:
Can you prove that such a complexity could occur without intelligence?
[the list could fill volumes]
Yes it could.

In fact anything that's not influenced by intelligent animal life is the product of unintelligent forces. And there's lots and lots of complicated stuff in the universe.

Unless that is, you could provide evidence that your intelligence was responsible.
HTS wrote:
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".
You keep repeating the lie that science, and evolution in particular are atheism.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170242 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.
They don't need to create life to do that. They just need to observe it. As far as can be determined, it's all chemistry.(shrug)

Please point out the evidence that there's more to it.

Oh, and while you're at it, explain orthology.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170243 Mar 11, 2014
HTS wrote:
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.
Except we DON'T insist that. Chemistry is not "chance". Natural selection is not "chance".

However there's so far zero evidence that this "God" of yours even exists so there's no way to use the concept to improve ANY scientific field in any way, shape or form.
HTS wrote:
That defies common sense.
Creationists defy common sense.
HTS wrote:
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.
Except so far the mechanisms of evolution are the only things capable of explaining anything at all in this context. Doesn't matter if we don't have a mutation by mutation account of all life over 3.5 billion years, all that matters is that evolution successfully makes predictions based on what is observed. Something YOU can't do.
HTS wrote:
I would believe in gradualistic evolution directed by God if I saw scientific evidence of it.
No you wouldn't.
HTS wrote:
The problem is, the fossil record does not support it.
Except that evidence is irrelevant to your position.

This is why the fossil record supports it and you are unable to refute it.
HTS wrote:
Furthermore, there are far too many examples of irreducibly complexity which span virtually the entire living world, to consider any sort of gradualism possible.
Since it is pseudo-science there are ZERO examples of IC on the entirety of planet Earth.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#170244 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?
Suppose YOU test it. It's YOUR "theory".(shrug)

Let us know how getting invisible Jewmagic to pass the scientific method pans out.

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) 32 min marksman11 169,768
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Evidence please 95,376
The “cumulative evidence” problem 11 hr jla2w 30
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 14 hr Rose_NoHo 21
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... 14 hr JUST SAYING 63
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 19 hr Rose_NoHo 97
E equals MC squared Sun Jim Ryan 15