Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

HTS

Williston, ND

#171136 Mar 18, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
All cells are sensitive to light.
Light is energy so any cell that absorbs light will warm up.
Even single celled organisms can sense and respond to light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the...
The eyes of a flatworm are more complex than that.
HTS

Williston, ND

#171137 Mar 18, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Ok ask yourself why eyes over a nose which is over a mouth.
Because the eyes can see what to eat, the nose can verify it's taSTY and the mouth can eat it.
You will find , my very young padawan ,, that this configuration .
is not only universal to mammals. But an evolutionary advantage to all creatures who share this method of predatory existence.
What is your point?
Are you saying that the position of the eyes relative to the nose is evidence against intelligent design?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#171138 Mar 18, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The eyes of a flatworm are more complex than that.
But the flatworm evolved from single celled life that was sensitive to light, so some of its cells only had to become more sensitive to become eyes.
HTS

Williston, ND

#171139 Mar 18, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
But the flatworm evolved from single celled life that was sensitive to light, so some of its cells only had to become more sensitive to become eyes.
The flatworm's eyes are irreducibly complex. You only imagine that it evolved.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#171140 Mar 18, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Never heard of the mathematical concept of limits?
I'm quite familiar with the mathenatical concept of limits. Care to go a round?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#171141 Mar 18, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> The flatworm's eyes are irreducibly complex. You only imagine that it evolved.
Prove it. Creatards keep making these idiotic claims but there is no evidence to support them. Behe's claims have all been debunked. What paper makes this claim? Where was it peer reviewed? Or is it just a claim by an anonymous idiot?
HTS

Williston, ND

#171142 Mar 18, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. Creatards keep making these idiotic claims but there is no evidence to support them. Behe's claims have all been debunked. What paper makes this claim? Where was it peer reviewed? Or is it just a claim by an anonymous idiot?
I don't need a paper. Eyes are irreducibly complex. That is a self evidence fact. It's up to you to provide a plausible pathway of you think a microbe could evolve into a worm.
Mugwump

Leeds, UK

#171143 Mar 18, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> The flatworm's eyes are irreducibly complex. You only imagine that it evolved.
Bit didn't you insist that the vertebrate eye was IC because it needed to be co-existing with a nervous system and a brain if sorts to function?(Until we pointed out precursors)

Now you have moved to a precursor of such a system as being IC

Does this not point out the fallacy of stating anything to be IC?

Want to apply your scientific logic to that one ?(Rhetorical question)

Put it another way, can you explain (and provide evidence , rather than make stuff up) why the flatworm eye can't be decomposed
Mugwump

Leeds, UK

#171144 Mar 18, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need a paper. Eyes are irreducibly complex. That is a self evidence fact. It's up to you to provide a plausible pathway of you think a microbe could evolve into a worm.
ANYONE that says "that is a self evident fact' without justification is making stuff up ...... Oh sorry , forgot who I was speaking to.

But didn't you say the following were self evident facts

You had proof for YOUR god
Prostitutes never get AIDS
You had wiped the floor with TedOhio (you keep dodging this one)

So forgive me if don't take your "self evident facts" as being anything more than religious dogma on your part - just love that argument , means so little- but easy to type'

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#171145 Mar 18, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you're a mental suitcase, but you did just reference USA Today did you not?

Pot calls kettle black, eh? Yes that is where the reference came from. I just did not run across it reading USA today but got linked there from another source.

Thanks for asking.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#171146 Mar 18, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, all those hybrid versions do not stack up at all. It is completely illogical. They make a complete mockery of the whole Bible. They would have to reject all of it or none of it. And on the other point, you just die. Think of a landfill where there is continuous decomposition with flaming vent pipes.

Given your requirements (which are horse manure) then the Bible is false and God is illogical.

With evolution being an observed fact it leaves only the ToE to rail against. But the ToE only explains evolution and is not the real enemy, it is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#171147 Mar 18, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's not been 360 million years and evolution never happened.

Here you are again claiming you know more than ALL of science and you are spitting in science's (which you claim to love) face.

Not that science cares. You and your views are trivial madness to science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#171148 Mar 18, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible was written thousands of years ago and one of the most difficult things to do is to understand the culture back then. There are numerous references to this topic and when understood in terms of the times, makes perfect sense. Expert theologians have delt with this subject more than any other. There are always going to be radical interpretations out there and we can't help it. But to be sure, Just dying and your dead body being tossed into a landfill pit *IS* of course much worse than being ressurected with a brand new body and being with your Maker and exerienced unimaginable joy and love for all eternity, don't you think?

So I finally got through to you. great.

Do you want to know that the bible means in historical, cultural context? I have read close to a hundred books on the subject from many points of view. It starts to come together after 20 or 30 years of study.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#171149 Mar 18, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We can start with Turkana boy. There is no scientific way to document a 1.5 million year old age of a fossil. 25 years ago evolutionists were saying that australopicithine fossils were 2 million years old. Now they're stated to be 8 million years old. Lava flow from the Mt. St. Helen's 1980 eruption was dated at 2.2 million years. Geochron Lab published that any date under 2 million years is invalid. So where is the science behind the 1.5 million year date.
Secondly, Turkana boy to me looks 100% modern human. The skull has a reduced cranial capacity, that could easily be ascribed to morphologic variability. Pygmies have a markedly reduced cranial vault.,.. yet they are no less intelligent than any other human population. May modern human skulls have very sloped foreheads and prominent brow ridges... so nothing has been demonstrated that documents anything less than a modern human. In addition, the 1.5 million year old date is worthless. The only reason for that date is because it fits with current theories of human evolution.
I also notice that the artistic reconstructions on the wikipedia page that you linked grossly exagerrate the ape-like features of the face... typical of what is published as "scientific". If Turkana boy is such a striking piece of evidence for evolution, why to its actual features need to be misrepresented?

You are just a hoot. You are so cute when you think you know more than all of science.

Get over yourself and read a science book.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#171150 Mar 18, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks and good thinking.

Proof positive HTS is a moron.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#171151 Mar 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In a multi-facetted statement one can be partly correct and partly incorrect. If all facets are incorrect then that is the most incorrectly the declaration can be made.

Incorrect.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#171152 Mar 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My goal is to get your side to acknowledge there is no fossil record continuum of posssible single-generation variations between one kind of lifeform and another.

Big huge old straw-man.

As if such were necessary.

You amuse me.

Pray continue.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#171153 Mar 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Nano. You are probably aware that Dogen dismisses anything I offer, just because it's me. I continually make it known he's a hypocrite. The good news is he could change at an moment. I remain hopeful.

You are a very wishful soul.

Does Nano know you don't think she is a Christian are are going to die with no hope of resurrection.

BTW I am number 42 of the 144,000.

I guess I need to try harder.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#171154 Mar 18, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>So now you're obsessing about bread? You need to go outside more often.
>:]

LOL. You caught me, Nano.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#171155 Mar 18, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Last I heard, Tyson hasn't done anything original, just repeated previous scientists' work in his books. He went straight from being a student to being hired to renovate and raise funds for a planetarium. He's not much of scientist.

Actually he has done quite a bit though much of it as part of the Hubble research team.

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curric...

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) 10 min Paul Porter1 142,778
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min replaytime 20,717
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr ChristineM 172,029
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 17 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
Simulated Evolution in a Computer Program 18 hr Zog Has-fallen 2
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 20 hr Chimney1 304
Cartier brand luxury bangle cartier watch on il... Mon Dopy 1
More from around the web