Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 173,408

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." Full Story
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#173634 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA homology is a debunked argument...a true embarrassment to evolutionary theory. You have not proven relatedness... You've only imagined it...and all of your predictions to validate that hunch have FAILED.
Really? Because yesterday you said ERV's were showing homology, not common ancestry. And I pointed out that you've been claiming (without evidence to back yourself up) that "homology was a refuted argument!"

Just goes to show that you're using all these big words without even understanding what any of them mean.

But if they HAD failed, you'd be able to explain orthology for us.

(sound of crickets chirping)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#173635 Apr 26, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You're waving a red cape in front of children, anything that you say you are not, they are going to push that three and four times as hard. These so-called evolutionist children, are not here for science.
Ah shaddap Jimbo

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173636 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
Science tells us that unorganized matter, left to itself, remains unorganized.
This is wrong. In the presence of, say, gravity, it *will* self organize, heat up, and produce complexity.
You have a PhD in math, correct? Can you give me a mathematical justification for abiogenesis?
Way, way, way too vague of a question. The typical creationist probability calculations are clearly wrong. They assume probabilistic independence where it is known that such is not the case (it seldom is in fluids). To do a real calculation, the mechanisms would have to be known, which is exactly the problem we are attempting to solve.
The only reason that you perceive evolution as the "simplest" explanation is because you have philosophically excluded a higher intelligence. It's that simple. A higher intelligence contradicts your religion.
Not at all. I would be fine with there being a 'higher' intelligence, but I see no evidence of such. What we do know is that evolution explains biology well and the Big Bang scenario explains the broad outlines of cosmology well. Are there details in both yet to be explained? Of course! Is it possible that some of our ideas will have to be modified when new data becomes available? Of course! That is how science works. But the facts will remain that species have changed over geological time and that the universe is expanding and was once much hotter and denser. Even the addition of an intelligence won't change those basic facts. At most, such an assumption will modify a few relatively minor issues, but certainly not the core ideas.

So, once again, how does the assumption of an intelligent creator affect the analysis of the cosmic background radiation? How does it change the evaluation and interpretation of the red-shifts of galaxies? How does it change the fact that fossils dated to different eras have different species, with eras close in time having species that are more similar?

The simple answer is that the added assumption will change *nothing* about these conclusions.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173637 Apr 26, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is wrong. In the presence of, say, gravity, it *will* self organize, heat up, and produce complexity.
<quoted text>
Way, way, way too vague of a question. The typical creationist probability calculations are clearly wrong. They assume probabilistic independence where it is known that such is not the case (it seldom is in fluids). To do a real calculation, the mechanisms would have to be known, which is exactly the problem we are attempting to solve.
<quoted text>
Not at all. I would be fine with there being a 'higher' intelligence, but I see no evidence of such. What we do know is that evolution explains biology well and the Big Bang scenario explains the broad outlines of cosmology well. Are there details in both yet to be explained? Of course! Is it possible that some of our ideas will have to be modified when new data becomes available? Of course! That is how science works. But the facts will remain that species have changed over geological time and that the universe is expanding and was once much hotter and denser. Even the addition of an intelligence won't change those basic facts. At most, such an assumption will modify a few relatively minor issues, but certainly not the core ideas.
So, once again, how does the assumption of an intelligent creator affect the analysis of the cosmic background radiation? How does it change the evaluation and interpretation of the red-shifts of galaxies? How does it change the fact that fossils dated to different eras have different species, with eras close in time having species that are more similar?
The simple answer is that the added assumption will change *nothing* about these conclusions.
You say,This is wrong. In the presence of, say, gravity, it *will* self organize, heat up, and produce complexity.

Copy and paste in what ways, because you don't have a thinking brain, to be able to explain it all by yourself.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173638 Apr 26, 2014
If you have something other than copy and paste poly, show us the self organization in a way that science has never done.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173639 Apr 26, 2014
Yes Paulie I can name one way that science has not.

Will I? That depends on your answer.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#173641 Apr 26, 2014
One way or another wrote:
Yes Paulie I can name one way that science has not.
Will I? That depends on your answer.

People are trying to have an intelligent conversation here and then you chime in with more of your brainless nonsense.

Can't you find something better to do, like playing in traffic, for example.

Mugwump

Retford, UK

#173642 Apr 26, 2014
One way or another wrote:
Yes Paulie I can name one way that science has not.
Will I? That depends on your answer.
Jim, no one really cares about your posts, as they don't add anything to the discussion.

Doesn't mean people don't care.

How are you doing ?
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173643 Apr 26, 2014
Now now children, do try to speak to the subject. I know it's not something you normally do, because you don't have the wherewithal.
Mugwump

Retford, UK

#173644 Apr 26, 2014
One way or another wrote:
Now now children, do try to speak to the subject. I know it's not something you normally do, because you don't have the wherewithal.
Ok, why don't YOU try to address the current conversation ?

Do you agree or disagree with polymath's post regarding organaisation , if you don't , explain why not in an intelligent manner.

You know, like a grown up

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#173645 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The entire junk DNA paradigm is framed around the concept of an "imperfect" genetic code.
Here is what Jerry Coyne said a few years ago...
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
Coyne is basing his argument on PERFECTION vs IMPERFECTION.
That is religion. You cannot logically argue that a God would only create perfection...unless you introduce religion into your arguments.
Coyne would not even frame the discussion in terms of perfection and imperfection if he was not countering the claims of creationists.

He would just say, "yep, we find there are pseudogenes and its no surprise".

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#173646 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA homology is a debunked argument...a true embarrassment to evolutionary theory. You have not proven relatedness... You've only imagined it...and all of your predictions to validate that hunch have FAILED.
Except that homology is not a debunked argument, just because you say it is.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#173647 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
Science tells us that unorganized matter, left to itself, remains unorganized.
Well, right there is one of your core mistakes. Science tells us that in many natural situations, quite the opposite is true, and I am not even counting biological processes. But until you understand your error here, you are never going to open your eyes to how evolution or many other natural processes work. Natural self-organisation is a feature of many dynamic systems.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#173648 Apr 26, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You say,This is wrong. In the presence of, say, gravity, it *will* self organize, heat up, and produce complexity.
Copy and paste in what ways, because you don't have a thinking brain, to be able to explain it all by yourself.
No copy and paste necessary Jimbo. Try thinking for yourself.

Start with an enormous gas cloud under the influence of its own gravity.

What happens next?
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173649 Apr 27, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No copy and paste necessary Jimbo. Try thinking for yourself.
Start with an enormous gas cloud under the influence of its own gravity.
What happens next?
Why don't you copy and paste what science claims about an enormous gas cloud under the influence of its own gravity and show the proof?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#173650 Apr 27, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you copy and paste what science claims about an enormous gas cloud under the influence of its own gravity and show the proof?
Think for yourself. Its obvious.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173651 Apr 27, 2014
The child and science have no proof. Who would've thought?
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173652 Apr 27, 2014
When you copy and paste anything little one, be sure you can defend it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#173653 Apr 27, 2014
One way or another wrote:
When you copy and paste anything little one, be sure you can defend it.
Oh, I can defend what I say just fine. The problem is that you do not even understand the defence, nor have any desire to, which is why trying to discuss anything with you is a waste of time. I might as well be talking to a donkey.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#173654 Apr 27, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a "model of intelligent design"?
Who is qualified to presume how a God would or would not conduct the creative process?
Darwin said that biogeography was inconsistent with a "model" of intelligent design. In arguing this point, he stated that it would be unreasonable for a God to not populate oceanic islands with amphibians and land mammals because they would make ideal habitats for such creatures. That is a religious assumption... presuming the purposes and attributes of Deity.
I completely disagree. Here's what you said:
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who states that nature is inconsistent with a model of creative design is making religious assumptions.
That is NOT a religious assumption but a scientific one. Lack of evidence. If is a perfectly reasonable and logical conclusion.

Why do you have to constantly interject religion?

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min JM_Brazil 116,437
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 136,975
Opinion on theistic company slogans 2 hr The Dude 2
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 4 hr DanFromSmithville 454
Science News (Sep '13) 6 hr Sublime1 2,887
Here's a present for you atheists (Jan '14) 18 hr Chimney1 251
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Sat The Dude 1,342
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••