Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
168,881 - 168,900 of 172,515 Comments Last updated 39 min ago
HTS

Englewood, CO

#173696 Apr 28, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice that you didn't answer the question: how does the existence of a creator change the way the data is interpreted? Does it change any of the ages? Change any of the red-shifts? Change the nature of the background radiation?
For that matter, how is adding the assumption of an intelligence making things any simpler? Does it elucidate the mechanisms at all? other than sweeping any problems under the rug, what exactly does the assumption of a creator help to explain *in detail*?
The extistence of a creator doesn't change how data is interpreted.
Acknowledging an intelligent force is not "sweeping problems under the rug"... it is a logical deduction. I don't ASSUME that random forces can create life. Why should I? You are PRESUMING atheism. You have predetermined that a naturalistic explanations exists for all phonomena in nature

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#173697 Apr 28, 2014
One way or another wrote:
No one expects you evolutionists children to understand any more than copy and paste.
We all know that this is the little lie you tell yourself every day to avoid admitting the hatred and envy that your own lack of education arouses in you.

You had an alternative, which was to learn anyway. You chose not to take it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173698 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The extistence of a creator doesn't change how data is interpreted.
In that case, there is no problem. Evolution still happened as did the Big Bang.
Acknowledging an intelligent force is not "sweeping problems under the rug"... it is a logical deduction. I don't ASSUME that random forces can create life. Why should I? You are PRESUMING atheism. You have predetermined that a naturalistic explanations exists for all phonomena in nature
No, I think we should *try* to find a naturalistic explanation before we resort to non-naturalistic ones. That way, we know whether there is or is not such an explanation. Furthermore, what exactly *is* a 'non-naturalistic explanation'? In what way is it testable (and thereby an explanation at all)? Again, how does the assumption (or even the conclusion) of an intelligent designer affect the explanations in any way? We still need to consider details and processes. So we would end up doing exactly the same experiments as we are doing now.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#173699 Apr 28, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
In that case, there is no problem. Evolution still happened as did the Big Bang.
<quoted text>
No, I think we should *try* to find a naturalistic explanation before we resort to non-naturalistic ones. That way, we know whether there is or is not such an explanation. Furthermore, what exactly *is* a 'non-naturalistic explanation'? In what way is it testable (and thereby an explanation at all)? Again, how does the assumption (or even the conclusion) of an intelligent designer affect the explanations in any way? We still need to consider details and processes. So we would end up doing exactly the same experiments as we are doing now.
The dogma that is mindlessly proliferated today is not "Let's first look for a naturalistic explanation before we consider intelligent design..." It is widely ASSUMED that evolution produced every complexity, known and unknown... even models of transmutation that lack any conceivable functional continuum.

The term "non-naturalistic explanation" is a meaningless term. Intelligent design is not "magic". If there is a God, He does not defy physical laws of the universe. He operates under laws that transcend man's understanding. Is that any different than believing in abiogenesis? Can you explain to me how random molecules + millions of years can produce a living cell?

You don't know why gravity exists. You observe its effect, and you conclude that it exists. You cannot explain exactly HOW and WHY it operates. It is the same with intelligent design. Nearly every proposed evolutionary pathway, when honestly scrutinized, REQUIRES a pre-fixed end goal to realistically consider gradualism as plausible. That is a hallmark of intelligent design.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#173700 Apr 28, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You will be hard pressed to find a pressure of 1 atm in the Eagle nebula except in a proto-star.
And? Are you saying they don't exist?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#173701 Apr 28, 2014
One way or another wrote:
I know this must be a new concept for you, but try reading up on the subject before you run your mouth, you only make yourself look stupid.
The absolute, unequivocal Project of the Year Award.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#173702 Apr 28, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The absolute, unequivocal Project of the Year Award.
Damn it! Projection!

I gotta get this keyboard fixed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#173703 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain an example of such a phenomenon, and specifically how that observation can be extended to the proposed self sequencing of DNA.

I am starting to understand that you don't get what 'observation' means in a scientific sense.

Please reference wikipedia for observation & science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#173704 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The extistence of a creator doesn't change how data is interpreted.
Acknowledging an intelligent force is not "sweeping problems under the rug"... it is a logical deduction. I don't ASSUME that random forces can create life. Why should I? You are PRESUMING atheism. You have predetermined that a naturalistic explanations exists for all phonomena in nature

Do you know ANYBODY that thinks RANDOM forces can create life? I don't either.

You simply don't want to acknowledge that reality is far from your perverted views.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173705 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
The term "non-naturalistic explanation" is a meaningless term.
This is sort of my point.
Intelligent design is not "magic". If there is a God, He does not defy physical laws of the universe. He operates under laws that transcend man's understanding. Is that any different than believing in abiogenesis? Can you explain to me how random molecules + millions of years can produce a living cell?
Even ignoring the false characterization of abiogeneiss, can you explain how intelligence can do so? If not, the 'explanation' is useless.
You don't know why gravity exists. You observe its effect, and you conclude that it exists. You cannot explain exactly HOW and WHY it operates. It is the same with intelligent design. Nearly every proposed evolutionary pathway, when honestly scrutinized, REQUIRES a pre-fixed end goal to realistically consider gradualism as plausible. That is a hallmark of intelligent design.
This is false: there is no per-concieved end-goal required. But even if there were, how does intelligent design help the actual analysis? How does it change the steps required? Does it make the process of producing feathers any easier to decipher? If an intelligence uses natural laws to guide the process, there is *still* the question of mechanism. And to figure out the mechanism requires *exactly* the same experiments that are already being done. This is as true for production of feathers as it is for abiogenesis. In both cases, we still have to use natural processes to figure out what happened. Even *if* there was an intelligence guiding things, the same questions arise and need to be answered.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173706 Apr 28, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
And? Are you saying they don't exist?
I am saying that hydrogen and helium won't be liquid there. The temperature will be too high if the pressure is up at 1atm.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#173707 Apr 28, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am saying that hydrogen and helium won't be liquid there. The temperature will be too high if the pressure is up at 1atm.
1 atm pressure is too low a pressure to generate heat by nuclear fusion. Try again!

There are cooler bodies that can coalesce into giant balls of hydrogen and helium. Like Jupiter, and Saturn for starters.

"The most abundant substances in the universe hydrogen and human stupidity. Though I understand there is a limited amount of hydrogen." .... variously attributed.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#173708 Apr 28, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

Even ignoring the false characterization of abiogeneiss, can you explain how intelligence can do so? If not, the 'explanation' is useless.
<quoted text>
This is false: there is no per-concieved end-goal required. But even if there were, how does intelligent design help the actual analysis? How does it change the steps required? Does it make the process of producing feathers any easier to decipher? If an intelligence uses natural laws to guide the process, there is *still* the question of mechanism. And to figure out the mechanism requires *exactly* the same experiments that are already being done. This is as true for production of feathers as it is for abiogenesis. In both cases, we still have to use natural processes to figure out what happened. Even *if* there was an intelligence guiding things, the same questions arise and need to be answered.
As a physicist, you know perfectly well that you don't need to explain "how" a force works deduce that it exists.

Does acknowledgment of intelligence make the process easiier to decipher?
Absolutely... because once the need for intelligence is understood, you don't need to assign properties to molecules that do not exist. Is it useful to pretend that random mutations can appear and become incorporated into DNA over millions of years, and then, by mysterious mechanisms, those sequences can result in a purposeful code? Is it useful to deny the existence of God so that you can imagine that a feather can be created over millions of years of trial-and-errors? It is NOT useful to pretend that science validates your religious beliefs.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173709 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
As a physicist, you know perfectly well that you don't need to explain "how" a force works deduce that it exists.
Does acknowledgment of intelligence make the process easiier to decipher?
Absolutely... because once the need for intelligence is understood, you don't need to assign properties to molecules that do not exist. Is it useful to pretend that random mutations can appear and become incorporated into DNA over millions of years, and then, by mysterious mechanisms, those sequences can result in a purposeful code?
Actually, it is useful to assume that the mechanisms can be discovered---that leads to research to actually discover them. We can investigate the mechanisms, etc. Hypothesizing an intelligence doesn't help with anything in the actual investigation.
Is it useful to deny the existence of God so that you can imagine that a feather can be created over millions of years of trial-and-errors? It is NOT useful to pretend that science validates your religious beliefs.
Again, yes, it is useful to motivate attempts to understand the mechanisms involved. And whether or not an intelligence is involved, the mechanisms will still need to be elucidated. Hypothesizing an intelligence helps in no way whatsoever.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#173710 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain an example of such a phenomenon, and specifically how that observation can be extended to the proposed self sequencing of DNA.
Well, pretty much every living organism on Earth consists of self-sequencing DNA.(shrug)

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#173711 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The extistence of a creator doesn't change how data is interpreted.
Acknowledging an intelligent force is not "sweeping problems under the rug"... it is a logical deduction. I don't ASSUME that random forces can create life. Why should I? You are PRESUMING atheism. You have predetermined that a naturalistic explanations exists for all phonomena in nature
Then you are admitting that ID is supernatural and therefore irrelevant to consideration.

Stupid.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#173712 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
The dogma that is mindlessly proliferated today is not "Let's first look for a naturalistic explanation before we consider intelligent design..." It is widely ASSUMED that evolution produced every complexity, known and unknown... even models of transmutation that lack any conceivable functional continuum.
It's not assumed, it's observed. So while we can't (and don't have to) present a 4 billion year timeline of every mutation that ever happened ever, we can still make successful predictions based on what is observed that you can't.
HTS wrote:
The term "non-naturalistic explanation" is a meaningless term. Intelligent design is not "magic". If there is a God, He does not defy physical laws of the universe. He operates under laws that transcend man's understanding.
Ergo FRAKKING MAGIC!

Duh.
HTS wrote:
Is that any different than believing in abiogenesis? Can you explain to me how random molecules + millions of years can produce a living cell?
Look at 4 billion years ago. Then look at 3.5 billion years ago.

You will observe abiogenesis.

However the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
HTS wrote:
You don't know why gravity exists. You observe its effect, and you conclude that it exists. You cannot explain exactly HOW and WHY it operates.
Actually we can do it pretty well, certainly enough to predict the motions of phenomena with mass, including most of the planets.
HTS wrote:
It is the same with intelligent design. Nearly every proposed evolutionary pathway, when honestly scrutinized, REQUIRES a pre-fixed end goal to realistically consider gradualism as plausible. That is a hallmark of intelligent design.
Sure it is, except you've provided zero evidence of an end-goal. Plus there's the complete and total utter lack of scientific predictions that IDC makes (apart from the obvious "EVILUSHUN IZ RONG!!!" mantra). And complete and total utter lack of scientific hypothesis or way to test it.

Let's face it, without evolution IDC would have literally nothing to talk about.(shrug)

That's why ALL we "know" about ID is:

Something

did something

somehow

somewhere

at some time.

For the life of me I can't understand why someone wouldn't wanna "teach" this incredibly amazing "scientific theory"!

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#173713 Apr 28, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know ANYBODY that thinks RANDOM forces can create life? I don't either.
You simply don't want to acknowledge that reality is far from your perverted views.
Apparently random is the opposite of intelligence no matter how many times we explain to him why it isn't.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#173714 Apr 28, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

Again, yes, it is useful to motivate attempts to understand the mechanisms involved. And whether or not an intelligence is involved, the mechanisms will still need to be elucidated. Hypothesizing an intelligence helps in no way whatsoever.
That is absurd.
You assume that mechanisms involved don't require intelligent design.
The fact is, Polymath... transmutation is not possible without intelligence. There is no naturalistic pathway of abiogenesis without intelligent design. You simply assume that there is.
In other words, you ASSUME atheism.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#173715 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
As a physicist, you know perfectly well that you don't need to explain "how" a force works deduce that it exists.
Um, actually you must at least have a SLIGHT idea, you know about proportions of density to mass of various compounds and thrust to weight ratio, etc etc.

Otherwise your spaceships ain't gonna get out of the Earth's atmosphere, capiche?
HTS wrote:
Does acknowledgment of intelligence make the process easiier to decipher?
Absolutely... because once the need for intelligence is understood, you don't need to assign properties to molecules that do not exist.
So this intelligent agent of yours exists DESPITE the lack of molecules it is comprised of? You ain't making much sense here bub.
HTS wrote:
Is it useful to pretend that random mutations can appear and become incorporated into DNA over millions of years,
Actually yes it is, which is why we keep on getting new flu shots every year or so. Denying the fact of random mutations would be FAR less useful.
HTS wrote:
and then, by mysterious mechanisms, those sequences can result in a purposeful code?
"Purpose" as you are using the word here is philosophical.

What is the "purpose" of life?

When you can answer that then you will no longer be a philosophical mastrubater.
HTS wrote:
Is it useful to deny the existence of God so that you can imagine that a feather can be created over millions of years of trial-and-errors? It is NOT useful to pretend that science validates your religious beliefs.
Then it is not useful to pretend science supports invisible magic wizards like your God, since there is zero evidence to deny.

Explain orthology Hooter.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Theory Facing Crisis 13 min Christian 202
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 16 min KAB 136,251
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min Lawrence Wolf 115,227
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 4 hr TurkanaBoy 315
Science News (Sep '13) Thu positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Aug 27 Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••