Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180366 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.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Level 1

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#176632 Aug 11, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stop using your computer. For you have no way of knowing if you're really communicating with someone.
Oh, and don't talk to people either. For you have no reason of knowing whether they are real or not, because of all the above. Just don't be surprised if any of the people you do speak to happen to be bringing you a white coat.
Yep, you have gone off the other end of the cart dude.
You are so far off base it is really funny.

They were simple yes or no questions dude. So sorry to hear you are incapable of addressing such simple questions concerning possibilities dude.

A thing is possible or it is not. The point you dislike and ignore because it is the giant elephant in that post, is that >YOU< are the ones deciding what is possible and what is not WITHOUT proof to support your claims.
It is downright laughable for supposed "educated" folks to make such ridiculous statements like all life is observable and touchable and therefore studyable with the current tools we use for that study.
It is laughable because every ten days or so, previously unknown to mankind life, is discovered. Or, life that was said to be extinct for eons, shows up in a fisherman's net.
It is laughable because some of that life defies light photosynthesis for maintaining that life, and their lives are sustained by chemical processes and heat instead.
And those are two very distinctly different forms of life just on this one planet sir.
Since that is true, then it stands to reason that there are also other forms out there which utilize neither light photosynthesis or chemical bases and heat to sustain life.
That being said, there are no restrictions upon what forms life can possibly take in the universes. I suggest that even includes forms of life which will not fit into your little difinitive and closed box of "physical life", Many forms of life could very easily be non-detectable with the current tools of science.

I speak of possibilities. You speak in terms of definites. Neither you or the entirety of scientific studies possess enough knowledge and actual facts to draw the conclusions that you do.

I now ask you again.
Do known forms of life on this planet intentionally hide from one another for various reasons?

Yes or no?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Level 1

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#176633 Aug 11, 2014
One way or another wrote:
The stupidity of science goes on and on. Science claims we have been around on planet earth for 200,000 years, But it cannot prove that and many more claims.
Science teaches children to be stupid.
Incorrect on all counts.

Science is about possibilities.
It is just that certain scientists are the source of the stupidity to which you speak.
Science has no conclusions whatsoever concerning the age of mankind or any other thing. It is people who draw those interesting and perhaps erroneous conclusions.
Science is not stupid. Science has no consciousness of it's own, so that makes it an inanimate thing and is incapable of thought or feeling or a level of intelligence. It is merely a tool. It's concept and methods are a valuable resource for discovery, and we humans would be much worse off if that particular discipline of discovery were never developed by man..
It is just that it has it's limits just like any and all other tools of man.
Most scientists appear to be convinced that their tool is infallable and completely adequate to discover and reveal all things. I say they are making a big mistake to put all their trust and hope in a single tool of discovery.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176634 Aug 11, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I am well aware of that.
You skirt the point.
If you hold your breath and pass out but there is no way for another to see you pass out or hold your breath, is it possible to describe to another how to hold their breath? Will they pass out if they hold it long enough?
Is that a form of objective evidence?
Are the senses employed in gathering objective evidence? In other words, do the eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch, and hearing play roles in gathering objective evidence?
The obvious answer is yes.
How about when what you see, feel, smell, touch, and hear can ONLY be experienced on a personal level and within one"s self?

If you describe to another person how you went about getting to that level of consciousness and awareness, and then they in turn duplicated your efforts and saw, felt, smelled, and heard for themselves? Would that be a form of objective evidence?
Did they not see, experience, feel, and hear the very same things you did?
You make an unverifiable claim, then someone else makes the same verifiable claim, this does not verify the claim, it only verifies that both of you can make unverifiable claims, which proves nothing at all.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176635 Aug 11, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
Show me your proof that your claim of a physical and observable presence ie; living things, encompasses ALL the living things in the universes.
Since you can not provide that proof, your claim is bogus and incomplete.
You draw conclusions based on facts not in evidence.
SInce you are a student and promoter of the theory of evolution, it is sure and obvious you can grasp the concept that livings things can and do change forms over time.
What if those life forms can and do change form in a matter of a millisecond rather than a millenia?
Is it possible that a life form can be observed at one moment and then not at another?
Can and do known life forms hide from other life forms for various reasons from time to time?
Is it possible that it may have instantaneously simply shape shifted into another form?
Is it possible that certain life forms are capable of entering and leaving certain dimensions at will?
I suggest that your definitive claim and premise that all life forms can be touched and observed at will, could very well be flawed sir.
Prove it!! I'll wait .....

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Level 1

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#176636 Aug 11, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You make an unverifiable claim, then someone else makes the same verifiable claim, this does not verify the claim, it only verifies that both of you can make unverifiable claims, which proves nothing at all.
Which claim have I made which falls into that category?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Level 1

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#176637 Aug 11, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it!! I'll wait .....
Prove what?
What claims did I make sir?

Perhaps you should reread and pay particular attention to what was actually written concerning possibilities.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Level 1

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#176638 Aug 11, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You make an unverifiable claim, then someone else makes the same verifiable claim, this does not verify the claim, it only verifies that both of you can make unverifiable claims, which proves nothing at all.
You are in your own trap sir and ignore addressing the questions concerning possibilities.
For you to answer even one of those questions with a "yes, it is possible", is for you to admit error. You will refuse to go there and instead have chosen to begin the personal attacks because you are unable to honestly engage.

The verifiable part is valid IF ... and only ... IF ... you, the "casual observer", are honest about what you see, feel, hear, and smell and touch.
You refuse to be that honest and will avoid even attempting it. That's perfectly OK too.

It is verifiable. You refuse to verify for yourself. That's cool.

You will take the word of scientists aging ice core samples without verifying it, but refuse to do likewise when it comes to other issues. You, or someone here said that they would "assume" the other guys gave due diligence to their work
Interesting.
Apparently some people can be believed by you ... without proof ... and others are dismissed as idiots ... also without proof.
To each his own.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176639 Aug 11, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Which claim have I made which falls into that category?
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
"....If you describe to another person how you went about getting to that level of consciousness and awareness, and then they in turn duplicated your efforts...."
That one!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176640 Aug 11, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove what?
What claims did I make sir?
Perhaps you should reread and pay particular attention to what was actually written concerning possibilities.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>.....I suggest that your definitive claim and premise that all life forms can be touched and observed at will, could very well be flawed sir......
That one! Perhaps you should bother to read the drivel you spew, then you can waster your time as well as everyone else's.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176641 Aug 11, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
You are in your own trap sir and ignore addressing the questions concerning possibilities.
For you to answer even one of those questions with a "yes, it is possible", is for you to admit error. You will refuse to go there and instead have chosen to begin the personal attacks because you are unable to honestly engage.
The verifiable part is valid IF ... and only ... IF ... you, the "casual observer", are honest about what you see, feel, hear, and smell and touch.
You refuse to be that honest and will avoid even attempting it. That's perfectly OK too.
It is verifiable. You refuse to verify for yourself. That's cool.
You will take the word of scientists aging ice core samples without verifying it, but refuse to do likewise when it comes to other issues. You, or someone here said that they would "assume" the other guys gave due diligence to their work
Interesting.
Apparently some people can be believed by you ... without proof ... and others are dismissed as idiots ... also without proof.
To each his own.
It is "possible" a living monkey could decide to crawl out your butt. However, without evidence that such a thing could happen or is even likely to happen, I think it foolish to lubricate your anus in preparation for the event.

Scientists record such discoveries to the detail available to them. In the past by meticulous notes with measurements. Today, with videos and pictures. They rely on hearsay and subjective perception as little as possible.

As for religion, hearsay and subjective perception is all you have. If it were otherwise, there would be only one god over which to debate existence. As it is, there are thousands of gods, each with as much supporting evidence as any other. http://www.godchecker.com

As for your most likely religion, there are thousands of different denominations, each claiming all the others are going to hell. It seems your God's message is delivered with forked tongues.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Level 1

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#176642 Aug 11, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That one!
Questions which include things like the word "if" and "can", and " is it possible" are not claims. They are merely questions.

I asked >YOU< if it is possible to do that.
I also asked you if that would constitute a form of objective evidence.

There was no claim made.
I asked you questions.

You dodged them and instead chose to attack me and make false accusations.
Go figure.
<smile>

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Level 1

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#176643 Aug 11, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That one! Perhaps you should bother to read the drivel you spew, then you can waster your time as well as everyone else's.
Interesting. I am wasting your time because you can not counter and I do not fit into your stereotypical box.

BTW Einstein, I said "could be". A suspicion that something MAY be true, is NO claim that it is. Perhaps you could try harder to absorb the words as written.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Level 1

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#176644 Aug 11, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
They rely on hearsay and subjective perception as little as possible.
Nice. That implies that it does happen and has a place in scientific method. You know it does. That up ^there^ is as close to admitting it as you will go I susoect however.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Level 1

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#176645 Aug 11, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
As for your most likely religion, there are thousands of different denominations, each claiming all the others are going to hell. It seems your God's message is delivered with forked tongues.
Incorrect.
In the first place you have no idea what my "religon" is.
Secondly, I certainly do not believe that all others are wrong and will go to a hell.
Thirdly, some religons do not even have a concept of hell in their philosophy, so your claim is bogus.
Try again.
And fourthly, you have NO idea of what my "God's" message even is.
AGAIN, you draw conclusions with facts not in evidence.

You're having a little trouble putting me in your little stereotypical box. Making you angry too I see.
Let's review what has been said. I said what works for one does not necessarily work for others. That is true. Can you deny that?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#176646 Aug 11, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, within the known problems and errors that are continually being reviewed and are included in the Calibration Curve (look it up), with the caveats about when carbon dating is appropriate and applicable, likely sources of error and contamination, etc etc. And of course, carbon dating is merely one kind of radiometric dating among 40 techniques, and is unusual in directly sampling organic material rather than actual rock, which most other techniques do.
Most of the "error" claims that creationists waffle on about are errors that were pointed out by the scientists themselves and the reasons given - for the purpose of refining the techniques themselves. As typical parasites, the creationists selectively suck out the bits they want from this and then try to debunk the whole method.
Yes and the most stupid was that they thought that radiocarbon dating was used to measure the age of the earth. Therefore all the fuzz and effort to debunk its validity - debunking invalidly what even was not used for where they thought it to be. Ignorance combined with dishonesty.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#176647 Aug 11, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I received the answers I was seeking. If you are seeking answers for yourself, well then good luck. I see you have more questions then answers as well. <smile>
2. Nope.
3. I dodged nothing. I accomplished my goal. Thank you.
1. Yes, the ones you dodged. Hence you produce double talk. <smile>
2. Yes you are:
3.) Why then is this the first post I received from you after 6 or 7 of mine then? Let's take an example -#176573. For instance. Thank you.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176648 Aug 11, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Questions which include things like the word "if" and "can", and " is it possible" are not claims. They are merely questions.
I asked >YOU< if it is possible to do that.
I also asked you if that would constitute a form of objective evidence.
There was no claim made.
I asked you questions.
You dodged them and instead chose to attack me and make false accusations.
Go figure.
<smile>
Bullcrap! You presented it as an alternative interpretation of facts and reality. You know this and so does everyone else who read it. I successfully called you on it. Take it like a man and be properly embarrassed.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#176649 Aug 11, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice. That implies that it does happen and has a place in scientific method. You know it does. That up ^there^ is as close to admitting it as you will go I susoect however.
I addressed this in one of my posts you said you had addressed when "not" dodging.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176650 Aug 11, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. I am wasting your time because you can not counter and I do not fit into your stereotypical box.
BTW Einstein, I said "could be". A suspicion that something MAY be true, is NO claim that it is. Perhaps you could try harder to absorb the words as written.
An assertion is a hypothesis to be challenged and tested. Yours was, it failed! Deal with it!!

What a cry baby!!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176651 Aug 11, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice. That implies that it does happen and has a place in scientific method. You know it does. That up ^there^ is as close to admitting it as you will go I susoect however.
It does happen, it "has a place" in the scientific method like a fly "has a place" in your soup. We are human, as such it is difficult to avoid such subjective error. When they occur, they are always a contaminant in the scientific method, to be ferreted out by challenge and test.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min positronium 87,273
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 23 hr Fossil Man 166,302
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Sun knows 1,824
What's your religion? Sat Endofdays 767
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Sat superwilly 5,811
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
More from around the web