Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179697 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.

wondering

Morris, OK

#176656 Aug 11, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
An assertion is a hypothesis to be challenged and tested. Yours was, it failed! Deal with it!!
What a cry baby!!
an assertion is a hypothesis to be challenged and tested you say.
i see many say that god is real. that is their assertion which must be a hypothesis so now challenge and test it. let us know what you find out.
One way or another

United States

#176657 Aug 11, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Your words are those of another cut and paste individual, that does not have the ability to think for themselves. I wish you did have more than just that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#176658 Aug 11, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
an assertion is a hypothesis to be challenged and tested you say.
i see many say that god is real. that is their assertion which must be a hypothesis so now challenge and test it. let us know what you find out.

Wow, you really don't have a clue about science, do you?
wondering

Morris, OK

#176659 Aug 11, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you really don't have a clue about science, do you?
i might know a little about science. i am not the one that stated "An assertion is a hypothesis to be challenged and tested. Yours was, it failed! Deal with it!!" that would be your oongaboonga.
Cvt6702

AOL

#176660 Aug 11, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove objectively that anything supernatural exists ..... I'll wait....
The only way anyone can prove the existance of life after death is for them to develop their own psychic abilities and communicate one on one with relatives and others who have died.
Or wait until its you time to die, and at that time you will wish you could get someone back on earth to believe you are visiting th em and talking to them in person and in their dreams, but by then it will be too late and you will be there in spirit watching everything but no one will pay any attention to you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#176661 Aug 11, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i might know a little about science. i am not the one that stated "An assertion is a hypothesis to be challenged and tested. Yours was, it failed! Deal with it!!" that would be your oongaboonga.

No, you don't even know a little.
wondering

Morris, OK

#176662 Aug 11, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't even know a little.
that just makes you a liar. but what is new.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#176663 Aug 11, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't even know a little.
I think you hurts its feeling.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#176664 Aug 12, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it would be a natural explanation. There is nothing which exists in the universes whic6h is unnatural or supernatural.
There are other "practical" alternatives to discover those things which exist beyond the limits of the tool being employed for the job. The limitations of the scientific method itself prevent it from making those discoveries.
Definitive conclusions made by using a system of discovery (scientific or otherwise) can go horribly off track when human assumptions are made in the beginning of a new "science" study, if the foundational premise is off base to begin with.
Example: How was it determined that the hole in the ozone is not supposed to be there? Was it just assumed it should not be there? How big should it be at any given point in time?
This all sounds nice but the problem is that no other reliable method for discovery has been found. So to paraphrase Churchill, we are in a situation where the scientific method is the worst tool we have except for all the others.

The foundational premises of the scientific method are off base? Logic, consistency with demonstrable physical evidence, guarded induction from that, the principles of falsifiability, these are off base? Why?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#176665 Aug 12, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I am well aware of that.
The obvious answer is yes.
I 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?
Documentation of your experience along with another person and another and another would start to add up to evidence that X process can reliably lead to Y mental state. It would still not be evidence of anything out there in the universe, only an artefact of the structure of human brains.

As far as I can see the only way to show your shared experience was something more than that would be if it provided information that was not available any other way and could be verified with physical evidence.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#176666 Aug 12, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
You're lying. Physics states what is and what isn't possible, then fundies like yourself say but what about magic? What about total violations of physics? What about this, what about that? Well okay, they MIGHT be possible. But until YOU can come up with a testable hypothesis for YOUR claims, they remain non-verifiable either way. Therefore is no more valid than God, The Matrix, or Cosmic Sheep farting the universe into existence. Because hey, you just don't know for sure.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
Yeah, kind of a silly idea for us to put an organism under the microscope and take a look at its DNA, huh.

Do I even have to point out that that was sarcasm?
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
And how many of them totally violate physics? How many of them have powers like Superman? Are modern coelecanths identical to those millions of years ago or are they a different species?

There's nothing wrong with the fact that science doesn't know everything yet, and sometimes discoveries can throw up a few surprises. But until any scientific concepts are utterly turned on their head this is not a big deal. If apples suddenly start falling upwards then give us a bell.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
So you mean there's a scientific explanation? WELL DONE! Yeah, I never bothered with sunlight either, and found steak to be MUCH tastier.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
That being said, there are no restrictions upon what forms life can possibly take in the universes.
Actually there is in ours. They must hold to the physical constraints of our universe. If not then they must belong to a different universe, if those universes even exist - the jury's still out on that. But even then there are still very valid reason for skepticism towards any specifics you may propose - just because there's nothing about Klingon biology that necessarily defies physics, doesn't make the proposition of Klingons a reasonable one. If THAT'S how your mind works you could make up almost anything you like and claim it's valid. Like pigs with wings. Horses with compound eyes. Fairies. Centaurs. Mermaids. Reasonable according to you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#176667 Aug 12, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
Sure. Take bacteria for example. They straddle the line of whether or not it could be called a true lifeform. It's not inconcievable that there could be other forms of life that function in remarkably different ways to what we are currently experienced. Science even hypothesizes about xenobiology and about what we might find on other planets, for example lifeforms based on silicon instead of carbon like they are on Earth. Science is ALWAYS open to the possibility of new evidence being discovered that changes our current understanding. In fact that's the very ESSENCE of science, as the concept of falsifiability is REQUIRED for science to work.

But that does NOT give justification for you to make up any old BS you like and expect to be taken seriously, ESPECIALLY if you have zero evidence.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
So you say, but without specifics your rhetoric is just that.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
I now ask you again.
Do known forms of life on this planet intentionally hide from one another for various reasons?
Yes or no?
Sure. An insect can look like a twig. But it can't transmute its atoms so its body is made of wood. It can grab a piece of plant matter to cover itself with that helps add to the disguise. Maybe an alien lifeform can be sentient but have body parts made of wood? No problem, since wood is generated by biological lifeforms. Speculation is okay. Speculation beyond reasonable limits is not. Assertion without evidence is not. Still waiting for you to actually make a point here, but if all it's gonna be is "Science doesn't know everything yet!" then I'm gonna be seriously disappointed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#176668 Aug 12, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
WRONG. Being open to a possibility is NOT the same as admitting to an error. It is admitting to the POSSIBILITY of being in error, IF evidence was to be provided.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
You will refuse to go there and instead have chosen to begin the personal attacks because you are unable to honestly engage.
Stop blowing the irony meters.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
Again, your nihilistic ego deludes you into thinking your personal opinions are valid. You can claim all you like that a brick wall is soft as yoghurt, until someone slams your head into a wall. Then they can slam my head into a wall. My personal prediction is that I will agree that brick walls are quite solid. I also make the rather bold prediction that the very same will apply to every single person on planet Earth, no matter if you or anyone else happen to have philosophical issues with that particular hypothesis.

So if you still dispute this claim then you are free to develop a testable hypothesis, perform said test, record the observations, write it down, then submit your proposal to scientific peer-review. If you can do that I just might change my mind about brick walls.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Apparently some people can be believed by you ... without proof ... and others are dismissed as idiots ... also without proof.
To each his own.
Assertions without evidence can be dismissed.

We can accept speculation.

We can't accept speculation to have any bearing on fact until you can demonstrate it.

Reasonable skepticism is good. Until you can demonstrate that we are guilty of, shall we say, "fundamentalist" skepticism, you're not making a good point.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#176669 Aug 12, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect.
In the first place you have no idea what my "religon" is.
We don't care.

Your opinions do not matter. All that matters is what you can demonstrate.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#176670 Aug 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
an assertion is a hypothesis to be challenged and tested you say.
i see many say that god is real. that is their assertion which must be a hypothesis so now challenge and test it. let us know what you find out.
Not our job, whiner. It's THEIR job.

We have no idea how to test for invisible magical Jewish wizards that exist beyond time and space as we know it.

But neither do they. Since THEY want that taken seriously then they can do their own homework.

All we need to do is say who cares about invisible magic Jew wizards when they got no evidence in the first place.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#176671 Aug 12, 2014
Cvt6702 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way anyone can prove the existance of life after death is for them to develop their own psychic abilities and communicate one on one with relatives and others who have died.
Or wait until its you time to die, and at that time you will wish you could get someone back on earth to believe you are visiting th em and talking to them in person and in their dreams, but by then it will be too late and you will be there in spirit watching everything but no one will pay any attention to you.
Absolutely, yes.

The "You'll find out when you're dead!" hypothesis.

Most rational people however would point out that being dead is not necessarily the most reliable way to conduct an objective scientific investigation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#176672 Aug 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
that just makes you a liar. but what is new.
Nah.

You were only uninentionally correct when you claimed to know "a little bit about science".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#176673 Aug 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
that just makes you a liar. but what is new.

LOL

My statement stands upon your record.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176674 Aug 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
q: what if those life forms can and do change form in a matter of a millisecond rather than a millenia?
a: new species occurring in just one generation that is genetically different than either parent, different in shape/size, different in color/appearance, and capable of reproducing.==hybridization. not a millisecond but did not take a millennia either.
What if a living monkey would crawl out your butt? What then? And so what?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#176676 Aug 12, 2014
Cvt6702 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way anyone can prove the existance of life after death is for them to develop their own psychic abilities and communicate one on one with relatives and others who have died.
Or wait until its you time to die, and at that time you will wish you could get someone back on earth to believe you are visiting th em and talking to them in person and in their dreams, but by then it will be too late and you will be there in spirit watching everything but no one will pay any attention to you.
So how is it one can "know" anything about this "supernatural" existence you claim to know so much about?? Is it just me, or did you just reveal yourself as a fraud?

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) 7 min Richardfs 45,420
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 13 min Kenedy njoroge 152,085
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Into The Night 20,220
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Blitzking 209,431
America evolving into lockdown on purpose 7 hr Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sat One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sat One way or another 4
More from around the web