Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 20 comments on the Feb 24, 2008, www.scientificblogging.com story 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.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#53276 Mar 13, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
This is physics, not new age philosophy, and it's very relevant to applied science, especially biology.
Are you prepared to offer examples?
Well Hung Taxpayer

Las Cruces, NM

#53277 Mar 13, 2011
Christopher Pearsoll wrote:
<quoted text>
Is he actually trying that argument? When will they ever learn?
You seem rather closed minded for a science buff. There's more to the story than what you might think by watching Bill Nye or Mr. Science.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#53278 Mar 13, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
There are several "quantum theories", none of which is fully satisfactory, and all which reveal fundamental questions of our notion of reality. Some mathematical solutions require as many as 11 dimensions, others speculate that all quantum probabilities manifest in parallel universes, and still others maintain that our experience of "reality" is a function of consciousness. It seems fairly certain that evolution fits into this scheme somehow, but we've only scratched the surface, and since we're limited to what we can perceive through our five senses as filtered through a conscious mind, it's probable we'll never know. Feynman once remarked that not only is the nature of the universe unknown, but it's fundamentally unknowable.
Can you name a single scientific premise, be it a hypothesis, theory, or otherwise, that you consider "fully satisfactory?"
Well Hung Taxpayer

Las Cruces, NM

#53279 Mar 13, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you prepared to offer examples?
The tunneling electron microscope for one example, which uses the property of electron "tunneling" through energy barriers in violation of classical physics. Flash memory in computer chips also use this principle, and numerous other applications. If you hope to become an engineer, you have a lot to learn about your profession.
Well Hung Taxpayer

Las Cruces, NM

#53280 Mar 13, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you name a single scientific premise, be it a hypothesis, theory, or otherwise, that you consider "fully satisfactory?"
No, least of all evolution. At least science buffs don't try to proclaim other theories as somehow being sacrosanct.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#53281 Mar 13, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting to note that while consciousness can't be reduced to particles, it's believed that particles interact with consciousness. It's a well accepted fact that the behavior of matter is influenced by observation.
No.
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
Whether an electron or photon or what have you exhibits wavelike or particle-like behavior depends on how the observer chooses to observe them.
No.
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
Some quantum theories even go so far as to suggest that reality itself is a function of conscious obervation and that there is no "deep reality" without interaction with a conscious mind.
Hypothesis based on experimental results the variables of which are not controllable to an adequate extent to determine the cause of observed results.

Possible? Yes. Probable? No.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#53282 Mar 13, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
The tunneling electron microscope for one example, which uses the property of electron "tunneling" through energy barriers in violation of classical physics. Flash memory in computer chips also use this principle, and numerous other applications. If you hope to become an engineer, you have a lot to learn about your profession.
As soon as I posted the question I realized that you would attempt to dodge it. Perhaps I should have been more specific.

"it's very relevant to applied science, especially biology"

Are you prepared to offer examples in the field of Biology?

“Religion is Superstition”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#53283 Mar 13, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem rather closed minded for a science buff. There's more to the story than what you might think by watching Bill Nye or Mr. Science.
It's not being close minded at all. I'm as willing to look at actual evidence as the next guy, but what I am not interested in is the vacuous rhetoric. I dismiss ID for the same reason I dismiss all the gods man has ever invented; no evidence. Until somebody on that side of the discussion delivers what none of them have managed to do for over 6,000 years, I can and will continue to dismiss them and their talking points as irrelevant.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#53284 Mar 13, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
I never proposed that ID be taught as science. I proposed that, because the ID/evolution debate persists as a controversial subject, that it be openly discussed in a history or social science setting along with other topical and controversial subjects. In that way, it's deficiencies may be clearly identified and this would presumably encourage wider support for evolution.
Are children the ones who should be determining whether something is scientific or not, or should that be the purview of the scientific community?
Well Hung Taxpayer

Las Cruces, NM

#53285 Mar 13, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
As soon as I posted the question I realized that you would attempt to dodge it. Perhaps I should have been more specific.
"it's very relevant to applied science, especially biology"
Are you prepared to offer examples in the field of Biology?
You don't think biologists use electron microscopes? Okay then.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#53286 Mar 13, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting to note that while consciousness can't be reduced to particles, it's believed that particles interact with consciousness. It's a well accepted fact that the behavior of matter is influenced by observation. Whether an electron or photon or what have you exhibits wavelike or particle-like behavior depends on how the observer chooses to observe them. Some quantum theories even go so far as to suggest that reality itself is a function of conscious obervation and that there is no "deep reality" without interaction with a conscious mind.
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
This is physics, not new age philosophy, and it's very relevant to applied science, especially biology.
Are you prepared to offer examples in the field of biology?
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't think biologists use electron microscopes? Okay then.
Honesty has never been one of your strong points.

A simple 'no' would have been sufficient.
Well Hung Taxpayer

Las Cruces, NM

#53287 Mar 13, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Are you prepared to offer examples in the field of biology?
<quoted text>
Honesty has never been one of your strong points.
A simple 'no' would have been sufficient.
Simple minds like yours seek simple answers. A simple no is in fact insufficient because it's incorrect. The contributions of quantum physics to biology are innumerable, including the use of electron microscopes, computer tomography and radioisotopes to name just a few.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#53288 Mar 13, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple minds like yours seek simple answers. A simple no is in fact insufficient because it's incorrect. The contributions of quantum physics to biology are innumerable, including the use of electron microscopes, computer tomography and radioisotopes to name just a few.
Are you working up to a point, or are you just jizzing in your pants?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#53289 Mar 13, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple minds like yours seek simple answers. A simple no is in fact insufficient because it's incorrect. The contributions of quantum physics to biology are innumerable, including the use of electron microscopes, computer tomography and radioisotopes to name just a few.
Rubbish. You made a wild claim and buckled when asked to back it up.

“Science is the waytof truth”

Since: Aug 10

Earth

#53290 Mar 13, 2011
I have better things to do than argue with the professional reality deniers here, but I thought the educated might enjoy this article, called "Why humans have big brains but don't have whiskers or penises with spines"

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/10/news/...

Enjoy, and chew the full time morons a new one for me.

Chow.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#53291 Mar 13, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
I never proposed that ID be taught as science. I proposed that, because the ID/evolution debate persists as a controversial subject, that it be openly discussed in a history or social science setting along with other topical and controversial subjects. In that way, it's deficiencies may be clearly identified and this would presumably encourage wider support for evolution.
The problem is that every case I have read about where a class (below the college level at any rate) was supposed to "debate the merits of ID vs. ToE", it has turned into a cheer leading squad for ID, at the direction of the teacher. Instead of a discussion, it became a rally for "convert to Jesus".

Plus, if a class actually gave a REAL discussion of the merits, most of the parents would be up in arms about it being anti-Christian.

So any such class would almost certainly end up failing the Lemon Test and be ruled unconstitutional.

Personally, I would like to see such a class taught that gave the real merits of the case. The Dover trial transcript ought to be required reading. As Judge Jones said about ID, "breathtaking inanity".

Since: Aug 07

Missouri City, TX

#53292 Mar 14, 2011
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that every case I have read about where a class (below the college level at any rate) was supposed to "debate the merits of ID vs. ToE", it has turned into a cheer leading squad for ID, at the direction of the teacher. Instead of a discussion, it became a rally for "convert to Jesus".
Plus, if a class actually gave a REAL discussion of the merits, most of the parents would be up in arms about it being anti-Christian.
So any such class would almost certainly end up failing the Lemon Test and be ruled unconstitutional.
Personally, I would like to see such a class taught that gave the real merits of the case. The Dover trial transcript ought to be required reading. As Judge Jones said about ID, "breathtaking inanity".
Dover is really a moot point because it doesn't establish case law, judges aren't scientists, and the conclusion was limited to defining science as limited to materialistic causes in a small town.

"We find that while ID arguments may be true,... ID is not science." (p.64.)- Judge Jones

When the public realizes that there really isn't any evidence to support the toe and that ID is glaringly obvious every where we look, ideas such as Darwins Tree of Life or transmutational speciation will fade away along with the scientific bigotry.

Furthermore, parents concerned about the ill-effects of social Darwinsim or the inaccuracies of the toe can simply send their kids to private school or home school them.

When people think more thoroughly and without prejudice they will see that the toe is unverified and untenable. One finding after another is popping up in the diverse fields of science that contradicts it. Because of existential and ideological reasons, some people will probably continue to maintain thier usaul ideas and will loathe recognizing the change of times.(A quick read through these posts will validate that!) In the coming d ecades we can expect animated dabates between "retrograde" (evolutionists) and "progressive" (design) scientists. It seems as a theory, the toe has already failed, but it will take some time for the scientific society and the public at large to admit this.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#53293 Mar 14, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dover is really a moot point because it doesn't establish case law, judges aren't scientists, and the conclusion was limited to defining science as limited to materialistic causes in a small town.
"We find that while ID arguments may be true,... ID is not science." (p.64.)- Judge Jones
When the public realizes that there really isn't any evidence to support the toe and that ID is glaringly obvious every where we look, ideas such as Darwins Tree of Life or transmutational speciation will fade away along with the scientific bigotry.
Furthermore, parents concerned about the ill-effects of social Darwinsim or the inaccuracies of the toe can simply send their kids to private school or home school them.
When people think more thoroughly and without prejudice they will see that the toe is unverified and untenable. One finding after another is popping up in the diverse fields of science that contradicts it. Because of existential and ideological reasons, some people will probably continue to maintain thier usaul ideas and will loathe recognizing the change of times.(A quick read through these posts will validate that!) In the coming d ecades we can expect animated dabates between "retrograde" (evolutionists) and "progressive" (design) scientists. It seems as a theory, the toe has already failed, but it will take some time for the scientific society and the public at large to admit this.
Dover didn't establish case law?

It certainly did in the Federal Court district where the case was held. And while not a strict legal precedent elsewhere, it definitely holds weight in any decision outside that district.

As for "design scientists" (aka cdesign proponetists), they are nothing more than a literal handful of scientists who are overly religious fools that allow their religious blinders to overrule their understanding of the scientific method.

Don't believe me? Even the major ID boffins at the DI have finally admitted there is no such thing as a Theory of ID. Not even a hypothesis. All they have is a vague idea with no evidence whatsoever. That is not science.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#53294 Mar 14, 2011
Wow, Topix is acting weird tonight. That is the second time it has double posted.

Sorry about that.

“Religion is Superstition”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#53295 Mar 14, 2011
I see that UC is still in denial.

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.

Biology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min dirtclod 160,758
News Ilex Medical Ltd. (ILX) - Financial and Strateg... Apr 20 Leonardo Dockery 2
News Origin of Hindu Brahmins (Aug '08) Apr 14 MUQ2 189
Dodo Still Alive? (Mar '06) Apr 11 HiGuys 96
News 8 Mile Road is eight miles from where? (Oct '14) Apr 7 SLY WEST 4
Are female muscles stronger than male muscles? (Feb '08) Apr 6 MrJean 124
News Danger Lurking in Your Shower (Sep '09) Mar 27 Jorge 7
More from around the web