Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99359 Aug 14, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And I don't care if you are too stubborn to see that the dynamics preclude evolution. No biggy, there are plenty of other good arguments to explore. But just be forewarned, we are not through with this one - not by a long shot.

Stupid, brainwashed, people say stupid, brainwashed, things.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99360 Aug 14, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another dodge, only to again interject religion to defend your beliefs. I didn't cherry pick this from a creationist website. I've independently studied the facts. After no less than a dozen challenges I've reiterated,no one on this thread can answer a fundamental obstacle to evolution.

This is clearly a lie. You have not studied evolution nor any other field of science. Your ignorance is obvious to anyone with more than H.S. science background. You think you are fooling people? You are even dumber than you act.
HTS

Williston, ND

#99361 Aug 14, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The more you make the assertion that you have "studied" the theory of evolution, the more is appears you are being dishonest, considering you fail to use scientific language shows you have not studied any real scientific field at all. You constantly interchange words like evidence, facts, and assertions or claims as if they are all the same.
It was not a dodge, you got your answer, and ignoring it only betrays your dishonesty and complete lack of integrity. If you really had a point to make, then you would not have ignored the answers provided. Instead you use an argument from many creationist websites, yes, many of them use the same ones you are using. Therefore it is valid to assume you are simply cherry picking from them.
People have also explained to you that there is no "fundamental obstacle" to any theory, the absence or contradiction of a single piece of evidence or a single fault in a theory does not make that theory wrong. That is your delusional concept of dichotomies, and dichotomies are not natural therefore science does not deal with them except in digital theory.
These very simple flaws in your points make it clear that your delusion is limiting your learning and that you have not had even a single minute sitting in a lecture or read more than a paragraph, if that, of any actual scientific article. I envy your naivete, but it is not a positive trait.
I'm not cherry picking anything from creationist websites. I rarely visit them. You apparently have no understanding of science, if you think the theory of evolution remotely qualifies as a scientific theory. It is based entirely on metaphysical suppositions, cannot be tested, and cannot be falsified. Evolutionary theorists cherry pick data. Stephen J. Gould himself admitted it. That is not science ... That is scientific fraud. Evolutionists constantly minimize obstacles of transmutation by painting extremely simplistic pictures of a very complex process. They pervert and distort mathematical probability concepts. Went I present an insurmountable obstacle such as the evolution of the pterosaur, all I get is diversions. No one will honestly confront the truth... That gradualistic transmutation is impossible. You cannot ever randomly rearrange genetic code and result in purposeful change. It's as ridiculous as thinking a Monkey could type a Shakespearean play.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99362 Aug 14, 2012
Oh my, a theory that is in the top five in all of science , according to our new "expert" does not remotely qualify as a scientific theory.

HTS, you really need to lay off of the idiot pills. You got answers about the pterosaur, since you are a jackass they did not satisfy you. That does not matter. They do satisfy real scientists. You deny being a creationist but everything about you screams it. You know the old saying, actions speak louder than words. And until you openly come out and tell us what you believe I think the default position is to treat you like a YEC.
HTS

Williston, ND

#99363 Aug 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Oh my, a theory that is in the top five in all of science , according to our new "expert" does not remotely qualify as a scientific theory.
HTS, you really need to lay off of the idiot pills. You got answers about the pterosaur, since you are a jackass they did not satisfy you. That does not matter. They do satisfy real scientists. You deny being a creationist but everything about you screams it. You know the old saying, actions speak louder than words. And until you openly come out and tell us what you believe I think the default position is to treat you like a YEC.
No, I got no answers about the pterosaur... What I got was a lot of criticism for bringing it up. You have faith that it evolved, despite the fact that any proposed evolutionary mechanism is impossible.
Your insulting words are not phasing me in the slightest. I present evidence that evolution is impossible, and your only response is that I'm stupid for not believing in your unsubstantiated stories.
HTS

Williston, ND

#99364 Aug 14, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It's apparent that you're fixated on pterosaurs because you researched it previously (creationist sites, no doubt) and know the evidence was very limited. Which we have admitted to. Got anything else or is that your only trick?
I have lot of other evidence against evolution. You, however, don't seem interested unchallenging your atheistic religion. When I present you with a serious problem to evolution, you brush it aside, having faith that naturalism will overcome any obstacle.
My question to you is, Why do you hope that you're the decendent of a worm? It's obvious that you WANT atheism to be true... otherwise you wouldn't rationalize away facts away. Why do you harbor contempt for your creator? Is it because you don't want to be accountable for your immoral lifestyle? Are you simply trying to justify a perverse mindset?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99365 Aug 14, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I got no answers about the pterosaur... What I got was a lot of criticism for bringing it up. You have faith that it evolved, despite the fact that any proposed evolutionary mechanism is impossible.
Your insulting words are not phasing me in the slightest. I present evidence that evolution is impossible, and your only response is that I'm stupid for not believing in your unsubstantiated stories.
I know that my words have no effect on you. You are too stupid to be insulted. Once again, we gave you answers. I gave you a starting point and you ignored it. And we don't need to know how every animal evolved to defend evolution. That is plain foolishness. Now we have very good records for man, whales, horses, we have some amazing records for certain sea life, though you would not even recognize that they were evolving due to your personal bias.

You are going to have to do a lot better than that to debunk evolution. Most of us are just laughing at you since you don't even understand the theory that you are trying to debunk. Trying to do that is like a person who has only learned algebra trying to debunk the theory of relativity, it can't be done.

Since: Aug 12

Savannah, TN

#99366 Aug 14, 2012
RICK wrote:
just keep telling them it was all done in 6 days,
yeah.....sure
All of time and space was created at once or maybe it took six days i don't know how fast the earth was spinning then. Do you know how fast the earth was spinning.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#99367 Aug 14, 2012
HTS wrote:
Are you simply trying to justify a perverse mindset?
Do you pretend that there is a Giant Invisible Man living up in the sky and controlling everything by Magic because you want to pretend that you aren't really going to die?
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

#99368 Aug 14, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not cherry picking anything from creationist websites. I rarely visit them. You apparently have no understanding of science, if you think the theory of evolution remotely qualifies as a scientific theory. It is based entirely on metaphysical suppositions, cannot be tested, and cannot be falsified. Evolutionary theorists cherry pick data. Stephen J. Gould himself admitted it. That is not science ... That is scientific fraud. Evolutionists constantly minimize obstacles of transmutation by painting extremely simplistic pictures of a very complex process. They pervert and distort mathematical probability concepts. Went I present an insurmountable obstacle such as the evolution of the pterosaur, all I get is diversions. No one will honestly confront the truth... That gradualistic transmutation is impossible. You cannot ever randomly rearrange genetic code and result in purposeful change. It's as ridiculous as thinking a Monkey could type a Shakespearean play.
Gould, eh? Every time a creationist cites a scientist, he's quotemining or using someone else's quotemine. So, why not just cite your source and the context, liar?
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

#99369 Aug 14, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I have lot of other evidence against evolution. You, however, don't seem interested unchallenging your atheistic religion. When I present you with a serious problem to evolution, you brush it aside, having faith that naturalism will overcome any obstacle.
My question to you is, Why do you hope that you're the decendent of a worm? It's obvious that you WANT atheism to be true... otherwise you wouldn't rationalize away facts away. Why do you harbor contempt for your creator? Is it because you don't want to be accountable for your immoral lifestyle? Are you simply trying to justify a perverse mindset?
Polonium halos, maybe? Genetic entropy, perhaps? Or that old chestnut, the second law of thermodynamics?

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#99370 Aug 14, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've obtained nothing from a creationist website regarding pterosaurs. I guess you can only imagine that they evolved. That falls into the realm of religion.
So what is it you are suggesting? Are you saying that the vast evidence of evolution of other species is OK, but that the pterosaurs were designed by a creator?

Seems to be a pretty wacky idea.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#99371 Aug 14, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not cherry picking anything from creationist websites. I rarely visit them. You apparently have no understanding of science, if you think the theory of evolution remotely qualifies as a scientific theory. It is based entirely on metaphysical suppositions, cannot be tested, and cannot be falsified. Evolutionary theorists cherry pick data. Stephen J. Gould himself admitted it. That is not science ... That is scientific fraud. Evolutionists constantly minimize obstacles of transmutation by painting extremely simplistic pictures of a very complex process. They pervert and distort mathematical probability concepts. Went I present an insurmountable obstacle such as the evolution of the pterosaur, all I get is diversions. No one will honestly confront the truth... That gradualistic transmutation is impossible. You cannot ever randomly rearrange genetic code and result in purposeful change. It's as ridiculous as thinking a Monkey could type a Shakespearean play.
You keep forgetting to show any evidence that gradual evolution is not possible. What is the mechanism that prevents an adaptive mutation from being passed on to the next generation?

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#99372 Aug 14, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I got no answers about the pterosaur... What I got was a lot of criticism for bringing it up. You have faith that it evolved, despite the fact that any proposed evolutionary mechanism is impossible.
Your insulting words are not phasing me in the slightest. I present evidence that evolution is impossible, and your only response is that I'm stupid for not believing in your unsubstantiated stories.
You have not provided any evidence that evolution is impossible. You only provide evidence that the history of the pterosaur is unknown. You've kicked this dead horse to the very last limit of kicking. It's not going to get up and gallup for you.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#99373 Aug 14, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And I don't care if you are too stubborn to see that the dynamics preclude evolution. No biggy, there are plenty of other good arguments to explore. But just be forewarned, we are not through with this one - not by a long shot.
Arguments to explore? Exactly how does your flat refusal to even look at the counter-evidence to your claims constitute "exploring"? At least I looked at your sources, read their arguments, and pointed out why I disagreed with them. Have you shown any similar balance?

In the end, you simply fall back on your own flat incredulity coupled with your fantasy wish fulfillment. Regarding the moon recession, I looked into it properly. Likewise genetic entropy. Likewise geological rock formation. But with you, the blinders seem to come on the moment you see anything that challenges you but you have no answer for.

Case in point: massive heat generated by any conjectured radical increase in the radioactive decay rate. Just slide it under the rug..."well, God just took care of that!". With such arguments, why even pretend your approach is scientific? Thats what gets me. You seem to want to kid yourself that he science supports your position, then jump on the miracle bandwagon whenever you need to to escape from the obvious absurdities of your position.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#99374 Aug 15, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You apparently have no understanding of science, if you think the theory of evolution remotely qualifies as a scientific theory. It is based entirely on metaphysical suppositions, cannot be tested, and cannot be falsified.
Which of the following is metaphysical?

1. Geometric reproduction with imperfect heredity (observed)

2. Resource limitations in nature (observed)

3. Competition for resources among non-identical organisms, resulting in different success rates in reproduction (observed)

These lead inexorably to natural selection, as can be demonstrated very easily.

Evolution predicts that such activity over a long period would lead to changes in organisms over time, confined to a nested hierarchy, which is exactly what we observe in the fossil record and the genome.

So I fail to see what part of this is metaphysical.

Furthermore, evolution is falsifiable. Mammals or birds found in the Cambrian would do it nicely. None have been found.

In other words, you are talking complete twaddle. You can stop with the Gould quote mining too.

Next.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#99375 Aug 15, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Went I present an insurmountable obstacle such as the evolution of the pterosaur, all I get is diversions. No one will honestly confront the truth... That gradualistic transmutation is impossible. You cannot ever randomly rearrange genetic code and result in purposeful change. It's as ridiculous as thinking a Monkey could type a Shakespearean play.
Yet I mentioned the equally "unlikely" transition of the reptilian jaw to the mammalian middle ear. We have the fossil record of the transition, from reptile to the synapsids to the early mammals. Just because a transition looks unlikely to YOU, does not mean that its impossible in any objective sense.

What we lack in the case of pterosaurs is fossil evidence, but in principle the transition is no more difficult than transitions we can see the evidence for. Perhaps one day the fossils documenting the actual transition of pterosaurs will be found, as they have been for mammalian ears, and perhaps not. It is irrelevant. We have enough evidence to understand what is possible.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#99376 Aug 15, 2012
You got nothin but evolutionary fairy tales.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#99377 Aug 15, 2012
Don't get caught in their minusha. It has no beginning and no end. The evolutionary fairy made it so.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#99378 Aug 15, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet I mentioned the equally "unlikely" transition of the reptilian jaw to the mammalian middle ear. We have the fossil record of the transition, from reptile to the synapsids to the early mammals. Just because a transition looks unlikely to YOU, does not mean that its impossible in any objective sense.
What we lack in the case of pterosaurs is fossil evidence, but in principle the transition is no more difficult than transitions we can see the evidence for. Perhaps one day the fossils documenting the actual transition of pterosaurs will be Ifound, as they have been for mammalian ears, and perhaps not. It is irrelevant. We have enough evidence to understand what is possible.
Show the pictures of the changing jaw to middle ear.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min DanFromSmithville 20,540
News Techs4Biz Announces Pervidi Version 6 Including... (Jul '13) 4 hr Roger Chan 5
How can I print out HTC phone text messages? 4 hr trwer 8
[iTunes Data Recovery] How to Recover Notes fro... (May '13) 11 hr Nelson 24
Bitcoin News 21 hr enjoybitcoins 1
News Sunseeker Energy Holding AG and Nations Roof Pl... (Sep '09) Tue amed20 85
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) Tue nanoanomaly 7,156
More from around the web