Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 177,015

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." Full Story

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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99379 Aug 15, 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.
It falls into the realm of logic. Not that I would expect you to follow that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99380 Aug 15, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've studies the claims of evolution
That's not possible. You've been using the "dog giving birth to a cat" argument for Pete's sakes.
HTS wrote:
for over thirty years. The entire edifice of Darwinism is pure 100% BS. It deserves no respect as a science.
Thirty years, eh? Funny your come across as someone half that age.

Either way, you haven't studied science at all.
HTS wrote:
It's conceptually impossible.
Baseless claim.
HTS wrote:
I'm expected to just accept fairytales of evolution on faith.
No, you're expected to lie constantly. And you do.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99381 Aug 15, 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.
Your entire rant is a lie. Including your comment about not getting answers.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99382 Aug 15, 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.
More lies. I answered you myself.
HTS wrote:
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.
Yes. You're being stupid.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99383 Aug 15, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're dodging the question. Sow me a plausible pathway of pterosaur evolution and I'll show evolution some respect.
No you won't. Evidence doesn't matter to you and you will lie like hell and move onto something else instead. Your parents obviously did a pish-poor job of raising you.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99384 Aug 15, 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?
I'm neither an atheist nor immoral. So all of the crap you just said is just more of your bullshit.

You've presented no evidence. Only your idiot opinions. And, yes, you *DO* spend time on creationist websites. You parrot them almost word for word. You think we haven't read them as well?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99385 Aug 15, 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.
No you haven't, you get everything from creationist sources. That's why you've used creationist arguments from day 1, even when the questions themselves don't even make sense.

You are quite simply, a clueless liar.

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Richardfs 16,957
How to Recover Deleted Data from your iPad with... (Jul '13) 4 hr ShirleyC190 15
Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 5 hr Awssome 624
Photo Recovery for Android - Get back your lost... (Jan '13) 5 hr Marcy 9
Forget Food and Fuel: America's Corn Is Worth $... 6 hr One way or another 2
Nitrogen Powered Hybrid Automobile (Dec '11) 7 hr Step Ya Ramen Up 217
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 11 hr shinningelectr0n 6,059
More from around the web