Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#113245 Jan 2, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
Google it and you will find it..oh wait a minute, i have a feeling you dont google, probably to layman for you..i liked your profile..you are so deep..i really hope you dont waste your highly intelligent mind simply youtubing and starbucking all day..dont you have a job? its crazy how many super intelligent people there are in this world, yet we have so few answers and the world is still a totally f'ed up place..i guess being so smart drives some people into a state of insanity that they cant actually do anything but sit on a computer..
You've been here under another name. What was it?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113246 Jan 2, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
should evolution be taught in highschool is the title of this thread. in highschool I learned about mythology, read fictional books in literature classes and learned about many things that were not facts. I even learned about peoples theories. should evolution and creationism be taught in schools?? WHY NOT?

I think only facts about biology should be taught in a biology class..but there are other classes that these theories can be taught in. Like I said earlier..ancient alien theory is just a theory even though some theorist think they have scientific proof backing it up. i never once claimed it to be a scientific theory. in my opinion we havent even scratched the surface as to what is really going on..all these "smart" people will probably be very shocked if they found out the truth about human origins. evolution is just a very tiny piece of a massive puzzle..im surpirsed you are not the most learned person on this thread..i bet steven hawkings brain pales in comparison to yours.
See? You cannot even get your own story right:
obesity wrote:
Ancient alien theory should be taught in school
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a theory and if you look into it, it's just as relevant as the theory of evolution and creationism
There IS NO dispute as to the facts leading to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution explains. 99.9% of all relevant scientists accept the ToE (Theory of Evolution). Yes, that IS a real statistic....99.9%.

Just for the fun of it...what are YOUR thoughts about the origin of life on Earth, and the origin of Man?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113247 Jan 2, 2013
Whoops....sorry for the double-tap.
I was watching Louisville smacking UofF in the Sugar Bowl, and got distracted.
obesity

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113248 Jan 2, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>And they were not taught as facts, nor as scientific theories.

obesity wrote, "should evolution and creationism be taught in schools?? WHY NOT?"

In a science classroom? Evolution should be taught there, since it is science. Creationism should not be taught there, since it is *not* science.

obesity wrote, "I think only facts about biology should be taught in a biology class"

Like the fact of evolution (that all modern living things are descended from a common ancestral population). Which is explained by the theory of evolution (the modern evolutionary synthesis).

obesity wrote, "Like I said earlier..ancient alien theory is just a theory even though some theorist think they have scientific proof backing it up. i never once claimed it to be a scientific theory."

So, why should it be taught in schools other than as an amusing social curiosity not unlike astrology or palmistry?
Should creationism be taught in school..why not?? Did I specify a science classroom, no I did not. History class, maybe. Ancient alien theory along with other theories should be taught in schools..it makes people think. I never said it should be taught in a SCIENCE class.

We haven't even discovered everything there is to know about earth. "They"always talk about evolution and Lucy etc, but there are always holes in the theory of evolution. Until we explore ever inch of land and water, everything is up in the air. Obviously we came from a common ancestor, but how do we know where exactly that common ancestor came from?? Algae? It could very well be from a race of beings that are from somewhere other than earth. They used to teach as fact that we came from monkeys and that has been debunked. Evolution simply means change, of course evolution happens all the time. The truth is the truth wether we have discovered it or not.
obesity

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113249 Jan 2, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>You've been here under another name. What was it?
I just discovered this thread today
obesity

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113250 Jan 2, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>And, what does it mean?
It starts as a hypotheses and then is tested in different ways by scientist to prove wether it is to be accepted or not.
obesity

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113251 Jan 2, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>See? You cannot even get your own story right:

obesity wrote, "Ancient alien theory should be taught in school"

obesity wrote, "<quoted text>
It's a theory and if you look into it, it's just as relevant as the theory of evolution and creationism"

There IS NO dispute as to the facts leading to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution explains. 99.9% of all relevant scientists accept the ToE (Theory of Evolution). Yes, that IS a real statistic....99.9%.

Just for the fun of it...what are YOUR thoughts about the origin of life on Earth, and the origin of Man?
In my opinion, I believe that our origins did not come from earth. I don't know if it was accidental or if we came about on purpose. Maybe another race of life landed here and sneezed, farted or something like that and after millions of years earth life came to be. Scientist don't agree on where we came from or how the earth came to be. Many of them have different ideas and opinions on the subject. I've been told things by someone I'm really close with about certain metals we have that are not of this earth. I've also heard a few interesting stories from a WWII vet. Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
obesity

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113252 Jan 2, 2013
I used to work at a plant nursery. Every year there some "special" new plants that we would order. It's was either a new flower or foliage color, certain type of disease resistance, different shape, different amount of petals etc. these variations didn't come about on there own. There was a human being responsible for their creation.

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113253 Jan 2, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are getting close to understanding evolution. Yes, microevolution has been the process behind common ancestry for 3.5 billion years. But macroevolution (as defined by creationists) is a strawman that is not supported by science. There's no evidence that supports the idea of speciation in one generation.
Regarding "macroevolution" this, and the long ages required, is my main complaint.(I am aware of the controversy!) Genetic diversity and polymorphism is observed and accepted; macroevolution, or one kind of plant or animal changing over long periods/universal common descent, into a completely different type, is not.

Speciation in one generation? Where did you get that idea? Creation science doesn't think you or anybody else beleives that. Are you talking about puncuated equilibrium vs. gradualism? I think even that theory requires a scale of tens or thousands of years. It seems you have some major misconceptions regarding creation science. Speciation can occur due to mutation or genetic drift and selection. Regarding speciation, there is allopatric speciation where two populations are separated and sympatric speciation where members have a genetic difference which develops into a different population. There is also adaptive radiation. Or perhaps you were referring to the Hardy-Weinberg Law of Equilibrium that says p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1 where p = T and q = t? This shows how recessive genes remains in a population from generation to generation with the qualification that there is no migration, mutations, selection, or genetic drift occuring. So please clarify.

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113254 Jan 2, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
FYI: I am NOT the most learned person on these threads.


Agreed.
Kong_ wrote:
I am also passionate about keeping religious nut-jobs out of public school curriculum planning.
So again: If you have something to offer in the way of science (or pseudoscience), be prepared to defend it.
Kong, we have no interest in teaching religion in public schools. I have subscribed and have been a member of several local, national, and international creation science organizations and this is not even an agenda item.(There still may be a small few that are passionate about it but it is not pursued as such in the larger organizations such as CRS, AIG, ICR, etc. We would however, like to see a more balanced approach taught with regards to evolution. It seems you people just have it out for Christians for some reasons as if for sport or fueled hatred/bigotry. Why do you hate us so much? What have we done to offend you? Does love and charity offend you? I am not a religious person as I don't go to church. But I believe the Bible and Jesus Christ as my creator and savior. Obviously if I believe in creation and intelligent design I would have to believe someone was behind it and I happen to be convinced by the evidence that it is God. It doesn't bother me if you don't believe and I will not try to convince you. Do I ever try and push it on you? No. You need to look inward at yourself and ask yourself why you have this axe to grind. Why you feel the need - the passion that drives you - to insult, belittle, ostrisize, condemn Christians just for what they believe. That's pure bigotry.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113255 Jan 2, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Did any scientists ever *seriously* believe that?
Or is that more like the "Scientists used to think that the Earth was flat" story?
<quoted text>
Lots of him (both fiction and non-fiction).
<quoted text>
Yes, that's why it was called "science fiction".
<quoted text>
I have serious doubts that it was ever alive. Can you provide any evidence that it was?
Drew, the point in Asimov's Foundation that I was making was that he made the assumption that with enough knowledge, prediction would be close to perfect. SF? Yes. But Asimov was also a Ph.D in molecular biology, writing pre-Lorenz.

If we go back to the early days of Chaos theory, Lorenz assumed that predicting the climate using variables to 3 decimal places would give results approximately equal to the same predictive model using 4 decimal places. He was genuinely surprised when that proved not to be the case, to the point where he thought there was an error. The models correlated closely for a few days than followed radically different predictive paths.

Wiki -

"In 1814, Laplace published what is usually known as the first articulation of causal or scientific determinism:[39]

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities[40]"

Note the world view embodied in that statement, by one of the great mathematicians and scientists of the time. It is not to say that he imagined we would ever reach that point of supreme intelligence and perfect prediction, but that such a view was conceivable and we would become better and better at predicting given more accurate information.

To go back to Lorenz...the idea that given 10 decimal places, or 100, or 1000, we would be able to successfully predict weather further and further into the future.

Its really only since the effects of feedback and "increasing returns" and non-linearity in general has been fully appreciated that this world view has been shattered. Tiny events can have effects that compound massively beyond simple expectations. I could give and example - one random mutation in one strand of DNA may conceivably have altered the course of human evolution and be therefore "responsible" for everything from the Great Pyramids to Beethoven's 5th to the birth and death of the Twinkie. That is not the world view embodied in Laplace's famous statement.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113256 Jan 2, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
Should creationism be taught in school..why not?? Did I specify a science classroom, no I did not. History class, maybe. Ancient alien theory along with other theories should be taught in schools..it makes people think. I never said it should be taught in a SCIENCE class.
We haven't even discovered everything there is to know about earth. "They"always talk about evolution and Lucy etc, but there are always holes in the theory of evolution. Until we explore ever inch of land and water, everything is up in the air. Obviously we came from a common ancestor, but how do we know where exactly that common ancestor came from?? Algae? It could very well be from a race of beings that are from somewhere other than earth. They used to teach as fact that we came from monkeys and that has been debunked. Evolution simply means change, of course evolution happens all the time. The truth is the truth wether we have discovered it or not.
I would have nothing against a philosophy class that looked at any number of wild ideas like aliens or YEC. So long as it was embedded in study of formal logic, and training in common human cognitive biases along with some real understanding of statistics.

Then you might have some useful outcomes. If not, then leave alien landing talk in the school yard at recess!

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113257 Jan 2, 2013
Epigenetic studies in DNA methylation using white blood cells shows major differences between apes and humans. Other studies on brain cells show the same marked differences. It proves apes are different than humans.

http://www.icr.org/article/7157/

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113258 Jan 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have nothing against a philosophy class that looked at any number of wild ideas like aliens or YEC. So long as it was embedded in study of formal logic, and training in common human cognitive biases along with some real understanding of statistics.
Then you might have some useful outcomes. If not, then leave alien landing talk in the school yard at recess!
Or how about even wilder ideas like a universe out of nothing from nobody? Or life from non-life? Or microbes turning into men? That's some pretty wild stuff!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113259 Jan 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
<quoted text>
Kong, we have no interest in teaching religion in public schools. I have subscribed and have been a member of several local, national, and international creation science organizations and this is not even an agenda item.(There still may be a small few that are passionate about it but it is not pursued as such in the larger organizations such as CRS, AIG, ICR, etc. We would however, like to see a more balanced approach taught with regards to evolution. It seems you people just have it out for Christians for some reasons as if for sport or fueled hatred/bigotry. Why do you hate us so much? What have we done to offend you? Does love and charity offend you? I am not a religious person as I don't go to church. But I believe the Bible and Jesus Christ as my creator and savior. Obviously if I believe in creation and intelligent design I would have to believe someone was behind it and I happen to be convinced by the evidence that it is God. It doesn't bother me if you don't believe and I will not try to convince you. Do I ever try and push it on you? No. You need to look inward at yourself and ask yourself why you have this axe to grind. Why you feel the need - the passion that drives you - to insult, belittle, ostrisize, condemn Christians just for what they believe. That's pure bigotry.
Love and charity do not offend me.

The corruption of science by a bunch of liars who deliberately distort the findings of real researchers, i.e. "Creation Scientists", now that offends me. And its not Christian either.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113260 Jan 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Epigenetic studies in DNA methylation using white blood cells shows major differences between apes and humans. Other studies on brain cells show the same marked differences. It proves apes are different than humans.
http://www.icr.org/article/7157/
Well, right here is the first lie spotted in your article:

"Despite the fact that the most similar type of cell known between humans and apes was selected, scientists were surprised that they detected major methylation profile differences in over 1,500 different regions of the human genome when they were compared to chimp genomes."

In fact white blood cells would be expected to be among the most DIFFERENT, for a very obvious reason. Do you have any idea HOW white blood cells "learn" to fend off novel diseases? They actually activate a hypermutation zone which randomly develops new "keys" - protein sequences" in an attempt to match the profile of new pathogens. That is how antibodies are developed! So in the whole body, its here where you would expect the MOST change after 6-8 million years of separate "disease fighting" histories. Yet your article claims that these cells should be the most similar.

As for neural cells, the other type cited. What do you think is the most obvious and significant difference between humans and chimps. The brain. Duh.

Now, how about they test muscle cells, or liver cells, or bone cells? This is a typical creationist crock.

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#113261 Jan 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Love and charity do not offend me.
The corruption of science by a bunch of liars who deliberately distort the findings of real researchers, i.e. "Creation Scientists", now that offends me. And its not Christian either.
You are the liar. And the bigot.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#113262 Jan 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Regarding "macroevolution" this, and the long ages required, is my main complaint.(I am aware of the controversy!) Genetic diversity and polymorphism is observed and accepted; macroevolution, or one kind of plant or animal changing over long periods/universal common descent, into a completely different type, is not.
Speciation in one generation? Where did you get that idea? Creation science doesn't think you or anybody else beleives that. Are you talking about puncuated equilibrium vs. gradualism? I think even that theory requires a scale of tens or thousands of years. It seems you have some major misconceptions regarding creation science. Speciation can occur due to mutation or genetic drift and selection. Regarding speciation, there is allopatric speciation where two populations are separated and sympatric speciation where members have a genetic difference which develops into a different population. There is also adaptive radiation. Or perhaps you were referring to the Hardy-Weinberg Law of Equilibrium that says p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1 where p = T and q = t? This shows how recessive genes remains in a population from generation to generation with the qualification that there is no migration, mutations, selection, or genetic drift occuring. So please clarify.
That's so cute when you talk Biology. Reminds me of a little kid standing on the front seat of his Mom's car and pretending he's driving.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113263 Jan 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Or how about even wilder ideas like a universe out of nothing from nobody? Or life from non-life? Or microbes turning into men? That's some pretty wild stuff!
Yes, the first one is a wild idea. Fortunately or theories of evolution and for that matter cosmology do not depend on that assumption. "We don't know" is the correct answer - whether the universe came from nothing, whether its the only universe, whether the concept of "before the big bang" is even meaningful.

Life from non-life? Either its physically possible or its not. Nothing wild about that. We either find a naturally plausible pathway or we don't.

Microbes turning into men? That is a wild idea! But this one is supported by mountains of evidence, so like some other wild ideas - relativity and wave/particle duality, its not a crazy one, just one that your intuition has a problem with.

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#113264 Jan 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, right here is the first lie spotted in your article:
"Despite the fact that the most similar type of cell known between humans and apes was selected, scientists were surprised that they detected major methylation profile differences in over 1,500 different regions of the human genome when they were compared to chimp genomes."
In fact white blood cells would be expected to be among the most DIFFERENT, for a very obvious reason. Do you have any idea HOW white blood cells "learn" to fend off novel diseases? They actually activate a hypermutation zone which randomly develops new "keys" - protein sequences" in an attempt to match the profile of new pathogens. That is how antibodies are developed! So in the whole body, its here where you would expect the MOST change after 6-8 million years of separate "disease fighting" histories. Yet your article claims that these cells should be the most similar.
As for neural cells, the other type cited. What do you think is the most obvious and significant difference between humans and chimps. The brain. Duh.
Now, how about they test muscle cells, or liver cells, or bone cells? This is a typical creationist crock.
Illogical...delusional...disho nest.

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
We'll Find Alien Life in This Lifetime, Scienti... (May '14) 46 min Julie 27
Santa Paws! How dressing your dog up for Christ... 2 hr Hooogle It 1
Why Japan has bet its revival on humanoid robots 7 hr Switches 25
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 11 hr shinningelectr0n 5,725
For all you have been given, what can you give ... 17 hr One way or another 21
How do I know if my crush likes me? (Jan '08) Tue sam031704 1,101
Jobs coming in Utica with potential impact on L... Tue Thick Bodied Utican 46
More from around the web