Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180388 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.

Since: Jul 13

Houston, MO

#142030 Jul 11, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Your God, NO!!
What God do you believe in?

Since: Jul 13

Houston, MO

#142031 Jul 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll say what I damn well please.
I do not believe in the god as portrayed in the bible. I believe a god may be possible but have seen no evidence of such as yet.
What God do you believe is possible and why?

Since: Jul 13

Houston, MO

#142032 Jul 11, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
I personally don't (so that is a NO)
But as this is a science forum - would add that if there was a god (of whatever kind) then the evidence points to evolution being part of its grand plan
And your point is?
So far you are the only one that has just given a "no". As you can see the others say "no but there is a possibility" almost like they are playing a weak Pascal's wager.

Since: Jul 13

Houston, MO

#142033 Jul 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I believe in God? NO
Do I believe God is a possibility? YES
Do I believe there is no God? NO
A weak Pascal's wager. You don't believe in God but yet you think a God could exist but yet again you say Do I believe there is no God? NO(which is just another way of saying you believe in God). You covered your bases well.

What God do you think exists and do you think he has played a part in life or has a purpose to exist.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#142034 Jul 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree on your first point (above). Faith should have some rational justification. If it does not have that then it is just a delusion.
The whole point of faith is that its invoked to override lack of evidence. If there was evidence, there would be no need to invoke "faith" as the justification for believing something. Therefore all faith is delusion.
Per Paul Tillich:
In discussing the truth of faith, Tillich examines the relation between faith and reason. Faith is not in conflict with reason.
And yet we see daily on this forum, faith most certainly is. Because when reason and faith collide, a person has to choose.
Tillich says that reason is a precondition for faith,
And I would say the opposite it true. Irrationality is a precondition for faith.
and that faith is an act in which reason ecstatically transcends itself.
He would better say "in which reason cheerfully annihilates itself"
Reason fulfills itself when it brings an awareness of the presence of ultimate reality.
Reason fulfills itself when it solves problems. Consider actual examples of faith. Faith is always IN something, right. So how did reason transcending itself into faith and awareness of ultimate reality convince KAB and UC and SBT and HTS that a world wide flood is real? It when you apply Tillich's fine words to anything concrete at all, you realise all they reveal is Jim Ryan's perfect vacuum. Thats always the BS test.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#142035 Jul 11, 2013
SonRisen wrote:
<quoted text>
A weak Pascal's wager. You don't believe in God but yet you think a God could exist but yet again you say Do I believe there is no God? NO(which is just another way of saying you believe in God). You covered your bases well.
What God do you think exists and do you think he has played a part in life or has a purpose to exist.
How is that a "weak Pascal's wager"?

Those are my beliefs too.

Did you not notice that he does not believe in God? That is different from believing there is no God. Believing there is no God is denying God's existence without evidence for God's nonexistence. That is as bad as believing in God without evidence of a god existing.

I see no reason to believe in God since there is no evidence of God's existence. Show me some evidence and I will turn my beliefs around.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#142036 Jul 11, 2013
I have always hated Pascal's Wager.

It assumes that if a God exists that he is an idiot.

That seems a bit blasphemous to me.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#142037 Jul 11, 2013
SonRisen wrote:
<quoted text>
A weak Pascal's wager. You don't believe in God but yet you think a God could exist but yet again you say Do I believe there is no God? NO(which is just another way of saying you believe in God). You covered your bases well.
What God do you think exists and do you think he has played a part in life or has a purpose to exist.
I see, another person who does not understand what rational skepticism means.

I do not believe in God because there is no evidence for God, but the possibility of God remains open because there is no evidence ruling God out definitively.

So I neither believe there is a God nor believe there is no God. I have no belief regarding this conjecture.

I simply accept that I do not know (though I see no necessity for God's existence). And that is the only honest answer you or anyone else can give.

Addendum 1: there is PLENTY of evidence ruling out Genesis and "God" as represented in the ancient scribblings of the Jews. THAT God is a logical impossibility.

Addendum 2: my position is diametrically opposite Pascal's cowardly wager, BTW. I refuse to "play the odds" even though God of some sort might exist. I live as an atheist. Meaning I do everything the same as you except for the butt-kissing God in the hope of getting the eternal goodies bit.

Since: Jul 13

Houston, MO

#142038 Jul 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that a "weak Pascal's wager"?
Those are my beliefs too.
Did you not notice that he does not believe in God? That is different from believing there is no God. Believing there is no God is denying God's existence without evidence for God's nonexistence. That is as bad as believing in God without evidence of a god existing.
I see no reason to believe in God since there is no evidence of God's existence. Show me some evidence and I will turn my beliefs around.
Basically what you are saying is You can't see God and have no evidence therefore you don't believe but yet you do believe God could be so you are not completely saying no I don't believe. A weak Pascal's wager.

What God do you think may exist and do you think he has played a part in life or has a purpose to exist.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#142039 Jul 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that a "weak Pascal's wager"?
Those are my beliefs too.
Did you not notice that he does not believe in God? That is different from believing there is no God. Believing there is no God is denying God's existence without evidence for God's nonexistence. That is as bad as believing in God without evidence of a god existing.
I see no reason to believe in God since there is no evidence of God's existence. Show me some evidence and I will turn my beliefs around.
SonRisen like many religious people cannot think outside the "believe in" box, so that if you do not believe X then you automatically must believe NON-X in his limited view.

Funny how we talk always of "the suspension of disbelief" in making fictions work eg movies. Perhaps its time to discuss "the suspension of belief" to make NON fiction work!!!

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#142040 Jul 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I believe in God? NO
Do I believe God is a possibility? YES
Do I believe there is no God? NO
Insufficient data , question is out of bounds.

Since: Jul 13

Houston, MO

#142041 Jul 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, another person who does not understand what rational skepticism means.
I do not believe in God because there is no evidence for God, but the possibility of God remains open because there is no evidence ruling God out definitively.
So I neither believe there is a God nor believe there is no God. I have no belief regarding this conjecture.
I simply accept that I do not know (though I see no necessity for God's existence). And that is the only honest answer you or anyone else can give.
Addendum 1: there is PLENTY of evidence ruling out Genesis and "God" as represented in the ancient scribblings of the Jews. THAT God is a logical impossibility.
Addendum 2: my position is diametrically opposite Pascal's cowardly wager, BTW. I refuse to "play the odds" even though God of some sort might exist. I live as an atheist. Meaning I do everything the same as you except for the butt-kissing God in the hope of getting the eternal goodies bit.
Basically what you are saying is You can't see God and have no evidence therefore you don't believe but yet you do believe God could be so you are not completely saying no I don't believe. A weak Pascal's wager.

It is like you are saying that if you meet your maker you can play it off as I was confused and did not know what to believe because there was no evidence but yet I still held a believe that you were did exist <-- hoping this will be your back door entrance to heaven if it is real.

What God do you think may exist and why?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#142042 Jul 11, 2013
SonRisen wrote:
<quoted text>
What God do you believe is possible and why?
A few men made themselves demigods, through trickery and superstition.
People believed them to be gods, but it was just the same lie as telling of a "real" god, for there has never been one to interact with humanity, that can stand up to the acid tests , and claim a throne of divinity or supernatural power.
Though some men have has charisma enough and the strength within them to unite others to a common cause. That is the closest thing we have had to a real god. Men like Alexander and Suleiman, The Khans are the best the world has had to offer as replacement of god.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#142043 Jul 11, 2013
SonRisen wrote:
<quoted text>
What God do you believe in?
verifiable evidence. Got any? Bet not!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#142044 Jul 11, 2013
SonRisen wrote:
<quoted text>
So far you are the only one that has just given a "no". As you can see the others say "no but there is a possibility" almost like they are playing a weak Pascal's wager.

You don't seem to understand that complete rejection of that which is possible is as illogical as complete acceptance of that which is (only) possible.

Pascal's fallacy (also known as Pascal's wager) is a study in flawed thinking. It presumes that God can be fooled by pretending to accept God's existence.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#142045 Jul 11, 2013
SonRisen wrote:
<quoted text>
What God do you believe is possible and why?
Which teapot do you believe is possibly orbiting in the asteroid belt and why?

Do you see any problem with your question yet?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#142046 Jul 11, 2013
SonRisen wrote:
<quoted text>
Basically what you are saying is You can't see God and have no evidence therefore you don't believe but yet you do believe God could be so you are not completely saying no I don't believe. A weak Pascal's wager.
It is like you are saying that if you meet your maker you can play it off as I was confused and did not know what to believe because there was no evidence but yet I still held a believe that you were did exist <-- hoping this will be your back door entrance to heaven if it is real.
What God do you think may exist and why?

Circular reasoning.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#142047 Jul 11, 2013
SonRisen wrote:
<quoted text>
Basically what you are saying is You can't see God and have no evidence therefore you don't believe but yet you do believe God could be so you are not completely saying no I don't believe. A weak Pascal's wager.
It is like you are saying that if you meet your maker you can play it off as I was confused and did not know what to believe because there was no evidence but yet I still held a believe that you were did exist <-- hoping this will be your back door entrance to heaven if it is real.
What God do you think may exist and why?
Basically what you are saying is You can't see a teapot and have no evidence therefore you don't believe but yet you do believe a teapot could be so you are not completely saying no I don't believe. A weak Pascal's wager.

It is like you are saying that if you meet your teapot you can play it off as I was confused and did not know what to believe because there was no evidence but yet I still held a believe that you were did exist <-- hoping this will be your back door entrance to heaven if it is real.

What teapot do you think may exist and why?

And remember, if you pick the wrong teapot, the right teapot will be very very very angry with you!!

Dumb butt!!
One way or another

United States

#142048 Jul 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole point of faith is that its invoked to override lack of evidence. If there was evidence, there would be no need to invoke "faith" as the justification for believing something. Therefore all faith is delusion.
<quoted text>
And yet we see daily on this forum, faith most certainly is. Because when reason and faith collide, a person has to choose.
<quoted text>
And I would say the opposite it true. Irrationality is a precondition for faith.
<quoted text>
He would better say "in which reason cheerfully annihilates itself"
<quoted text>
Reason fulfills itself when it solves problems. Consider actual examples of faith. Faith is always IN something, right. So how did reason transcending itself into faith and awareness of ultimate reality convince KAB and UC and SBT and HTS that a world wide flood is real? It when you apply Tillich's fine words to anything concrete at all, you realise all they reveal is Jim Ryan's perfect vacuum. Thats always the BS test.
Actually moron, that perfect vacuum is sciences claims. Its too bad you and all in science don't know why. Oh yes, it's because you're too stupid to think before making your stupid claims.
One way or another

United States

#142049 Jul 11, 2013
Since you and science are obviously to stupid to understand your own stupidity chimney, are you going to ask me to enlighten you and science?

Cut and paste you moron.

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 Support umbilical cord blood banking (Apr '09) 9 min tcb_tcb 7
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 min Into The Night 74,913
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 7 hr Frankie 733
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 10 hr positronium 14,295
News Survey Says: Raspberry Pi Still Rules, But X86 ... 19 hr Privacy Dude 1
News Do we really need a Space Corps? Sat RamRay 1
News 'Transformers: The Last Knight' sets a new low ... Sat smile save yourse... 1
More from around the web