Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 175,444

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: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98826 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's get one thing straight: "science" is not "evolution"
Evolutionary theory does make a judgment regarding ID... all transmutations occur unassistented by any external force of intelligence. Ernst W. Mayr, one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists, affirmed the priority of dogmatic materialism in this way,
“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”
*“Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83,(July 2000),
In other words, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Not quite, there is no need for intelligent design. Do you believe in Intelligent Falling? If you don't, why not?
Mugwump

York, UK

#98827 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's get one thing straight: "science" is not "evolution"
Evolutionary theory does make a judgment regarding ID... all transmutations occur unassistented by any external force of intelligence. Ernst W. Mayr, one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists, affirmed the priority of dogmatic materialism in this way,
“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”
*“Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83,(July 2000),
In other words, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN
And again - can you explain why other branches of science do allow for INTELLEGENT design and are therefore different to evolution.

No quotes about evolution now - just answer the above question

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#98828 Aug 12, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Children seem to enjoy turning things around. I say there can be no gravity without spin and they say I claim that spin creates gravity.
Those are 2 different things children, but it's ok, we can hardly expect you to understand the difference.
When you say spin are you referring to atomic spin or are you referring to the actual spinning of bodies such as Earth?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#98829 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionary biologists who present arguments never take a neutral stance about God. They never say "I don't know of ID was necessary. They EXCLUDE the possibility of intelligence. They assume that mechanisms that they do not understand evolved through naturalistic mechanisms that they do not understand. Sir Julian S. Huxley, a prominent English evolutionary biologist of the mid-twentieth century, expressed is total commitment to materialism in this revealing declaration:
"In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. "
*(Huxley J.S., "The Humanist Frame", in "Essays of a Humanist," [1964], Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1969, reprint, pp.82-83).
Huxley offers no proof that anything evolved. He merely proclaims it by admitting that he has confined his interpretation of nature to the "evolutionary pattern of thought". His statement that there is "no need for the supernatural" implies that "science" has all the answers. He draws the conclusion that naturalism can explain the entire physical world only because he has excluded every other possible theory from consideration. This is why I keep insisting that the modern evolutionary theory is atheism, ie, an A PRIORI rejection of intelligent design. There is no neutrality.
In science there is no need for the supernatural, as the supernatural is, by definition, outside the scope of science. Once it is inside the scope of science then it is no longer supernatural.

The rest, and also judging by the title of the book, sounds like a philosophical interpretation, which is not a scientific conclusion. Believe it or not scientists are allowed to have those.

And I gave you a specific example of an evolutionary biologist who is a devout Christian (hardly the only one but one of the higher profile ones) so obviously accepting Evolution does NOT mean rejecting the idea of an intelligence or creator.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#98830 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No one is looking for evidence that a particular intelligent entity did anything. ID is not limited to one religious version of intelligence. Evolutionists simply dismiss all intelligence in one swipe. They say no evidence for intelligent design exists... which is absurd because they dion't have any scientific explanations as to how any complexity could be created without intelligence.
But isn't saying complexity MUST be the result of intelligence an assumption in itself? We find complexity, the only conclusion we can draw from that is complexity exists in nature, but there is no way to prove that complexity requires intelligence. Until that is resolved we go under the neutral idea that whether an intelligent creator or not, what exists in natural is natural, complex or not.

And anyways it really doesn't affect the science. Think of this way: If a Creator exists, the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,282 miles per second. If a Creator doesn't exist, the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,282 miles per second.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#98831 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's get one thing straight: "science" is not "evolution"
Evolutionary theory does make a judgment regarding ID... all transmutations occur unassistented by any external force of intelligence. Ernst W. Mayr, one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists, affirmed the priority of dogmatic materialism in this way,
“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”
*“Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83,(July 2000),
In other words, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Can you find any generally accepted physics or chemistry book or theory or anything that doesn't explain things solely materialistically?

To match caps for caps: ALL SCIENCE IS MATERIALISTIC.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#98832 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no difference between the "magic" of God and the "magic" of evolution. Neither can be explained by science.
Well, since the scientists themselves disagree with you, that leaves us with a choice. We can either listen to them, the people that spent years studying it, doing it for a living, and publishing their results and information publicly for us to read, review and critique, or we can listen to the random guy on the internet.

I think I am going to need a minute here to think that one through.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98833 Aug 12, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your "hypothesis" say that the amount of gravity generated by a planet is affected in any way by the rate at which that planet rotates on its axis? Be careful how you answer.
Axis spin speed, MAY contribute to rotational speed, negatively or positively, depending on weather or not axis spin slows the planets rotational speed, due to friction. However, I cannot be sure that axis spin creates a slowing friction in space. It might actually increase rotational speed, as grease increases spin rate for bearings.
From our poor perspective, measuring such on a planetary scale has never been spoken of, that I have ever read.
Good question though. Any input?

Since: Aug 12

Savannah, TN

#98834 Aug 12, 2012
Micro evolution may happen. But macro I don't think so. So Preach Both Religions!!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#98835 Aug 12, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Good comeback, just what we can expect from children.
Adults use scientific rebuttal children.
Which, by definition, leaves you out of the adult category.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98836 Aug 12, 2012
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
When you say spin are you referring to atomic spin or are you referring to the actual spinning of bodies such as Earth?
Both. You can't have one without the other.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#98837 Aug 12, 2012
No-NotMe wrote:
Micro evolution may happen. But macro I don't think so. So Preach Both Religions!!
Once you accept so called 'micro' evolution, you accept Evolution. There has never been shown to be a barrier that prevents genetic change from reaching a point where it would be considered a new species.

Think of it this way, what you call micro evolution is 1 becoming 2, 2 becoming 3, 3 becoming 4 and 4 becoming 5. Macro evolution is 1 becoming 5 through a series of small, incremental steps. It is the same thing, just a matter of scale. To say one exists and the other is impossible doesn't make any sense.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98838 Aug 12, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Axis spin speed, MAY contribute to rotational speed, negatively or positively, depending on weather or not axis spin slows the planets rotational speed, due to friction. However, I cannot be sure that axis spin creates a slowing friction in space. It might actually increase rotational speed, as grease increases spin rate for bearings.
From our poor perspective, measuring such on a planetary scale has never been spoken of, that I have ever read.
Good question though. Any input?
Yes, the tests have been done around the Earth and we have observed frame dragging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

Meanwhile your idea is nonsense.

Since: Aug 12

Savannah, TN

#98839 Aug 12, 2012
Changes with in Kind Has Change. Take human for example. So Don't be so hard hearted God will still be on his thrown.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#98840 Aug 12, 2012
No-NotMe wrote:
Changes with in Kind Has Change.
1. What is a Kind?
2. What is the mechanism that prevents enough change from accumulating to the point where it is no longer the same 'Kind'?
Mugwump

York, UK

#98841 Aug 12, 2012
No-NotMe wrote:
Changes with in Kind Has Change. Take human for example. So Don't be so hard hearted God will still be on his thrown.
Explain why evolution is not the mechasism god uses to create diversity
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98842 Aug 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the tests have been done around the Earth and we have observed frame dragging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
Meanwhile your idea is nonsense.
They are not thinking beyond what they choose to prove and certainly they have not even considered the complexity of what is being spoken of here, as is evident by their orbit.

In a related matter, science claims that as a clock in higher altitude on board a jet moving at a very high rate of speed slows in comparison to one standing still on the planet, they claim time slows down, but that's not true, as frame dragging also shows, dependent on the altitude.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98843 Aug 12, 2012
There is a very easy test to prove that time is not slowed down by such,

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98844 Aug 12, 2012
Psychology wrote:
There is a very easy test to prove that time is not slowed down by such,
Really?! Do tell. You do realize that like evolution, relativity has never failed a major test. Your Nobel Prize awaits you.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#98845 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Tousands of brilliant scientists and highly intelligent people from all walks of life see profound evidence of God in nature, Einstein said that his study of science lead him to believe in God.
You can sit there and say that There is no evidence that the sky is blue. That doesn't change anything. Your own arrogance is blinding you so that you deny what is obvious to all intelligent clear thinking people.
I am curious to know what sort of scientific evidence you are looking for. Obviously no complexity in nature would convince you. What would you need to change our mind?
Something more that flowers are purddy.

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
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 14 min One way or another 27,675
UCSB Professor Shuji Nakamura to Receive Japan'... 3 hr SHlTWORMUKRAIDEBD... 49
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 4 hr shinningelectr0n 5,689
Gov't: China could take down US power grid 7 hr Jaimie 7
The 10 coolest Rocket City inventions on displa... 9 hr Kid_Tomorrow 1
In 'The Homesman,' Wind Is The Sound Of Insanity 9 hr Kid_Tomorrow 1
The Internet 9 hr Kid_Tomorrow 1
Intel and Europol team up to fight cybercrime Nov 21 One way or another 2

Science / Technology People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE