Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 178,149

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." Read more

“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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#98846 Aug 12, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
My first biology teacher was a Catholic Priest! FUnny how he had no trouble with evolution. Like all those signatories of the Clergy Letter Project that has been mentioned many times, usually after some Creationist says something stupid like 'Believe in evolution is disbelief in God'.
Because they believe in a cartoon god.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#98847 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.
.......and you were linked to all that research going on and brushed it aside because you really don't care.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#98848 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
Science makes a judgement against ID.

"Uniformitarianism is not a controversial assumption compared to magic."
-- John Hoelsenbeck, PhD, UC Berkeley
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98849 Aug 12, 2012
Relativity has failed, just as science fails in so many ways, limited by the so called scientists. In lenski's bacterial experiment, where he proved that after 10 million bacteria that were antibiotic resistant, it produced one bacteria that was non resistant.

Lenski, patting himself on the back, didn't bother to reverse the experiment, to see if bacteria do such, as a way to keep its ability to slip in and out of antibiotic resistance, according to its needs.

In the time experiment, the scientists didnt bother to fly the craft much closer to the ground, where the gravity is stronger, which would prove that higher gravity would create more friction on the clock and slow down the workings of the clock even more, making time look as if it was slowing even more than at their original higher altitudes.

Easy test, but the morons running the test obviously didn't want to disprove their own desires or they were too stupid to consider such.

I gave the relavent web sites showing such and the reasons why they are not advancing the work.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98850 Aug 12, 2012
My last sentence pertains to relativity in my above
Post.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98851 Aug 12, 2012
The questions are, why are y'all too stupid to understand these very simple things.
Mugwump

York, UK

#98852 Aug 12, 2012
Psychology wrote:
The questions are, why are y'all too stupid to understand these very simple things.
Dunno - I was checking out your thesis on relativity but realised I was looking at relativism - who could be that stupid huh ?

Oh wait - that was you wasn't it.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98853 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.
Ou wrote the above in reference to my claims that spinning may or may not increase speed in relation to revolving around our barycenter with the sun and gravity. However, the probe B experiment was done at 659 kilometers from earths surface. That proves absolutely nothing, when considering axis spin further out and the effects of spin according to what I spoke of.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#98854 Aug 12, 2012
For the moron spouting relativity vs

Copy and paste.

Not long after the special theory of relativity was published in 1905, the French physicist Paul Langevin first formulated one of the best-known implications of the theory, the twin paradox.  If one twin could be sent to a nearby star at a speed approaching the speed of light while the other twin remained on earth, a strange thing would happen: the twin who traveled to the star would, on his return to earth, find that his brother was either very aged or even dead.[1] Special relativity explains that this occurs because time does not move at the same rate for both twins.  If two people or things do not share a frame of reference, time does not progress at the same rate for them.  Instead, the rate of passage of time is relative to frame of reference.  It was this implication of relativity that drew the strongest criticism.  Its opponents feared what might follow from the idea that time is relative to frame of reference.  After all, if time—one of the fundamental irreducible quantities of physics—varied with frame of reference, less fundamental aspects of reality must also be subject to variation, and the objective basis of science would be lost.  One critic, for example, suggested that special relativity rejected science established on objective experiment “in favor of psychological speculations and fantastic dreams about the universe.”[2] Another was opposed to special relativity because its proponents “deny that any concrete experience underlies these [mathematical] symbols, thus replacing an objective by a subjective universe.”[3] In short, what they feared was that relativity, if established, would lead to epistemological relativism.

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 5Wisconsin's bar-to-grocery store ratio puts th... (May '14) 1 hr whooping drunks 5
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr One way or another 17,956
How to Recover iphone 5 contact sms photo direc... (Mar '13) 2 hr Lora_14 7
News Popular Dating Site OlderWomenDating.com Announ... 3 hr Ami 1
News The insane ways the human body changes during l... 7 hr SpaceBlues 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 16 hr shinningelectr0n 6,135
News Former NASA expert claims he saw nine-foot alie... Sat Tim 1
More from around the web