Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 4,829)

Showing posts 96,561 - 96,580 of168,622
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98815
Aug 12, 2012
 
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree, I have even mentioned the former head of the Human Genome Project who is a devout Christian. The personal religious beliefs (or lack of belief) of scientist is not at issue here. I have said plenty of times that accepting science does not mean refuting religion, you have been the one saying that.
Religion might influence scientists, it might encourage them to enter the field, it might shape their philosophy and it might form conclusions on what they discover as scientists, but when they are actually doing science their religion plays no part. Like when I mentioned the two scientists observing a comet, a Christian and an Atheist are going to come up with the exact same measurements and analysis. At no point will there be an equation ending with "and thus God" or "and thus no God". Not ever.
Science is naturalistic and it is objective. It has to be the same for everyone or it is useless. There are a lot of questions that can be answered with God did it, but none of them are scientific. When analyzing that comet, the Christian saying God created it or the Atheist saying God didn't create it are useless in their analysis.
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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98816
Aug 12, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
Evolutionary biologists who present arguments never take a neutral stance about God.
Yeah, they do. They don't mention a god. The concept is irrelevant to a scientific theory. That's as neutral as it gets.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98817
Aug 12, 2012
 
HTS, without evidence for the participation of a god the default position is to assume that god did not do it. You need to find evidence that god participated in some fashion. Otherwise why would you attribute anything to a god. Here is a simple exercise for you to do, instead of saying they should look for evidence that god did it say they should look for evidence that a Magic Teapot did it. I know that the latter sounds absurd to you. Your statements seem absurd to us.
Mugwump

York, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98818
Aug 12, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. 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.
Without stating the obvious - but ALL SCIENCE makes no judgement on a divine intelligence (as it is unhelpful in a scientific context)- this isn't just related to evolutionary theory.

Seems to work well enough - managed to land a car-sized rover on mars for instance.

So your issue isn't with the theory of evolution - but with science in general - yes ?

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98819
Aug 12, 2012
 
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Refute this unless you're just talking to hear yourself talk.
Show us what you bring to science from your own mind.
Earths rotation rate around the sun is about 67,000 miles an hour. Earths spinrate on its axis is right at 1,000 mph. Notice that earth has a strong atmosphere and strong gravity as well.
Then look at earths moon, it's rotational rate around the earth is, very slow, 1.03 km/s just as the moons spin rate on its own axis is about 13 miles per hour. Notice that the moon has very little atmosphere and very little gravity. Both axial spin and rotation around earth are slow and the atmosphere and gravity are very weak. 
Let's then look at the rotation rate of Venus, around the sun at 78,341 miles per hour, that's faster than earths rotation rate around the sun, of course, Venus is closer to the sun and being closer to the sun, Gravity becomes greater according to Newtons second law of motion, so how is it that Venus is 90% of the size, mass and density and it's gravity is 90% of the earths. That cannot be, Venus is 1/3 closer to the sun. If Newtons 2nd law is correct, venus should have a much greater gravity.
Then it's axis spin rate is very slow, at just 6.5 km/hour, but I add in, that Venus has an atmosphere where the winds roar across the planet at 220 miles per hour, approximately. This will prove important, because in my  hypothesis, axial spin rate creates atmosphere. However, with Venus as a model and a tiny axial spin rate, there should be no atmosphere. Volcanoes to the rescue, it seems those and more chemicals are creating the venus atmosphere. 
Next is Mercury, it spins on its own axis at only 6 mph and according to my hypothesis, mercury should not have much of an atmosphere and it doesnt. However, it's rotational rate around the sun is 106,000 miles per hour, meaning, that according to my hypothesis, Mercury's gravity should be higher  and by the way, it is 2/3rds closer to the sun than the earth, so it's gravity should be very high, even for its size, but wait a minute, mercury is 40% of earths size. Gravity on Mercury is only 38% of earths. According to Newtons second law of motion, gravity should be much higher on mercury.
Mars, now here's something interesting. Mars and earth traverse their orbits around the sun at about the same velocity. Both also spin on their axis at about 1,000 miles per hour., and yet, mars is half the size of earth. Mars gravity is 38% of earths gravity, which is less than half of earths, but once one factors in that mars is further away from the sun, it's easy to see the other 12% loss in gravity, considering Newtons second law of motion. The mars spin and orbital rate match up with its gravity and atmosphere, according to my hypothesis.
According to science, we do not rotate around the sun, we rotate around the barycenter.
Hypothesis by ,--
Jim Ryan 
I don't pretend to know more about the cosmos than the professionals who study the universe. Here's what they say about the effects of rotating bodies:

http://science.nasa.gov/missions/gravity-prob...

In a nutshell, rotating bodies produce a very small but measurable drag on local gravity. They do not create gravity.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98820
Aug 12, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
HTS, without evidence for the participation of a god the default position is to assume that god did not do it. You need to find evidence that god participated in some fashion. Otherwise why would you attribute anything to a god. Here is a simple exercise for you to do, instead of saying they should look for evidence that god did it say they should look for evidence that a Magic Teapot did it. I know that the latter sounds absurd to you. Your statements seem absurd to us.
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.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98821
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.
While many christians simply do not consider religion to be an issue when talking about evolution, I would agree with you that there SHOULD be no neutrality. If the rules of cause & effect are valid, there can be no place for magic in the universe. And if magic is valid, all of sciece is pointless. The rules of the universe either apply or they don't.

So far, we have no evidence that the rules of the universe do not apply.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98822
Aug 12, 2012
 
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Without stating the obvious - but ALL SCIENCE makes no judgement on a divine intelligence (as it is unhelpful in a scientific context)- this isn't just related to evolutionary theory.
Seems to work well enough - managed to land a car-sized rover on mars for instance.
So your issue isn't with the theory of evolution - but with science in general - yes ?
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
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98823
Aug 12, 2012
 
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
While many christians simply do not consider religion to be an issue when talking about evolution, I would agree with you that there SHOULD be no neutrality. If the rules of cause & effect are valid, there can be no place for magic in the universe. And if magic is valid, all of sciece is pointless. The rules of the universe either apply or they don't.
So far, we have no evidence that the rules of the universe do not apply.
There's no difference between the "magic" of God and the "magic" of evolution. Neither can be explained by science. Evolutionists pretend to understand how life evolved, and in the processes make themselves look like fools.
The ridicule a belief in the resurrection, yet they hold to the myth that a worm could be bred into a man or life can arise from non-life.
Mugwump

York, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98824
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.
Actually DI, AIG etc you would think ARE looking for evidence of an intelligent intervention - they just haven't been able to provide any as (for the umpteenth time - sigh) it would fall outside of what science can address - which is why ID isn't science .

And again you are wrong - scientific explainations of complexity can arise without intelligence HAVE been presented - ToE being the obvious one - the fact that YOU refuse to accept any explaination (however supported by multiple lines of evidence) that DOESN'T involve a creator - shows it is you that isn't being rigorous in your analysis

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98825
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.
Of course they do. There is no evidence of intelligence. So why should they assume an intelligence. And you are wrong. There are scientific explanations of how "complexity" exists without intelligence. I have seen people already link those arguments. You might not like them but to say science does not have an answer is a lie.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 96,561 - 96,580 of168,622
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

49 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now

Search the Science / Technology Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 3 min SoE 4,830
How do I know if my crush likes me? (Jan '08) 13 min Nice 1,100
Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 3 hr TruthHurts2 605
Invention Could Herald Interactive Revolution 4 hr mrniceguyuc4 1
How to Find, Download and Install Latest Java V... 10 hr GuideOfWeb 2
China says 1/5 of its farmland polluted 12 hr RESISTANCE IS FUTILE 6
Nitrogen Powered Hybrid Automobile (Dec '11) Sat sOlding not For Stealing 126
•••
•••
•••
•••