Posted on 07/27/2006 3:00:03 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
What are Darwinists so afraid of?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jonathan Witt © 2006
As a doctoral student at the University of Kansas in the '90s, I found that my professors came in all stripes, and that lazy ideas didn't get off easy. If some professor wanted to preach the virtues of communism after it had failed miserably in the Soviet Union, he was free to do so, but students were also free to hear from other professors who critically analyzed that position.
Conversely, students who believed capitalism and democracy were the great engines of human progress had to grapple with the best arguments against that view, meaning that in the end, they were better able to defend their beliefs.
Such a free marketplace of ideas is crucial to a solid education, and it's what the current Kansas science standards promote. These standards, like those adopted in other states and supported by a three-to-one margin among U.S. voters, don't call for teaching intelligent design. They call for schools to equip students to critically analyze modern evolutionary theory by teaching the evidence both for and against it.
The standards are good for students and good for science.
Some want to protect Darwinism from the competitive marketplace by overturning the critical-analysis standards. My hope is that these efforts will merely lead students to ask, What's the evidence they don't want us to see?
Under the new standards, they'll get an answer. For starters, many high-school biology textbooks have presented Haeckel's 19th century embryo drawings, the four-winged fruit fly, peppered moths hidden on tree trunks and the evolving beak of the Galapagos finch as knockdown evidence for Darwinian evolution. What they don't tell students is that these icons of evolution have been discredited, not by Christian fundamentalists but by mainstream evolutionists.
We now know that 1) Haeckel faked his embryo drawings; 2) Anatomically mutant fruit flies are always dysfunctional; 3) Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks (the photographs were staged); and 4) the finch beaks returned to normal after the rains returned – no net evolution occurred. Like many species, the average size fluctuates within a given range.
This is microevolution, the age-old observation of change within species. Macroevolution refers to the evolution of fundamentally new body plans and anatomical parts. Biology textbooks use instances of microevolution such as the Galapagos finches to paper over the fact that biologists have never observed, or even described in theoretical terms, a detailed, continually functional pathway to fundamentally new forms like mammals, wings and bats. This is significant because modern Darwinism claims that all life evolved from a common ancestor by a series of tiny, useful genetic mutations.
Textbooks also trumpet a few "missing links" discovered between groups. What they don't mention is that Darwin's theory requires untold millions of missing links, evolving one tiny step at a time. Yes, the fossil record is incomplete, but even mainstream evolutionists have asked, why is it selectively incomplete in just those places where the need for evidence is most crucial?
Opponents of the new science standards don't want Kansas high-school students grappling with that question. They argue that such problems aren't worth bothering with because Darwinism is supported by "overwhelming evidence." But if the evidence is overwhelming, why shield the theory from informed critical analysis? Why the campaign to mischaracterize the current standards and replace them with a plan to spoon-feed students Darwinian pabulum strained of uncooperative evidence?
The truly confident Darwinist should be eager to tell students, "Hey, notice these crucial unsolved problems in modern evolutionary theory. Maybe one day you'll be one of the scientists who discovers a solution."
Confidence is as confidence does.
I studied German for several years, thanks. I know what the slogan means. The word "god" is not exclusively Christian, of course. I already pointed out that there is a conspicuous absence of any Christian symbols on the belt, such as a cross. Instead, there is the pagan nationalist symbol of the Nazi Party, which, as I have already documented earlier, actively opposed Christianity and planned its demise in Europe.
I also gave a clear explanation of how leftists play propaganda games with religious people. Like Bill Clinton attending his liberal church, or John Kerry his heretic Catholic sect. It's a ruse. Most Germans came from a background of belief, and the Nazis exploited that as a motivation.
There is no need to change religions; one need only shift paradigms. I'm quite comfortable believing in God and accepting the validity of evolution.
From a description of the book, Gravity's Arc: The Story of Gravity, from Aristotle to Einstein and Beyond, by David Darling. In Science News, July 8, 2006, p. 31.
Gravity determines the shapes of our bodies, how objects move through space, and the structure of the universe. However, scientists don't really know what gravity is or how it's created. ... much about gravity remains unexplained...
Well, at a glance, the introduction of a supreme being is not essential to the process of intelligent design. Is it? I mean, you've undoubtedly created things using intelligent design. How does it work?
With just a thought? I most certainly have not!
Jump off a bridge and find out. How does evolution work?
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
I am not complaining, and dont know where you got that from...what I am asking is if you support Arnold Murrays teachings and could you point me to the place in the Bible, where he finds some of the things he talks about...
I have heard him talk about the 8th day of creation, wherein the 2nd Adam was created...and on the 6th day of creation, he has talked about all the different races of human beings being created...I have heard him talk about Noah taking two of each race of people on board the ark...I have heard him talk about the rapture being a whisking away of deceived people being taken away by the Devil...
I am asking where in the Bible, specifically do you or he say that these ideas are indicated...these beliefs are contrary to traditional Christian religions, and I have never heard them spoken about, except by Arnold Murray, as I have only recently begun to watch his programs...since these views are contrary to traditional Christian religions, I am just curious where this information comes from...
I am not complaining, I am not saying he or you are right or wrong...what I am asking for, is where, exactly in the Bible, does one find this information...
Ok - I just jumped off a bridge. Didn't help me figure out how gravity works.
Do you have any other helpful suggestions that will answer my question?
Hitler was in a new age cult in Vienna during his formative years where he fell into the mysticism of the day. His attempt to breed a god race was a mix between evolution and mysticism.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
I will use the 'sun' as the moon is just not reliable to assert a theory.
Based upon the very short span of time I have been on this earth tells me that I have every reason to believe without evidence that sun will show up in the morning. Now at this time of year it does have a more north eastern appearance than say in 5 months.
This thread is not about gravity it is about evolution. It only proves that you have to have faith to believe in something you can't see, touch or prove just like gravity. Try to stay on topic....Women!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Shalom Israel
About the DNA thing..if we grant, that it is impossible for all the people on earth today to have received their DNA from just two people, that is one thing...and most who support evolution would grant that, but not based on anything from the Bible...its based on their scientific understandings of how DNA is passed along...
You on the other hand, seem to be saying, it is in the Bible, that all the people on earth today, come from not just two people but from many people...I am asking, for the exact chapter and verse from the Bible, which shows that God created many different humans of all the different races on the 6th day of creation...
Very well.
Oral (Gimmie 8 millon dollars or God will kill me) Roberts
Wyatt Archaeological Research (These guys claim to have found Noah's Ark, Sodom & Gomorrah, The Ark of the The Covenant and more!!)
The Inca Stones
Acambaro dinosaurs
Perjury at Dover
Darwin's deathbed confession
NASA finds the missing day of Joshua
Apostolic Canons
Greater Ministries Scandal
Health Ministry / Biblical medical plan
So by your logic, if Evolution is wrong because of a few frauds then Christianity is even more wrong because it has a lot more. At least with the frauds in evolution, once they are discovered they are discarded forever, meanwhile those Christian frauds even though they have been exposed many Christians still continue to espouse them to this day.
Suddenly.
So you don't know and you are now trying to cover up that fact with insults how sadly typical of such discussions.
Tell my how "God with us" is Christian doctrine. It could belong to any religion. See my other posts, which demolish the idea that this is necessarily an authentically Christian artifact. The Nazis were masters of propaganda, of playing on people's emotions and feelings. They knew most Germans came from a theistic culture, so they invoked God on behalf of a pagan cause. Certainly you're smart enough to grasp that? Or do you also really believe that Bill Clinton and John Kerry are committed Christians because they go through the motions of attending churches? Leftists are habitual liars. It's what they do for a living, so they're good at it.
The fact that the quote from Hitler may have come through Rauschinger doesn't invalidate what I said about Hitler being basically anti-Christian. Rauschinger is a controversial figure, probably because the Left tried mightily to discredit him, as they do anyone who points out the obvious: that National Socialism was a revolutionary movement of the Left.
Gravity (in part) is what holds the moon up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.