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.
done.
the trick, I find, is in getting them to admit that they have been squished.
The creationists are a small minority in most of the country, if not everywhere. The difference is that Lysenko had the power of a totalitarian state behind him, and why? Because his pseudo-science was compatible with "scientific socialism," Marxism-Leninism, and all that crap. Which is just what I've been saying about why the Left over here is quite happy with evolution, and very unhappy with Judeo-Christian ethics. The first is entirely compatible with their worldview and political objectives, and the latter isn't.
As I keep saying, you just can't escape the intellectual correlates of various ideas.
The real war on America is not being waged by a few "fundamentalists." They really have little power. The war is being waged relentlessly by cultural Marxists who control the media, almost all our higher education system, and much of the public schools.
Actually, the assertion is: at least one presentation of the Theory of Evolution states that it demonstrates there is no God?
I would also add that there are presentations of the Toe after which it is stated that this does not demonstrate there is no God.
Read above: "the relevance of evolutionary biology to ATHEISM."
Perhaps I'm just not smart like the rest of you folks, but this simple country preacher sees his point being supported. There is at least one presentation that says, "this is evidence there is no God."
The real issue is what Jesus says: "Seeing you might not see, and hearing that you might not hear.Mr 4:12 - That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
I find your modesty refreshing. We should all be careful to recognize our limitations.
I think a basic reason, and one probably no evolutionist would admit even to themselves, is if they were to accept the possiblity of the existance of God, they might have to worry about being accountable for their behavior afterall.
An attack on science will not help this battle at all.
nah... too easily stretched to cover gaps between high and low datum points.
"the key phrases are "image of God, the Eternal" and "image of the Devil"
Empty rhetorical devices. See my posts.
"direct reference to "created in His image"
Correct. A reference. Otherwise known as an allusion. Standard rhetorical device.
"game. set. match."
Life isn't a game or a debating event. Someday you may learn that.
"since you don't like what this DIRECT QUOTE indicates about Hitler's beliefs, you spin it, stating that it doesn't "prove" anything."
It certainly doesn't prove what its poster claims. It's entirely consistent with an evolutionist worldview, except for the phony religious allusions.
"well, it proves he said exactly that, and history (oh, you messed up with that "read some history" crack) indicates that his Christian audience lapped it up like mother's milk".
The trend away from Christian belief in Germany was very far advanced. For most intellectuals, it was a post-Christian society. It was in the intellectual centers, like universities, that Marxism and anti-Semitism flourished. You could read about that in recent threads here on FR, if you want to learn instead of rant.
"You don't consider 'em Christians. Fair enough. Bear in mind that they considered themselves Christians, in the same way as did the Inquisition, pogrom-prone Russian idiots, and various European kingdoms and states which ALSO enacted/supported institutional antisemitism while simultaneously calling themselves Christian."
Many nominal Christians haven't a clue about Christian teachings. Many join church as a social club. There are people in churches who are actually atheists.
As Jesus himself said, many would come to him, seeking his approval, claiming how good they were, and he would see through their deception and say "I knew you not. Depart from me, you evildoers."
Do you think Jesus considers anti-Semites and persecutors of Jews to be Christians?
"let me know when you get out of the minors and are ready to make another stab at the Show."
I bet your sneers make you lots of friends. Enjoy your cheap thrills here on "the Show" while they last.
Are you kidding?
Satan has opposed God's Word on any grounds possible since the beginning of time.
Jim Jones is irrelevant because he was not an orthodox Christian. If you can prove he was, please enlighten us.
This is the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
The Salem witch trials were centuries ago. In addition, I think they were not ecclesiastical proceedings at all, but works of the secular government. They were the result of mass hysteria, malicious gossip, mental illness, or even alkaloid poisoning, if I remember some of the hypotheses rightly.
And they were all Biblically justified and referenced, weren’t they? And the pious have opposed lightning rods, vaccination, the germ theory, and heck, in some cases all of modern medicine, on Biblical grounds. All, no doubt, “not orthodox Christians.” Except that they wouldn't have agreed with your characterization.
Incidentally, Johannes Keppler's mother was tried for witchcraft. The motives of her accusers were very worldly and material. Somehow it didn't keep pioneer astronomer Kepper from being a committed Christian.
If they'd been committed heliocentrists, should that have driven Keppler away from astronomy? In any case, I’m sure his mother’s accusers were “not orthodox Christians.”
Sure, all kinds of depredations have occurred under cover of religion, and every other human institution. The idea that man is inherently depraved and sinful is fundamental Christian doctrine, so every human activity becomes corrupt to some degree.
You're wrong in thinking that I wish to debunk evolution through guilt by association.
Then what can your sentence, which I’ve quoted twice possibly mean? “The association between evolution and totalitarian socialism can't be denied, and you make no attempt to deny it." Gratuitous insult? Subtle in-joke? What? The issue to me is: When, how, and to whom should this theory be taught? I share the fear of the fundamentalists, who see the Judeo-Christian foundations of our culture and political system under relentless attack, excluded from schools by court fiat, while a doctrine linked logically with a materialistic view is taught to kids so young they have little real grasp of basic science at all.
Believe it or not, I agree that the Judeo-Christian foundations of our culture are under relentless attack. I further believe the attack to be nonsensical and a blatant and willful misreading of the Bill of Rights. However, this is no reason not to teach the Theory of Evolution in science class. It happens to be the only scientific theory we’ve got on the matter of speciation. It is not an attack on religion.
Those on these evo threads who seem totally obsessed with demanding that evolution be taught as gospel don't seem to care that most people don't live and die by scientific theories.
Not gospel, science. And if, as you state yourself, most people don’t life and die by scientific theories, what’s the problem with teaching the Theory of Evolution?
Most will never become scientists, and don't really need to know evolution. They do live by ideas, however.
Most will never become writers, so why teach them English? Most will never become mathematicians … why bother with algebra, geometry, trig, calculus, etc? Most won’t grow up to join the NFL, so what’s the point of phys ed? Shall we go on? You want to limit the small bits of science they do get. Why don’t I see this as a step in the right direction?
All many kids will remember is: I'm just another animal, descended from apelike precursors. All that stuff from the Founding Fathers about divinely ordained rights must be bunk. That's why the left has no problems with teaching evolution, and many conservatives do.
That’s silly for any number of reasons. Here are a few: there is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that claims that man is indistinguishable from animals. Nor is there anything that is anti-God, no matter the protestations from the religious mechanics in the crowd. Pope John Paul II has officially stated that the Theory of Evolution need not conflict with Catholic doctrine. (Note to the bloody-minded: This is not an endorsement of Catholicism. It is merely here to indicate that someone who is serious about the Christian religion need not reflexively reject the Theory of Evolution).
Besides, my son remembers his evolution units much differently than you imagine.
I will not conjecture regarding the left’s attitude towards science, but if they’ve gotten this one right, I won’t attack them for it.
There is a lot of difference between Hitler's abuse of Christianity, which he despised and knew to be his natural opponent, and his use of evolution, which fits right in with his world view of struggle of the fit against the "inferior." The Marxists, of course, didn't make any pretense at all of allegiance to Christianity. They thought religion was all phony (as do many posters in these crevo threads).
Re: Hitler/Christianity/Evolution. You’re wrong. The Theory of Evolution is an observation of how nature works. Anyone attempting to convert it into a prescription for organizing society is abusing the theory.
Would it make any difference at all if I pointed out that Stalin specifically rejected the Theory of Evolution in favor of Lysenko’s notions, thereby destroying Soviet biology?
Religion is related to the Theory of Evolution in the same way it is to the Theory of Gravity, which is to say, not at all. Want to attack the Theory of Gravity now?
It isn't rigorously scientific and logical, but there is an association between Judeo-Christian religious faith and conservative belief on the one hand, and militant atheism and the totalitarian Left on the other.
Tell that to Jessie Jackson and RightWingAtheist (a poster here).
You just can't deny that.
I just did.
When dealing with something as complex as human culture, you have to use empirical associations from history. Rigorous logic and debating games won't cut it, because humans are far from being logical much of the time. Conservatives study human nature, and act accordingly. They don't act on the basis of abstract utopian dogma.
Spinning off on illogical tangents and trying to tell me how those demonstrate a problem with the Theory of Evolution isn’t going to convince me of anything other than your inability to reason.
Those here who are obsessed (and that's the only word for it) with the "need" for teaching evolution, and who disregard all other factors, need to study history and the writings of conservative intellectuals, not just evolution dogma.
As far as I can see, those “obsessed” with the need to teach evolution divide into two groups: those unalterably opposed to evolution, frequently on grounds having nothing whatever to do with science, and those who feel a need to respond to what they perceive as attacks on science. You won’t get any future scientists by avoiding scientific theories or teaching them “facts” and “theories” that are manifestly not scientific.
You can't run away from all the social and intellectual consequences of your teaching, saying "I didn't mean that" or "Look, I only wanted to 'save' science from the 'Luddites.'" If you put an intellectual weapon in the hands of the Left, you can be sure that it will be used.
As I stated above, the Theory of Evolution is an observation of how nature works. It has no social consequences. Its intellectual consequences we see frequently in announcements from the major pharmaceutical companies. Or were you talking about another Hitler perverting the theory? An argument from adverse consequences is a logical fallacy, too. Has it occurred to you that the religious right’s waving a Bible at science is already being used as a club by the left?
My son has just finished his freshman year in high school. In both eighth grade and his freshman year, his science class had a unit on the Theory of Evolution. It was utterly cursory, and therefore omitted much, was out-of-date, and quite over-simplified, but to any rational observer it was utterly unobjectionable. It was, however, taught as a scientific theory. At no time was there anything in the book, nor classroom materials, nor did my son report that the teacher said anything remotely like, “This proves there is no God.” God never came up. The teacher never said, "This is Gospel," or any variation of it, nor did he say anything remotely like, "This is solid fact and may not be challenged." If he had made any statements like any of those, I would have been in the principal’s office the next day demanding that the bio teacher be dismissed … because none of those statements wouldn’t have had any place in a science class either.
Snappy answer.
see whut ah mean, vern?
thanks. we must all band together, not so?
What do you think scientists mean when they use the word theory?
Only someone with a strung steel-trap mind would call a THEORY a FACT
Evolution is both a fact and a theory, just like gravity.
Change happens; you are different from your parents. Things fall.
The theory of evolution seeks to explain that change, as the theory of gravity seeks to explain "falling."
From what I can tell, evolution is ahead on points. Gravity is a tough problem.
"no true scotsman..."
Um, every fossil bone found before the war. Other fossils from the same site have been discovered since. Besides there are plenty of very high quality casts of the original "Peking Man" fossils, as well as numerous photographs and X-Rays (the latter of which could not possibly have been forged using the technology of the time).
Furthermore, "Peking Man" is simply Homo erectus. There are many excellent and some very complete fossils of this species from all over the globe.
Patrick O'Connell was a missionary who didn't know squat about physical anthropology.
This is really stupid stuff you're posting. If you're going to post frequently refuted dreck like this, please cite YOUR SOURCE. Or is plagiarism O.K. with you?
Apparently, just after the war, the fossils were put on board an American ship and then disappeared.
Geez, your cut and paste is full of errors. For instance the bones never made it "on board an American ship". The ship they were supposed to be loaded onto (U.S.S. President Harrison) was SUNK by the Japanese before it reached the port where they were to be loaded (Chingwangtao).
What is known for sure is that the fossils were packed into two wooden crates at Peking Union Medical College, where they had previously been studied and stored. It is also fairly certain (on the testimony of multiple witnesses) that the crates were delivered to the U.S. legation in Peking. It's less certain, but extremely probable, that they made it to the Marine barracks which was next door to the legation, and were included with the Marine's luggage. Whether they made it onto the train (not ship) that the Marine took out of Peking is unknown. They may have been lost at the train station, or they may have been lost when the train was stopped and ransacked en route to the coast by Japanese soldiers.
In any case the scientists involved with Peking Man had no control over the fossils at this point anyway. The conspiracy theory is just stupid.
Beats me, but there are alot of people out there, scientists included that have a real problem with the alleged science of it.
But instead of asking critical questions of it in a classroom, the classes are taught as if it's the gospel.
It's not the gospel and never will be so long as questions remain unanswered.
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.