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.
We're not discussing whether it FOLLOWS, we're discussing whether there is at least one presentation of it that draws from it the lesson: "There is no God."
There is at least one presentation that does so.
BTW, the issue of abiogenesis as NOT being a part of the TOE has been discussed more than once around here. Many will say that the TOE does not include any theory of origins at all.
On the other hand, many of us were taught that some protein sea was struck by lightning and that the first cell came from that event and that's what got the whole ball rolling. I remember that. I've posted material before that supports that this is what we were taught back in our era. It was linked, although it was presented as one idea; a smooth transition.
This mechanistic view of the origin and evolution of life is atheistic, and it is what many reference.
Personally, I don't see any necessity for any God if all these other things are factual. I've never had anyone explain to me how a God could fit into it, nor what characteristics such a God would have.
Feel free to fill me in if you have the time. I'm assuming, of course, that you are some variety of theist. Is that accurate?
Oh yeah, where are all those transitional fossils we have been waiting 200 yrs for?
Fact is I put my faith in Jesus Christ while you put yours into a bunch of lying, twisting scientist stealing gummit grant money. Fact is your religion has cost the lives of 200 million people around the world under Nazism/Communism. Fact is your religion is as dead as Latin and in 10 years will be as dead as communism.
So go tell everyone that gravity and fossils are the same. Go pull the victim card that Christians are mean. You still have the gummit forcing your religion down kids throats at the point of a gun. Perhaps you can keep them brainwashed just like you guys.
What Conservative doesn't question something as full of holes as evolution, the foundation of Communism??
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
I said the use of intelligent design begins with thought, not that only thought is involved. Thought is essential to intelligent design. Is thought an unscientific entity since it is beyond physical grasp? How can we even have science without it?
To some, you are a newbie.
Not really. It says no more than at some point in our history, something was designed. It does not say who designed us, why they did so, who implemented the design, how it was implemented, when it was implement. An explanation should minimally answer the questions who, when, how, and why.
Evolution is a theory that explains how species turn into other species. it does not explain the origin of life. Various abiogenetic hypotheses attempt to explain the origin of life.
Caricaturing obsolete abiogenetic hypotheses may be amusing, but it does not advance the discusssion.
If they were to admit that obvious truth then the house of cards is 52 pick-up. They can never let that happen because then it is not "SCIENCE"!!!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
I do not think that serious scientists contend any more that life came from lightning in a soup, and the physics of the big bang do not necessarily involve creation of energy from nothing. There is also observational evidence for the big bang.
Do you now notice that you have proceeded from rejecting the primary theory of modern biology to rejecting much of modern physics? I notice you have a Dobsonian mounted telescope on your profile. Do you reject that the red shift of galaxies comes from expansion of the universe? Do you reject Lemaitre's version of the General Relativity field equations? That is a lot of science to throw in the trash can.
FWIIW, I don't think anyone said your vocation EXCLUDES you from participating in the discussion. It simply doesn't QUALIFY you for the discussion. Mine doesn't either.
But an understanding of scientific princples (such as what a "theory" is), the scinetific method, what science demands, and what TToE says and doesn't say does.
For example, the moment someone says "it's just a theory" they disqualify themselves from the discussion since they don't posess the underlying understanding of the subject at hand.
With that, abandoning thread.
I didn't 'pull the victim card' as you call it.
I said you are rude, which your posts prove. You will notice that I didn't reference any of your posts nor did I threaten to call the mods on you. Perhaps you feel guilty about how you treat others.
I suggest you read your religious texts again, paying close attention on the portions that describe how you should treat others because you are not a very effective witness for Christ at the present time.
Nuclear, Biological, Chemical protection suite.
Hint for the future, try typing "NBC Protection Suit" into a search engine. The 4 I just tried had the correct answer in the first result set returned.
You are overlooking one teeny tiny little point - humor is funny.
But I must ask - how do you know what religion I follow? I haven't said what my beliefs are so you must have either made it up - which would be lying/spreading rumors - both of which are against your religion or you are a witch with paranormal powers. I believe your religion has specific teachings as to what should be done to those who are legitimize witches.
And you still claim to follow Christ. Sorry, but your actions speak different.
I just checked my ping list and I am very impressed you guys are still going at it.
Seems to me that they were under Roman occupation at the time, and it was the Romans that crucified Christ.
This is pretty sad. What a shame that in this day and age, all the fighting for freedom behind us, people can't believe differently and live peacefully side by side without name calling, spitting, shrill arguments, etc. The world's new wave ideas and attacks on Christianity fuels the Christian anger and makes them unforgiving, defensive and hostile. Civilizations new trend to attack Christians also feeds the agnostic/atheists and sometimes gives them unrealistic and assumed license to attack others' faith calling them stupid. I'm becoming more and more disillusioned as it's proven to me time and time again that religious freedom is dying in this country.
Scarecrows and Tinmen placemarker ... or perhaps I should follow freedumb2003's lead and abandon this one?
"subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics."
I'll keep looking, though.
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.