What are Darwinists so afraid of?

worldnetdaily.com ^ | 07/27/2006 | Jonathan Witt

[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.

[xzins]

When did we get moved to the Smoky Backroom?

[Coyoteman]

But it seems clear to me the universe has not been constructed according to such observational processes, for the stupid simple reason that human observers did not emerge until quite late in the evolutionary process. Therefore the origin and evolution of the universe must be independent of human beings.

That's all well and good. Do you mind if the rest of us just sort of stumbles about doing science the best we can anyway?

[stands2reason]

And you still claim to follow Christ.

Agents for the Lord of Lies will always claim to follow Christ.

[Coyoteman]

When did we get moved to the Smoky Backroom?

See post #1212.

[betty boop]

The genetic code seems to be a result of a specific direct chemical interaction between amino acids and their codons.

Fine HayekRocks. But what specifies the interactions? And how arose the codons?

IMHO, you are not taking this problem down to its ground. FWIW.

In effect, you are saying that natural events are expressions of "near-neighbor" or "local," force-field-driven relations of their physico-chemical constituents. (This in an age where the non-locality of the universe has been much remarked.) Plus it seems your view may run afoul of Crick's "Central Dogma" of biology, which states that there is an irreversible line of development that goes from DNA --> tRNA --> proteins (of which amino acids are components).

I could have this all wrong; so please do feel welcome to share your thoughts with me at greater length.

Thank you so much for your observations, and for writing!

[andysandmikesmom]

I must say, I love this particular test your grandfather devised..I am just a high school graduate, and yet, I have a gripe with folks who use the word 'only', incorrectly...I get the gist of what they mean, but realize that they are using the word, 'only' incorrectly...I never say anything because I would probably just be accused of being a smart aleck, but the way people use this particular word incorrectly always has grated on me...

Thanks for letting me know about your granddads wisdom in this respect...

[stands2reason]

Anyone who must engage in denial and deception to justify what they define as "true" faith in God

Don't forget abuse!

[stands2reason]

At the bray of a donkey.

[tortoise]

But what specifies the interactions?

What specifies the interactions that cause carbon to form a diamond in nature? The answers to both questions are the same.

[andysandmikesmom]

"At the bray of a donkey."

Quite the astute and excellent observation...

[xzins]

I don't know why I don't like the Smoky Backroom, but I don't.

Bray, as one who would probably agree with some of what you say, please work at keeping the volume turned down. It doesn't accomplish anything. Feel free to freepmail me.

[stands2reason]

I don't like it back here either.

The Mel Gibson thread that I was on got tossed in here as well.

[andysandmikesmom]

Seems like sooner or later, most of the CREVO threads do wind up here in the SBR....

[tortoise]

Surely you do not mean that it is the observer who constitutes objective reality by means of his observation. What is constituted is his subjective relationship to that reality. And yes, I recognize that observations will be analyzed according to the "code" that the observer has internalized through his own observation and experience. But so far, we are still speaking of the observer, and not that which is observed -- which other observers may interpret differently, according to their own subjective codes.

Your anthropomorphic tendencies are confusing you. An "observer" for the purposes of the discussion is any part of the system that is our universe. If you have system dynamics, you have theoretical observers. Humans are relatively efficient observers, but not at all necessary for the kind of observer dynamics you seem to be discussing to exist.

Your argument reminds me of the Marquis Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827), who was known in his own time as the Isaac Newton of France:

It is ironic that you quote Laplace, yet your stumbling block is that you repeatedly fail to understand one of his most important contributions to mathematics. Laplace may have been "arrogant" as your quotation asserts, but he was also technically correct.

Two points here: NO observer from within four-dimensional spacetime exists who has comprehensive knowledge of this kind -- not even a Laplace. And yet there it is -- the universe, all the same. It was here before we humans got here, and will likely survive when/if we are here no more.

Second, the person who makes such a statement has effectively promoted himself to the status of a god, or even of God Himself.

Amazing. Betty Boop, that "whooshing" sound you heard is the arguments of Laplace flying right on over your head; you "points" clearly demonstrate that you do not really understand what you quoted and its context. This is not philosophy, it is mathematics. Given that Laplace was supposedly such a bloody genius (and he was wicked smart), wouldn't it behoove you to try and understand the mathematics and reasoning from which his argument was made rather than simply dismissing it?

You may not like Laplace's personality or beliefs or whatnot, but that is no grounds upon which to invalidate his thoughtful assertions.

[Coyoteman]

Where were those transitional species fossils that we have been looking for?

More? OK.

Cute little guy, isn't he? (I must confess I am a bit fonder of the Taung baby though. I'll post that fossil on another occasion.)

Note the position of H. ergaster in the chart below.

---

Fossil: KNM-WT 15000

Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)

Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)

Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)

Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)

Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)

Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[MHGinTN]

The determinism of Laplace fell to the realities of quantum mechanics. At the most basic level of the universe, subatomic matter is not governed purely by cause and effect.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Laplace's determinism also fails due to the existence of molecules (Einstein, 1905 convinced physicists; chemists like the idea since Dalton.) Brownian motion is not predictable even with a Laplacian philosophy. The reason is that any probe small enough to measure positions of molecules (or even pollen particles) is subject to Brownian motion itself. A particle undergoing BM has no definible velocity. (This was found out experimentally.)

[MHGinTN]

*

[Oztrich Boy]

I was told the Darwin story by a friend who must have gotten bad information

The term is Creationism