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.

[Oztrich Boy]

TOE doesn't call for instance a fish to jump into a land animal.

Could it skip?

[YHAOS]

"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."

Briefly then, the 'Observer Problem' is the observer's problem; not a problem for the universe?

[fabian]

I will try and get that article for you because it has various science museums directors stating that there simply are not clear transitional fossils. Not just various parts of an animal changing which is simply micro-evolution but the slow changes clearly showing many different life forms turning into others. actually I have looked at much of the evidence and so have many very intelligent creation scientists who are just as knowledgable as any toe scientists and they see the falicy. It's so simple; if the fossil record showed what toe dramatically calls for the debate would have been over. I hope you will take a step back from all of your knowledge and look more deeply.

[betty boop]

Briefly then, the 'Observer Problem' is the observer's problem; not a problem for the universe?

Briefly, I'd say that is the case, YHAOS. FWIW. But details will have to wait for another time. I'm so tired, tomorrow's another workday, and so I must go to bed.

Thank you so much for writing, YHAOS. God bless you, and good night!!!

[fabian]

there's an idea...you might like fhu.com.

[presently no screen name]

I agree.

[tortoise]

there's an idea...you might like fhu.com.

mmmm... http://www.cthulhu.org

That's what I'm talking about.

[presently no screen name]

Just noticed your post. I'm no Bible scholar either!! No where close. I'll get back to you on Tuesday and read post 1157 like you ask.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so much for all of your engaging essay-posts!

Tortoise: The obvious limitations is that it would be true if and only if we were discussing our universe in isolation (which from the perspective of humans, we effectively are) and God is completely external to our universe.

To the contrary, tortoise, when we know God as Creator ex nihilio of “all that there is” there is obviously nothing of which anything can be made but His own will, including His permissive will.

That includes not only corporeal existents in space/time (regardless of dimensions) – but all non-corporeals, non-spatio/temporal “things” such as mathematics, geometry, physical laws and constants, qualia, autonomy, theories – and of course all of the spiritual realm as well, beings, principalities and such.

Those who start with the presumption that God is here and everything else is there have artificially reduced their worldview to the second reality - and thus whatever they determine in their investigations will be tainted by the “observer problem” from the beginning.

Tortoise: If God was not completely external, it would have consequences that are not in evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence…

Null beliefs are neither true nor false, they are simply null. Beliefs that are either true or false in some fashion have consequences, but null beliefs have no consequences except for the amount of time spent considering them. A rational and economical person does not waste time on null beliefs because they are all equally silly.

Again to the contrary, God is not a “null belief”. He is Truth and there are consequences. Moreover, there is evidence – though I strongly disagree with your premise that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I’ve known Jesus personally for 46 years and counting. The knowing Him – the evidence - is from the indwelling Spirit Himself. All of us Christians received the Spirit, were “born again” when we experienced the direct revelation from God that Jesus Christ is Lord. And all of us Christians are somewhere along the path of sanctification, becoming more filled by the Spirit and relying ever more on Him.

God made it this way so that no one could boast. We Christians can’t be put under a microscope or run through an MRI to detect the presence of the Holy Spirit. But we know Him – we become more certain of that knowledge than of any other type of knowledge, including sensory perception. Of course, some Christians have doubts along the way as they learn to rely on Him – but doubting Thomas was an apostle too.

Indeed we are not the same persons we were before we knew Him. Scriptures come alive within us as our eyes scan the text. Without the Holy Spirit they would be merely text on paper – a manuscript like any other. We become ever more able to love the unlovable and forgive the unforgivable. All of this is breathtaking evidence to those of us who experience it.

Of course, with the “methodological naturalism” presupposition – even the Christians who are scientists/mathematicians do not officially acknowledge their own testimony much less the volumes of testimony in the human experience over millennia as betty boop has discussed.

This willful blindness is an “observer problem” – and it leaves the deep questions, the important ones, on the back burner of science and math. The net result is that science and math these days is more about instrumentation, application and utility than exploring the big questions. The days of the big thinkers in science and math are long gone.

Some are comfortable letting the theologians and philosophers deal with such things. And that would not be so troubling if others did not determine their atheistic worldview is supported by the method, i.e. methodological naturalism. How silly to arrive at that conclusion when microscope to telescope is the only place they looked.

[hosepipe]

[ This willful blindness is an “observer problem” – and it leaves the deep questions, the important ones, on the back burner of science and math. ]

Ah! the observer problem and the second reality..
The bane of all seekers of truth and axiom..

Without the "Spirit/spirit" my experience is I wouldn't know truth or axiom if I backed over it, fell down and buried my face in it.. My experience is that others are that way too...

The observer problem and second reality too, are ignored by many/most on these threads.. Sure they talk of minutia or talk around the subject at hand.. Admitting they have an observer problem(we all do) and could possibly be in a second reality(to some degree) is ignored..

The result(often).... two monologues...

[TXnMA]

"...even the Christians who are scientists/mathematicians do not officially acknowledge their own testimony much less the volumes of testimony in the human experience over millennia as betty boop has discussed."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm returning late to the discussion -- without doing as much catch-up reading as I should, but...

This scientist has known Jesus personally for 52 years -- and counting. And it is my personal experience with having observed God interacting directly in my life and in the lives of other believers that convinces me that, not only is He justified in his claims that He created (and designed and planned) everything that is, He is still actively maintaining and fine-tuning the progression of the processes and events that control the entire Universe that He created.

And that is why I do not "get bent out of shape" when I encounter evidence that things have changed (evolved) over an immense span of time -- and over vast distances.

I, for one, do not feel competent to dictate how -- and at what rate -- He does His business -- certainly not based solely upon anyone's interpretation of His outline description in Genesis. OTOH, I never cease to enjoy being amazed at the brilliant intricacies and the awesome magnitude of what my instruments reveal to me of the minutely-planned majesty of His created works.

Don't call me a "Darwinist".

And, most certainly, do not insult me by calling me a "Creation Scientist".

Just call me a scientist (small "s") who thrills at learning ever more and more about the works and workings of One he knows on a personal basis.

[King Prout]

among those who conduct research, in terms of what the data indicate, the debate IS over.
What remains is refinement of resolution of details.
The general outline and mechanisms are settled matters.

What you, and those who originated your argument, demand is unrealistic.
You essentially demand infinite detail and absolute proof of the ToE.
This is akin to demanding an architectural historian draft a record of a building down to the exact placement
of each molecule of mortar before you will concede that he has drawn a reasonably accurate rendering of the building in question.
I note, in passing, that you do not hold yourselves to anything like that standard, but that is another issue for another post.
I will content myself with an illustration in rebuttal of the demand:

This is a rendering of an AutoCAD2000 model of an SKS rifle.
On most of the parts, it is accurate to the original to +/-.001".
It is NOT, however, "perfect"

Even to a layman, it is obviously missing a few parts, most notably the stock.
A more astute and knowledgeable observer will be able to note:
that the lockwork springs are not helical, but are instead represented by stacked toroidal stand-ins;
that the front sight and barrel-mounted metal furniture are absent;
that the rear sight is missing the elevation adjustment bar.

NEVERTHELESS, only an obstinate fool would refuse to see:
that it is indeed a relatively accurate model of a rifle,
and is in fact recognizeably an SKS rifle.

As with the above, so with the ToE.
For people who actually know the subject and approach it with the goal of seeing what the evidence indicates
(rather than attempting to squeeze the evidence into a starting-conclusion), there is no debate.

[tortoise]

He is still actively maintaining and fine-tuning the progression of the processes and events that control the entire Universe that He created.

Not a flame exactly, but where is the evidence of this? Even the abstract, it is a huge leap between asserting "the universe is changing and incredibly complicated looking" and "Jesus is tweaking the universe".

On a more purely theoretical level, there are esoteric algorithmic measures that would detect such tweaking (in all possible universes -- w00t) and no such tweaking is in evidence. Which isn't to say God is not managing the universe in some fashion, just that said management is apparently not happening in any place we've looked. If it had consequences, it would be detectable. That is a sticky problem to explain away.

Unless, of course, there is pervasive heavy-handed brainwashing going on, but that would have theological implications. I imagine most people would have reasons to want to discard that particular hypothesis.

[King Prout]

oh, one other thing:

Not just various parts of an animal changing which is simply micro-evolution but the slow changes clearly showing many different life forms turning into others.

false dichotomy - the aggregate of the small changes your gurus have decided to call "microevolution" ARE the slow changes leading to divergence and speciation.

there is no barrier between "micro" and "macro" - it is ALL evolution.

[King Prout]

damn, old turtle... *I* have no excuse for being up at this hour... can I borrow yours?

[.30Carbine]

I praise God the Living and True for your testimony!

[.30Carbine]

Thank you - and Praise Jesus! - for your witness here.

[HayekRocks]

Oh, c'mon -- you must be blind to say that, guy. Open your eyes and get real! Certainly your obvious critical abilities can handle that problem, with a little effort from you. :^)

I do not think I am blind. Theology not only presupposes, but is a field that studies the nature and worship of a being or beings that materialism deems not to exist. What could materialism have to say except that theology is a null endeavor?

[xzins]

I have asked others, and have gotten a good response from one "theistic evolutionist" who is not of a Christian persuasion.

Could you give me a rundown of what you see God's role in creation, biogenesis, etc. being (having been?)

I do not ask this argumentatively, and I will not even respond to it if that is your wish. I'm truly curious. You can even freepmail me to keep it out of the debate arena.

A few other questions, too...

What is Christ's role, given the nature of the creation that you see?

How would you describe the nature/attributes of God given the methods of creation that you see Him using?

[dread78645]

George Gilder put it, "Climbing the epistemic hierarchy, all pursuers of truth necessarily reach a point where they cannot prove their most crucial assumptions."

Yes George. That's why just about every field of study has axioms.
(And when did Kurt Gödel come out in Reader's Digest?)

"The missing ingredient needed for the origin of living matter is the genome, not Intelligent Design."

His hypothesis is that examining the genetic code (the result state) can't give you information about the origin.
A analogue would be: given carbon dioxide, water, and sodium salts; was the precursor vinegar & baking soda? or did the seltzer water go flat?
I think he's on pretty firm ground here.

He also says that the origin of the genome is unknowable in principle.

That's where he steps out onto the ice. Biochemistry is looking at it from the other end (the initial state) and will be the tool to detail the origin. Who knows, maybe both seltzer and vinegar theories will do the trick.

And yet all of evolution proceeds from this unknown origin. Darwinian evolution commences after this origin; life is simply taken for granted.

Yes Betty, that's one of the axioms.

And so there's nothing in Darwinist evolution that deals with what life is; it only deals with how life behaves.

Very good! I think you're getting the hang of it!

So it seems to me Yockey does not entirely close the door on the possibility of an intelligent design of the genome -- since its origin is shrouded from our view.

Remarkably, he doesn't entirely close the door on the possibility of The Flying Spaghetti Monster either. But like Laplace, science has "no need of that hypothesis”.

It also seems to me that information itself implies intelligence of some sort, at both the inception and receiving ends of the Shannon model.

Only because of your axiom that there was an intelligible message to begin with. And unlike Shannon's theory and the game of "telephone", there's no requirement for the message to get transmitted with any particular fidelity.
For instance, I don't have to answer to my dead great grand-dad as to why I have detached ear lobes and he didn't.