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.
Thank you so much for your encouragements!
What a beautiful testimony! Thank you oh so very much!
I know and many other scientists know that creationism and ID are theories. There's no question about it; you guys put specifics on your defintion of a theory is in order to try and discredit competing theories with your belief of toe. It's similar to trying to define science as only dealing with the natural world. Upon looking at the true dictionary definition of science much more is included. You guys try and change the framework of the debate but it just doesn't work.
There are scientific studies of the existence of a spirit world. One such study is observations of patients who had died and come back to life on the operating table and were able to describe all that took place. Some could even describe an object in the room that the could only have seen if they were hovering above the scene. There are so many other scientific studies of the supernatural and so much evidence for creationism. Toe also has never been falisfied; and I mean macro, not micro evolution. But it is still a theory; although a very poor one.
I think it's fairly obvious that if the multitude of life forms morphed slowly over millions of years into different types that the fossils would show that in large numbers. Rather, the fossil record shows a multitude of complete life forms. Where are all of the slow transitions? Many scientists and even ones that used to believe toe know that they simply aren't there. I have an article of various museum directors that admit that also which I could send to you. I believe that the thousands of creation scientists are not prone to error and idiocy because my research and common sense verifies what they see. It really is pretty evident. I mean if you look at the incredible dna code that is more complex than a computer code and actually has a specific numbering system; it is amazing evidence for a designer. You would never say that your computer codes could have developed by themselves over millions of years. It seems like someone in your past pushed God on you or something bad like that so you are rejecting the evidence and your darkside is giving you bad science to try and back that up.
There are of course charlatans also playing around in the areas of paranormal phenomena. It isn't fair to accuse scientists involved in studying paranormal occurrences of not being rational or not applying rational abilities.
"Hyperbole ..."
No, I was actually spot on. Belief in creationism/ID takes the same kind of irrationality as belief in ESP and other *paranormal* claims.
"What they discover, if they discover a causality, will be within the confines of the universe we can measure else they would be metaphysical."
To the extent that studies of the *paranormal* have been scientific, they have shown no evidence for such claims.
BTW, metaphysical doesn't mean supernatural/outside of this universe.
"There are of course charlatans also playing around in the areas of paranormal phenomena."
99%.
"It isn't fair to accuse scientists involved in studying paranormal occurrences of not being rational or not applying rational abilities."
I was actually speaking about the boobs who believe that junk.
If I were to give you an example for which there is no current scientific explanation yet the event actually did occur and is on record, would you stamp that event as irrational or the investigation of the event as irrational?
"If I were to give you an example for which there is no current scientific explanation yet the event actually did occur and is on record, would you stamp that event as irrational or the investigation of the event as irrational?"
Would depend on the details. Saying it is *on record* is extremely vague.
How do you distinguish a complete life form from a transitional?
Human beings have been bipedal for maybe 5 million years. We have knees and backs that are inadequately adapted for bipedalism. We have high rates of backache and scoliosis. Our arms are different from our legs, but not as different as other bipedals. We are truly a transitional form between a four legged beast and a truly bipedal species.
Where are all of the slow transitions?
There are series of fossils documenting the transition from fish to amphibian, the transition from land animal to whale... how many do you need?
I mean if you look at the incredible dna code that is more complex than a computer code and actually has a specific numbering system; it is amazing evidence for a designer.
I have no idea what you mean by a specific numbering system. Could you explain?
One of the biggest difference between computer codes and the genome is that Microsoft Windows XP does not come with viruses pre-installed. Should we conclude that Bill Gates is just a better programmer than God?
It is certainly a sobering thought to think that the security of our genomes is worsethan Microsoft's. And if we need patches (vaccines) we have to make them ourselves.
I would like to switch my genome to a Mac!
It's hard to debate with someone who doesn't even understand the true definition of science. Please open your mind just a little and check out webster's dictionary. It includes alot more than just the natural world. And if the fossils showed true transitionals slowly transforming the debate would have been over long ago. But as alot of scientists who once believed in evolution have discovered, that's just not the case. I think you are missing out on alot of neat things because for some reason you have a prejudice against creationism and maybe God. I'm not saying that I am at peace with Him myself, but His evidence is convincing of alot of things.
I suppose someone has the answer and I'd like to hear it as I'm confused by this argument over creation and evolution. If Genesis is right, how did people manage to spread across the world if Adam & Eve had no daughters?
"If Genesis is right, how did people manage to spread across the world if Adam & Eve had no daughters?"
You'll have to ask someone who believes Genesis was right.
It is not been proved false. You, for religious reasons, refuse to accept it. There is a big difference.
There is no physical evidence to prove evolution.
We have told you time and time again, scientific theories can never be proved. However, there is a huge amount of evidence to support the theory of evolution. Darwin saw enough in the natural world to propose the theory; the fossil record which developed since his day showed the course of human development, and the genetic discoveries confirmed that development.
There is only assumptions, and presumptions by people with presuppositions that the world is billions of years old so they can deny that Jesus is God.
There are facts and theories by scientists. Deities do not enter into scientific equations.
"And science is not a lie just evolution..."
This means you disagree with any science dealing with evolution (paleontology, genetics, biology, physical anthropology, archaeology, botany, primatology, and zoology, to mention just a few).
"and the presupposition that the earth is billions of years old..."
This means any science that has to do with the age of the earth (all forms of radiometric dating, probably including most of physics and chemistry, geology, cosmology, and astronomy, to mention just a few).
"and that the Flood of Noah's day never happened."
This means any science dealing with soils and rocks or the recent history of the earth (geology, sedimentology, archaeology, Egyptology, mtDNA and other genetic studies, bioecology, climatology, linguistics, hydrology, and zoology, to mention just a few).
You sure disagree with a lot of different sciences! Are there any major fields of study that you agree with?
as to your claims:
1. Transitionals
You have yet to answer as to how you would be able to diferentiate between a transitional and a "fully formed" organism. I suspect you are wandering around under the usual creationist's burden of misconceptions as to what a transitional is. How about you answer a simple and specific question? Once (and: If) you do, I will be better able to see where the gaps in your understanding are, and will then be better able to determine what corrective course is required (or: possible).
2. Fossil record
Once again, the absurd demand for an architect to draw a record of a building to a level of resolution comprising the specific location of every molecule... I've rebutted this before, I shall not bother to do so again.
3. Museum directors
Cough it up. Give the URL. At least type in the title, author, publication, and publication date. Until you do, the article exists in your imagination alone as far as I am concerned.
4. "...because my research and common sense verifies what they see."
And what "research" would that be, fabian?
Be very specific, please.
5. DNA
Yeah, and? You make a "watchmaker" argument, which is an example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad incredulum. That may be your honest reaction, but "oh, wow, that seems awful complex" does not equate to a scientific counterargument against natural processes.
Moreover, as you brought it up, you may as well render your opinion of known transcription errors, viral insertions, inefficiency, and redundancy in this code you find so indicative of a designer. You might also wish to compare DNA to the way computer programs are now constructed using automated evolutionary algorhythms rather than deliberate designer encoding. (courtesy ping to the more knowledgeable).
Now...
Howzabout you simply answer the three specific questions I posted to you one full week ago?
In case they have eluded your notice, they were (and remain) as follows:
1. why do you believe that the fossil record "should" be as complete and comprehensive as you describe?
Please be specific in your answer, including a description of the mechanism of preservation and a rationale for its necessary prevalence in your notional model of history.
2. what makes you believe that a representative organism from a transitional species would be in any way an "incomplete" life form?
Please be specific, including the anatomic anomalies your model predicts as necessary for an "incomplete" life form, and how "incomplete" life forms can be decisively discerned from "complete" life forms.
3. what leads you to assume that (alleged) honesty and earnestness precludes idiocy and error?
Please be as thorough as you can in your answer.
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.