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.
"What's a "Darwinist?" Outside of the Creationist/ID community it is not used."
Not true. I've seen the term used by pro-evolution writers. Also, here's what Wikipedia says:
" However, in other countries — such as the United Kingdom — "Darwinism" carries no such derogatory connotations and is freely used by evolutionary scientists. A notable example of a scientist who uses the term in a positive sense is Richard Dawkins."
Evo's are scared of the competition of ideas which is why they fear anyone taking away their monopoly on ideas taught to children and anyone expose their lack of evidence. But they can't fool people forever. Eventually evos and global warming zealots will be overrun through the healthy competition of ideas.
You're fine.
Standard Cr/IDer tactic: Request proof and when provided decry it as being either too skimpy or too overwhelming.
You'll get used to theit 100% logical fallacy tactics soon enough. Keep your "Guide to Logical Fallacies (http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm) handy. Sometimes they will get 3 or 4 in one sentence.
Pretty amazing and certainly amusing.
Please provide a scientific alternate theory to TToE that explains the evidence.
God stated flatly that he is a jealous God
Obviously, a jealous God is a flawed God.
Other than pop culture, I don't recognize Wikipedia.
"But Gods nonetheless..."
The Bible never uses capitalization for other gods. And of course the Bible acknowledges that there are other gods, such as those worshipped by all the pagans around ancient Israel.
I posted this aon another thread awhile ago. It is an article written by Gould who is not a strict Darwinist in the sense of slow gradual change. I found it at rom an article he wrote found www.stephenjgould.org:
He writes:
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record.
[The entire article is very good. I am being very selective to be brief, but found the following interesting, again he writes]:
I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong target.
It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…" We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood.
It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. ......
But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are not among them.
...... Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.
But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.
Apologies. I have been beaten up so may times for not using (H)e, (H)im, and (G)od, that I now do it by rote.
Sorry, I don't have time to dig up the proper "primary sources" prissy academics like so much. The fact remains: The term Darwinism is used by some scientists who are strong believers in evolution.
Better get ready for all the Creation Myths to get discussed then -- from Scientolofy's Xenu to the Brahma of the American Indians.
There is a place for that: In theology or philosophy class. But not in any science classes.
There is no competing scientific idea for TToE.
Well, all that happened on the first "day", was that light separated from darkness. Somehow I doubt that process took 24 earth hours/sarc.
In fact aren't cosmologists now postulating that a microdot that contained all the known matter of our universe was expanded into something the size of a basketball in something like (10 to the neg 35th power) seconds and then continued to accelerate from there to form all galaxies, stars, planets? That was "day 2-3"
It is used as an epithet here and in Creationist-based source material posted here.
She had me fooled. I thought the search and replace (Creationism-->ID) reflected a sincere attempt at considering "both sides."
It's also a waste of time for rational people to put too much effort into a 'conversation' with irrational people. It's only for the spectators and I think they've seen all they need to see in this case.
I was pretty sure that Stephen Jay Gould, noted evolutionist, uses the term Darwinism. Judging by post 150, he does indeed.
So admit it. You are wrong. Darwinism is not just a creationist epithet. Makes me wonder how accurate your other statements are.
Oh, I see, IDist Behe said that his definition of science includes astrology. "Nuff said.
ID can't even answer the simplest of questions: How did "the designer" intervene in the laws of nature to perform these miracles? When did He do it?
ID has no dates, no measurements, no positive evidence to offer.
You're right. Dialoguing with evo's is a waste of time. They don't listen much less learn. But eventually they will die off like the dinosaurs.
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.