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.
The curious thing about organized religion is that it schismed into 189 Protestant sects, 12 or so Catholic sects, a 100 or so non-Christian sects---and each one claims to have "truth". And a thousand cults.
So, it is clear that there is no special reason to believe Biblical literalists; they contradict each other. One can meet the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Queen of the Pixies, or the 'Grand Designer' in dreams and fantasies. Death ends these dreams, and fears of damnation end there, too.
It is fine to teach theories that do not support evolution as long as those theories are scientifically based. Mystical theories against eveolution have no place in the sceince class room.
Reading this, one wonders about the quality of her legal work - whether or not she actually reads actual legal decisions and rulings or just newspaper accounts.
To suggest, as some Creationist and Darwinist have, that the jury has spoken and no debate is neccesary would make someone very close minded.
I need to ask, to what debate, specifically, are you referring?
On the one hand, anti-evolutionists/creationists insist and assert, based on religious beliefs that human beings did not descend from lower animals. On the other hand scientists say that this is what the evidence shows, and the leadership of most Christian religions agree with the scientists.
There is really not a debate here. The anti-evolution/creationist side has no evidence or argument whatsoever other than blind faith.
This particular link below made me laugh when I first read it a long while ago. I don't know if it was meant to be funny, I just keep thinking about someone working out the math on this (I have an odd sense of humor.)
http://www.samsloan.com/lucysky.htm
Your Tag is cracking me up BTW!
If there is one true God and all the others are fake, why would it not be fitting that He would be offended by worship of false gods? You're trying to judge God by human standards. A God who is not offended by falsehood and deception would indeed by a flawed being.
You describe a flawed God with human faults and failings.
Nobody is talking about teaching mythology in science classes. What people ARE talking about is Intelligent Design, which is clearly a testable scientific hypothesis and, in many instances, all anybody has wanted to do was insert one page or a sticker in highschool biology books noting that there was a controversy involving evolution, and that about half the American populace remains unconvinced of it which is true.
EVEN THAT much of a request is seen as an overwhelming threat by the evos and they go running off to the ACLU (Anti-American Commie Libertine Union) and their little crooked judges with lawsuits at the least hint of somebody acting as if there were any question on the subject.
I just thought of something (now you've really done it) :-)
If Noah was born many centuries before Moses, and Moses wrote Leviticus, and it is the book of Leviticus that tells the people of Israel what they can and cannot sacrifice (or eat, for that matter), how did Noah know which animals were clean, and which were unclean?
"That is what was being claimed. If one didn't see the hand of God in creation then God would get pissed and throw us into the Fire."
I must have missed that in my haste. If any one is saying that ignorance of God's hand in creation is what condemns man he/she is mistaken.
OK, give me a critical scientific look at the evidence. No dieties, please.
How is ID testable.
Quite a few on this site, and other sites, say that believing in evolution will send one straight to hell.
Paganism is in the eye of the beholder.
In evolutionary science, there is no controversy--or at least not that kind. They fight like cats and dogs over the smallest details, but ID does not get in the door.
Why?
The controversy that we are begged to teach--"Teach the Controversy!" (oh, pretty please, just a camel's nose sticker) is a product of a PR machine designed to force Christian dogma back into science classes. And, I suspect, in such a way as to not be critically evaluated, which is what science does best. Critical evaluation is the last thing you really want.
Change from 'crucified' to 'resurrected' has never been demonstrated.
"What people ARE talking about is Intelligent Design, which is clearly a testable scientific hypothesis."
Not it isn't, Ted.
"The curious thing about organized religion is that it schismed into 189 Protestant sects, 12 or so Catholic sects, a 100 or so non-Christian sects---and each one claims to have "truth". And a thousand cults."
Another poster says there are 4000+ religions. Which is it, now? You anti-religionists contradict each other too.
The fact is that most of humanity adheres to a handful of major religions, most of which are monotheisitic and acknowledge much of the Christian Bible. Another fact is that most Christians agree on major doctrine. And what are these "12 Catholic sects?" All Catholic churches follow similar doctrine. They differ only in details of liturgy.
Hmmm -- perhaps I wasn't clear. IF you "put it out there for all to see then..."
Better get ready for all the Creation Myths to get discussed then -- from Scientolofy's Xenu to the Brahma of the American Indians.
Silly me -- insisting science be taught in science class. Can't wait for cooking to be taught in math class.
And of course all of religion is now up for scientific scrutiny in theology class.
My tagline is a (Star Trek, The Real Thing) reminder to me that I need to spend more time studying, and less time on FR. However, today I dropped a M.O.A.B. on completed my Chemistry final, so I can play around for a few weeks before fall semester.
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.