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.

[P-Marlowe]

Quite a few on this site, and other sites, say that believing in evolution will send one straight to hell.

RFC_Gal Since Jul 16, 2006

You're an expert on this site, huh?

[hellbender]

"4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns"

Denomination, religious bodies, tribes, cultures, and movements are not usually thought of as "religions." Most of humanity belongs to a few big religious groups. At least a third of mankind is nominally Christian or Muslim. Both are monotheistic, Abrahamic religions. Counting up all the tiny little exotic tribal belief systems doesn't alter that fact.

Your intent was clearly to demean organized religion by implying that there are a myriad of totally distinct, contradictory worldviews.

[wyattearp]

Every knee shall bow.

Or burn.

Not the words of a loving god, but of a tyrant.

[freedumb2003]

Oh, no... Please no... (picturing my math professors...)

I think everything would end up boiling over and/or burning... (LOL)

[GreenOgre]

Finally just look at your hand and tell me it wasn't designed. I suggest that if you deny that intelligence had anything to do with that design, you may one day have to answer to the designer. I know that if I created a masterpiece and someone said that I didn't make it or design it, but that it was just something that crawled out of the slime, I might get a little upset.

Your response shows the arrogance of the ID/Creation crowd. Your hand is not perfect. Nothing about you is perfect. A monkey's hand has evolved to climb trees and pick fruit. A bear's paw has evolved to run, climb, and catch fish.

Yet your creation is due to divine intervention. You are so perfect that you could not have evolved through millions of years of natural trial and error. You're words are the height of arrogance.

[P-Marlowe]

Or else you go to hell, said the whiny, emotionally disturbed adolescent.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked (Galatians 6:7 KJV)

[hellbender]

There is exactly one "Catholic" church listed here. I asked for documentation of the "12 Catholic churches" cited in an earlier post. This is no answer at all.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked."

It wasn't God I was mocking.

[freedumb2003]

Quite a few on this site, and other sites, say that believing in evolution will send one straight to hell.

RFC_Gal Since Jul 16, 2006

You're an expert on this site, huh?

She may be new, but she's right.

Freedumb2003
Since Nov 8, 2002

[thomaswest]

Cute link. It is interesting that Islamicists and Christists recognize only one mathematics. Al-gebra works the same--if you do it correctly--whether one is atheist or Buddhist.

Prior assumptions are a different thing.

[P-Marlowe]

Yet your creation is due to divine intervention. You are so perfect that you could not have evolved through millions of years of natural trial and error. You're words are the height of arrogance.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:18-20 KJV)

[bray]

So its ok for you to make fun of the religion that 90% of America believes in but not to make fun of your religion of Darwinism. Talk about a Fundamentalist Cultist. So where are all those transitory animals between Monkey and Man?? How did life begin w/o God?? Do you have any answers or just insults?

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Shalom Israel

[balrog666]

RFC_Gal Since Jul 16, 2006 You're an expert on this site, huh?

Awwww, are you being show up by a newbie? Again?

Shame on you.

[xzins]

I do think that the arm or hand is an amazing creation. It is an assortment of independent living cells, organized into systems of skin, muscle, fat, sinew, bone, blood, etc. All of these are so complex as to defy copying. The life in the cells of the flesh, and the flesh itself is so amazing, so unique, so manifestly complex to an order of infinity that is incomprehensible.

Let them make flesh. Anyone. Ever. And then put life it it.

Or let them put meaning into anything.

There is no real meaning outside of God....only localized or personalized efforts at putting together this or that "code that you can live by."

But, without God, one code is really no different than another. Mao's code or Adolf's code or Clinton's code or Darwin's code.....meaningless. They'll all blow up some day in some super nova and it will have made no difference whatsoever.

But, with God, of course, there is eternity.

"Come see the place where he lay. He is not here. He has Risen!"

[Jeff Gordon]

the standard cliche reply anyone who questions Darwin is a Religious Nut

Well proven facts do generally become cliches. Common examples are, "the sky is blue," "where there is smoke there is fire," "Kerry is a flip-flopper," "Creationist are religious nuts," etc.

[bray]

Every fossil every found was of a life that was transitory. That being said, there are many transitional fossil sequences

Complete and utter nonsense. Every fossil showed no transition whatsoever and most are still here today. Now answer the question where is the fossil evidence of the transitory animals? Fact is there is none, nada, nothing. Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters Shalom Israel

[RFC_Gal]

Yes - I have read most every tech and science related thread posted to this site over the past few years.

Have you tried attacking my ideas? It would be a more productive way of proving your point than posting my sign up date which anyone can easily figure out from my public profile.

[Coyoteman]

Where is the fossil evidence of the transitory animals?? Should be millions of them??

Doesn't need to be millions, just a few in the right places. This is one of those transitionals in just the right place. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

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

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

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

[Junior]

There are evidently 33,000 Protestants denominations with about 270-300 being added each year. Of course, every time someone comes up with a new interpretation of Scripture he or she goes off to form "The One True Church."

[wyattearp]

RFC_Gal Since Jul 16, 2006. You're an expert on this site, huh?

No, but she's certainly holding her own, and is right on the money with the statement:

"Quite a few on this site, and other sites, say that believing in evolution will send one straight to hell."

I've seen it more times than I can count. RFC-Gal is doing better than most newbies (especially starting out in crevo threads - of all places). IMHO.