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.

[Boxen]

Nothing displays immaturity quite like poorly reasoned attacks against a fellow poster.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

What are Darwinists so afraid of?

Losing their public education welfare checks...

There is no more evidence that life evolved on this earth than there is for life to have been delivered or engineered here by extraterrestrials...

What would the evolutionists think about teaching life came from outer space? They already teach the Big Bang theory...

[bray]

Sure nice dodge isn't it. Well there are plenty of scientists who are questioning your religion. But calling people who question the dogma of Darwin are religious nuts and are not really human like us believers. Pathetic for a place like FR since it is the same old liberal dodge.

Now where is the transitory evidence between monkey and man. If it is true there should be some evidence after 200 years of frantic trying? Come on or are you just being duped??

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Shalom Israel

[Boxen]

The theory of evolution states nothing regarding the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Please try again.

[xzins]

Only tyrant to those who are not chosen.

It could be that you are one of the non-chosen. But, who knows besides God. Time will tell.

[Coyoteman]

Any theory is only stronger if one doesn't avoid evidence that needs to be squared with what has been established. Evolution, like Global Warming, has been enamored with an untouchable status by invoking a political front that keeps scientists from doing what they should be doing - expanding knowledge through sound scientific research and let the chips fall where they may [emphasis added].

There is no competing evidence. There are claims and religious beliefs, but no scientific evidence to contradict the theory of evolution has been brought forth. It would certainly have received a proper hearing if it had (religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence).

[P-Marlowe]

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

I suspect there are at least as many theistic evolutionists who believe that a belief in intelligent design or a six day creation is a sure ticket to hell (or a very long stay in purgatory).

[freedumb2003]

There is no more evidence that life evolved on this earth than there is for life

Millions of fossils and observed micro-evolution before our very eyes and instruments nothwhistandind

to have been delivered or engineered here by extraterrestrials...

So at least you aren't an ID proponent.

[freedumb2003]

We haven't been kicked to "Chat" yet.

Hmmmm..

(LOL)

[xzins]

The purging thing doesn't sound entirely pleasant.

:>)

[Junior]

The Bible never uses capitalization for other gods.

The original language of the OT did not use capitalization. The initial English translators were all Christians, so it would be obvious they would capitalize "God" and not capitalize "gods" (except when the god's proper name is used, such as "Baal").

So basically, your point is meaningless.

[Secret Agent Man]

NO, but it starts with an "m".

[balrog666]

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."

It's easier than that; it's not interpretations, it's money.

[P-Marlowe]

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

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10 KJV)

[andysandmikesmom]

Yes, tho RFD_Gal has been here only a short time, she is indeed holding her own...I can see where if one is new to FR, they may not be completely familiar with many things, but their 'opinion' does not hinge on their sign up date...their ideas, their opinions, their view of things, are as valid as anyone elses here on FR...just because someone signed up many, many years ago, their opinions have no more validity then someone else who has been here only a short while...

[Jeff Gordon]

there are plenty of scientists who are questioning your religion

Questioning various evolution theories is not the same thing as advocating mysticism in science. Question evolution all you want just don't try to replace it with something some hocus pocus.

[hellbender]

"Of course, every time someone comes up with a new interpretation of Scripture he or she goes off to form "The One True Church."

Can you document that every single denomination claims to be the "one true church?" Many denominations are formed over minor preferences in style of worship. Actually, most Christian denominations today are respectful of each other, and acknowledge that they have more in common than not.

The church of Christ is a body of believers, not a "denomination," establishment, building, or bureaucratic organization.

As one of the evo posters says, there are bitter differences of opinion about the details of biology also.

[freedumb2003]

I commited the capital crime of saying that AC was against modern science.

You're one heck of a lurker. You seem pretty comfortable.

And smart. And, at least for this thread, correct.

[be4everfree]

I need to ask, to what debate, specifically, are you referring?

We'll start with the debate here on FR. But you are certainly aware of the debate outside of FR.

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/

It also seems, that you have answered your own question.

But, the real debate is within each individual.

The anti-evolution/creationist side has no evidence or argument whatsoever other than blind faith.

I would suggest that we need to be thinking about the implications of both Darwinism and the anti-evolutionist and how it leads to the either the rebirth of eugenics or a fascist theocracy.

In the meantime, while I'm still alive, while the jury is still out, I will seek out information and try to find what works for me.

[bray]

Fake but true, did Dan RatherOld do your research?

Homo ergaster is one of the more problematic of somewhat accepted species designations currently tossed around in anthropological literature. Each individual researcher that sees ergaster as a valid taxon sees different specimens as belonging or not belonging to the taxon. MANY RESEARCHERS DENY ANY VALIDITY TO THE SPECIES AT ALL. ON THE WHOLE THOUGH, MOST RESEARCHERS SEE TOO LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ERGASTER AND ERECTUS TO FORM THE BASIS OF A SPECIES OF THE FORMER, SEPARATED FROM THE LATTER. As a general rule of thumb, one can consider most attributed ergaster specimens to be early erectus geographically confined to Africa (however, this is not a hard and fast rule). The taxon ergaster was first described in 1975 by C. Groves and V. Mazak. The specimen attributed as the type specimen was ER 992, an isolated mandible. Since then, other specimens have been attributed by various authors to ergaster, with most researchers placing the same fossils in erectus. Those who see it as a valid taxon tend to see it as more closely resembling modern H. sapiens than does H. erectus. They tend to see ergaster as a direct ancestor of modern humans with erectus being an evolutionary dead-end. Many Out of Africa supporters use this taxon as evidence that Asian and European specimens did not contribute genetically to the modern human genome, but this claim is very weak.

There should be millions of transitory versions between man and ape but nada nothing. Nice graph though, very convincing.

What kind of Conservative swallows something like evolution whole??

Pray for W and Our Troops

Shalom Israel