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.
Interesting comment. Is the "theory" of abiogenesis science?
The blazing irrationality of this 'debate' is the total lack of discussion that should come before...simply (smirking and) dismissing the other side. (That's OK, your pat on the back is sure to be coming).
Any outside observer is keenly aware that this is NOT a debate.
And now I depart this thread knowing I will be considered woefuly unable to defend a position I have not taken.
I would suggest that we need to be thinking about the implications of both Darwinism and the anti-evolutionist ...
I suggest that the implications, whatever we might 'imagine' them to be, are irrelevant. What is relevant is the truth. Back in Galileo's day many were worrying about the 'implications' of his Revolutionary theory.
I refuse to think that any God worth worship would want us to ignore the truth the evidence speaks.
You mean like in dodge-ball?
Oh and you didn't address the fact I "hammered" you about our specious comment about scientists.
No, it's only the Holy Word of Almighty God.
Though I'm sure Satan would love to differ.
I looked at your insults on this thread you liar. Typical Fundamentalist, yeah my religion has more holes than a strainer but I believe. You have far more faith than I do. Your god is science and you follow it like a Mooselip bashing his head with a sword.
Anyone who questions your god is a heretic.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Got any evidence of that? There are thousands of posts on FR that say that believing in evolution will send one straight to hell. Cite *one* post that supports your "suspicion".
Nope. That's a bit ability based.
Nothing you can do about this one. You either are or are not. Nothing you can do about it either way.
You'll wake up one day and find yourself sliding into belief, or you never will.
*Pat on the head*
Run along then little Johnny. The grown-ups have real things to talk about. Here's a nickle for your lemonade stand -- you can give me a cup later.
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.
You make much of little. There is no contradiction---thousands of cults, 4000+ religious faiths, all equal within estimates. Do you disagree that there are at least a thousand different religious faiths? Do you disagree that Christians are split into 200 or so denominations?
There seem to be about 340,000 preachers, priests, pastors, imams, faith healers, mullahs, ministers in the USA. According to IRS figures from those claiming tax exemptions in one of the above categories as being in an organized denomination, sect or cult. Those in un-organized cults are impossible to count.
Do you agree that the schisms within Christianity teach different "truths"?
You falsely assert that I am an "anti-religionist". In fact, I am a church member, regularly attend with my family, and tithe. Many people believe in "wisdom" presented in one ancient book, and such believing may be helpful for them. The claim that "because I believe, you must/should also" is dubious.
The insane creatoid Peppered Moth Jihad is just bizarre. After all, creationists are the first to tell us they have no problem with natural selection, or with "microevolution," which is exactly what the Peppered Moth research reveals. So what's the deal? Especially when there's no "there" there. Kettlewell's research, and his full and honest reporting thereof, was exemplary, and later researchers have verified and extended his results.
Why the utterly gratuitous and shockingly dishonest smears when the underlying phenomena is one that creationists (supposedly) don't even take issue with???
The only reason I can come up with is that Jonathan Wells decided to publish these idiotic and dishonest smears in a popular antievolution book, and none of his fellow antievolutionists possess the intellectual honesty (or simple sense of shame) to stand up an correct the lies.
And, btw, in answer to the article's question, this kind of shameless intellectual dishonesty is exactly what "Darwinists are so afraid of".
For some reason, the word "tequila" just came to mind. ;-)
Everyone here has actually studied it. It was forced on us and some of us don't swallow it. HERETIC Stone Him!!!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Every knee shall bow.
The God you choose says a lot about you.
*sigh* Listen closely. Those of us independent enough in thought and education to see through the pure crap of scare tactics behind human-caused global warming, are likely to be, as you so quaintly call them, "Evo's" (what the apostrophe is doing there, I have no idea ...) because we had learned the basics that science has uncovered so far and understand the time scale.
You really need to read some plain, unpoliticized science textbooks in paleontology, earth geology, etc. As a Christian, none of what I've learned about our "natural" world with regard to evolution OR geological history has even come close to shaking my faith in God, only the stupidity of cleaving to a literal interpretation of Genesis out of pride. Indeed, science has confirmed the wonder of His miraculous ways!!! None of it negates God, Jesus's teachings, the Seven Deadly Sins, the Ten Commandments -- there is no conflict. Human pride and vanity are what reject BOTH evolution and scare-tactic global warming scenarios. Pride and vanity and NOTHING ELSE.
I am well-read enough to have a basic grasp of the Theory of Evolution and an understanding of the fossil evidence behind it. I am ALSO well read-enough to figure that global warming is ludicrous BECAUSE I have a basic grasp of science's view of how incredibly old and tough this earth is, and that our time so far on it has been less than a smidgen of a smidgen of a blink of an eye -- I am also a Christian who believes in God and is in awe of the wonder that was/is Jesus Christ.
What I'm trying to say is that the same irrational thinking that endorses the idea that we are on the way to "destroying the planet" is of the same ilk that DENIES evolutionary science. The two factions just happen to have differing political/prideful motivations. If you're going to believe in Global Warming, then you must ALSO tend to believe in Creationism; if you understand truly WHY the scare mongering/guilt trip within global warming claims is such crap, then you also understand why those who deny the validity of evolutionary theory on the basis of religion are following a false path. "Global warming zealots" are the same mindset as anti-Evolution zealots when it comes right down to it -- they just can't handle the science or injury it inflicts on their pride and vanity.
1) We don't use the "L" word. Do it again and I'll have you banned.
2) Show where wyattearp has insulted anyone. Questioning God or a given religion is NOT an insult.
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.