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.

[hellbender]

"I am curious---do you obey all 613 Commandments?"

My Lord, when asked, stated only two commandments: 1) Love God, and 2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Now, my turn to be curious. You say you are a religionist (whatever that is), and attend church regularly. Yet you make statements mocking organized religion, and your tagline suggests you believe in no god. Just what is YOUR "belief system," and why do you think it is worth following?

[ml1954]

Anti-evos Are Always Religionists Placemaker

[bray]

Fake but True, scientists have all the credibility of the NY Times.

The feather imprints of the London Archaeopteryx specimen were forged. Evidence for this is that The feather impressions appear only on the slab, not on the counterslab.

The surface texture is different between the feathered and unfeathered areas.

Slightly elevated "blobs" appear which are not always matched by depressions on the counterslab.

The feathers show "double strike" impressions. Hairline cracks which pass through both bones and feathers could have formed by slight movements to the slab after the cement was in place.

Under magnification, the limestone appears different in fossil and non-fossil areas of the specimen. Unknown material appears within the matrix in the fossil area.

An x-ray chemical analysis showed chemical differences, including silicon, sulfur, and chlorine in the fossil area that were not present in the non-fossil area.

These points indicate that the feather impressions were made by someone impressing feathers in a cement-like matrix that was added to the stone. Without the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be identified as the dinosaur Compsognathus, not as a transitional fossil.

Guess it is a fake after all, just like all the missing links. I'll keep my faith in The One True God not some Honey fossils. Stone the Infidel!!

Pray for W and Our Troops

Shalom Israel

[GOPJ]

Why can't the evolutionist see/admit the problems in Darwin and evolutionary theory enough to actually debate them - instead of this whack-a-mole diatribe we see so often at FR?

Evolutionist are afraid if they don't stand firm on evolution, all science will be thrown away and a new dark ages - hundreds of years of ignorance - will rule.

They are afraid.

They are wrong.

Not accepting evolution doesn't imply the validity of any other theory. It's just says evolution's not the answer, nothing more, nothing less. God might or might not exist, intelligent design could be or could not be - but none of it becomes true by rejecting evolution. No need to postulate beyond necessity...

[Fester Chugabrew]

God used him up and threw him away . . .

No. Moses lives. Authority is a serious thing, but not by definition tyrannical. More tyrannical is an authority that departs from what God plainly says about Himself and His intentions. In our case, His intentions are more loving than the most perfect human father. Believe me, it is not for lack of intelligent design that fathers by nature love their children and discipline them. You're hearing this from one who is exceedingly weak in faith.

[MississippiMan]

Fear loss of elections from conservative candidates being tagged as a "Flat-Earth Republican".

---

Riiiight. Perhaps you should check your facts; more Americans believe in creation than evolution. And within the ranks of conservative voters, that trend is wider and deeper. So if it's votes you're concerned about, stop worrying.

Of course, now that you've lost the vote issue, it's time for you to remind me that "science is not a popularity contest."

MM out.

[OneWingedShark]

Well they do have Real Ultimate Power!

Facts about Ninjas
1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

Sometimes I wish I was a ninja...

[thomaswest]

re 215: Ah, a little sanity. Good for you.

It may be that there is "one true faith", but the evidence is against it. The evidence is that claims to "the Holy Faith" are disputed by 4000+, 43,000+ different sects, according to previous posts. At least 1000+ schisms within Christianity, each making a claim for the "right" church that provides everlasting salvation.

The sheer number of competing claims makes it impossible to choose correctly.

So what we do is to choose a faith community that seems to work for us in our time. It is significant that children are maleable--they grow up in one faith tradition, and only exceptional ones break away.

[wyattearp]

Or maybe you think it is unfair that you are subject to someone greater than yourself, even though many who are greater than you serve day and night to make sure you enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Veteran, USN, Electronic Warfare Technician, USS Berkeley, DDG-15. I have well over a dozen cousins (lost track years ago) that either are veterans, or are currently serving this country. My nephew is on his second tour in Iraq. Both of my grandfathers were Navy. My father was 82nd Airborne. My stepfather was a Marine. Two of my uncles were in Vietnam, one in Cobras, the other on a Carrier.

Stuff it.

[srmorton]

I agree! This is from someone who has been teaching Biology at a community college for over 20 years. They are both theories that man has offered to try to understand the world around him. The only correct thing to do is to present both of them, but it is the Darwinists that appear to fear such a comparison more than the Creationists.

Although I accept the logic of natural selection and realize examples of it have been observed in nature and in the laboratory, it is much harder for me to believe that all of the wonders of nature evolved by "accidental" mutation than that they were the result of the actions of a loving Creator God - whatever mechanism He chose to use.

[andysandmikesmom]

Thanks for your reply...

Tho you may not have seen those who delight in the damnation of others, because of their support of evolution, I can assure you that it does occur...perhaps, and I could be wrong about this, it does not occur as often as it used to, because the posters who have done so, have been singled out for having acted in such a way...but it still continues to happen on these threads...

You say, that you were a believer in evolution, but that as you learned more about God, the more you came to the conclusion, that evolution was not compatible with God...and thats fine...but for many, having a firm belief in God, and in Christ does not bring about an incompatiblity with God....I dont really know, what brings one person to one conclusion, and another person to another conclusion, but there we have it...

Yes, indeed, if one reads the Bible, it is 'sin' which leads to damnation, and as you state, we all sin...

However, sometimes I get the feeling that those of us who support evolution, are sometimes seen by many, as committing a 'greater sin', by supporting evolution...

On these threads, there seems to be very few things that can be considered as 'sinful', as supporting evolution...

If people do mock God, that is a separate issue from supporting evolution...they are not the same issue...

On the matter of creation...no one knows the HOW of creation...I have asked this time and again, yet have never received an answer, but of course, I know, this is because the Bible does not give the answer...Did God speak Creation into existence?...Did He think it into existence?...Did He have a vision materialize?...I mean, no one can tell me HOW exactly God did create...

Many prefer to believe that God created evolution and used it to create...that may not be to everyones liking, and yet, since the Bible does not give the HOW of creation, we dont really know...

[wyattearp]

College days -- the best days of our lives.

Sigh. I'm 45, and just going into my Sophmore year at a University. Absolutely digging it! Although I really wish that there were more 30+ year old women here. 18-22 year-olds are cute, but what the heck can you talk to them about?

[hellbender]

RIght. The Christian religious right ought to be respected by all conservatives, if only because they kept John Kerry and Al Gore out of the White House. That's a more important fact than all the crevo arguments. Yet we have here a group of people who get off mocking and scoffing at organized Christianity like a bunch of smartass adolescents.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . new dark ages . . .

Do you know, historically, how the "dark ages" got their name - why they are called as such? They disappeared when the biblical texts were once again brought to light. If we want more dark ages we can indulge the intellectual rut perpetrated over the past 150 years suggesting (as if it were real science) that history is a billion-year concoction of happenstance.

[GOPJ]

Evolutionist are afraid if they don't stand firm on evolution, all science will be thrown away and a new dark ages - hundreds of years of ignorance - will rule.

They are wrong.

Not accepting evolution doesn't imply the validity of any other theory. It's just says evolution's not the answer, nothing more, nothing less. God might or might not exist, intelligent design could be or could not be - but none of it becomes true by rejecting evolution. No need to postulate beyond necessity...

Creationist believe if they disprove evolution, it's proof that God exist. It's proof that their beliefs trump science.

They are wrong.

If evolution is disproved, it means evolution isn't the answer to how we got here. Nothing more, nothing less.

[hellbender]

I find it extremely hard to believe that any Lutherans today believe that the Pope is the Antichrist. Can you cite any sermon, any modern church publication, any speech by a church leader, saying that the Pope is the Antichrist?

[wyattearp]

Interesting comment. Is the "theory" of abiogenesis science?

Yes, it is science. It is a well thought out theory that makes predictions, and is falsifiable. While there isn't a lot of "hard" data to support it, there are a lot of chemical and biological reasons that indicate that it could have occurred. It has nowhere near the amount of supporting evidence that the TOE has, however.

[bray]

There is alot more to it than how we got here. If the Cult of evolution is true than that disproves God and our need to follow his Commandments. How can Conservatives not see that?? My guess is that many of the Darwinists are Liberaltarians.

Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel

[AndrewC]

Days of reading ahead.

Don't waste your time. Reading those arguments from that site is equivalent to listening to Cindy Sheehan explain the difference between Chavez and Bush.

As a "for instance", "Claim CI110: Design can be recognized by the following filter:" is supposedly refuted with an argument beginning with The filter is useless in practice because the probabilities it asks for can never be known. That statement argues against a perfectly valid criteria, namely, If an event E has high probability, accept regularity as an explanation; otherwise move to the next step. I simply reject the general assertion "The filter is useless in practice because the probabilities it asks for can never be known."

It is quite rational to ascertain that this

is design and not chance or regularity.

[ml1954]

Yet we have here a group of people who get off mocking and scoffing at organized Christianity like a bunch of smartass adolescents.

'Organized Christianity', if one is to believe the statements of the leadership, has no problem with the Theory Of Evolution. Your statement that people are 'mocking and scoffing at organized Christianity' is untrue. Disagreeing with and disputing 'Your' brand of 'Christianity' does not constitute 'mocking and scoffing at organized Christianity'.

And so you no longer have any credibility.