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.
I disagree with you...you have made a personal judgement about which religions are and are not Christian religions...and yes, it is your personal judgement...you have made my point...
It does not matter if a religion is at a steady pace, growing or dwindling downward...that has nothing to do with whether they are Christian or not...
So then you disagree with those on these very threads who include "Darwinism" as a religion? It is certainly not a religion.
(You consider Confucianism an ethical system, I consider study of the theory of evolution a science.)
hellbender, I am going to help you out here, since I am a nice guy.
Creationists (and their silly ID cousins) say, in essence, "we demand that religion be injected into the discussion about evolution." The scientific response is "Oh really? What do you have to bring to the table?" The Creationist response: "Our belief."
Well, that opens the door to comparing any and all "beliefs" to determine their validity. It doesn't mean we don't believe in the Christian God and His son, Jesus. It means we put on our science hat and evaluate "belief" as a valid tool of science, and this ALL beliefs are in play.
Objectively, any and all beliefs are "equal."
Either religion belongs in the theological sphere or it is subject to objective scrutiny that it would be better off avoiding.
Have you even read her latest book. Perhaps the best book on liberalism ever written. Ann Rox! Someone buy her a Steak!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Creationists believe in evolution but only within its own kind. The rest of the evolution tale depends on
something from nothing, even the planets. Just how do they explain an eyeball forming on its own? It is totally crazy. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic
to think that people actually believe this stuff.
File Not Found
Sorry for there typo in the link. Corrected several times this thread, and again here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html.
"The rest of the evolution tale depends on
something from nothing, even the planets."
The origin of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. There is nothing about evolution that depends on *something from nothing*.
"Just how do they explain an eyeball forming on its own?"
It didn't, and evolution doesn't say it did.
Which has zero to do with TToE, which has been pointed out to you in this thread.
You can comfort yourself and pat your own back in your "saved" superiority all you want -- that is your perogative.
But it has nothing to do with scientific concepts.
You might want to see what Our Lord thought about "humility," something most Evangelicals lack. If need be, I can provide for you the appropriate Biblical references.
As I said, she's good at polemics, but for people who don't like analyzing arguments, they can't tell the difference between bomb-lobbing and true intellectual thought.
Begging the question. You didn't address my underlying issue. WHERE WAS THE INSULT?
Physics is a science because it has evidence as opposed to Darwinism/Atheism. Darwinists are very fundamental with their beliefs due to its lack of evidence and anyone who questions them is immediately identified as a heretic.
Nice try though and actually the Bible is pretty well proven with evidence. Now where is all that fossil evidence proving evolution??
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
I didn't blame evolution for all the evil of the 20th century. However, there is a powerful affinity between totalitarian socialist systems and evolution, and such systems are always hostile to Christianity and usually Judaism as well. You can sputter and fume all you like, but those are facts.
"By their works you shall know them," and the fruits of evolutionary thinking, in the absence of any theistic worldview, seem to be anger and discontent, as shown by your own language.
I ask you, how does one arrive at the view that human beings have value and deserve to be free (which is what most conservatives believe), starting just from materialist theories like evolution?
That would be a waste of time. Showing any facit of Evolution to be false proves nothing about the truth of Creationism.
I guess if your an atheist calling God "Petulant" is not an insult. Go look at your other posts and quit wasting peoples time. Now where is all that evidence?
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
But you still have not answered the question of HOW creation was carried out, and no doubt, you will not be able to, because I just dont find it in the Bible...
There are way too many Biblical scholars, people with a firm belief in God and in Christ, who do not look at the time schedule of 6 days as being what you prefer to describe them as being...you chose to believe in 6 24 hr days of creation...and many Biblical scholars completely disagree with you on this...so you may be right, and then again, you may be completely wrong...
And then there is the whole notion of how is time, in relation to God...how does God view time...that particular notion has been discussed quite a bit, and it may or may not line up with this 6 24 hr days of creation...
I dont see it as being impossible that God created everything in 6 24 hr days...I see it, that with God, anything and everything is completely possible...but what is possible, may indeed not be, the way that it was...
Millions of Christians, do support evolution, and do consider themselves Christians, having a personal relationship with Christ...
Supporting evolution, in my opinion, does not negate a relationship with Jesus Christ, tho some would have it be that way...
If what you say is true "there is a powerful affinity between totalitarian socialist systems and evolution" then you should have no problem proving your statement.
Please do so.
*The* missing link?
Yes indeed. The one between your brain and your keyboard. 388 posted on 07/27/2006 8:21:43 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
Great imitation of Jesus there, Fester.
????
But, you are correct.
Saved is superior to lost.
It is given unto every man at least once to be enlightened by God. That is then an easy road to salvation.
The only question is "Will they resist and be unnecessarily lost?"
But it's already known what you will do. We're just waiting to see how it works out.
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.