What are Darwinists so afraid of?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

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.

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."

Creationism fails on every level, but for different reasons.

First level, that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. That is, based on the 17th Century math of an Anglican Archbishop in Ireland. Even if you like the idea, check the math. We know a heck of a lot more about bibical times now than a non-scholar making a guess did in 17th Century Ireland. And he wasn't even an Evangelical.

Second level, okay, earlier than 4004 B.C., but still in seven days, not about 4.5 billion years. Nothing else that complex happens in the observed universe that fast. Nothing. Plus the fact that humans weren't there in the first place to record it happening.

Third level, that it was a long time in the making, but that for some reason, humans have been around since the beginning of it, and coexisted with dinosaurs. This idea is utterly useless. It isn't bibical and it isn't evolutionary. Why anyone proposes it in the first place is just silly.

And finally, fourth level, that some intelligence is responsible for it all. This just doesn't matter. Even if there is, it is not scientific, or else you do not understand science.

A good analogy to science is chess. You play chess by the rules of chess, or you are not playing chess. When you have played a game of chess, all you have done is play a game of chess. It has no deeper meaning to extrapolate.

Science also has rules. If you follow those rules, then what you have done is scientific. If you do not, then it is not scientific. Much knowledge is not, nor can be scientific, because it cannot be analyzed using the rules of science.

When evolution is taught in school, it is taught as a science. And it follows the rules of science, and can be criticized scientifically. But at no time does a higher intelligence enter into science, because it is a variable that cannot be analyzed, or experimented with, or discarded, proven or disproven.

And therefore higher intelligence is extraneous to science.

If I flip a coin 100 times in an experiment, and all 100 times it comes up heads, I must assume that either the coin or my flipping of it is the cause of the anomaly. I cannot scientifically even consider that an angel is directing the coin to fall that way. It is simply not an issue, because I cannot see any angel, or order it to stop interfering, or lock it out of the room. Nor can anyone else flip the coin and expect the same result, because I cannot guarantee that the angel will do the same for them.

Therefore, I completely ignore the possibility of there being an angel. It doesn't matter. And though I will note the anomaly, I will keep flipping the same coin, and a different coin, and in a different way, until the angel becomes bored and moves on, and the coin flips fit their predicted pattern again.

And the important thing is that it *will* fit the same curve of probability as if the angel wasn't there in the first place. Because it is possible to flip 100 heads in a row. Not likely, but possible.

So evolution is a science. So is chemistry and physics. History is not. It is a study. So is political "science". The latter two do not follow the rules of science, but this does not mean they are wrong.

So call creationism a study, but do not call it a science.

And since it is a study, it can be taught in school like evolution, but not in the same class, because the two are incompatible subjects, as much as teaching the "democrat version of chemistry".

The more I read the more I see evidence that evolutionists are willing to fake their evidence - moreso than with any other scientific theory. They also willfully ignore a lot that they simply can't explain reasonably.

To what other 'moreso' scientific theories are you referring?

BTW, in the spirit of your post, I'd like to add that I've yet to see any arguments, including yours that, were anything other than ignorant unsubstantiated wishful assertions based on fanatical anti-science religious beliefs, not shared by the leaders of the vast majority of most Christian religions.

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.