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.
"her ideas" not "here ideas" (spell checker, hah!)
May I ask for the link to the refutation of that transitional fossil with feathers? Thanx
Did you read it?? It is brilliant and funny.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
No. It is a sound interpretation and understanding of the biblical texts which speak plainly for themselves as compared to the statements made by those who controvert what the biblical texts say. When you stop at a red light you make a personal judgment, to be sure. But the text, namely the red light, has made a plain statement: STOP. If you want to argue with law enforcement that the light was telling you "GO," be my guest. You will not, however, be excused.
If you want to play games with what texts say and mean, then join the folks who think our Constitution is a "living and breathing document."
placemarker...
OK, what is the scientific alternative to TToE? I keep asking and get philosophical, not scientific, answers.
So anotherwords you have no evidence. Just belief.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Not all of the scientific evidence that proves DARWIN'S theories have "been brought forth" either.
If you look at my posts on this issue you'll notice that my point has always been to state that evolutionary theory is a THEORY. As of now and certainly in a scientific realm it is the best answer but it is STILL an incomplete set of evidence.
One other thing: evolutionary theory is not exclusive of the idea of a higher power. To believe in a higher power does not mean one is a biblical literalist but for some on this board a "biblical literalist" is the unfair label ascribed to ANYONE that questions the incomplete physical record that is evolutionary theory.
In other words it is a cheap shot.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Change from generation to generation is a fact. The theory of evolution explains this, along with the facts of the fossil record, DNA, etc.
So, I agree that evolutionary theory is a theory. All science is considered theory and incomplete.
The theory of evolution does not exclude a higher power. It does not address it at all, as there is no way for science to measure a higher power.
Biblical literalists also are outside of the purview of science until they bring themselves into science by their scientific claims. Then they become subject to the scientific method and critical thinking that science provides.
No cheap shot. Religious belief is not scientific evidence.
What is your operational definition of a "kind"?
What does any of that have to do with science or TTOE? This is the second time I have asked.
We all agree, YOU are better than your fellow man. But what does that have to do with the sunject at hand?
You and I have been over this before...you interpret the Bible, and you have your own personal interpretations...and that is what you have...you do not speak for God, not do I, nor does anyone else here...you interpret the Bible as you see fit...
Unless of course I am mistaken, and you do think that you speak for God...
1) That doesn't "undo" your insult. You are a mean person who is NOT following in the steps of Jesus. Near as I can tell, you are following in the steps of a Religious Howard Stern.
2) I make no such rejection -- your assertion is prima facie void.
You really need to stop taking me on. I hate to have to keep slamming you into the turf.
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.
Oh, fester really stepped in it this time!
Yes, we have been over this before. Last time I checked we were still going over it. Words and truth have objective meanings. They are not necessairly established by the interpreter. If you want to interpret STOP as meaning GO, whose problem is that? Mine if I tell you STOP means STOP?
Don't go to church, and honestly wouldn't know where to look for that information. I do have friends that are Lutherans. Quite a few actually. They are all hard-core Republicans, as is everybody that I have met from their church(es). (which is why I immediately assume that somebody is a Republican if they say that they are a Lutheran).
They all believe that the Pope is the antichrist, and they attend several different churches. Personally, I find that position irrational, but I haven't argued the point in a lot of years. It gets real hot, real fast.
We frequently discuss religion, but there a few things that I stay away from, and a few things that they stay away from as well. We like being friends. ;-)
I can't do your homework for you. Just a few points; Marxism is explicitly atheistic. As some other recent threads have pointed out, Hitler's ideology was essentially Marxist, with a few twists, including ideas of racial superiority which were powerfully influenced by evolution. Hitler himself was an occultist who disliked Christianity and wanted to replace it with something like Teutonic pagan religion. Of course, he hated Jews as well.
Evolution didn't cause totalitarian socialism, but it's part of the intellectual climate which did. In contrast, free societies and free economies developed only in the Christian world when Christianity was the dominant intellectual world view. In fact, the concept of the value of every individual human being and the need for each one to be free comes directly out of Christian belief.
Try "monks".
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.