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.
Evo's totally ignore God's Word on Creation. Mere mortals claiming they know more than The Almighty. That is laughable.
Some post insults inspite of their relgion; others because of it.
Note the lack of criticism by the co-religionists who by their silence approve (as usual) of this kind of post.
If you follow the links back, you will see that it has to do with faith in the power and words of God.
That is the choice of this thread: God or evolution.
Therefore, "Jesus said, 'You must be born again.'" After all, He is "the light that lightens everyone who comes into the world."
But denying the evidence of intelligent design in creation negates the work of the Christ you say you believe in.
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:16-17 KJV)
Jesus was active in the creation, not passive. By him all things consist. If we say his creation was accomplished by sitting idly by while the slime worked it's magic to create all the things mentioned in that verse, do you not think that denigrates his work? Especially if he did it as he claimed in Exodus 20?
Man is not the product of evolution. Man is a special creation of God. We were created in the image and likeness of God. We are not the product of chance, but of purpose.
Now you are really acting silly...STOP being interpreted as GO, is just plain stupid, and frankly, it is insulting to the Bible to bring it down to that level...but its your choice to do so, not mine...
You interpret the Bible as you see fit..unless you can assert that you speak for God, all you have are your own personal interpretations...
You are not Gods spokeman on earth, to tell all the rest of us what the Bible 'really' means...you do not speak for God...
I didn't ask you to do any homework for me, as I have none to do nor have I had such work in quite some time.
But I don't think it is too much to ask that you support your statements with facts.
False dichotomy.
"Or do we have to have a half baked "scientific" theory in order to advance the human race ?"
No, you do not have to have that to advance the human race.
But you do need to have some sort of "scientific" theory to be able to teach an alternative in science class
Since you cannot possibly know how creation was carried out, however you envision it to have been carried out, is speculation...
Yes, I do realize that Christ was an active participant in the creation...but that still does not tell you or me or anyone else, the HOW of it being carried out...
You and I just disagree on this...
Wrong. It categorically accepts as a false premise the origin is exclusively Terran. (False cause, non-causa... informal fallacy.)
Like those arrogant "physists" who try to discover the nature of the Universe and those egotistical "geneticists" who try to understand the inner workings of the human organisms.
How DARE they spit in the eye of God! Better to adopt the Bible as the FINAL AND COMPLETE scientific text on matters best left to God.
Your interpretation.
My interpretation is that you've got God or the world in EVERY issue of life.
Evolution is just another of those issues.
"Let God be true, and every man a liar."
No theory in science can be proved.
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.
So now it's an 'affinity'. Okay...there's a powerful 'affinity' between Christianity and the Holocaust, and the murder, torture, and persecution of Jews for about 1000 years. Are you sure you want to play this game?
You can sputter and fume all you like, but those are facts.
Nice melodramatics, but you have no evidence whatsoever I've sputtered or fumed in my 'conversation' with you. Your credibility is further eroded.
"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.
Apparently you have nothing left but insults and condemnation.
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?
So many misleading assertions....I'll just go with this one....Your question "how does one arrive at the view that human beings have value and deserve to be free"...sorry, I'll have to answer it with questions, which are my answer...
Don't you think you have value and deserve to be free? And your loved ones? And why wouldn't you extend this belief to everyone?
My eyes would not come about by idly sitting by.
I've got a better chance of winning the PowerBall at 2 billion bucks.
So you should use willful ignorance to ensure that facts match your personal interpreation of data.
Whatever works. For what it is worth, it is Satan that laughs when people close their minds to knowledge. Being the Prince of Lies, he gets great pleasure out of twisting the Bible to actually get people to close their eyes.
Every time he gets someone to reject reality he laughs with delight.
You must provide many guffaws for him.
Boo hoo.
It is clear the famed "missing link" is not singular.
Do you believe Exodus 20:10?
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.