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.
He said it took him SIX DAYS. It was a "work". He rested when it was complete.
A God that could stand outside the Universe (or all Universes as it were) and design every little tiny aspect is a God that is way too awesome and uncomprehendable.
Most of the evos on this forum ridicule the idea that God designed every single atom in the universe. They insist that at best God created Hydrogen and then went to sleep.
The God of the Bible created and designed everything even down to that hand that everyone on this thread wants to ridicule as being just an accident of nature.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. (Psalms 139:14 KJV)
Made. Do you believe that? Are we fearfully and wonderfully made, or are we typically and naturally evolved?
"What are Darwinists so afraid of?"
Well, in my case, I'm afraid of higher taxes, religious fanatics like those in the Party of God (the Hezb'Allah), and Hillary Clinton.
You are correct, the Pastafarian movement is small today. This is no impediment. Christianity began with a prophet and a few apostles. Mormonism began with just Joseph Smith; Christian Science started with just Mary Baker Eddy. Pat Robertson started out small, and today gets $130 million per year. Being small at the beginning leads to rich rewards later.
There are no credible sources. In this regard, Pastafarians are like the Discovery Institute, and 'intelligent design'. The Flying Spahetti Monster movement is based on the creed that "we don't need no friggin' evidence, we just make it up as we go along."
However, the Pastafarian faith is attracting adherents and growing at three (3) times the rate of Southern Baptists.
It would be inappropriate for me to speak on behalf of the personal beliefs of other Pastafarians, but in general we recognize unintelligent design when we see it, and we have little faith in either ancient scripts or theories of eternity.
Try reading all of the responses to it, not just the last line of the last one. BTW, does your family have as many veterans/servicemen/servicewomen as mine does? If it does, or even if it doesn't, don't you think that what Fester wrote was downright offensive, and totally deserving of a "stuff it"? Trying to claim that other people are serving my country when I am not, when I have, and I come from a family that has a very long and proud military tradition?
When somebody says something like that without knowing anything about the person whom they are saying it to, the response is usually a bit more aggressive than "stuff it". I was showing a bit of restraint (which wasn't easy), and trying not to get an "Admin-Moderator" generated time-out (or worse).
Incidentally, Fester isn't normally like that, and neither am I. We have had quite a number of discussions, sometimes going on for days.
I can agree with that. By way of example, it describes the 10 northern tribes during the days of the Kings of Israel.
What happens when some of those "geniuses" create something we cannot get rid of???
(You don't want to go there, because the idiots already have...)
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isaiah 45:23 KJV)
Not a lot of wiggle room there. Whether in worship of his mercy and glory or in fear of his impending judgment, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW.
Congratulations! You finally found an insult! Of course, you are the one who made it...
Now where did they hide all those millions of transitional species??
They're not hidden, although I think that "millions" is a bit over the top. Nobody has claimed "millions" of transitional species either. Quit making stuff up.
They have all been published. There have been many posts right here on FR discussing them. Try actually reading the information that others have posted. Try clicking on the links. I am not going to re-post what others have already posted, only to have you stick your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALALALA".
Books are technology just like software and movies. Claiming that code and DVDs are divinely inspired would be perceived to be crazy, and I've always been confused why books receive special treatment.
Anyway, what seems to be at issue here is not evolution per se, but the believed inerrancy of religious texts.
Thanks, I thought I was right. (I'm a little tentative on these threads... the slightest misspeak and you get leaped on from every direction.)
:-)
Oh I don't know.
Perhaps such things as the regeneration of the Taliban in Mayberry, a replay of the Spanish Inquisition, or a reprise of the persecution of Copernicus.
Beyond that, nothing much.
Re 378: Your point is what?
Good thing they other half weren't English. (Sorry, Coyoteman, I just had to).
Excuse me, but could you provide a link to the source from which your citation on the feathered reptile was copied? Thanx ...
Naw. It's just an occasional blip I like to toss at those who think the physical universe popped up of its own accord and then demand the title "scientist by law."
Actually the Nazi Bible took all of the Jews out of it as well as the cross which was replaced with a lance.
Hitler was a big follower of Eugenics and was attempting to make a Master Race through evolution.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Must be time to curse the rain god, since prayer hasn't helped.
The eye evolved as did everything else.
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.