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.
May I ask what evidence is available to support your faith? Also, do you speak seriously or in jest? In regard to the latter I tend to think the latter, in which case your comments have little if anything to do with real life.
I have read them and shown them to be fakes, just like Evolution. You can insult Christians but they can't give it back, what a baby! If you want to believe in a bunch of rocks that is your business.
BTW throwing garbage at a wall hoping something will stick only works in college, not the real world.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Just throw the word and fake at google and you will get hundreds.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Like those arrogant "physists" who try to discover
They don't believe God's Word. They want answers so they 'try' to discover.....and denounce THE CREATOR of all with all their 'theories'. The Almighty is an All Knowing and All Seeing God - a truth some can't grasp but it is STILL THE TRUTH.
The Bible is FINAL and COMPLETE...And NEVER CHANGING! You nor anyone else not believing that isn't going to change that fact - and that includes DeadDarwin.
Those musings certainly don't qualify as science...
Just wanted to give an exact count, sanctified by being written down, passed down through tradition, and finally mistranslated by FitzGerald.
Please provide links to such assertions.
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.
No one said otherwise. The question at hand is the MECHANICS of that design. Those of us who believe in a Supreme God believe He created a rational Universe that followed rules He designed and instantiated. Those who need a more personal (and limited) God believe either that God put it together 6,000 years ago and created all the things we see within a few days OR, worse, He didn't have it all correct and needs to reach in and tweak it.
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?
A distinction without a difference. Evolving IS making.
Actually the Nazi Bible took all of the Jews out of it...
Duh...
as well as the cross which was replaced with a lance.
The swastika was/is a cross.
Hitler was a big follower of Eugenics and was attempting to make a Master Race through evolution.
First, eugenics is not evolution. And Hitler already thought the Aryans were a Master Race. He was trying to refine it and make sure it wasn't polluted and corrupted.
You don't really understand the TOE at all, do you?
Or time to toss another virgin into the cenote to gain Tlaloc's favor. The lack of cenotes in the Panhandle may contribute to the drought.
They don't believe God's Word. They want answers so they 'try' to discover.....and denounce THE CREATOR of all with all their 'theories'.
So, how is life in the year 1100?
The description of the arm is physiology.
The comments about its awesome uniqueness is at a minimum, wonder; but it might attain to philosophy, I guess, but I wouldn't think of it as such.
That it cannot be duplicated is simple fact.
You might enjoy reading The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. Section 5 contains a discussion of the reptile to mammal trasition. It is interesting that the website belongs to 
. These people use standard geology and biology to make lots of money prospecting for oil. If creationism were true, they'd use it instead.
"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! No truth-handler are you! 
You beg the question. "Saved" via your interpretation? Who knows how many people save themselves as non-believers. You offer only one prescription. Reality is that there are many paths. None lead to eternal bliss, because we are mortal.
"Enlightened by God"? You merely repeat the claim of every other church group seeking government support via tax benefits or using the government to promote faith-based views. There are so many claims to "know God's truth", and so many men getting rich on appeals to the faithful to promote 'faith agendas', and so many claims as to which god is true. And a lot of hypocrisy.
Since you were previously a Chaplin in the US Military, you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Your oath is to defend Art VI and the First Amendment. Your oath was not to defend the Bible.
And science god created heaven and earth! Talk about complete faith in science, don't ask just believe.
Did it evolve all at once with all its complexity or did it take millions of evolutions? This is the complete fraud of evolution. Unless it happened at once the animal would never survive so goodbye species.
Again, where is the fossil evidence of the transitional species?
Guess I just don't have enough faith to believe something with no proof, so I'll just believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Isreal
Which translation is most correct or are they all of equal correctness?
You should know better than I. I surpassed you - I found The Truth while you are still looking, discovering, evolving.
Decoupling placemarker ...
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.