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.
because there is much scientific evidence for creationism and ID and numerous scientists that support them. The dna code which is more complex than a computer code is just one of the amazing things that points to a designer.
You obviously haven't heard about the monkeys and their typewriters.
Apparently there are quite a few of them. ;)
I have that on my computer, also! It is good.
The internet is a great thing for the Truth, but not so good for Darwiniacs. All the kings men and all the kings horses couldn't pur Evolution together again.
You would think with the millions of scientists trying to find a real missing link it would be found if it existed.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
Duck...weave....dodge....jump...evade...misdirect...
I'm gonna say it right now!
I love your tag line!
Translation, we can't overcome the Truth!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
e-sword is 1000 times faster than the internet and it's FREE!!!!!
Plants need specific wavelengths of light for photosynthesis to occur. Production is best if the entire leaf is getting hit square on by the sun. Plants turn their leaves toward the sun. Have you ever wondered why, or how, they know which direction to turn to? Do they have eyes like you?
Translation, we can't overcome the Truth!
Well, I can cliche, too...You can't handle the truth.
What you believe in your personal faith is your business, whether it has to do with ancient texts or modern televangelists. If, for you, belief in "live forever with Him" is comforting, go for it.
This is not science. Science is about how the world actually works, independent of religion. Science is not about miracles or morality. It is descriptive. The concept of evolution shows--on the basis of evidence--that life on this planet evolved via natural processes.
I note a lot of hypocrisy from those that object to the scientific method, methodological naturalism. The objectors depend on this every time they go to a doctor. They do not expect miracles or intervention from 'the designer' to help them with illnesses.
Evolution may give IDists high blood pressure, but, in general, exercise, observing the real world, a healthy diet, is good for both the mind and the heart.
Darwin as the anti-christ will not do much for the disabilities of agedness or family problems.
You didn't answer my question.
But the internet is convenient! I use biblegateway, bible.org and a host of sites on my friends computers all over the country as well as my home and work computers. If I am at a computer anywhere that is hooked up to the internet, my tools are there waiting for me.
Believe my statments, not your false conclusions. I mean exactly what I say, not what I "seem to confirm".
It's never a straight response with you, is it? You can't even answer my question.
Is that all you have to offer to the discussion? Insults and blanket and false assertions?
Standard CR/Ider fare. We offer science, argumentation, links, facts. You offer platitudes, insults, ignorance, verses.
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.