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.
To be honest I have never seen a pro abortion thread here, but then I usually stay away from that subject, as it seems neither side will budge, kind of like the Israelis and the Palestinians.
>>Your beliefs are contradictory and thus unreasonable.<<
Thanks professor. Is this on the house?
Sorry, if you are that interested find them yourself. I am going to bed. Good night.
Only us Sanhedrins of Evolution can comment on Evolution! Sounds just like only The NY Times can comment on the NEWS. Your weakest argument yet, and that is saying something.
It has been shoved down our throats for 50 years by law, but we can't question it, let alone disagree with its lack of evidence.
Oh we cultists just discount the fact that there are no transitional evidence and we call anyone who questions that "Christians"!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
I think bray is just having a hard time taking some posters here seriously. ;)
Hate? au contraire The idea you are looking for is "saddened that she has chosen to pander to GOP's fundament."
And on some sites you will find more articles debunking the "theory" that Muslim terrorists crashed planes into buildings on 9/11 than supporting it. There is no shortage of willful ignorance.
With Professsor Boxen, the first one is always free.
>> To be honest I have never seen a pro abortion thread here<<
Me neither. I go to Harmony-central and other places for that. If I want the full $5 argument on Freerepublic, I have to get into darwiniac and animal lovers threads. Everyone agrees with me on all the other threads.
If you don't know the subject you can't speak to it.
I am sorry this comes as surprise to you. But it certainly partially explains your posts (the other part is clearly the alcohol talking).
Sleep it off and we'll let you sheepishly apologize later.
>>With Professsor Boxen, the first one is always free.<<
I owe you! This was fun, I'm going nighty night.
And for the record, I am NOT drunk. But this WAS fun!
Question it all you want in church. If you want to question it in science classrooms, you'll need some actual science.
Oh we cultists just discount the fact that there are no transitional evidence
This is of course ludicrously false.
IOW there are no such posts. I recommend you not post things less than truthful again.
Standard fare (again).
No actually well read, especially on WWII.
Another weak attack by someone who has no truth on his side. Fact is Hitler was a huge evolutionist/eugenicist as was Stalin and Mao.
I cannot understand how a Conservative could follow that myth w/o question. The holes are immense!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Shalom Israel
bray had enough for all of us (courtesy ping bray)
Um, bray, did you read #545 to you? The specimen is genuine and is an apparent transitional.
>> I cannot understand how a Conservative could follow that myth w/o question. The holes are immense!<<
That is a false premise and I demand you stop lying!!! Donuts have holes and I believe in them! :)
No, you didn't read anything, and then DECLARED them to be fakes, even though you were totally ignorant about what you were making declarations about.
You can insult Christians but they can't give it back, what a baby!
I haven't insulted anybody, and you have yet to show otherwise. You called me a liar, and you have yet to show where I lied. You remind me of a song called "Old Blevins" by the Austin Lounge Lizards.
(There's your insult, if you can figure it out)
If you want to believe in a bunch of rocks that is your business.
Rocks don't exist? Really? Wow! Who'd a thunk it?
BTW throwing garbage at a wall hoping something will stick only works in college, not the real world.
I am currently in college, and I don't know anybody who throws garbage at walls. Why would anybody throw garbage at walls, regardless of whether it will stick or not? Garbage goes in garbage cans, otherwise the squirrels take over.
>>The specimen is genuine and is an apparent transitional.<<
I absolutely LOVE this! The key word is "apparent". Learn it. Use it with impunity!
God's Word has not been very reliable. The Bible has numerous illogical inconsistencies and ridiculous "moralities". Scientifically, it is off the map. "Intelligent design" justifies Noah's Flood?
Noah's flood is not good science, and you know it.
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.