Neither do 
They still spend life stoned
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.
Neither do They still spend life stoned
The Pythagorean Theorem has been shoved down our throats for far longer. The US Constitution has been shoved down our throats for 215 years.
Could you explain why you object to them?
Scarecrow placemarker ...
It shows that there is no basis in Scripture for a Theory of Gravity, and that scientists just keep getting grant money in the elite establishment.
I'm sure Satan believes it's a science book too.
So you think your body is similar to God's?
Pride?
Look in the mirror.
Who claims they know more than God?
The formation of the planets has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Nor does the origin of first life.
The Bible offers no good science, no good morality. It is improbable that its claims to "truth" are superior to other claims. The Bible is particularly weak in medicine, geology, physics, chemistry, and biology.
Did I say I THINK...I was made in the image...
Did I???
Juvenile post.
Anyone that says His Word isn't true. Why did you NEED to ask that question??
Are you saying Christians aren't included in the group of rational people?
The only nonsense is darwinism.
"Every one of the above are theories. Nothing more. None of them are absolute and should be treated as such."
Thank you, you nailed the real problem on the head right here.
Only Darwinists think that their "theory" is the one that should be taught.
The problem is, they teach it as if it's the gospel and it cannot be refuted.
Not all do granted, but the vast majority do.
Darwin was just as correct as Neville Chamberlain was.
The scientists all came to God and told Him they could now create life.
God told them to do it.
The scientists started gathering dirt.
God said:"Get your own dirt".
...Perhaps it can occur in the absence of any creator. Kind of like...the weather. Do you believe Gods create hurricanes, tornados and lightning? Or are you willing to believe in "mother nature" when it comes to meteorology? You think Thor would be okay with that?
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.