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.
Darwinism is the only scientific theory, hence why it alone is taught in science textbooks. Intelligent Design is an untestable and vague explaination which makes no specific claims about the history of life or the mechanisms of it's change over time that can be tested.
Equally Intelligent Design of weather is not taught in school textbooks. Only naturalistic mainstream meteorology is taught. Even though Intelligent Design of weather could be true. It's just untestable.
And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him? (Mark 4:37-41 KJV)
Do you believe Gods create hurricanes, tornados and lightning?
Gods? No.
God? Yes.
Nothing is outside his control.
Or are you willing to believe in "mother nature" when it comes to meteorology?
Is "mother nature" your God?
Nature is in the hand of the Lord. By him all things consist.
You think Thor would be okay with that?
Is Thor your God?
There's a shortage of wise men too, no doubt. But the Panhandle is really flat (except for that big Canyon near Canyon.)
The most boring drive I know is through the Karst from Carlsbad NM to Santa Fe. No creeks to break the monotony; a few sink holes though. (This can be extended up to Wagon Mound, for that matter.)
Perhaps Karl Rove will lecture on the subject after he retires from Government Work; he was responsible for Katrina, according to some.
I don't think He's like that.
So, are you going to tell us how ID is testable?
Or should I cue the crickets?
That's a good point. I try to keep the fact that I am in college out of discussions, but since that is a major factor in my life right now it just ain't happening. I gave up on that. School is all that I think right now. It is all that I *can* think if I am going to pull this off. People see "college student" and immediately assume that I am some spoiled brat or something. They don't realize that I am 45 years old, and finally living out the dream of getting a university education, something that I have been trying to do for decades. One thing leads to another, and 'bam' I'm just some punk kid. One of those things, I guess...
God has a bad back, too?
How come when creationists complain about insults, they can't do it without including insults of their own?
You have shown quite a lot of hostility.
Is that your idea of witnessing?
(fake but accurate)
How old is the Earth?
I think you meant, a critique of the God of the Bible.
ARe you saying that accepting the ToE will damn you?
Doubtful.
I enjoyed your input! You are more than welcome!
Not for me. I accept both.
If this is the truth and I doubt it, why are the evolutionist so afraid of having both sides of the story told hmm?
If you are so right and if your theory is so correct, then you have no reason to object to open debate in a classroom.
Does your God have a physical body, and do you resemble Him?
Non-sequitur.
I don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, yet I do not presume to know more than God.
That is because there is no alternative scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth.
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.