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.
That's fine as long as it's not in science class.
So why are they afraid to debate both sides of the issue in a classroom?
Again, if it's so holy and correct, debate it, don't stifle debate.
"That's fine as long as it's not in science class."
No bullshit, that IS the place to debate it.
IN science class
Oh, but then there might just possibly be something to prove them wrong.
Can't have that now can we.
I understand why creationists want this to be debated in science classes; they know their views will never stand up to scientific rigor in an actual research environment so they hope to "poison the well," as it were, early on.
Then you are just as weak in your theory as the rest of them.
If you are afraid of debate, then there's something terribly wrong with your theory.
End of story.
So, God is like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes? Calvin ocassionally created armies of miniature snowmen just for the pleasure of destroying them in some imaginative way.
Wow. A non-answer. Do you know the definition of a scientific theory? Hint: it does not mean "guess." You don't know enough about this subject to even begin discussing it, let alone be making pronouncements upon it.
Then debate your theory in an open classroom if you are so correct.
Go ahead and ridicule, that's all you have left anyway. People are seeing through your bullshit finally and the "big words" no longer work.
Debate it if you're correct. Defend your position in front of others who can and will debunk your theories.
You won't tho
Why?
Because everyone of the rabid evolutionists are cowards.
Did you not read the post I sent to you this morning? High School biology does not teach enough detail for there to be any form of meaningful debate. Hell, you're a product of high school science classes and you know next to nothing on the subject, or indeed next to nothing about science whatsoever (you still haven't said whether you know what the scientific definition of "theory" is). Debating this subject at the high school level would be like asking the same students to debate the efficacies of various neurosurgical procedures.
Not to prolong this, but no I didn't read the book, I do read her columns and I seriously doubt it's of any higher quality than those. There's a difference between being funny and being a good thinker.
Sure. Just give us a scientific alternative.
Because everyone of the rabid evolutionists are cowards.
Standard CR/Ider fare. I'll toss it onto the stack with the rest of the isults.
I think I'll take a crack at it.
From the prospective of those who support evolution, ID is an end run around the supposed constitutional separation between church and state; and I think it is also. To pretend otherwise only lends suspicion to those who are suspicious. I disagree with that interpretation of the constitution, but that is another discussion. Evos also have a great deal of data that supports their position. This debate is not going to be won with the endless shallow peppered moth finch beak macro/micro discussions when the battle is way down in the trenches of cell structure and mechanics. Based on these things evos have concluded that some IDers are intellectually lazy and dishonest, and frankly, I tend to agree.
Onward to Kansas... From the evo perspective they believe they are being challenged for the minds of America's youth in their area of expertise by a group of zealots who are trying to subvert the system. Is there anyone here on FR who has watched liberals operate that does not understand "successive approximations to an ultimate goal"?
Connect the dots folks. If we Christians have faith is so weak that we cannot enter into honest debate about this issue then the problem doesn't rest with evolution. Is that to say that these "lovely" qualities are not present on both sides? Not at all; we have all read the exchanges here. But if truth does not win the day then we are no better than Pilot, willing to do and believe whatever is convenient for us. That must never be.
Those are some very sweeping claims. Could I have a few examples?
Such is your personal philosophy. The world actually works the way God designed it, and will continue to do so unto the elements dissolve are are reconstituted as He sees fit. This is what science continues to bear out albeit weakly and despite personal philosophies to the contrary. Science gains by leaps and bounds when it does not despise or neglect the Owner's Manual, namely, the biblical texts. It was during the Dark Ages those texts were obsucred. Darwinsim , like the NEA, would like to take us back in that direction. No thanks.
Your story has God moving the goalposts. He sounds like a creationist.
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.