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.
Plants are another of the wonderful creations of God.
Have you seen anyone create a living plant out of scrap elements, yet?
"The mountains and hills before you will break into singing, and all the trees of the fields will clap their hands."
"People are seeing through your bullshit finally and the "big words" no longer work."
Here, this will help you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/
It appears that you are not yet a believer. It is not certain that you ever will be one. It is known which you will end up.
Can you see yourself being led by God into faith in Him?
Jesus said, "I came into the world to testify to the truth."
Then you don't subscribe to the evolution I am talking about. It is mechanistic and Godless.
Yes another Darwinist that doesn't want both sides of the story told in schools.
The only recourse any of you have is ridicule and stonewall, because if you had a leg to stand on you would support free and open debate and discussion about the so called theory of evolution.
"Reason is the greatest faculty people possess; any abandonment of the Mind is a moral treason. "
Are these just words that sounded nice for your profile or is reason really something you believe in?
If it is then you should have no problem with students "reasoning" both pro and con of the Darwinist Theory.
Thankfully more and more schools are choosing to do just that, and not take Darwin's word uncritically anymore.
Now, now... to be fair, in the story the scientists made an incorrect assumption as to where the goalpost was, and you defended their mistake. tisk, tisk! By your own definition you are a traitor. To your credit, you got the part about God being a creationist correct. ;-)
Are you a teacher?
Do you have children?
How old are you?
Perfectly good multiple specimens.
Well then, shouldn't it be "Lucys"? aye, there's the rub!
"Now, now... to be fair, in the story the scientists made an incorrect assumption as to where the goalpost was, and you defended their mistake."
God said they would be creating life, not matter. Then he changed it and made the scientists have to create matter too.
In the story, God moved the goalposts.
"By your own definition you are a traitor."
Um, no.
"To your credit, you got the part about God being a creationist correct. ;-)"
Only because he moved the goalposts, like all good creationists have to.
LOL touchy, touchy, touchy!!!!!
You obviously don't understand what I'm talking about. Your response just proved that.
I never mentioned anywhere in my post comparing ID or Creation with Darwinism
I said debate the Pros AND Cons of Darwinism.
The Ridicule started on the Darwin side of the aisle as it always does. I merely responded in kind.
If you don't object to both pros and cons of Evolution to be discussed in ANY grade, then you are the exception to the rule.
But it has to start early, otherwise it's simply indoctrinating young children to accept it as fact.
"LOL touchy, touchy, touchy!!!!!"
Your bather DOES become tiresome, yes. You obviously had nothing important to say.
Since we are trinitarian, His name is Jesus, and yes, Jesus has a resurrection body.
The Apostle Thomas said that he wouldn't believe unless he could touch Jesus' wounds. Jesus permitted, but said, "Blessed are those who see and believe, but more blessed are those who do not see and yet believe."
You are a grouchy man. My guess quite OLD and angry with some religious organization and are quite determined to do whatever you possibly can to get even with the Heavenly Father.
Maybe you need a nap.
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.