Ignorance and ignorant people.
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.
"You are a grouchy man."
Coming from YOU, the woman who gets grumpy at everything, that's hysterically funny! Thanks for the laugh! :)
"My guess quite OLD..."
And you would be quite wrong, as you usually are.
"and angry with some religious organization..."
Wrong again.
"and are quite determined to do whatever you possibly can to get even with the Heavenly Father."
You really need to get out more.
Please don't post to me again with your mindless drivel, or I'll get the Germ Theory after you! :)
Most people accept Darwinism and just shrug off the idea of intelligent design. They may not readily accept ID because of the pervasiveness of the former idea, but they don't get angry when ID is brought up. I've heard them say things like "That's interesting.." or "hm, I never thought of that..."
This is not the case with devotees to Darwin. They are vehemently opposed to anyone pointing out flaws or offering the alternative point of view, almost to the point of being rabid.
No matter. None of them can touch me.
There were witnesses to the resurrection.
Ignorance and ignorant people.
"Well at least I got out of you an 'age' frame!!!!!"
Yes, I am not *quite old*. That really pegs things down...
"There appears to be personal issues with the devotees of evolution."
The only one with personal issues is you, issues you find it oddly important to share with everybody. :)
Now, go troll someone else. You obviously only pinged me to try to annoy me (though in truth you just made me laugh as you always do). :)
Ah so the "Carolina" part of you is a pretend, 'Good morning, how are you kind of thing.'
PROVE I HAVE REWRITTEN ANY PART OF THE BIBLE!!!!! I won't take offense cause your accusation says more about you than it does me.
You obviously do not have a clue what is actually Written in Genesis and would not believe it if you did. You got a pretend fantasy to protect.
1. Wait for the end.
2. Run a lab test to see if any living thing can spontaneously generate out of a non-living thing?
3. Engage a group of experts to create living material from non-living, basic elements.
4. Find a mass of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that suggests a designer.
You'd better hope not. But I will let God answer that question:
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11 KJV)
Religion should be taught at home or in a private school.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The education of children is NEVER religiously neutral. It is impossible.
So....when government does NOT include God in it curriculum, it is teaching all children that religion is shameful and must be hidden like a bathroom activity.
Can you admit that the teaching of evolution will have non-neutral religious consequences for the captive, forced attendance children in government schools?
"Ah so the "Carolina" part of you is a pretend,..."
No. The *thoughts* part of you is though. :)
"PROVE I HAVE REWRITTEN ANY PART OF THE BIBLE!!!!!"
My my, you're getting touchy. Is this your *better* side? :)
You said that there were people who survived the flood other than Noah's family. That's all fine and good... but that isn't what the Bible says.
Now, go away and troll someone else. You're getting boring really fast.
"You obviously do not have a clue what is actually Written in Genesis..."
There's nothing about 2 Adams or about anybody but Noah's family surviving the Flood.
what are YOU so afraid of? All your Evo evidence is a shame, so lets open a discussion. ID evidence (to me):
2nd Law of thermodynamics - nothing becomes more complex without energy and intelligence
no evidence for evolution
common sense that we could not have randomly developed from a fish or worm.
The association between evolution and totalitarian socialism can't be denied, and you make no attempt to deny it. You just go off on a tangent, drawing a caricature of what I said, and bringing up an issue I never mentioned--fluoridation. Fluoridation is not a big issue to me, but it does seem that artificially introducing fluoride into public water supplies is a typical collectivist program. Anyone who wants fluoride can get his own in toothpaste or other topical products, but no--elitists assume that people are too dumb to take care of themselves. They need to be force-fed.
As for conspiracy theories, one of the main issues with me is that the evo-freaks think a handful of anti-evo citizens, mostly in rural areas, are part of a grand fundamentalist plot posing a deadly threat to American science. That's hyperbole at best.
I don't think Hitler had any problem with the idea that Jews and "Aryans" had a common ancestry. He thought the Jews, Gypsies, Negroes, and other races were inferior and degenerate. He also favored euthanasia to cleanse the gene pool of birth defects and other "undesirable" elements.
I suppose you think Hitler believed in "special creation" of Aryans? You guys need to get over your obsession with Darwin and study the intellectual history of socialism. This is supposed to be a conservative, political forum, after all.
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.