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.
It sounds like this twit is a professor of history or sociology.
He should stick to his discipline and stop trying to criticize something he apparently no knowledge of.
The evidence for evolution is so overhwhelming that only a total fanatic or someone totally ignorant of the fact could reject it.
Unfortuantely there are a lot of these. Christian ayatollahs who view everything through a Biblical lens.
Perhaps they should stop driving cars as they aren't mentioned in the Bible.
"Really can you prove that, cause if there were not more than one man and one woman in that description given us in Genesis, then that makes 'creationists' part of the evolution theory."
Yes it does. That still doesn't change the fact that Genesis never mentions anybody else.
"Further Noah's flood was for a specific reason and it clearly say that "two of all flesh" were taken aboard that would include other humans outside of Noah and his family."
You had to rewrite Genesis to get that. The only humans mentioned were Noah and his family. NOTHING about anybody else.
"Noah was selected for a specific reason, obviously you skipped over that reason, and the generations are listed so we this day can trace that lineage to Christ."
That is the Christian spin on Genesis. The Jews (You know, the people who WROTE the book), don't rewrite it that way. There is nothing about Christ in Genesis.
"Okay...there's a powerful 'affinity' between Christianity and the Holocaust, and the murder, torture, and persecution of Jews for about 1000 years."
Christianity is rooted in Judaism, Jesus was a Jew, and almost all the early Christians were Jews, so no real Christian would ever hate Jews, and evangelical Christians today are strongly pro-Israel. Most of the people who risked or sacrificed their lives trying to save Jews from the Holocaust were professing Christians. Nazi anti-Semitism can be clearly traced to atheistic or pagan, romantic intellectual fashions in European academia. There are recent posts on this right here in FR.
"Don't you think you have value and deserve to be free? And your loved ones? And why wouldn't you extend this belief to everyone?"
The idea that I want to be free does not lead inevitably to a belief that others should enjoy freedom. Lots of people throughout history have enjoyed freedom and prosperity while exploiting or enslaving others. The idea that my neighbor is to be valued as myself is a Christian concept. Even people who are not Christians have been influenced by Christianity in this regard.
"Peking Man We now come to Peking Man (Sinathropus Pekinesis and Dr Black. Dr Black believed that man began life in China. Black took charge of excavation work near the hill at Peking. In 1926, and on the evidence of one tooth, Black showed a great deal of confidence in finding an ape-man. There was also a Chinese scientist on the field-work, and the infamous Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, who acted as unofficial observer. Reporting to France in 1929, Dr. Black found something which made the first official Peking Man. Was it a skull, or just a skull-cap ?
Teilhard de Chardin reported finding a skull, which closely resembled the great apes, while Dr Black however, announced a skull-cap. Whatever it was, Black constructed a model; not a cast but a model of the supposed skull. It took two years to make the model and according to a Father O'Connell, Malcolm Bowden and other observers, Dr Black did not comply with appropriate guidelines when constructing the skull. Black made the skull represent what he wanted it to represent. As excavations continued, two great heaps of ashes were uncovered, and in the ashes were the bones of numerous animals. Also mixed in the ashes were monkey-like skulls and Black claimed the monkey-like skulls were more of his Peking men.
Immediately, the world was informed that traces of fire had been found, and the picture of Peking Man emerged as a transitional creature just across the dividing line. A man yes - but just an extremely primitive man using stone tools, walking upright, living in a cave and using a fire for cooking. To scrutinise Peking Man, a famous authority of that time, Professor Eva Breuil visited the spot on Teilhard's invitation. When Prof. Breuil returned to France, he published a controversial article, showing the 'so-called' traces of fire not to be traces of fire but actually the remains of great furnaces. Despite Breuil's findings, Dr Black, Teilhard de Chardin and Dr. Pei published their own book - 'Fossil man in China', omitting Breuil's comments. Referring to this deliberate omission, historian Francis Vere said:- "one can only conclude Breuil's discoveries, being inconvenient to the cause, were deliberately suppressed." These traces of fire were really two enormous heaps of ashes. The heap positioned at the lower level was not fully uncovered. The heap on the upper level had the length of a football field, half the width of a football field, and even after those long years of compression, its height was that of a two-storey building. These were the remains of industrial furnaces, used in an industry of limestone burning, presumably for the building of the ancient city of Cambriolet, where Peking now stands. There were thousands of court stones, which had been transported from some other region of China. Stones with soot on one side - no doubt used in the lime-kilns. The cave that Black had referred to did not exist. On the hillside there were two levels from which limestone had been extracted. A landslide had covered everything and thus they were now described as caves.
What became of the monkey-like skulls mixed up with other bones in the ashes ? Marcellin Boule, the leading authority, was invited to visit the site and that he did. Boule's reaction was one of annoyance at having his time wasted on monkey skulls. Boule rebuked Dr. Black's theory outright. He referred to it as a "fantastic hypothesis". Boule's opinion was that real men had been at work at these furnaces and that the monkey-like skulls and the other bones mixed up in the ashes were the remains of food eaten by the workmen who had thrown the bones and skulls into the ashes. However, Boule's voice was not in tune with the evolutionists and media of his time. Boule's voice would have caused great damage to the 'missing link' picture being painted by the evolutionists of his day. Peking Man was vital to the perpetuation of evolutionary thought. Peking Man was firmly established, and Boule's diametric opposition to Peking Man caused him to be the subject of scorn and ridicule within the scientific profession. Boule was branded as 'just another fanatic'. The excavations at Peking continued until 1934, when on one memorable day, the bones of several humans were found, apparently crushed to death by a landslide.
By now Dr. Black was world- famous. The fossilised remains were delivered to Black's laboratory and he duly entered his laboratory to examine them. Later that day in March 1943, Black was found dead amongst the human bones. Teilhard de Chardin sent a report to France. He confirmed that human skulls and bones had indeed been found on the site despite the fact that three years later he then sent a second report, stating that no trace of real men had been found. (Teilhard de Chardin later abandoned his vocation as a Catholic Priest). He thereby flatly contradicted his earlier report. Why? It is quite certain that the bones of real men were found. Dr Black's position was filled by a Professor Weidenreich, who continued the excavation work. Weidenreich published a full account five years later on the findings of the human remains. Photos of the human skulls have been published.
Incidentally, every fossil bone of Peking Man has disappeared. Apparently, just after the war, the fossils were put on board an American ship and then disappeared. Another version is that the invading Japanese destroyed the fossils. However, Fr. Patrick O'Connell who was resident in China at that time and who made a special study of the Peking affair, wrote that that Dr. Pei carried on his work during the Japanese occupation and says that Dr. Pei had very good reason to destroy the fossils."
Fake but true, and I am supposed to go through the rest of your fakery?? Don't worry you still have the gummit forcing your religion on kids. That will never change.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Shalom Israel
"Christianity is rooted in Judaism, Jesus was a Jew, and almost all the early Christians were Jews, so no real Christian would ever hate Jews,..."
Hitler thought Jesus was an *Aryan*.
LOL here too! I was reading down through the exchanges and thinking the very same thing when I came to your reply.
CG - I surrender. I bow to your superior seriousness. Given where my tongue is and the laughing I'm doing it is best that I give up now - I really don't care for the taste of blood.
Nice observation. I'd never noticed that about the positions they take.
You trying to compare gravity to Darwin? Only proves that it is phylosophy rather than truth. Try to stick to proving evolution existed, we "know" gravity exists. Go jump off a cliff.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
I would like to see specific quotes from Hitler saying that Jews and Aryans were created separately, and that he believed in fixity of species. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I want to see the evidence.
I mention the issue of conservative politics because you guys sound so much like liberals that it's uncanny. You are willing to bash evangelicals (and in fact any Christians, or even any theists) in order to advance a single issue: the teaching of evolution in public schools. Without evangelicals, we would have John Kerry as President. They are an integral, essential part of the conservative coalition.
Moses the 'lawgiver' penned that Book of Genesis, and he was of the tribe of Levi and it was Moses that stood on the mount of transfiguration with Christ and Elijah. (Matthew 17:2 and Mark 9:2)
There were 12 tribes in case you have not read and each are listed in Genesis 49:1 starts with
"And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, "Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the LAST DAYS."
Now you might take the time to find out what the "original" Hebrew actually says in Genesis before you make claims you can't back up.
Oh think about this mentality teaching young children. We can began to get the picture as to why "God" cannot be allowed in their public school *system*. Government is their god and their religion is *system think* fenced away from the Heavenly Father and His creation.
Problem is that "GOD" has not been taught for decades and not one of these evolutionists will accept the responsibility for the state of the public school *system*.
Again, I'd like to see the evidence, from "Mein Kampf" or wherever. (Sounds like the "Christian Identity" philosophy.)
If Hitler really thought that, it could just show what a crackpot he was, like most Leftists. It probably shows that he (being a canny, deceptive politician) felt he had to accommodate his ideology to the fact that Germany had been Christian for centuries, and many Germans still were believers. So he had to do something to distract the people from the obvious fact that Jesus was a Jew.
The Nazis really didn't like Christianity, considering it a weakling's belief system, and profoundly contradictory of their racial and eugenic beliefs.
Oh pahleese, don't be an ass. If you have not seen them, then you have not been paying attention to the same threads I have. If you don't want to search and look for them, don't cop out by making false accusations against others. And just because I don't care to research the subject does not mean the statements are false. It simply means I was tired and not interested in discussing the subject further with you.
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.