What are Darwinists so afraid of?

worldnetdaily.com ^ | 07/27/2006 | Jonathan Witt

[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.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Or it could mean he believed in a warped version of Christianity, one that speaks to his depravity.

I see no evidence he didn't believe what he said.

[Michael.SF.]

Surely the Darwinists protest too much?

They are overly sensitive on the subject, that is a certainty.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If you have not seen them, then you have not been paying attention to the same threads I have."

If they exist you can provide the links. Else, you are just making it up. To quote someone from this very thread, "Don't cop out by making false accusations against others."

:)

[Fester Chugabrew]

Real life, IMHO means what we live and experience now . . .

May I assert with a fair amount of confidence, then, that no airborne spaghetti critter has yet become manifest in your life and experience, with the exception of your imagination? Intelligent design has been part of my life and experience from the start, having been demonstrated by the consistencies, causes, and effects that make for an intelligible universe, accompanied by a well-attested text explaining in simple terms where we came from and where we are going. For some reason Spaghetti critters do not enjoy the same amount of confidence, with the exception of my imagination. I would like for you to produce one person who seriously believes in such an entity.

[gondramB]

>>"Moses the 'lawgiver' penned that Book of Genesis,"

No he didn't. There were many many hands that wrote that book. None of them mentioned 2 Adam's or more than Noah's family surviving the Flood though. :)<<

The bible is clear that moses wrote the Pentateuch - the scroll that was divided in then second century BCE into the first five books of the bible. Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain explicit references to the Moses' authorship.

In the New Testament, the Gospels of Mathew, Mark Luke and John all contain quotes from Jesus indicating he considered Moses to be the author.

But Moses dies before the end of book five. This is sometimes explained that his death and what came after was revealed to him but the simpler explanation is that others worked on the scroll too. That's what I believe.

[Just mythoughts]

Genesis 1:26 And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, and after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon earth."

27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and *REPLENISH* the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

v 31 And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was *VERY GOOD*. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1-3 A day of rest

Genesis 2:4 These are THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND OF THE EARTH when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

NOW PAY ATTENTION!!!!!

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and ever herb of the field before it grew:

for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,


and there was NOT a man to till the ground.




I guess then these that make that false claim that Christ is NOT mentioned in Genesis ignore Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; "It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel."

Now the bruising of His heel has happened Christ has been crucified, but that head of the serpent has not yet been bruised!!!!!

[Michael.SF.]

Can you read? I was tired I went to bed. That makes me a liar?

Geeze, show a little class, if you have any.

[hellbender]

I don't see any reference to special creation here.
Merely saying like begets like doesn't imply fixity of species. It simply implies heredity. Darwin believed that like begat like, that traits were inherited. Everybody believes that. Big deal.

"conservative means you tell the truth."

Oh. So thats the definition of "conservative" you would find in any reference book? (And of course, "truth" is what you zeolots say it is.)

"Without evangelicals, we may have had a conservative as president."

Please tell us who the real "conservative" candidate (running in a major party, and having a chance to win) was in 2004.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"NOW PAY ATTENTION!!!!!"

Are you a teacher?

Do you have children?

How old are you?

"I guess then these that make that false claim that Christ is NOT mentioned in Genesis ignore Genesis 3:15"

He's not there, as the Jews (who wrote the book) will tell you too.

"Now the bruising of His heel has happened Christ has been crucified, but that head of the serpent has not yet been bruised!!!!!"

That's the Christian rewrite.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I don't see any reference to special creation here."

The Aryan was God's creation, according to Hitler.

"Merely saying like begets like doesn't imply fixity of species."

Sure it does.

"Oh. So thats the definition of "conservative" you would find in any reference book? (And of course, "truth" is what you zeolots say it is.) "

Honesty is a part of it, yes.

"Please tell us who the real "conservative" candidate (running in a major party, and having a chance to win) was in 2004."

That's my point exactly; there were none because they didn't have a chance.

[Just mythoughts]

Oh so where is that accusation again that I rewrote the Bible????

I will pay attention to the Heavenly Father through His only Begotten Son and what He inspired His servant Moses to pen.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Can you read?"

Can you?

"was tired I went to bed. That makes me a liar?"

Don't cop out by making false accusations against others.

"Geeze, show a little class, if you have any."

Back up your claims.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Oh so where is that accusation again that I rewrote the Bible????"

You did. You invented more than one Adam, you invented there being people other than Noah's family on the Ark.


"I will pay attention to the Heavenly Father through His only Begotten Son and what He inspired His servant Moses to pen."

Moses didn't write Genesis; it had multiple authors.

[gondramB]

>>I guess then these that make that false claim that Christ is NOT mentioned in Genesis <<

1. There are clear references to the Messiah to come.

2. But those references could mean God can look like a man or that he had angels and other creations - I don't see anything that specifically means Jesus is mentioned in Genesis.

3. I know this is an old discussion as Christians have interpreted many passages to show that God has always been triumvirate.

4. Personally, I don't need those arguments to believe that an omnipotent God could have a son he sent to earth and a spirit that guides us.

[Tokra]

Watch how anyone who disagrees will be insulted and attacked for even asking the question.

Just which disagreement do you mean?

When anyone tries to defend evolution or question creationism - the Creationists insult and attack them.

Is that what you mean? If so - you are quite correct.

[70times7]

Yeah, yeah... kick me while you are down...

[music_code]

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.

Listening to an atheist comment on the Scriptures is always entertaining. It's like listening to a 5-year-old give his opinions on the stock market.

Christ is in ALL the Scriptures. He is the central point of the entire Bible.

[hellbender]

Jesus didn't say the rain fell equally on just and unjust. Might as well get the quotation right. Any Christians know that the answer to a request is quite likely to be "no." Even Jesus prayed in Gethsemane that he be spared his coming ordeal, but that he would accept God's will in the matter. As usual, he is the model for Christians on that issue. Christians do not automatically assume God will do their bidding; that would violate His omnipotence, and make us God.
Just what pleasure do you get out of mocking Christians, or "fundies" as you so cleverly call them? How does it benefit you, or anyone else, for that matter?

[Skooz]

Listening to an atheist comment on the Scriptures is always entertaining. It's like listening to a 5-year-old give his opinions on the stock market.

True. So very true. Ignorant, yet always entertaining.