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.

[Michael.SF.]

Back up your claims.

I can't believe you are one of the one's challenging me on this. I just reviewed the thread where Ann Coulter is skewered by Darwinists sometimes mildly so, other times much more vehemently. Here are a number of threads to look at (BTW, many of them are from you):

46
62
105
159
161
162
184
209 (deleted)
215
224 (response by me to 209)
238
271

I only got half way through the thread, I am sure there are more.

[hellbender]

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

So what. Doesn't prove Hitler thought the Aryan was a special creation, unrelated to other human beings. Besides, Hitler knew it was good politics in a Christian nation to use Christian-sounding rhetoric, just as liberals are now frantically pretending to "reach out" to Christians. Hitler was no Christian.

Like begetting like does NOT prove fixity of species. "Like" is not "identical." It merely proves heredity. I repeat: the fact that offspring resemble their parents was well known to Darwin, and was one of the foundations of his theory.

"there were none because they didn't have a chance."

I see. So we have to postulate imaginary "true conservative" candidates who were mysteriously eliminated by evil fundamentalist plots, in order for your theory to work. There were only 2 candidates with a chance: Kerry and Bush, of whom Bush was far preferable to conservatives. The election was very close, and Jean-Francois would be president without the "fundie" vote.

[Michael.SF.]

I mention the issue of conservative politics because you guys sound so much like liberals that it's uncanny

Amen to that!

[Just mythoughts]

You need to 'enlighten' that poster who has been told otherwise.

There is something that really riles people about what Genesis actually says, but oh well that was Written would be the case. Christ did say these things 'need be', because the Heavenly Father is not going to force anybody to love Him, that is the purpose of this age, making choices.

[Oztrich Boy]

What is your name?

What is your quest?

What is your favourite colour?

questions three placemarker

[hellbender]

The Old Testament is filled with allusions to Christ. If one accepts that the writers were human, but inspired by God, it is entirely possible for them to record things whose future significance was missed at the time. There have been plenty of Jews who accepted that the OT prophesied about Jesus. Most such Jews joined the early Christian church, which was predominantly Jewish. (Yes, Adolf Hitler, whereever you are, Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish.)
Others have converted up to the present day.

[Michael.SF.]

the Creationists insult and attack them

I was referring to the Darwinists who attack, as well. Often with more vehemence then any creationists can muster, but with equal strength of belief, equal lack of respect and with demonstrably unwillingness to consider other possibilities or options.

See my post above to carolinaguitarman if you want evidence of such postings.

(I asked for a response to you to be deleted as I misread your comment)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

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

I wasn't down. It was you who was losing, and badly.

I didn't have to kick you either, you fell down of your own accord.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Listening to an atheist comment on the Scriptures is always entertaining."

I am not an atheist.

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

That is the Christian spin. The Jews, who wrote a good chunk of it, disagree.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Where did people say they hated her?

[music_code]

The Old Testament is filled with allusions to Christ. If one accepts that the writers were human, but inspired by God, it is entirely possible for them to record things whose future significance was missed at the time. There have been plenty of Jews who accepted that the OT prophesied about Jesus.

I agree completely.

[gondramB]

>>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?<<

Yes.
Yes.
I don't understand their joy in that either.
A friend, whom I lost, said talking me about religion was like talking to someone who believe professional wrestling is real.

I wish I'd been fast enough to suggest a better analogy.

[70times7]

I know what you mean. On the part of some evolutionists it is not just science, it is wrapped up with contempt for those who do not hold to their brand of faith. Their reaction is often visceral and hostile. Many in the school system, who don't have any substantial science background, none the less immediately identify a Christian as "the enemy" because of the current state of indoctrination.

For their early education our children were home schooled. The deck stacking and garbage we endured when they transitioned to public school was very unpleasant. My favorite was when we brought in independent testing (we hired a fully qualified proctor from a local organization) on one son that directly contradicted the teacher's "opinion". That was a real flying sparks time - fighting against an NEA wonk bound and determined to advance her contrived falsehood. We endured and survived.

But for our society as a whole, what is the result? You and I know it, but good luck getting many on the PH-pinglist to own up to it. Morality is no longer a constant, it is now what is “right to you”, or what can be imposed by law (same thing, larger group). Not a pleasant place to be. Is it germane to the discussion of the validity of evo theory? Arguably, no, and I understand that position. But it is damnably stupid to kick a table leg out from under society and then label as ignorant those who are concerned about the wobbling.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So what. Doesn't prove Hitler thought the Aryan was a special creation, unrelated to other human beings."

Sure he did. He saw every *race* as separate. The point was to make sure that these races didn't mix, as that would degenerate the *higher* races.


"Like begetting like does NOT prove fixity of species."

It does when you also say that they always will. There is no evidence that Hitler used Darwin.

"I see. So we have to postulate imaginary "true conservative" candidates who were mysteriously eliminated by evil fundamentalist plots, in order for your theory to work."

No, it was simple selection. Real conservatives, who understand the limits on government that the Constitution insures, don't have a chance to get nominated.

"There were only 2 candidates with a chance: Kerry and Bush, of whom Bush was far preferable to conservatives."

Given that choice I easily voted for Bush, and would so again. That doesn't mean that my choices were anything great.

"The election was very close, and Jean-Francois would be president without the "fundie" vote."

Or it wouldn't have been so close and John Scary wouldn't have had a chance in hell if people weren't turned off by the Luddite attitude of the religious Right.

[music_code]

Previously I wrote, "Christ is in ALL the Scriptures. He is the central point of the entire Bible."

You replied: That is the Christian spin. The Jews, who wrote a good chunk of it, disagree.

That is not 'Christian spin'. That is simply the truth. Forget about Christians and Jews. The Bible was written by God to mankind - the human race. The central point of God's message to man is salvation through Christ. This is pointed to via shadows and types in the OT and clearly revealed in the NT. Your refusal to accept this is simply blindness and error on your part. To accord some sort of mystical higher knowledge to the Jews as a people group (like comedian Lewis Black does in his HBO special "Screwed") is woefully misguided. The average person in the USA is Biblically illiterate, and this applies no less to the Jews than it does to any other racial or ethnic group.

[Oztrich Boy]

Fr. Patrick O'Connell who was resident in China at that time and who made a special study of the Peking affair

A Ra^ther distorted study

Review of Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis: a Study of the "Six Days" of Creation, The Origin of Man and the Deluge and Antiquity of Man Based on Science and Sacred Scripture; A Vindication of the Papal Encyclicals and Rulings of the Church on These Questions.By Fr. Patrick O'Connell, B.D

[Just mythoughts]

I hear you.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That is not 'Christian spin'. That is simply the truth."

It's the spin. The Jews certainly don't see it your way.

"To accord some sort of mystical higher knowledge to the Jews as a people group..."

I don't. I accept that they wrote Genesis and knew what it was supposed to say, and what it wasn't about (Christ).

What I don't do is accord some kind of mystical higher knowledge to those who want to see what isn't there in Genesis, like any mention of Christ.

[Just mythoughts]

"New Beginning Place-marker" Going to work in my 'garden'.

[Just mythoughts]

Ah now what does that number 8 mean in Biblical numerics???