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.
Good thing they other half weren't English. (Sorry, Coyoteman, I just had to).
Typos happen. I saw it shortly after it posted, but no way to correct it then. (Actually one of my early degrees is in English.)
Are you going to elaborate on this at all?
What flaws? Describe them.
Did any one say "I HATE ANN COULTER", maybe not. But the message was loud and clear, especially in # 209, which the moderator's agreed to delete.
Give it up. You asked for links you got them, including your own words, or maybe you just do not realize how your words come across.
Accurately insulting someone's research skills is not the same as hating them. Ann should not be compared to Al Frankin on her writing about evolution. Frankin is much more careful.
As I read scientific papers and interviews, I am impressed with how anti-God some of the interviewees are. Their scientific view is what should interest people not their comments about God.
Piltcown man, Lucy, Spotted moth, Kennewick man, etc.
Kennewick man? You're kidding! That is a standard 9000 year old human (not fossil) from the banks of the Columbia River.
I challenge you to name one thing about Kennewick that is fake.
An interview is one thing, research is another. I would be surprised to find any opinion concerning any god or gods in any research paper. Can you cite specific scientific research?
No, it doesn't say why. But, at that time nobody of faith could do anything without animal sacrifice, so we might assume that they would continue that practice aboard the Ark. For food they would have grain, milk. Fresh veggies would have been a problem.
Just another manic Monday?
LOL! More on this latter, but in the meantime, which site did you copy this text from? Thanks.
Also in the meantime, how do you explain the majority of creationists (e.g. ICR, AIG) who insist that Archaeopteryx is (not forged and is) simply a bird and not a reptile at all?
Again, if Archaeopteryx is in no wise transitional between reptiles and birds, then why doesn't it fall CLEARLY into one category or the other? Why do some antievolutionists look at it and say it's not transitional because it's just a reptile, while others look at it (incl features beyond the supposedly forged feathers) and say it's not transitional because it's just a bird? How can this be?
Well, obviously it can be because Archaeopteryx is a transitional form, but I mean how could it be if it were not?
Kelp salad?
Actually, CG's knowledge about evolutionary theory is pretty solid for a lay person, IMO. How's yours? Are you aware that among professionals in the field that the validity of evolutionary theory is really considered to be a closed case, and that most of the 'debating points' that are considered are really only misunderstandings about the theory? (This is why they aren't 'debated' by practicing scientists.)
Who knows what would be growing down in the bilge. The fumes from that would be noxious in an open ship, but in a sealed barge they would become ill barring miracle.
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.