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.
"Were they all Jewish? The Gentiles (Greek) contributed many members to the early Church."
The disciples were commanded to preach the Gospel, "first to the Jew, then the Gentile." Many of the first converts, even in Greek cities, were Jewish. There were many Hellenized or Romanized Jews, like Paul, who was a Roman citizen. Of course, many Gentiles did come into the fold very early, even during the lifetime of Jesus.
Maybe just start listing the scientific assumption that must be accepted in order for Creationism to be true?
I am reminded of a story about Churchill (WSC) and Teddy Roosevelt (TR), who never could stand WSC, and TR's daughter. When asked why her father detested WSC so much her simple reply was 'Because they are so much alike'.
That is the way it seems to be with some of the Darwinists (note I said SOME) and virtually all of the leftist AntiCoulterists. The main reason they hate Ann so much is that she reflects back so much of what they are, but she manages to use a much higher level of intellect against the primary arguments espoused by the leftist cretins.
The left simply cannot stand having their own mud thrown back on them, or to have one of their vested own attcked, when one does they turn blue with rage and throw back everything they can against anyone who dares attack them or the beliefs they hold dear. They seem to hold a special place of detest-ability for women, thus:
Paula Jones = Trailer Park Trash
Katheryn Harris => Too much make up
Ann Coulter => too skinny, hateful, Nazi
The list goes on, but I think you get the point.
Or do you?
Those are pithy and a bit sarcastic, but not insulting.
And the first couple appear to be pointed at Ann, not the posters.
Making the obesrvation that it is foolish to get scientific information from a political pundit is not insulting.
Now, do you want me to post samples of CR/Ider's "love of their fellow brothers" as they walk in Jesus' steps?
Piltdown is a wonderful example of a scientific success. Unlike religion, including Christianity, science has methods and structures to detect fraud. Since fraudulent data have already been excluded from the scientific body, it is no longer at issue. Therefore it is not "fake."
Sola Scripture - the only 2 assumptions are basically contained in this latin statement meaning God is not a liar and His Word contains all truth needed for mankind. The truth and meaning of the Holy Scriptures are self-explanatory and self-defined.
Just because they don't explain all the knowledge that mankind has attained does not invalidate them - this is actually done for our own protection from ourselves. In fact, it was the explosion of mankinds knowledge that caused the tower of Babel and it was by God's great mercy and grace that the languages were introduced and mankind disperced from one another - preventing their own untimely destruction through new technologies possibly even nuclear technology. Furthermore, Revelation states that the end-times will have to be shortened to also prevent mankind from complete and total self-destruction.
Unless or until the next evolution fraud comes to light anyways...
Ann has termed the NY Times to be traitors, who should be shot and has expressed the highest degrees of contempt for them and a poster states that Ann is the same as the NYT. You state this is not insulting?
You and I have a very different definition of what an insult is, as such, I see no point in continuing the conversation, but I will wish you well and hope you enjoy yourself.
Yes we do. I think insulting the person doing the posting is an insult. I think insulting a political pundit to be commentary.
Probably why you CR/Iders do so much insulting. You don't know what you are doing.
Of the next physics fraud (cold fusion anyone?) or the next chemistry fraud (got an additive that will make your car get 100 MPG?)
Scientific frauds happen. So do other types. The difference is that science has structures to ferret them out and, once discovered, excludes the data from the body.
Not so religion. Scientology continues to operate in the open. As does the LDS.
If you're truly interested, you can find them just like I did. If you're interested in merely trying to create an online argument, I won't participate.
The fact is there are some big problems with Darwinism/Evolution, whatever you want to call it. And my previous point remains, to wit:
Good luck to you, if you're truly interested in finding the flaws in the theory.
Interesting that a day later and several hundreds of posts and the pro-evolution crowd continues with the ID/creation drumbeat. Please re-read the article - I'm only looking for a discussion regarding the assumptions and problems found in the related evolutionary theories.
The article is only proposing that an open and honest presentation of facts and lack thereof be taught in public schools. This is not meant to be a defense for ID/creation nor advocacy for same.
I think the best place to start would be with a complete definition of both the Darwinian and Evolution theories along with a complete overview of what these theories predict. Feel free to include proven, un-proven, and failed predictions.
Who do you think the designerS were?
Same reason we don't debate astrology in physics. We could. Sure it might open some lively debates and critical thinking. But worthwhile as part of science education?
In light of this line from your profile page:
The more I've learned Biblically, the more I have come to accept fundamentalism (accepting God's Word as complete and true) which also means I believe in a YEC (Young Earth Creation).lets start with the ideas of 1) an old earth and 2) no global flood at about 2350 BC. If either of these ideas can be shown to be incorrect then the theory of evolution has a problem (as do most other branches of science).
My guess is that you will find huge amounts of "evidence" for a young earth and a global flood, but won't be able to see the evidence for evolution.
While you quote the deceived Robert Heinlein, a mere prideful mortal and pawn of satan; I'll quote The Lord God, the giver of life and sing praises to Him.
Psalm 9
1 I will praise you, O LORD, with all my heart;
I will tell of all your wonders.
2 I will be glad and rejoice in you;
I will sing praise to your name, O Most High.
3 My enemies turn back;
they stumble and perish before you.
4 For you have upheld my right and my cause;
you have sat on your throne, judging righteously.
5 You have rebuked the nations and destroyed the wicked;
you have blotted out their name for ever and ever.
6 Endless ruin has overtaken the enemy,
you have uprooted their cities;
even the memory of them has perished.
7 The LORD reigns forever;
he has established his throne for judgment.
8 He will judge the world in righteousness;
he will govern the peoples with justice.
9 The LORD is a refuge for the oppressed,
a stronghold in times of trouble.
10 Those who know your name will trust in you,
for you, LORD, have never forsaken those who seek you.
11 Sing praises to the LORD, enthroned in Zion;
proclaim among the nations what he has done.
12 For he who avenges blood remembers;
he does not ignore the cry of the afflicted.
13 O LORD, see how my enemies persecute me!
Have mercy and lift me up from the gates of death,
14 that I may declare your praises
in the gates of the Daughter of Zion
and there rejoice in your salvation.
15 The nations have fallen into the pit they have dug;
their feet are caught in the net they have hidden.
16 The LORD is known by his justice;
the wicked are ensnared by the work of their hands.
Higgaion.
17 The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.
18 But the needy will not always be forgotten,
nor the hope of the afflicted ever perish.
19 Arise, O LORD, let not man triumph;
let the nations be judged in your presence.
20 Strike them with terror, O LORD;
let the nations know they are but men.
Selah
I will praise HIM for The Lord God is worthy of our praise!!
For your future reference.
First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can not be created nor destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:
E = MC2
In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (M) times the square of a constant (C). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instance after the Big Bang when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified.
Third Law of Thermodynamics
The third law of thermodynamics states that if all the thermal motion of molecules (kinetic energy) could be removed, a state called absolute zero would occur. Absolute zero results in a temperature of 0 Kelvins or -273.15° Celsius.
Absolute Zero = 0 Kelvins = -273.15° Celsius
The Universe will attain absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space. The current temperature of empty space in the Universe is about 2.7 Kelvins.
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.