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.
There were not a lot of publicly avowed atheists in those days. The fight against slavery was largely led by Christians such as evangelical William Wilberforce in England. Of course, there were self-described Christians on both sides of the Civil War in this country. However, there can be little doubt that the altruism inspired by Christianity was crucial to abolition of slavery. Slavery continues in the Muslim world to this day.
Incidentally, can you name how many hospitals, schools, and other philanthropic works were founded by atheists? There are hundreds, if not thousands, founded by Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, including most of the elite Ivy League schools, now bastions of the secular left.
Just a clarification. Are you, with this statement, denying all transitionals that scientists have found?
You wont find any based on Biology, unless there are serious flaws in the argument. The only arguments against evolution I have seen that were based on the Laws of Thermodynamics were based on a total lack of understanding of those laws. The only arguments I have seen based on the fossil record were founded in severe misinterpretations of the fossils, quote mining and misquotation, or outright fraud (Paluxy Man-Tracks).
OK. I'll start with this one. The postulate that natural selection operating on random genetic fluctuations produced all the organisms in the fossil record can never be tested rigorously, because most of the organisms are extinct, and there was no intelligent life to describe and analyze the process in (say) the Paleozoic. This means that Darwinian macroevolution (speciation) will forever remain unprovable by the standards normally used in most of physical science: experiments which can be replicated. Macroevolution is plausible, but not testable the way gravity, magnetism, quantum theory, etc. are. It's really incorrect to say that macroevolution is a fundamental piece of science, as are those theories, which must be learned by every little public school captive.
We now know much that Darwin didn't, including that many of the changes seen in the fossil record were probably driven by catastrophic extinction events, not by gradual change.
Now...how long till the flames and insults start?
I think the insults started somewhere in the first 3-6% of this thread.
Thanks for directing me to your earlier post (does help clear things up a bit). Too often hostilities get stirred up around here due to misunderstandings.
That is wonderful.
Please tell us what those first forms were, the mechanism by which they were produced, how the physical constants and laws were calculated, the means by which they were implemented, and the nature of the entity doing all of these things.
we have no evidence that any kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, or species has evolved into an entirely different kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, or species.
That is unfortunately untrue. There is a very great deal of evidence of such evolution.
You appear to be a very angry individual. Perhaps you should seek out the source of your anger?
"But that's appropriate technology" (said the member of the GreenPolice about his radio)
(Fallen Angels, by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn)
Tell you what, start here (29+ Evidences for Macroevolution) and then come back and we'll discuss this.
I want a detailed explanation of why these 29+ evidences are not POSITIVE evidence for evolution. I want you to be as specific as possible so there will be no misunderstanding.
Honestly, though, I don't expect you'll actually read any of that, but that's okay. The lurkers will see you for what you truly are.
While I would would not in any way want to denigrate the wonderful philanthropy of Christians, it is probably worth remembering that the two richest men in our country, both of whom have given or pledged a large fraction of their fortunes to charity, are atheists or agnostics. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does wonderful work in education and health.
Yes, ID can "explain" anything, which is precisely why it's worthless as a scientific endeavor.
It's also worth remembering that they are ardent supporters of abortion "rights," and both are basically monopolists. Also, their foundations can be regarded cynically as a tax dodge and a jobs program for their offspring. I do admire some of the work of Gates with diseases in Africa. Warren Buffett is hardly someone whom conservatives should admire; he backed Jean-Fraud Kerry in 2004.
Not at all! Point me to the plant-to-animal (or vice-versa) transitional fossils, I want to believe!
I thought your point was that atheists did not engage in philanthropy. Are you now trying to make a different point?
I would not call Buffett a monopolist. He is an investor.
Also, their foundations can be regarded cynically as a tax dodge and a jobs program for their offspring.
Churches do not pay taxes either. I think you are over-cynical. One does not donate 100% to avoid paying taxes on 50%, and I am sure Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett could afford to find ways to pay far less than 50%.
Warren Buffett is hardly someone whom conservatives should admire; he backed Jean-Fraud Kerry in 2004.
That, it would appear, is a different issue. May I take it as a concession of the original point?
According to my understanding, plants did not evolve into animals.
Have you considered that your antipathy to the Theory of Evolution may be a result of a misunderstanding of what it asserts?
Concerning the exchange between the two of you concerning '2 Adams', and there being more than just Noah and his family on board the ark....CarolinaGuitarman, I do believe that 'JustMyThoughts', is repeating the views given by a man called Arnold Murray, who I have been recently watching over the last few weeks on TV...he has a very late night running program, running for six hours, from midnight to 6am in my area, and in each of his hourly programs, he presents a chapter by chapter, verse by verse presentation of the Bible...he does this for 1/2 hour...then the second 1/2 hour, he answers questions that viewers send in..
I could be very mistaken, but I do believe the JustMyThoughts is one who if not a follower of Arnold Murray, does at least present many of his views in his/her posts...I have previously asked, JustMyThoughts about this, and did not receive an answer...perhaps JustMyThoughts will answer now....
Arnold Murray does appear to teach some things that I have never, ever heard any other Christian preacher, or minister, or priest say...he says something like we are in a 2nd earth age...that there was a previous earth age, which was the time when dinosaurs roamed, and people existed, tho I am not sure in what form...and this previous earth age appears to have lasted over several millions or billions of years, which would account for the 'old age', of the earth...he then goes on to talk about the current 'age', that we are in now...and he does state that there was a 6day creation, at which time humans of all the different races were created...and something about the 2nd Adam being created on the 8th day, which is something I truly have not found in the Bible...
And then the whole thing about the ark...Murray says that indeed, Noah took his wife and sons and daughters in law on board, but that he also took on board, two(male and female), of each race of humans on board, so that after the waters subsided, they could breed within their races...I cannot find this in the Bible either...
And then Murray talks about the 'rapture'...from what I have been able to glean from his talks, he states that all these Christians who are running around, talking about how they are going to 'fly away'(His words not mine), in the 'rapture', that these folks are deceived and not knowledgable Christians...that there are two Christs that will return to earth, and the first 'Christ' that returns and carries out the 'rapture', is really the 'anti-Christ', and that all those running around today, hollering about the rapture, are actually silly, misled, deceived people, who will shocked to find out once they are raptured away, that they have actually been raptured away by the Devil...
I am going to keep watching this Arnold Murray, and his son, who also preaches, and see what other things they talk about, that seem to be quite contrary to traditional, mainstream Christianity...
JustMyThoughts...are you a follower of Arnold Murray?...I am only asking, as much of what you say, seems to come straight out of his teachings...if you are not a follower of his, can you show us all, where in the Bible these particular views that you mention are actually talked about?
I haven't done any of my research on creationist websites, FWIW.
There are two nagging questions about Darwinist evolutionary theory for which I have yet to find any satisfactory answer. Maybe you can help me with these -- you know, point me in the right direction to a direct, specific citation that clears up the difficulty.
It seems to me that Darwinist theory is based on the way things appear, and not necessary on what they intrinsically are. On this basis, I have no difficulty whatever appreciating that Darwinist theory is a good, general description of microevolution. My first question is: On what logical/evidentiary basis does Darwinist theory bootstrap itself from microevolution to macroevolution? Ultimately the theory appears to be an intuitive way to express what humans have directly observed. But humans have never directly observed anything about the origin of life, or even of the origin of species. It seems to me the theory rests mainly on conjectures, and those conjectures seemingly are constructed to give the Darwinist theorist what he wants -- an account of lifeforms that does not require any "guide to the system."
The second question has to do with what do we mean by "species?" I ask this, because nowhere have I found a rigorous definition of that term, consistently applied. At times it almost seems as if a "species" is whatever the observer cares to say it is.
I mean, just because a species of moth acquires a spotted pattern does not necessarily mean a new species has emerged. I think this would be just a case of the moth adapting to changes in its environment. Animals and humans do that all the time. But it seems they usually don't become entirely new species as the result of making such adjustments.
Yes, and those people were the leaders of the major protestant churches. In the U.S. for example, the only non-government major university that was not started by Christian churches is Stanford.
You state that DtDs are "vehemently opposed" to the pointing out of flaws. Yet, when js1138 asked you to point out the flaws, you declined. So it seems that the only one opposed to the pointing out of flaws is you. Unless you are opposed to the pointing out of flaws in your pointing out of flaws.
I noticed you wrote "...offering the alternative point of view..." (bolding mine). You are aware that more than one "alternative" exists?
Yes, he answered that it is true, and further, that the lack of increasing diversity was a vexation to the TOE. He further answered that it could only be explained away by "some kind of punctuated equilibrium," but he also admitted that there was no supporting evidence, other than the gaps and lack of diversity, for that idea.
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.