What are Darwinists so afraid of?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

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.

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."

Then you must not be a philosopher. :^)

Speaking as one of those -- by temperament, training, and experience -- perhaps you should note that philosophers attentive to developments in modern science are acutely aware of the "ontological reductionism" implied by the doctrine of scientific materialism, a/k/a metaphysical naturalism. For the thinkers I named (a partial list indeed, two of whom are Nobel laureates no less), we are no longer speaking of a scientific method -- i.e., methodological naturalism -- but of a full-scale worldview, or cosmology, that holds the entire universe reduces to one single principle, the material.

What exactly is it that philosophers do? I managed to avoid all philosophy classes for a dozen years of college, but from what I see on these threads I can't figure out what they actually do.

A year or so ago there was a poster on a crevo thread who did something like "A = B, and something about C," and concluded that evolution couldn't possibly have happened (I don't remember for exact formula, but it was about like that).

Why should we take anything like this seriously? It seems to me like a bunch of thought experiments, with no necessary connection to the real world.

When you study evolution you can hold the skulls in your hand and examine them, you can line them up on the desk and study the changing morphology, through time, of a variety of traits. They tend to sort themselves out pretty well on their own.

But when you start talking about "ontological reductionism" and the like I get a little dizzy. I'm just a simple archaeologist; you have not convinced me that those terms actually mean anything in the real world.

When you start mixing in theology I can't help but thinking of the old Heinlein quote:

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.
Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice, 1984

One of the advantages of returning to one of these threads in its "latter\ days" appears to be that those who remain are those who are seriously, thoughtfully, and respectfully interested in discussing root issues. Several of you have asked questions and made contributions that I deem to be worthy of lengthy, thoughtful, and well-crafted response(s):

King Prout: Thank you! Your CAD model of the SKS offers excellent "fodder" for us to fruitfully discuss the benefits (and pitfalls) of producing models representing objects and processes that we may not (or may) have had the privilege of observing directly. I believe we can use it to have a good conversation on cosmological observations, as well as on the fossil record -- and what we scientists are (and are not) able to glean from them.
Tortoise: your
"...no such tweaking is in evidence. Which isn't to say God is not managing the universe in some fashion, just that said management is apparently not happening in any place we've looked. If it had consequences, it would be detectable. That is a sticky problem to explain away. Unless, of course, there is pervasive heavy-handed brainwashing going on, but that would have theological implications. I imagine most people would have reasons to want to discard that particular hypothesis. "
disregards my evidence (based on personal, direct observation) that I provided in #1391.
Also, if one replaces your pejorative "pervasive heavy-handed brainwashing" with the more palatable (to believers, at least) "answers to prayer" you will perceive that, at the very least, belief in a "managing Creator" has had (and is still exerting) a profound influence -- at least on human history. (See xins' tagline for a present example. And see my tagline for "the opposite side of the coin"...)
xins: I am not at all averse to discussing your most-excellent questions "in public" -- but thank you very much for asking!
(However, please permit me to address them in in a different order than you asked them...)
- "How would you describe the nature/attributes of God given the methods of creation that you see Him using?"
- "Could you give me a rundown of what you see God's role in creation, biogenesis, etc. being (having been?)"
- (If I may, I would like to insert, "What is the role of Satan and the influence of his work (sin) in all of the above?")
- "What is Christ's role, given the nature of the creation that you see?"
I am secure and comfortable enough in my beliefs that I (unlike some of my "YEC" friends) do not feel that my faith in God and His Scriptures hinges on a particular interpretation of something as trivial as, for instance, an inflexible interpretation of the Hebrew word, "yom".
(I just hope that you do not expect me to answer these most excellent questions "in three words or less...") LOL!!!
Alamo-girl and betty boop -- Dear Sisters: Through our previous conversations, I expect that you've been able to glean that my starting point of belief re creation was, essentially, that of those of the "YEC" ("Young Earth Creationist") persuasion. And, I hope it is obvious to you that I feel that the Holy Spirit -- through introducing me to scientific investigation, and through guiding my study of Scripture, has "liberated" me from those primitive belief constraints. And, in the process, the Spirit has enormously expanded my appreciation for the majesty and sheer awesomeness of our Creator God and the redemptive Grace of our Saviour!
Now, as we've also discussed, I am trying to formulate the steps that led to my 'liberation' so that I can understand what it is that still constrains many of our brethren to continue to expend (waste, IMO) prodigious efforts trying to "defeat the paper dragon of Evolution".
I see no more relationship between the theories of Darwin and my "creation in the Image of God" than I do between those of Hawking or Einstein and my salvation. Hence I really cannot identify with fellow Christians who are driven to "Defeat Evil Darwinism". Any insight you can provide would be most appreciated!
All: When I started this list of folks deserving responses, I had in mind a single response. Now that I've seen how much HTML it takes just to frame the questions, it is clear that responding to individuals is the only way to get it done. However, (unless someone objects) I will copy all of you on each response -- because I may touch on issues you raised in any comment.

I'll keep a copy of this "shopping list" and hope that the midday heat will keep me indoors long enough the next few days to complete this massive task I have outlined for myself...

And so to work...

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.