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.
Thank you so very much!
LOLOLOL! Thanks tortoise!
Newton was also a monotheist.
"Newton was also a monotheist."
Do you mean Unitarian?
Dearest sister in Christ, if the leading Spirit has drawn you to this understanding of these matters, with the result that you feel you must describe yourself as an "either/or kind of gal," then who am I to quibble?
All I can offer in return is this: I also believe that Creation was a "one-time event." To amplify this understanding, I would need to add that my leading Spirit has suggested that this "one-time event" took place in an "Eternal Moment," the expression of which may possibly play out in a process that looks like it's "evolutionary" -- though not in the Darwinian sense -- in what we understand to be "ordinary" space and time.
It doesn't matter at all "who is 'right'" here. The important thing is that our Lord's will be done in all things, on heaven and on earth. And I'm sure we both believe that is the truth of the matter.
Anyhoot, in my post I said I didn't understand why people think they have to make a choice between science and philosophy. I wasn't defending Darwinist theory at all; though I do think there is something to this idea of evolution that is not inconsistent with the Logos and Will of our Creator. Again, it all seems to boil down to how we imagine the "time problem."
And the "time problem" is especially difficult; because Eternity as a concept is almost unimaginable by most people (i.e., people who do not know our Lord). But you do know our Lord, and you listen and follow Him, dearest sister. And I know you are faithful to His Truth.
Thank you so very much for writing my dearly loved and honored sister in Christ.
He didn't accept the trinity and he thought the Universe was infinitely old. Pre-Olbers, no doubt.
And the "time problem" is especially difficult; because Eternity as a concept is almost unimaginable by most people (i.e., people who do not know our Lord).
placemarker
many creation scientists do use some scientific methods. Because they may not fit into your personal view of science doesn't mean that it is not authentic. I know many creation scientists are involved in the study of creationism and the fallacy,(thanks for the correction), of evolution without using the Bible. They don't need to due to much evidence all around the universe for creationism. The think actually some of my replies have answered some of your questions but I would be glad to answer them...I had just gotten caught up in replying to your other posts. It's not dishonest to point out how strongly Newton believed in creation because he lived before toe was made up. I just believe he was so bright that he would have exposed it for what it is; very poor science. Anyways, I have forgotten your what your questions were...
Hooray for your clear shining witness!!!
Many thanks to you! I follow your discussions as best I can!
What a beautiful post, hosepipe! The sentence above reminds me that Jesus said as He entered Jerusalem that the rocks would cry out if those who were His disciples refused to praise! So let's keep praising Him!
And it came to pass, when He drew near to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mountain called Olivet, that He sent two of His disciples, saying, “Go into the village opposite you, where as you enter you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Loose it and bring it here. And if anyone asks you, ‘Why are you loosing it?’ thus you shall say to him, ‘Because the Lord has need of it.’”The witness of John who baptised comes to mind as well, for he said to the "upstanding citizens" of his day,So those who were sent went their way and found it just as He had said to them. But as they were loosing the colt, the owners of it said to them, “Why are you loosing the colt?”
And they said, “The Lord has need of him.” Then they brought him to Jesus. And they threw their own clothes on the colt, and they set Jesus on him. And as He went, many spread their clothes on the road.
Then, as He was now drawing near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had seen, saying:
“‘Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the LORD!’And some of the Pharisees called to Him from the crowd, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.”Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”
But He answered and said to them, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.”
Luke 19:29-40
Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones!"Jesus is a Rock in a weary land! My Fortress and my Rock, in Him I trust! By Him were all things made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made! He is the Power holding all in place and everything that is is made to bring Him honor and praise! Let the earth rejoice and the mountains skip like rams! Let the trees clap their hands and the people who know their King dance for joy!
Luke 3:7-8
they were as follows:
**************************
fabian, a few questions:
1. why do you believe that the fossil record "should" be as complete and comprehensive as you describe?
Please be specific in your answer, including a description of the mechanism of preservation and a rationale for its necessary prevalence in your notional model of history.
2. what makes you believe that a representative organism from a transitional species would be in any way an "incomplete" life form?
Please be specific, including the anatomic anomalies your model predicts as necessary for an "incomplete" life form, and how "incomplete" life forms can be decisively discerned from "complete" life forms.
3. what leads you to assume that (alleged) honesty and earnestness precludes idiocy and error?
Please be as thorough as you can in your answer.
Thank you.
**************************
and, no: nothing you have posted in the interim has even vaguely touched on these questions.
Indeed he(Jesus) rode his Donkey into town and the metaphor "the rocks might cry out" was a beautiful mental image.. No different than us riding our Donkeys into town... in the Donkey Rodeo we are a part of... For within our spirits/Spirit (according to the New Testament) is the same rider.. That must be "observed" and respected.. "BY US"... Surely, observation is a very important "gift"... The gift of observation..
To all "observers" in eyeball range of this post I grant "observer" status.. See and believe.. Believe not because your Donkey can see "things" but believe because the rider of the Donkey is aware.. Oh! and take care of that DonK.. its such pitiful beast.. and has no idea of what its doing.. Ride that Donkey with dignity and purpose.. The test of humans is not a test of the DonK its a spiritual test.. a test of the rider of the Donkey.. The DonK is just transportation.. So to all Donkey wranglers today I grant the "gift" of "observation".. keep yer eyes open.. Who knows what you might "observe"...
Fabian,
For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
1. consistent (internally and externally)
2. parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
3. useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
4. empirically testable and falsifiable
5. based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
6. correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
7. progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
8. tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most (ideally: ALL) of the above criteria. The fewer criteria which are matched, the less scientific a given concept or explanation is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word.
Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses.
A summary of the objections to creation science by mainstream scientists:
1. Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation.
2. Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations. Parsimony favours explanations without redundant parts.
3. Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science.
4. Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain.
5. Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", an "a priori" axiomatic CONCLUSION, instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creation science is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.
In fine:
Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method mean that it (and specifically creation science) cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is conventionally understood and utilized.
Basically, fabian - that you and self-described "creation scientists" call your untestable omphaloskepticisms "science" does not equate to them BEING science.
ID is even worse, as it does the same thing while pretending (unsuccessfully) to be a science.
yes, true.
I believe it was appropriate to first address why it is not science, before addressing why it is being pimped.
I am at once reminded of Baalam's ass speaking to Baalam (actually, God sending a message to Baalam by way of the poor donkey). When God has a message to send, even rock and donkey can resonate with the command in such a way that humans will hear it. Entanglement anyone?
When God sends a message its always to the observer...
Then the observer gets entangled in the ramifications of the observations..
And thus creation science isn't any different from postmoderndeconstructionism. It's just a different name.
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.