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."

"The interesting thing is that once an observation has been made, it instantly becomes a part of "the past." Actually, boopster, we experience nothing in the actual present of the phenomenon since it takes time for the signals to reach us and be processed. All information we handle is already past in relation to the background present of the universe. But then, according to all information processing, the universe we understand is always in a present-to-past orientation.

HOWEVER, it has been shown that an electron can cause its own interference pattern (and presumably any particle may act likewise), so there may be an aspect to the dimension time which we have yet to adequately explore ... brane theory and string theory may hold the keys to a better explanation of just what time is and how it is fashioned for functioning in our experience, leaving room for a greater expression which is not metaphysical but which is sourced in higher dimension variability.

It seems our existence has origins in the physical manifestation begun with the advent of life on Earth billions of years ago. This is not to say there is no dimension of life force which erupted into the physical with life expression, but a mechanism for such a phenomenon has yet to be identified to the satisfaction of science ... and that is as it should be for if there is a reality we've missed before, there must be a connecting process and it will be measured and quantified if it truly exists. I happen to believe the essence of time as a dimension of variable expressions is the key to a new perspective. 'Time will tell' ...

If I take God at His word, then humankind in Adam is a very new and different expression of dimensional variables from what existed when Adam was transformed from nephesh into a neshama.

"But the problem of Truth goes much deeper than that."

Yes. 'truth is difficult to know even absent attempts to erect a barricade or to assert a monopoly.' Let me add that the barricades are not always erected innocently.

"The problem is you cannot get the two sides of this issue "together" in rational discourse"

Yes. Demanding 'a good will and a collaborative effort' (or maybe it could be termed a cooperative effort.

"Because people will not agree about what Truth "is," our society is divided and increasingly more disordered, with the result (for example) that in wartime, some significant fraction of the American people works for the benefit of an enemy that would destroy us in an instant, if they could but get the chance."

Yes. And, I must report to you that I do not expect this to change during the course of what's left of my lifetime.

"Truth is the source of the "good order" of the soul, and by extension of society -- and also of the universe itself"

I don't know why I'm saying (writing) anything here; I should just nod my head and let you keep talking. { 8^)

Dear betty boop, thanks so much for including me in your discussion. I love getting pings to your posts! I saw this quotation as applying very well to our hosepipe! (: -

"Truth is not a body of propositions about a world-immanent object; it is the world-transcendent summum bonum experienced as an orienting force in the soul, about which we can speak only in analogical symbols." [Eric Voegelin, in Order and History Vol. III]

On the discussion of truth and man's twisting of it in what is referred to as relativism, I had an interesting interchange with a post-abortive coworker yesterday.

She is always looking for opportunities to bring up her pro-abortion position and yesterday quoted to a third female coworker from an article in New Science magazine (I believe) that "ultrasound has now been proved to be harmful to babies" and should therefore be done away with.

Of course I see such comments as opportunities and I raised the point that perhaps New Science has a pro-abortion agenda and would like to see ultrasound technology abandoned so that expectant mothers who are considering abortion do not see their child in their womb.

And of course I was in turn accused of being paranoid and unscientific, of being out of the loop of the facts. When the post-abortive coworker again stated firmly that "this is being reported for the benefit of the babies, that they won't be harmed by ultrasound," I was blessed with words from On High to appeal to the sense of truth within her (within each one of us) - perhaps I wouldn't be remiss in calling it the "rules of logic" - which, unless a person's conscience has been truly seared and their heart forever hardened, does respond to absolute truth. She responded (by shutting up!) to these words:

"Think about this: they are saying that ultrasound hurts babies. At the very same time they are saying that abortion does not hurt babies. How can it be that abortion does not hurt babies but ultrasound does?"

That is an understandment, dear MHGinTN! Time -- or rather our understanding of it -- seems poorly understood.

Thank you so much for this excellent essay/post!

I must report to you that I do not expect this to change during the course of what's left of my lifetime.

Me either, YHAOS. It seems to me we're too far gone in this direction, and though it might take some time to play out, humanity will reap what it has sown. It seems we're headed for another Dark Age.... We forget what befell Athens and Rome, and why; and so history will repeat itself I suppose.

Thank you for your kind words, YHAOS -- we see eye to eye on many, many things it appears. And thank you for writing.

"Think about this: they are saying that ultrasound hurts babies. At the very same time they are saying that abortion does not hurt babies. How can it be that abortion does not hurt babies but ultrasound does?"

The beauty of Truth is it cuts through all the self-rationalizing B.S. Your post-abortive co-worker may be a ninny, but evidently she had enough good sense to just shut up when she heard the Truth.

I think you are right that there is hardly anyone so far gone that they do not hear the word of Truth when spoken. That is why it is so vitally needful to speak the word.

Truth is "logical" -- it is Logos. Everything depends on it. What your co-worker will do with what she has heard is up to her. Perhaps she will simply take your "gentle admonishment" as a reason to re-double the self-rationalizing/ideological behavior. But then again, maybe your words will have struck a chord and will give her a reason to "turn around." In any case, we ought to pray for her -- and for her innocent little child that never got a chance to live....

May God ever bless you, dear sister in Christ!

[ "Think about this: they are saying that ultrasound hurts babies. At the very same time they are saying that abortion does not hurt babies. How can it be that abortion does not hurt babies but ultrasound does?" ]

Ouch!.... that will leave a mark..

My Fetus, I mean my sister (now 50+ years old) is a seventh month preemie.. How many months before the seventh was she a baby?.. And how can she be a baby at 7( or 1 thru 6) and Not at 9.. Shut a few (mouths of seared conciences) up with that question myself..

But then, I believed a bit of nonsense when I was a Primate myself.. You know, back before I was born again and "evolved" into what a human is supposed to be..

"But we're not there yet, however, with the concept of information theory, humanity is approaching the problem in a new way which may yield the fundamentals of the problem."

When I was but a child some sixty years ago, and knew a little bit more science than I do today (albeit drawn from a much smaller information pool), I had thoughts not unlike what you express, though I had no firm idea how those thoughts might emerge or what reality they might ultimately assume. Having more compelling interests, I did not pursue science past high school and a couple of college requirements, but I kept touch via the much scorned and discredited medium of (in a whisper) science fiction. { 8^)

This, I believe, was not an uncommon experiece for people my age or younger, and, consequently, over the decades Science Fiction gained a new-found respectability both literarily and scientifically. The quality of the writers, of course, had much to do with the respectability - Heinlein, Clarke, Davidson, Norten, Sturgeon, Niven - the list is virtually endless. These were good books of ideas and imagination, which dealt not with a science sterile, but with how its various disciplines related to real people doing real things. Like all good literature, the works of Science Fiction directed our societal affections, and informed our values, and it caused us to expect the same from Science itself.

Thanks for writing, MHGinTN.

But then, I believed a bit of nonsense when I was a Primate myself.. You know, back before I was born again and "evolved" into what a human is supposed to be..

Thank you, dear Pipe. A Scripture comes to mind:

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.
Titus 3:1-8

A song lyric, too, arises in these things, sung by Stephen Curtis Chapman:

Remember your chains;
Remember your chains are gone.

Amen.

Thank you so much for your reply!

Truth is "logical" -- it is Logos. Everything depends on it. What your co-worker will do with what she has heard is up to her. Perhaps she will simply take your "gentle admonishment" as a reason to re-double the self-rationalizing/ideological behavior. But then again, maybe your words will have struck a chord and will give her a reason to "turn around." In any case, we ought to pray for her

You are so smart and I love you! I note that I ought to have referred to The Rule of Logic and not the "rules" - thank you for graciously overlooking such things in me!

I have had the incredible grace and honor to share my personal testimony of abortion and of salvation with this woman, and she even received a study bible from me! The Lord graciously keeps the door open between her and I: she knows I love her and all that I say to her is in this love of Christ Jesus. She said the other day that she "never knew a woman who wasn't actually pregnant who glows like you do." This is God's Glory!

Thank you for your prayers! I pray always for all my co-workers and do believe Our Very Merciful Father will do all to rescue them, even as He performed all at the cross! With such long-suffering He waited while I refused His advances so many pain-wracked years of my life. He does woo and win the dead in trespasses and sins with His Life, which is Love ( Ephesians 2:4-5 ).

As you see, because of my own experience, I am uniquely qualified to be a messenger of The Great Message to this lost post-abortive woman, and I understand the delicate mighty moment that must come when All Truth is revealed to her and she receives (all in that moment!) the conviction of sin and of Righteousness In Christ the Unseen Seeable One, and of judgment, for the ruler of this world is judged.

[ Still, I do believe in angels. Do you?..]

Like miracles, with Angels, I don't believe in them I rely on them.. I believe in guardian angels.. That every human is given an angel at birth to guide him/her toward re-generation and MORE, I believe.. God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is/are real and all that but there is this question of angels.. What about angels?..

According to my "revelation" I call them co-workers(with God).. If a good manager can delegate a task(s) why not God?... Is God a good manager(I ask myself)?.. Else; why did God create angels in the first place?.. There seems to be a whole race of beings barely mentioned spiritually when it comes to things about Jesus.. Who is who in the heirarchy?.. God, US, Angels?.. or God, angels, and US?.. I dunno? or care?.. The Body of Christ is a deep revelation I'm grateful to even have a part in it.. I tend to look on angels as a child does..

I thank my guardian angel(s) for his/their IMMENSE TASK set before him/them with ME(an extremely hard head).. God knows.. they saved my life many times over, or I would not be here several times.. (THAT I KNOW OF FOR SURE)... Good work they have done on my part..

Was it "GOD" or "the Angels", both of them, doing "these" task(s) or am I being supercillious and superstitious?.. My question, Does it matter?.. I am regenerated and my name is written in "the Book of Life".. which is what this life, this human experience, is all about.. as I see it.. Good work..

I tend to see Satan and the demons (whom are all angels) and the co-workers as real entitys.. Spiritually; I don't see how things (with humans) could work well without them.. Can God delegate tasks and does he (with US)?.. I say resoundingly, YES.. And thats part of what I believe about angels.. If its not true, then SHOOT ME.. but you will have to deal with (a) very competent guardian angel(s) if you try.. I'm not kidding.. d;-)~',',' these guys are GOOD..

May God ever bless you, dear sister in Christ, for the love and caring you radiate outward to others -- which is of a nature such that your post-abortive friend was able to discern it, as evidenced by her remark: "I never knew a woman who wasn't actually pregnant who glows like you do."

Thank you so very, very much for the works you do that manifest the Glory of God and speak silent volumes to His holiness, grace, love, and truth!

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.