What are Darwinists so afraid of?

worldnetdaily.com ^ | 07/27/2006 | Jonathan Witt

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Piltcown man,"

Hasn't been accepted for MANY decades, and never was fully accepted. Has nothing to do with the ToE.

"Lucy"

Perfectly good multiple specimens.

"Spotted moth"

Excellent study of natural selections ability to work on population distributions.

"Kennewick man"

Different subject, not related to human evolution. It was a controversy about Indian rights and Indian creationism.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

ID isn't testable, Mr. Holden/Medved.

[xzins]

Plants are another of the wonderful creations of God.

Have you seen anyone create a living plant out of scrap elements, yet?

"The mountains and hills before you will break into singing, and all the trees of the fields will clap their hands."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"People are seeing through your bullshit finally and the "big words" no longer work."

Here, this will help you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/

[xzins]

reliable

It appears that you are not yet a believer. It is not certain that you ever will be one. It is known which you will end up.

Can you see yourself being led by God into faith in Him?

Jesus said, "I came into the world to testify to the truth."

[xzins]

Then you don't subscribe to the evolution I am talking about. It is mechanistic and Godless.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Yes another Darwinist that doesn't want both sides of the story told in schools.

The only recourse any of you have is ridicule and stonewall, because if you had a leg to stand on you would support free and open debate and discussion about the so called theory of evolution.

"Reason is the greatest faculty people possess; any abandonment of the Mind is a moral treason. "

Are these just words that sounded nice for your profile or is reason really something you believe in?

If it is then you should have no problem with students "reasoning" both pro and con of the Darwinist Theory.

Thankfully more and more schools are choosing to do just that, and not take Darwin's word uncritically anymore.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yes another Darwinist that doesn't want both sides of the story told in schools."

No, but I want only the scientific sides discussed, not science (evolution) mixed in with theology (ID/creationism).

"The only recourse any of you have is ridicule and stonewall,.."

I believe it was you who did that first.

"Are these just words that sounded nice for your profile or is reason really something you believe in?"

I do believe it, which is why I believe ID/creationism has no place in a science classroom.

"If it is then you should have no problem with students "reasoning" both pro and con of the Darwinist Theory."

It's not the *Darwinist Theory*, it's the theory of evolution. ID/creationism, not being science, have no place in such a debate.

"Thankfully more and more schools are choosing to do just that, and not take Darwin's word uncritically anymore."

Scientists have not taken Darwin's *word* on anything. They have tested it and accepted what was correct and discarded what was wrong. The theory has evolved, like all good scientific theories.

To the extent that schools stick to actual scientific critiques of a particular aspect of evolution, that's fine with me, though at the younger levels it is probably too early. To the extent that schools try to force in theology (ID/creationism) into science classrooms (Dover) they will get smacked down by the courts, and rightfully so. To the extent that they succeed, critical thinking skills will decline.

[70times7]

Your story has God moving the goalposts. He sounds like a creationist.

Now, now... to be fair, in the story the scientists made an incorrect assumption as to where the goalpost was, and you defended their mistake. tisk, tisk! By your own definition you are a traitor. To your credit, you got the part about God being a creationist correct. ;-)

[Just mythoughts]

Are you a teacher?

Do you have children?

How old are you?

[70times7]

"Lucy"

Perfectly good multiple specimens.

Well then, shouldn't it be "Lucys"? aye, there's the rub!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Now, now... to be fair, in the story the scientists made an incorrect assumption as to where the goalpost was, and you defended their mistake."

God said they would be creating life, not matter. Then he changed it and made the scientists have to create matter too.

In the story, God moved the goalposts.

"By your own definition you are a traitor."

Um, no.

"To your credit, you got the part about God being a creationist correct. ;-)"

Only because he moved the goalposts, like all good creationists have to.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Well then, shouldn't it be "Lucys"? aye, there's the rub!"

There are multiple examples of this species. The first was called Lucy, and some people (mainly creationists) think that Lucy means the species.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Are you a teacher?"

No, are you? Can someone make statements about education without being a teacher?

"Do you have children?"

No. Is someone allowed to make statements about education without having children?

"How old are you?"

None of your business.

I see your fondness for ignoring the subject and going on wild tangents is still unabated. At least you are consistent.

[Just mythoughts]

LOL touchy, touchy, touchy!!!!!

[Leatherneck_MT]

You obviously don't understand what I'm talking about. Your response just proved that.

I never mentioned anywhere in my post comparing ID or Creation with Darwinism

I said debate the Pros AND Cons of Darwinism.

The Ridicule started on the Darwin side of the aisle as it always does. I merely responded in kind.

If you don't object to both pros and cons of Evolution to be discussed in ANY grade, then you are the exception to the rule.

But it has to start early, otherwise it's simply indoctrinating young children to accept it as fact.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"LOL touchy, touchy, touchy!!!!!"

Your bather DOES become tiresome, yes. You obviously had nothing important to say.

[xzins]

Since we are trinitarian, His name is Jesus, and yes, Jesus has a resurrection body.

The Apostle Thomas said that he wouldn't believe unless he could touch Jesus' wounds. Jesus permitted, but said, "Blessed are those who see and believe, but more blessed are those who do not see and yet believe."

[Just mythoughts]

You are a grouchy man. My guess quite OLD and angry with some religious organization and are quite determined to do whatever you possibly can to get even with the Heavenly Father.

Maybe you need a nap.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I never mentioned anywhere in my post comparing ID or Creation with Darwinism"

You didn't have to.

"I said debate the Pros AND Cons of Darwinism."

It's called the theory of evolution, and you meant the creationist/ID theological critiques against it, not any scientific controversies, because there ARE NO scientific controversies about whether evolution happened, or even on the main processes of evolution.

"If you don't object to both pros and cons of Evolution to be discussed in ANY grade, then you are the exception to the rule."

Early grades are too young to introduce the highly involved controversies in science about certain aspects of how evolution happened. The same goes for physics, or chemistry, or any other scientific theory where there are legitimate scientific problems still being worked on. Nobody is asking for all of THOSE subjects have *both sides* taught, even though physics is more in flux then anything in the ToE.

"But it has to start early, otherwise it's simply indoctrinating young children to accept it as fact."

Children don't have the knowledge to work through esoteric scientific debates. The last thing they need is for the science they learn to be muddied by ID/creationist theological *controversies*.