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.
Good quote, showing how Galileo undertood the universe cannot be comprehended apart from intelligent design, which is to be expected since the ultimate source of Truth has told us as much in the biblical texts.
Heck, I have no idea. But evolution doesn't explain any of that either, nor does it even try, and that was my point: no dog in the hunt.
Iggy: "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.
Maco-evolution evidence? Great! Show me the plant-to-animal (or vice-versa) transitional fossils! Bring me the bones of the walking, breathing, eating, dandelions! I want to trade my religion for yours!
You appear to be a very angry individual. Perhaps you should seek out the source of your anger?
You misread the tone of my original post. Not angry. Serious questions in a playful tone is what I intended.
I don't get angry over evolution/creation debates. I am disturbed by the insults hurled by creationists and EVO's, though creationists are by far more, um, serene. See post 909 for anger.
As for the debate itself, I just laugh at it most of the time, and tend to poke fun at it. After all, if the athiest-type EVO's are right and the Christian ID'ers wrong, then so what? Nothing changes, I've lost nothing, and no lives have been wasted. Pretty scary and sad if the opposite is true, ne cest pa?
"the fossil record is incomplete, but even mainstream evolutionists have asked, why is it selectively incomplete"
Really? He said it was "selectively incomplete" -- which implies a conspiracy (the selectors). Obviously unless you uncover the bones of every creature that ever lived, you could say the fossil record is incomplete. But when you alledge it is "selectively incomplete" you are imputing intentional hiding of fossil evidence that would contradict whatever the conspirators don't want to see the light of day.
So again, I'm wondering which mainstream scientists have alleged "selectively incomplete" fossil evidence. Do you have a citation from Gould where he makes this conspiracy charge?
Still beating that false dichotomy. The options aren't just your God versus no god. It is your God versus no god and the hundreds or thousands of alternate proposed gods. If you picked the wrong god, you could be in a heap of trouble. Some religions have jealous gods (i.e. the god of the old testament.)
Then I must ask, in what sense does Intelligent Design account for these things?
After all, if the athiest-type EVO's are right and the Christian ID'ers wrong, then so what?
What about the Christian evolutionists?
I would account it a waste if someone spent their life committed to an irrational and unscientific view of the world. It would make them confused and alienated from knowledge. Understanding oneself and where one came from is the deepest form of knowledge, do you not think?
The University of Chicago was founded by John D Rockefeller. Surely you would consider it a major university? It was the site of the first controlled fission reaction, and the home of more Nobel Prize economists than any other institution.
Johns Hopkins seems to be another exception to your claim.
What's fake about Kennewick man? Was the skeleton placed in order to deny the Indians some sort of claim over the area?
Johns Hopkins and Carnegie Mellon don't count.
If you are content to remain scientifically illiterate, that's fine. Others will carry on the work.
Pretty scary and sad if the opposite is true, ne cest pa?
This is often trotted out by creationists when their logic has failed: "you better believe, or else".
"I thought your point was that atheists did not engage in philanthropy. Are you now trying to make a different point?"
I don't consider encouraging killing of people to be philanthropy.
"I would not call Buffett a monopolist. He is an investor.
Buffett's school of investing (value investing) regards monopolies and company's protected by the govt. as "good bets" because they have low risk and privileged status. They like co's which are well-established "cash cows." You can find this in some value investing publications. Nothing wrong with that, but I admire him much less than someone who innovates and creates long-term growth and new jobs through technology.
Armand Hammer was an "investor" also, besides being a world-class fellow traveller.
"I am sure Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett could afford to find ways to pay far less than 50%."
Indeed. Foundations are one of the ways to do this. Available to the super-rich, but not to most of us commoners.
Churches don't pay taxes, but they don't usually operate for profit, either. It used to be universally accepted that churches were a social good and should therefore be encouraged. The Founding Fathers certainly thought so. Of course, there are those extremists on this thread who would like to dismiss religion as a worthless fantasy. Are you one of those?
I don't see how Warren Buffett's bad politics support your arguments. He has been a bad influence in many ways.
I never said atheists did not engage in philanthropy. However, there record there is pretty weak overall. A couple of super-rich guys do not outnumber the thousands of Christian philanthropists. (Besides, can you state conclusively what the personal beliefs of Buffett and Gates are? Do they advertise them? Are they in fact atheists? Agnostics? I don't really know. I wouldn't be surprised if they keep that secret, for business reasons.) In comparison, all the totalitarian socialist mass murderers in human history were militant atheists.
Gilligan, is that you?
What about Resnick and Halliday?
Johns Hopkins, founder of the eponymous univerity, was a Quaker. Quakers are not atheists, but Christians.
????
Define "selectively incomplete" then. Presumably it will include some concept of "selection." Who did the selecting and what did they select or not select?
The post we responded to said "christian churches," not "christians."
Okay, I will. I so hope they have the bones of the walking, talking, breathing, eating dandelions! That would go a long way towards convincing me....of...something.
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.
I don't know that they are NOT, I haven't read them yet. But I told you I would, and I will.
Now let's see....detailed explanations....ummm...POSITIVE meaning that "whatever" is there cannot be refuted? Nothing else could possibly explain any of these 29+ evidences? Is that what you mean?
Now, when I get there, there's not any of this "scientists THINK...", or "PRESUMABLY...", or "THESE FINDINGS MAY INDICATE.." crap going on is there? Surely you wouldn't waste my time with any of that, would you?
Ok. It'll take me a few days to check it out, and get my detailed explanations ready (assuming I can prove that any are NOT POSITIVE proof of macro-evolution. I so want to trade my religion for yours). While I'm busy with that, why don't you get together detailed explanations of how evolution explains the existence of physical laws and constants, where the energy for that "Big Bang" thing came from, and how, much like the original Frankenstein movie, the "lightning" created life in that primordial..oops! Sorry, I temporarily forgot: your religion doesn't do first forms/origins of the universe stuff. Don't despair! Einstein county Unify everything either.
Hmmm....
Surely you have personal beliefs on those matters, though.... Ok, I'll accept your personal belief in the origin of the universe, laws of physics, universal constants, and first forms.
Easy gig for you! No research, just a little soul-searching (so to speak, since you probably don't believe in the duality of the nature of man).
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.
"Honestly"? Honesty would involve some sense of self and self-worth, certainly morality, and maybe a touch of spirituality. Which, of course, haha, we, ha! as mere evolved organic machines, *snort* could not possibly possess!ROTFL! I mean, what possible evolutionary advantage (actually crying with laughter, now) would a sense of self-worth, morality, and spirituality serve! HAHAHAHA! Those idiot ID'ers! That "honesty" crap ain't adaptive, so it must not exist! HAHAHAHA!!
Ok, I've a busy weekend planned and now I have to do your due diligence and critical thinking for you....oops! I mean I'd better get busy with those 29 steps to Changing My Religion!
Chat with ya next week!
And how would one falsify the proposition that living organisms came from non living matter? I'll tell you how. By observing every chemical reaction in every part of the Universe since the Big Bang went pop. In other word's it is eminently unfalsifiable and by your standards, and Judge Jones' I might add, not science.
By my standards it is science since I see science as simply a search for knowledge and knowledge can be gleaned by investigating non falsifiable hypotheses which by the way abiogenesis is.
Biogenesis, the fact that life has never been observed to come from non life, is falsifiable.
While there isn't a lot of "hard" data to support it, there are a lot of chemical and biological reasons that indicate that it could have occurred.
Could have occurred? Is that science as well?
It has nowhere near the amount of supporting evidence that the TOE has, however.
I'd say that is understated.
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.