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.
pure bull. read and learn.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1602561/posts?page=437#437
as a note on that lengthy post, please bear in mind that I entered that text by hand, so please do me the small courtesy of reading it in its entirety before you engage your hand-waves of dismissal. thank you.
as a side note, on "scientific" creationism:
1. upon what data set of specific observations does it rest?
2. exactly what phenomena does it attempt to explain?
3. what mechanisms does it postulate in this explanation?
4. how do these postulated mechanisms function?
5. what testable predictions does it make?
6. By what criteria can it be falsified (ie: what does it specifically stipulate CANNOT EVER be true if the SC is true)?
7. What null-hypothesis process has SC undergone?
Hello YHAOS! I’ve been thinking about this question for a week now [I’m a really slooooow thinker. :^)] Having tossed it around for a bit, I’d have to say the answer is both “yes” — and (but finally) “no.” Since this is a question that interests both of us, can we compare notes?
It looks to me like the problem boils down to asking whether man can change the universe by virtue of his “changing his mind.” [This is to perform a magician's trick. Hegel tried it, and even made it work for him.] Because he realizes he cannot change it all by himself (try as he might), he recognizes he needs help from “the masses”; e.g., public opinion, or even “world opinion” (such as what the UN is trying to cobble together these days, in a forum of corrupt tin-pot potentates, human-rights abusers, and dictators, with the full support of the ACLU, MSM, NY Slimes et al.). So he would need to articulate the experiences of this changed mind in the languages that human beings use to communicate, and try to build public support for them. Here the question becomes, can a change of publicly accepted beliefs change the universe itself?
My hunch is: No. Such a thing wouldn’t change the universe all that much, nor even mother Earth in the long-run, even if the outcome of the “changed mind” were to produce a nuclear holocaust. The Earth in all probability would heal herself and go on — though possibly without her human children.
What is changed by such a thing is human societies themselves. This occurs every time there is a mass falling away from God's Truth, from His Logos ("the language of the universe" as Francis Collins might say), as the historical record of mankind repeatedly shows. But if our societies are being changed, shouldn’t we ask why? and to what purpose?
For context, here’s a passage from Eric Voegelin that envisions such “change of mind” as a flight to an alternative, or “second” reality:
The delusions of a paranoid person ... correspond to no reality, but the delusions are real and the actions of the paranoid enter into reality.... [The constructors of Second Realities have] overlaid the reality of [human] existence with another mode [in which] the common ground of existence in reality has disappeared....One definitely gets the impression that what Voegelin is describing here boils down to the delusional person’s complete denial and refusal, not only of God's Logos but of the human condition itself. This is the source of “existentialist alienation,” nihilism, and other profound human pathologies. And it seems to arise from a profound anxiety about the terms of human existence. Among other things, by inverting the moral code the "paranoid person" (in Voegelin's sense) inverts human reality. Or at least that part of it which places its faith in life, liberty, and justice as the constituting values of what it means to be fully human.
All the spectacular failures of human societies stem from the destruction of this "common ground of existence”: Athens and Rome would be notable cases.
But after Athens fells, and Rome fell, the Earth kept right on ticking, and the universe seemingly never felt the blow.
What suffered was not the Earth, let alone the universe, but mankind himself.
Well, that would be my “thesis.” Actually, this thesis is being tested right now, on a global scale, and “in living color”: The crap ideology that Islamofascist deranged/deluded/psychotic Tehran and its zombies/puppets/minions worldwide seek to perpetrate on the rest of the human race, enforced by social regimentation and nuclear weapons for all time to come. With all the help the international Progressive Left can give them, from here in the U.S. and beyond.
In this brave new world of Sharia, the supreme values are not Love and Truth anymore; they are implacable hatred for anyone who is “not us,” and anyone who dares to imagine his private conscience cannot be "socialized" into the service of public purposes without committing the gravest injustice against God and man. Freedom dies, and institutional slavery is born.
Well, I am only an observer too. But that’s what I observe. Certainly Tehran and Hezbollah observe differently….
Still we have not fully exhausted the “observer problem,” for it has a precise technical component to it of particular interest to science. The problem at this level consists of the fact that the observer, that which he observes, and all the instruments he uses to observe it, are all parts of the same system; and all “interfere” with each other within the system, necessarily changing its state thereby.
But that must be a question for another day, dear YHAOS. Meanwhile, I’d love to hear your thoughts about these matters.
Thanks so much for writing!
Lovely display of observation.. Its almost like we(humans) are in a dream world dreaming a dream.. With all manner of observations.. The observations are so different and unique.. Even the groupies that group their observations are not the same.. The groups they belong to split and split again... and re-split..
Human observation is so lonely.. How can you explain you're dream world, exactly.. in human language.. What do you know for sure anyway?...
Even the atheist should say, if honest, if there were no God then their ought to be.. And the Darwinist what is different about man that he will find a God even if raised alone on an island.. All forms of mankind has sought "a God".. according to what he observes..
The observer in seeking God, I think, seeks to expand his abilities of observation.. having observed his abilities are limited.. Those that do not are merely arrogant.. An arrogance of observation..
To wit; its a spiritual problem.. Observation is a spiritual problem.. How you observe judges the condition of you're spirit.. Some spirits are weak, some are strong.. Observing through a human body limits you unless you resort to observing spiritually.. Weak spirits never make it to observing through their spirits.. but are limited to observing through their human bodies and senses.. How do I know this for sure?.. Much experience with both.. I am not alone, many others have the same experience.
The observer problem is huge... not a small problem like the problems between capitalism and socialism.. or you're religion and somebody else's religion.. but HUGE... Sure hope some here recognize this.. A real Dreamy way of putting it above... maybe some will wake up...
I think your account of this is luminous, dead-on, hosepipe. But then there is the next question to deal with: What is "god" for observers who have decided to resign from common human existential reality, and make the "exodus" out of the divinely-constituted great hierarchy of being? Is it perhaps all about just "my" ego -- and thus everything is all about "me, me, me!!!!," and the world must turn around ME????? Or maybe even this "god" is Satan himself (perish the thought!)???
I think the ego has gotten a bad name.. maybe Freud defamed it.. The me is all tied up in the metaphor of the "Body of Christ" and the human body in general.. Its just a matter of knowing your place.. Is the arm more important than the wrist, heart, liver?.. like that.. Each part is unique even each hair is unique.. Unique<<- has identity.. Nothing wrong with ego except the ego in a second reality..
The Body of Christ "speaks" to unity and harmony.. Even as in a body each part is being renewed cell by cell.. changing.. else the metaphor would become boring..
Each part (you/me) are changing and attempting to remain in unity and harmony.. neat ain't it.. If YOU had no ego you'd be boring.. Thank God for yer ego.. I tell you its a spiritual matter all this... Does the spirit have ego(identity), absolutely.. Deep subject.. you always deepen the subject.. I like that.. Learning stuff about the spirit is a hoot... Amazing how it just comes to you just sneaks right up on you...
.
well, would you be willing to admit that the debate is very active between creation scientists and evolution scientists after seeing the list of creation scientists that are very qualified?
I did read your post on the hominid skull discovery and found it not reputable evidence for toe. Pure speculation with no other bones to make up the whole body. It was most probably a kind of ape. I'm sure you have seen the famous Patterson video of the female bigfoot. That has never been proven false and has been shown to be authentic by numerous scientists. So there you have an example of an odd human-like creature that if the skull was ever found toe scientists might think it was in some way related to us. Speculation without a sound basis for it...that's what the toe scientists have as far as fossil evidence. It would be good if you could look at this issue a bit more objectively because I think you would enjoy the truth alot more than the bad science.
I also like your reference to the various parts of Christ's Body on the earth and how the whole is transformed as the parts are added and as each grows, like a branch, and flourishes, as with fruit, receiving life from The Vine!
...else the metaphor would become boring...
lol, brother! Hoo-eee! It *is* a hoot! This time is anything but boring! And the time to come unimaginable!
The pride of man is a powerful thing. It is even enough to bar oneself from Heaven. As you acknowledge, such pride is actually from the evil one himself, the first to separate from his Maker and God, and all subsequent to him in this pride are in his service - Dylan said it best, "Still gonna have to serve somebody."
Thank God! there is a Way back! in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior! Oh, that men everywhere would repent and turn back to God! Oh, that men everywhere would lift up holy hands in prayer to the Only One who can answer! Oh that they would humble themselves before Him Who Made the earth and all that is in it! Oh that they would believe the utterly Good News that there is forgiveness and mercy in the Name Above All Names, that at the Name of Jesus they would bow (and bow now!), and their tongues confess, "Jesus Christ is Lord, God has raised Him from the dead!" to the Glory of God the Father, amen!
For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 1:13-14
For their rescue, Father of Light, in Jesus, we pray!
as to the list: finally. now I can look up their qualifications and activities, perhaps even contact them to see if AiG is distorting facts again.
overall, short list, few biologists on it, about half are not listed as scientists of any sort. doesn't compare with Project Steve. So: no, no debate among scientists.
as to the rest:
at what point did I make a post concerning hominid skull discoveries?
the post I sent to your attention concerned the hiatus of natural sciences during the dark ages, and what took its place.
at this point, I leave the discussion wondering whether I have wasted charity on a complete idiot.
That's some nice way to 'leave the discussion', tossing ridicule and insult over your shoulder. Aren't you proud of your prouty self!
this shall be my last post on this thread, assuming rationality continues to fail to break out.
ridicule and insult?
hrmn...
when one commits a sin, he has sinned, yes?
when that same one commits multiple iterations of the same kind of sin, say fornication, he is a sinner, a fornicator, yes?
when that same one persists in committing those sins, those fornications, despite multiple attempts at correction, he is an unrepentant sinner, a defiant fornicator, yes?
Would it then be ridicule or an insult to inform such an one that his consistent and documented behavior of sinful fornication has led you to wonder whether he is an habitual sinner, and that you have wasted your efforts to correct him?
Somehow, I doubt you think such a response constitutes an insult.
I have at this point patiently and politely responded to well over a week of insults, absurd logical fallacies, fictions, statements of opinion-as-fact, unsupported axioms, corrupt semantic games, fantasies of answers and posts which do not exist, unchecked dead links, constant avoidance of giving answers to pertinent questions, repeated direct personal insult, and -finally- an inexplicable error concerning the content of an old post to which I gave a direct hotlink and textually specified URL.
At which point, I have had enough - in full justice, I dare say.
Yet, somehow, you seem to believe that it is rude of me to inform the font of all this foolishness of the fact that I am wondering whether I have squandered my efforts on a complete idiot.
Look to the manure in your brother's stables, sir, before chiding me for giving sere hay to an ass.
Absolutely true, dear .30Carbine! If a person refuses to serve God, still he must serve something. It is simple, basic, created human nature. Bob Dylan's profoundly true statement recalls Chesterton's remark that (to paraphrase) when a man ceases to believe in God, he does not then believe in nothing; he'll believe in anything. That's a state of affairs that Satan is delighted to work with, for it effectively leaves man defenseless....
Thank you ever so much for your beautiful essay/post, and the scriptual passage from Colossians .30Carbine!
As usual I have much to say (LOL!) - but it'll have to wait until perhaps this evening.
I'm sorry to see that you are in fact unable to communicate a close without being rude. Your rudeness detracts substantially from the worthwhile material you post, leading one to wonder if you actually want to add to the data set of others or just be rude and condescending, serving your ego in the final outcome, as if you're more concerned about winning some argument than carrying on a constructive discussion from which those reading along can gain information not in their previous data set. There are after all many more reading these threads than you respond to ... think about it KP.
Hello Alamo-Girl! "Long time no see." I'll be looking for you tonight!
I had went to your link and it was a thread about a suppossed evolution skull find. I don't think that was my error. And giving my insight as to what goes on in our minds was not a personal insult. You just took it that way. I believe I have been fair with you and simply have presented some good facts. I don't think you are an idiot...just too full of false knowledge. Take care, Fabian
Your analysis of the two primary aspects at posts 1642 is profound, betty boop! Truly the observer problem is a human problem – perhaps as hosepipe suggests, precisely because man has a spirit – and a mind?
The spirit may give him a sense, ears to hear and eyes to see beyond the spatio-temporal/corporeal limitations - and the human mind can be destructively willful and imaginative.
As .30Carbine notes ”There are two 'places' now and forever, the Kingdom of God which is Truth and Light and Love, and the Kingdom of the evil one, which is deception, darkness, and hatred. The one we know in this present age is the one we will know forever.” To that I would add Colossians 3:1-3:
I tend to spend more time on this one because the tendency of some disciplines of science (perhaps seeking to be autonomous?) is to ignore and/or deny the observer problem. That tendency casts a dark shadow over many pronouncements, particularly those of the metaphysical naturalists who practice philosophy under the color of science.
And again I’m very pleased with the epistemological zeal of the mathematicians and physicists who seldom ignore the “observer problem!”
Every morning I add to my knowledge of Him! And I see Him displayed througout my day!
Homo erectus
According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows: First Homo erectus , then so-called "archaic" Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis), and finally, Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens). However all these classifications are really only variations and unique races in the human family. The difference between them is no greater than the difference between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and a European.
The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native shown here.
Let us first examine Homo erectus , which is referred to as the most primitive human species. As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright." Evolutionists have had to separate these fossils from earlier ones by adding the qualification of "erectness," because all the available Homo erectus fossils are straight to an extent not observed in any of the australopithecines or so-called Homo Habilis specimens. There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus .
The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance). It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than on its volume.197
The fossils that have made Homo erectus known to the entire world are those of Peking man and Java man in Asia. However, in time it was realized that these two fossils are not reliable. Peking man consists of some elements made of plaster whose originals have been lost, and Java man is composed of a skull fragment plus a pelvic bone that was found yards away from it with no indication that these belonged to the same creature. This is why the Homo erectus fossils found in Africa have gained such increasing importance. (It should also be noted that some of the fossils said to be Homo erectus were included under a second species named Homo ergaster by some evolutionists. There is disagreement among the experts on this issue. We will treat all these fossils under the classification of Homo erectus .)
The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus ," or the "Turkana Boy," which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man. The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal."198 As we will see in the next chapter, Neanderthals are a modern human race. Therefore, Homo erectus is also a modern human race.
Since the difference between monkey and man is nearly as great as between amoeba's and monkey there should be millions of transitional fossils. Yet scientists have to twist and spin these frauds into your nice little graph.
Are these the same scientist who claim that we cause global warming or that we would run out of oil decades ago? Too bad not everyone believes these frauds.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Shalom Israel
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.