Friday, March 31, 2006

Students starting to question evolutionists' dogma

Here's a three-part article in the LA Times about students questioning evolution and their teachers being ill-equipped to respond:

Testing Darwin's Teachers

This really exposes how evolutionists rely on unquestioning dogma probably as much or more than most religious people. Evolution "just is" to these people and anyone who dares question it is a backwards, ignorant, brainless, science-hating "fundy" Creationist (just ask U of M professor PZ Myers).

Here are some excerpts from the article that caught my eye:
"Isn't it true that mutations only make an animal weaker?" sophomore Chris Willett demands. " 'Cause I was watching one time on CNN and they mutated monkeys to see if they could get one to become human and they couldn't."

Frisby tries to explain that evolution takes millions of years, but Willett isn't listening.
Thousands of years of selectively breeding dogs and cats and we have been left with... dogs and cats. Not too long ago, scientists were able to selectively breed flies (maybe fruit flies - I don't exactly recall that detail) so that they refused to breed with each other and they declared it was proof of evolution. But, alas, they still were left with the same species: flies. Flowers, too. They selectively bred flowers and came up with a new flower. "Evolution!" they cried to the hills. Sadly, it was still a flower.

Not to mention that selectively breeding plants and animals in a short amount of time completely disproves evolution, which is supposed to be an undirected process that takes millions of years.

Unruffled, Frisby puts up a transparency tracing the evolution of the whale, from its ancient origins as a hoofed land animal through two lumbering transitional species and finally into the sea. He's about to start on the fossil evidence when sophomore Jeff Paul interrupts: "How are you 100% sure that those bones belong to those animals? It could just be some deformed raccoon."

From the back of the room, sophomore Melissa Brooks chimes in: "Those are real bones that someone actually found? You're not just making this up?"

"No, I am not just making it up," Frisby says.
That's true. Other people made it up and you are mindlessly repeating them. It's amazing how evolutionists can take a tiny piece of bone and extrapolate not only what the entire creature looked like, but how it acted. And they present it as cold, hard fact! It's all a matter of "interpretation." Well, guess what. They "interpret" the fossils according to their preconceived notion about evolution. If something doesn't fit, they ignore it or "interpret" it to fit in with the theory they are desperately trying to prove.

Some hold to a literal reading of Genesis: God created the universe about 6,000 years ago. Others accept an ancient cosmos but take the variety, complexity and beauty of Earth's creatures as proof that life was crafted by an intelligent designer.
Nice to see an honest distinction being made between Creationists and people who promote Intelligent Design. That's something you rarely see among evolutionists.

Far tougher are the science-based queries that force teachers to defend a theory they may not ever have studied in depth.


Anxious to forestall such challenges, nearly one in five teachers makes a point of avoiding the word "evolution" in class — even when they're presenting the topic, according to a survey by the National Science Teachers Assn.

"They're saying they don't know how to respond…. They haven't done the research the kids have done on this," said Linda Froschauer, the group's president-elect.
And that is a big no-no to evolutionists. To them, kids should just mindlessly and unquestioningly accept as fact what is being fed to them in the classroom. Researching the material on their own is unacceptable because it might lead them to reject evolutionists' claims. Can't have that, can we?

UPDATE: Yep. Just like I said. Don't you dare question the sacred cow of evolution!!! Just mindlessly accept it like people like CanadianCynic want you to. (Strong language in that link, so don't click it if you don't care for that sort of thing.)

UPDATE 2: Reader Paul left these comment:
I am so, so glad I don't live in the U.S.

As an EX-Christian who used to believe in what is now called Intelligent Design, it saddens me when you promote the asinine activities of people whose approach to the subject of evolution is pre-determined. They have made up their mind what to believe, so are closed to other views. This is known as 'prejudice' in most parts of the world, but is apparently normal practice in the U.S.
I totally agree. Evolutionists are prejudiced and approach the subject with pre-determined beliefs are are absolutely closed to other views.

Yes, I know that's not the group you were refering to. I just thought it was quite amusing how your comment applies quite accurately to people like PZ Myers and CanadianCynic.

The inane comments given as examples are all the more worrying, coming from people who in a few years will be 'responsible' adults in the most powerful, and least accountable, country in the world.
Again, there are as many and most likely more inane and asinine comments and activities from the evolutionists' side.

Now tell me, which aspect of Creationism or Intelligent Design accounts for the development or avian flu? or SARS? These are living examples of evolution and mutation at work.
Creationism and ID do not discount mutation or minor changes within a species within a short period of time. Did the avian flu and SARS viruses spring up out of a puddle of organic goo? Did they evolve from some other species?

Ignore them, and the next wave could wipe you out.
Why do you think Creationists and IDers would ignore viruses?

(Now there's an idea!)
Um, yeah. Thanks for wishing harm upon me. Don't expect the same in return. It's not part of my beliefs and morals.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Web Pages referring to this page
Link to this page and get a link back!