"DARWIN DAY" COMING TO A SCHOOL NEAR YOU

[John81]

"DARWIN DAY" COMING TO A SCHOOL NEAR YOU

By Sharon Hughes
December 30, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

"Darwin Day," a celebration of "the life of Charles Darwin as the symbol for a global celebration of science and humanity" is coming to a school near you on February 12, 2008.

Sponsored by the Institute for Humanist Studies, their website encourages that Darwin Day be celebrated in many different ways: "civic ceremonies with official proclamations, educational symposia, birthday parties, art shows, book discussions, lobby days, games, protests, and dinner parties. Organizers may include: academic societies, science organizations, free thought groups, religious congregations, libraries, museums, galleries, teachers and students, families and friends."

Since Charles Darwin was both the 'father' of evolution and an atheist, a brief look at a few of the views of today's atheist evolutionists reveals some of the 'fruit' of his theory:

Richard Dawkins, a devotee of Charles Darwin, said that everyone believed in evolution except "the ignorant, stupid or wicked."

There are some atheists who believe in 'intelligent design,' but not by a Creator. They believe an alien life force is a possible option for explaining creation, and they are serious.

Many may be surprised to know that Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA, the genetic blueprint for life, believes that life forms were sent to earth in a space ship by a dying civilization. As a matter of fact, both discoverers of the DNA, Watson and Crick, are outspoken atheists.

But not only atheist advocates of evolution are promoting the theory of evolution, the mainstream media is as well, such as when MSNBC did an entire series on where the human species is headed in "Human Evolution at the Crossroads," discussing such ideas as Unihumans.

Could these, and other such worldviews, be a force behind the battle over allowing creationism to be taught in schools? Yes, I think so.

While objective scientists are investigating whether or not there is evidence that life on earth is the work of an Intelligent Designer, and despite the fact that ID (Intelligent Design) is called a theory, many in the scientific community do not recognize it as a theory but rather as a religious view, and therefore reject investigating the possibility of an Intelligent Designer.



This, of course, begs the following questions:

1) Why would scientists not welcome the search for evidence in regards to the possibility of Intelligent Design when it is the very (purported) nature of science to explore all possibilities?

2) Is science broad enough to allow for all theories of human origins?

3) And is the teaching of the theory of Intelligent Design, using scientific evidence, the same that is claimed to be used in teaching Darwinism, reasonable?



All religions acknowledge a Creator God. So, is the debate over teaching creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution in schools a sound scientific battle -- or a worldview battle? The theory of evolution has only existed since the 19th century. Christianity has existed for over 2,000 and Judaism, longer still. What do you think?

Just for the record, Darwin believed that there is no ultimate meaning in life. I guess that makes sense if you also believe your uncle was a monkey.

Related:

1, International Society for Complexity, Information and Design
2, Origins
3, The Racist Roots of Evolution

http://www.newswithviews.com/Hughes/sharon52.htm

[282Mikado]

I wonder if they will have the following quotes by Charles Darwin in prominent display:

"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occured to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (Origin of Species, 1860, p. 178)

"Often a cold shudder runs through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted myself to a phantasy" (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

Its interesting to note that Darwin dropped out after his 2nd year of Medical School. After returning to England from his trip on the Beagle this renowned evolutionist married his first cousin. All seven of his children had some form of physical or mental disorder; several dying very young. Evidently he didn't feel it necessary to apply his "phantasy" to his own life.

[IM4given]

[Alimantado]

Is science broad enough to allow for all theories of human origins?

Well I can think of one person who doesn't seem to think that all theories of human origins deserve to be considered by science: Sharon Hughes!

There are some atheists who believe in 'intelligent design' date='' but not by a Creator. They believe an alien life force is a possible option for explaining creation, [i']and they are serious.

Seriously though, Sharon Hughes must be pretty convinced that this celebration is going to be taking place in schools up and down the US, otherwise she wouldn't have focused on this in the title of the entire article. But a quick look at the list of Darwin Day celebrations around the world (which anyone can add their event to) reveals that it's overwhelmingly limited to humanist society events in 'churches' and universities - http://www.darwinday.org/NEWlang/home/2008.php.

There are two US high schools on there though, and this one sounds a bit nuts: "Presentation from Darwin himself (an actor who will read some of his writings), cake & treats, musics and celebration."

[John81]

I used to fully believe in evolution as that was really pushed on us in the public school. Years later, being so interested in the subject I decided to devote a great deal of time to studying the subject. What I found out changed my thinking drastically.

While studying this topic it didn't take long to discover that once one got outside the realm of textbooks and information put out for the general public that evolution wasn't what it at first appears.

The textbooks and general information for mass public consumption mostly amounts to propaganda. A great deal of it is sheer speculation coached in terms to make it appear scientific and oftentimes as if it's fact.

Looking beyond all that to the actual hard data on various topics (such as various "cave men", "Lucy", and "proofs" from the animal kingdom) what was there stood out in sharp contrast to the "evolution is fact" stuff I had seen before. Much of the "proof" for evolution has been debunked over the years. What's left is little different than the fictional writings George Lucas. In some cases, these "experts" will take a bone fragment not larger than a coin and build an entire "new species" or "missing link"!

My in-depth study of evolution brought me to the obvious conclusion that there is absolutely no evidence at all to support the theory of evolution. In fact, considering how many years this theory has been put to the test and come up so lacking, it's really not even valid to call it a theory anymore.

When one delves into the even more complex aspects, such as down to the origin of life, the formation of the planet or our solar system, it becomes abundantly clear the theory of evolution holds no water.

[282Mikado]

I just started reading "The Evolution Cruncher" by Vince Ferrell and it is very good. It contains scientific facts which annihilate evolutionary theory including 1,350 scientific quotations or references, 43 pages of illustrations, a research guide, and a complete index.

You can read it on the internet at http://evolution-facts.org/Downloads/Ev ... ncherP.pdf

It is full of the things that today's media and the educational system don't want you to know about their precious theory.

I looked around some and saw only one negative review. The reviewer attacked each chapter, but only superficially without any fact or data to back up his assertions. He made no comments on the many evolutionay scientist quotes that spoke against the theories or claims of evolutionists, which they themselves used to hold. He was very sarcastic and crude. I'm thinking this book hit the target of a man's pride.

[John81]

Sounds good! I'll have to check that out later. Thank you!

[DaveW]

We have a whole city devoted to honouring C. Darwin.

The capital of the "NorthernTerritory" in Australia is Darwin.

And it is named for the "famous" naturalist.

It is a small city in a truly beautiful part of the country, but it is very isolated.

[John81]

We have a whole city devoted to honouring C. Darwin.

The capital of the "NorthernTerritory" in Australia is Darwin.

And it is named for the "famous" naturalist.

It is a small city in a truly beautiful part of the country, but it is very isolated.

I wish his ungodly beliefs were just as isolated!

[lettheredeemedsayso]

What is really ironic is that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in creationism. Evolution is just one more relative idea that leaves children not only without truth but without absolutes.

[John81]

What is really ironic is that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in creationism. Evolution is just one more relative idea that leaves children not only without truth but without absolutes.

That's true!

The pro-evolution crowd are masters at putting forth all sorts of scientific sounding "proof" to back evolution. Since most people will never bother to look into that which is put forth, they get away with convincing so many that evolution is a scientifcally backed fact.

[282Mikado]

What I have been finding is that evolutionists use a severely fallible circular logic. They will state early in a work that something may be true (i.e. It has been deemed possible that "such and such" here, may lead to "so and so" there). Then, later in the work the will state "as explained earlier, the link between such and such and so and so prove that this evolutionary principle is true.

Darwins "Origin of Species" is full of this logic as well as much I've been reading about the Big Bang. Speaking of which, if you really want to read a fairt tale, look into the Big Bang. It should be called Big Bust.

[Psalms18_28]

What I have been finding is that evolutionists use a severely fallible circular logic. They will state early in a work that something may be true (i.e. It has been deemed possible that "such and such" here, may lead to "so and so" there). Then, later in the work the will state "as explained earlier, the link between such and such and so and so prove that this evolutionary principle is true.

Darwins "Origin of Species" is full of this logic as well as much I've been reading about the Big Bang. Speaking of which, if you really want to read a fairt tale, look into the Big Bang. It should be called Big Bust.

not all atheists believe in the big bang.

[heartstrings]

IMO, it takes an awful lot of faith to believe the universe suddenly and spontaneously exploded from a finite speck of nothing....
That's basicly saying EVERYTHING evolved on its own, even matter and energy.
They have enough faith to believe that but refuse believe in God.

[John81]

IMO, it takes an awful lot of faith to believe the universe suddenly and spontaneously exploded from a finite speck of nothing....
That's basicly saying EVERYTHING evolved on its own, even matter and energy.
They have enough faith to believe that but refuse believe in God.

That's true, but they won't admit that faith is required here too.

The thing is, no matter what non-Creation theory they come up with, in the end it always comes down to "where did the first things come from and how did they get there?". That's something they can't answer.