Posted on 02/14/2007 2:07:15 PM PST by Tim Long
There is scant reporting on the anti-religious zeal with which many atheists promote Darwinism.
February 12 used to be known in classrooms across the nation as Abraham Lincolns birthday. But over the last decade, an increasing number of schools and community groups have decided to celebrate the birthday of the father of evolution instead.
The movement to establish February 12 as Darwin Day seems to be spreading, promoted by a evangelistic non-profit group with its own website (www.darwinday.org) and an ambitious agenda to create a global celebration in 2009, the bicentennial of Darwins birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origins of Species.
Darwin Day celebrations provide an eye-opening glimpse into the world of grassroots Darwinian fundamentalism, an alternate reality where atheism is the conventional wisdom and where traditional religious believers are viewed with suspicion if not paranoia.
Promoters of Darwin Day deny that their activities are anti-religious, but their denial is hard to square with reality.
According to the Darwin Day website, the movements inspiration was an event sponsored by the Stanford Humanists and the Humanist Community in 1995. Since then the honor roll of groups sponsoring Darwin Day events has been top-heavy with organizations bearing such names as the Long Island Secular Humanists, the Atheists and Agnostics of Wisconsin, the Gay and Lesbian Atheists and Humanists, the Humanists of Idaho, the Southeast Michigan Chapter of Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the San Francisco Atheists. The last group puts on an annual festival called Evolutionpalooza featuring a Darwin impersonator and an evolution game show (Evolutionary!).
Given such sponsors, it should be no surprise that Darwin Day events often explicitly attack religion. At a high school in New York a few years ago, students wore shirts emblazoned with messages proclaiming that no religious dogmas [were] keeping them from believing what they want to believe, while in California a group named Students for Science and Skepticism hosted a lecture at the University of California, Irvine, on the topic Darwins Greatest Discovery: Design without a Designer. This year in Boston there is an event on Biological Arguments Against the Existence of God.
A musical group calling itself Scientific Gospel Productions, meanwhile, mocks gospel music by holding annual Darwin Day concerts featuring such songs as Aint Gonna Be No Judgment Day, the Virgin of Spumoni (satirizing the Virgin Mary), and my favorite, Randomness Is Good Enough for Me, the lyrics of which proclaim: Randomness is good enough for me./ If theres no design it means Im free./ You can pray to go to heaven./ Im gonna try to roll a seven./ Randomness is good enough for me. The same groups website offers for sale a CD titled Hallelujah! Evolution!
The original honorary president of Darwin Day was biologist Richard Dawkins, author most recently of The God Delusion. Dawkins is best known for such pearls of wisdom as faith is one of the worlds great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate, and Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
The Darwin Day groups current advisory board includes not only Dawkins but Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (an original signer of the Humanist Manifesto III), philosopher Daniel Dennett (who praises Darwinism as the universal acid that eats away traditional religion and morality), and Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer (an atheist who writes that Science Is My Savior because it helped free him from the stultifying dogma of a 2,000-year-old religion).
Perhaps in an effort to revise the image of Darwin Day as merely a holiday for atheists, last year a professor from Wisconsin urged churches to celebrate Evolution Sunday on or near Darwin Day. But the fact that some liberal churches have now been enlisted to spread the Darwinist gospel cannot cover up the anti-religious fervor that pervades the Darwinist subculture.
Darwin Day celebrations are fascinating because they expose a side of the controversy over evolution in America that is rarely covered by the mainstream media. Although journalists routinely write about the presumed religious motives of anyone critical of unguided evolution, they almost never discuss the anti-religious mindset that motivates many of evolutions staunchest defenders.
On the few occasions when the anti-religious agenda of someone like Dawkins is even raised, it is usually downplayed as unrepresentative of most Darwinists.
What Darwin Day shows, however, is just how ordinary the anti-religious views expressed by Dawkins are among grassroots Darwinists. Far from being on the fringe, Dawkins views form the ideological core of mainstream Darwinism.
Not that this should come as a shock. According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95 percent of NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics. A look at the major critics of the theory of intelligent design reveals similar views. Barbara Forrest, co-author of the anti-intelligent design harangue Creationisms Trojan Horse, is a long-time activist and board member with a group calling itself the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, although she fails to disclose that fact in her book, and reporters studiously avoid asking her about her own religious beliefs.
The anti-religious outlook of many of Darwins chief boosters exposes the hypocrisy in current discussions over Darwins theory. The usual complaint raised against scientists who are skeptical of Darwins theory is that many of them (like the vast majority of Americans) happen to believe in God. It is insinuated that this fact somehow undermines the validity of their scientific views. Yet, at the same time, defenders of Darwinism insist that their own rejection of religion is irrelevant to the validity of their scientific viewsand most reporters seem to agree.
Of course, in an important sense these defenders of Darwinism are right. Just because leading Darwinists are avowed atheists or agnostics does not mean that their scientific beliefs about evolution are wrong. Scientific propositions should be debated based on their evidence, not on the metaphysical beliefs of those who espouse them.
But if Darwinists have the right to be debated based on evidence, not motives, then scientists who are supportive of alternatives to Darwins theory such as intelligent design should have the right to expect the same treatment.
If Darwin Day helps expose the blatant double standard about religious motives operating in the current evolution debate, then its evangelistic boosters will have performed an invaluable public servicehowever unintentionally.
John G. West is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and author of Darwins Conservatives: The Misguided Quest.
The problem seems to be though, that these finding have yet to materialize, and the relatively small amount that have been made are either inconclusive, or not supportive.
False.
There are transitionals all over the place. Here is a link to 30+ pages of data (Ichneumon's post #661).
Too much for you? Here's a single transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
Enjoy my tagline.
That's essentially what I said the last time he made that 'joke', but he didn't think it was very funny :(
My computer does not print invisible phosphors.
All the more reason to suspect that peer-pressure is a factor in the clear bias of their 'consensus' world view.
Neither does the Religion of Darwinism.
Its amazing that to defame evolution you call it a religion!
Evolution is no more a religion than gravity or germ theory!
But, for your amusement and edification, check out these definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from it seems to be correct to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that its use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
I am very confident that God keeps all of His own on a leash.
Accepting both is difficult for those of us who anthropomorphize God.
Some, for instance, demand that God must comply with Aristotlean rules of logic such as the law of the excluded middle (either/or Predestination/Free Will.)
Others insist that He must comply with physical laws. Some more specifically insist that He must exist "in" time - or must be Himself subject to physical causation.
God is. He says we are to call Him "I AM". Or, as a physicist on the forum put it, "existence exists."
In the beginning of "all that there is" (both physical and spiritual) is causation itself, because in the absence of time, events cannot occur - and in the absence of space, things cannot exist.
All physical cosmologies (inflationary, multi-verse, ekpyrotic, cyclic, etc.) rely on geometry (space/time) for physical causation.
Only God can be the Creator, the uncaused cause of the beginning.
Moreover, everything that was made was made by and for Jesus Christ. (Col 1, John 1, etc.) He is the First Cause and the Final Cause, the Alpha and the Omega, Genesis to Revelation.
In sum, a thing is true because He says it.
Therefore, since He speaks both prophesy and commandment - both predestination and free will are true.
My two cents...
Well, try to get there- and we'll see what happens.
So why is it so hard for conservatives to understand the concept of self organization when it is applied to nature and millions of years of evolution ?
Centralized planning is the antithesis of conservative theory and thought !
BUMP
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.