Posted on 02/13/2003 12:01:19 PM PST by Rytwyng
Call for creation of Darwin Day
From Professor Simon Blackburn and others
Sir, We, the undersigned, support proposals for the creation of a new public holiday, Darwin Day, on February 12.
This is the birthday of Charles Darwin, one of the greatest British scientists and thinkers that ever lived. At a time when creationism appears to be gaining ground in English schools, the public celebration of Charles Darwin’s contribution to modern science could send out a clear message of support for scientific thinking.
It will be the 200th anniversary of his birth in 2009, and we very much hope that this new public holiday will be in place by then.
Yours etc,
SIMON BLACKBURN,
FRANCIS CRICK,
RICHARD DAWKINS,
RICHARD DOLL,
PHILIP PULLMAN,
CLAIRE RAYNER,
c/o British Humanist Association,
47 Theobalds Road, WC1X 8SP.
Some of us are quite able to compute 2 + 2 without the aid of a pencil and paper, Dr. Einstein.
Do you believe the non-material, "metaphyical" realm of ESP, remote viewing, divining, ghosts, spirits, demons, and God Himself as real and valid a "reality" as is the physical?
I don't agree. If it's about a priori assumptions then it is something like a religion vs. science debate. But it usually isn't. It's mostly about creationists denying evidence exists when it does, or creationists demanding ever more detailed evidence. Stuff like that.
Let's get the metaphysical stuff out of the way: Do you accept the existence of God?
This was directed at Piltdown Woman but I'll answer. I don't. But the existence of God is simply irrelevent.
Even before Charles Darwin was born, even in Old Testament times, many people lived past the age of thirty. It's in the Bible, so I believe it!
I guess she was well aware of that fact.
And btw, I think it's one of the best screen names here on FR ;)
I know of at least one deist, and deism surely counts for something. There are loads of others who just don't discuss the matter, because it's entirely irrelevant. No one asks chemists about their religion. Why biologists?
I am curious. How much creationist literature have you actually read and studied? Or, are you simply communicating your assumptions that "science" is the only way to acquire knowledge?
How many creationist scientists can you name? How many evolutionist scientists can you name?
If your religion hinged on the notion that matter was held together by tiny angels, then maybe you would.
What do you think is the most effective way to acquire knowledge? Prayer?
No. There are a number of books that have been written. There are articles of a very technical nature, as well as those on a more popular level, that are available. There are a number of web sites that publish the results of real, in-the-field research. I would be happy to supply you with a list of these, if you are truly interested.
BTW - I will ignore the childish response. If you are an honest seeker of the truth I am happy to continue. If you are simply parroting what you have heard others have told you, so be it.
Of course if I were "an honest seeker of the truth", who else would I turn to but you, with your list of real, in-the-field research web sites.
Sorry for the childishness. I thought you were a creationist and I only wanted to maintain a matched discourse.
Yes. In that case I certainly would.
99.9% of the orthodoxed Darwinists who've bought into the single cell-to-man "billion-year" evolution of earthly life are atheists.
Quite frankly, there can be no true "Christian" who by any stretch of the imagination who is an "evolutionist" as well, because it "Does not compute Will Robinson..." ;-)
Initially you said you were talking Darwinian "concepts" which is why I posted what I did. That short list contains the three basic concepts of the theory of evolution. Each has its own mechanisms, of course, but I have not expanded on any of them.
Now that you say you are talking about presuppositions, I'm afraid I'm going to have to correct you again. To tackle your second point first, because God is supernatural (so they say), then he is outside the scope of scientific inquiry. The existence of God is not a question that science can answer.
As to your statement that the theory of evolution presupposes that God is unnecessary, science is the process of trying to wrap a theory around a set of observations. It's not a matter of "need," instead, science is concerned with measurable phenomenon. After all the possible natural mechanisms of variation, heredity and selection have been identified and exhausted as inadequate to explain the observed diversity of life on this planet, the work of science is finished. In the meantime, evolution has proved to be a pretty good stab at things.
I'm curious, though, why you have taken it upon yourself to eliminate the process of evolution from God's toolbox?
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.