A friend stumbles onto the true meaning of Darwin and Darwin Day in today’s society when he writes to ask,
Why don’t they split the difference and call it “Darwin and Wallace Day”? They did that with “President’s Day.”
(He notes that the birthdays of Darwin and Wallace (April 14) are a little further apart than those of US presidents Lincoln and Washington, but still … .)
He is thinking, perhaps, of: Why is there a Darwin Day but no Newton Day? Never mind no Wallace Day. Okay, here’s the News desk’s response:
Actually, they couldn’t add Wallace.
If they called it Darwin and Wallace Day, it would really be about evolution.
It wouldn’t be just another atheist and co-dependent liberal Christian sausage festival that some now attempt to impose on the public as a national holiday.
What makes Wallace deadly is that he really, truly, is about evolution and only about evolution. Not about promoting new atheism.
It would be like proposing a Lynn Margulis and Barbara McClintock day. Great ladies, immense achievements, no help to Darwinian atheism in the long run.
Few really care about evolution except insofar as it enables the public promotion of naturalist atheism and eat-me-last theism.
Look, Darwin was different.
He wanted to promote naturalist atheism while remaining safe on the sidelines. We’re told Victorian journalist Thomas Huxley doubted Darwin’s theory but went ahead and promoted it anyway, to advance the cause. (See World of Life.)
It is astonishing to hear liberal Christian reverends talk as if there is any compatibility whatever between popular Darwinism and Christianity. And then there is BioLogos (Christians for Darwin).
Check out their founder Francis Collins here. Much as I dislike Christians for Darwin, I would not wish such a founder on them, or on any allegedly Christian cause.
Note: Wallace Day is celebrated, but without the coercive hooplah or pursuit of public funding.
See also: John West has updated Darwin Day in America (read free excerpt!)
Follow UD News at Twitter!
News:
It is astonishing to hear liberal Christian reverends talk as if there is any compatibility whatever between popular Darwinism and Christianity. And then there is BioLogos (Christians for Darwin).
Are you saying God is incapable of creating life thru those laws of nature that He created? That your political views limit God’s actions?
If God did it then it ain’t Darwinism.
as to ‘That your political views limit God’s actions?”
Hmmm, lets see political views limiting God’s actions, who would be guilty of that???,,
Perhaps the good reverend should crack open a book (including the Bible) every once in a while?
As to politics, here is a new video upload by IDquest featuring Ben Carson:
Do you realise when Newton was born? (Hint: no Christian would dare to celebrate his birthday as Newton Day.)
News: Why is there a Darwin Day but no Newton Day?
Britain almost completely closes down, except for emergency services, on Newton’s birthday.
Piotr, do YOU realize when Jesus was born? (Hint: it wasn’t on December 25th.)
“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.”
– Sir Isaac Newton
Joe,
If God did it then it ain’t Darwinism.
Then News is incorrect because ” liberal Christians” believe that God is necessary for the existence of all things, what they do not believe is that God must be the proximate cause , therefore evolution and God are compatible.
Please define Darwinism and how it differs from evolutionary mechanisms, thanks.
Darwinism and the modern synthesis require all genetic change to be blind and undirected- happenstance changes. No goals, no targets, just survival.
Evolutionary and genetic algorithms are goal-oriented. They use targeted searches to solve problems. They are intelligent design evolution in action.
Joe, moreover, as I’m sure you well know, the blind and undirected, i.e. ‘random’, postulate of Darwinism is found to be false.
First off there are multiple layers mutation protection/correction in the cell that prevent random mutations from happening to the genome.
Secondly, for the vast majority of times that changes do happen to DNA, they are now known to be ‘directed changes’ by sophisticated molecular machines, not unguided ‘random changes’ from a cosmic ray, chemical imbalance, or some such entropy driven event as that:
Thirdly, DNA is designed in such a way as to expose only certain sections of DNA to ‘random mutations’
BA:“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.
The thing is BA, that was done mostly by Creationists, just as Creationists through the American South benefited from the enslavement of the less technologically advanced, so what is your point?
Joe,
Darwinism and the modern synthesis require all genetic change to be blind and undirected- happenstance changes. No goals, no targets, just survival.
Survival and sex are not goals? Seems like the economic system is based on those goals. So basically you are saying that there is not difference between Darwinism and evolutionary mechanisms.
Evolutionary and genetic algorithms are goal-oriented. They use targeted searches to solve problems. They are intelligent design evolution in action.
I believe they are modelling evolutionary processes, funny criticism from a proponent of ID which main source of evidence of design in life is an analogy to design in the inanimate.
@velikovskys:
Who cares what Joe has to say about “Darwinism”?! To claim that News is incorrect you have to understand how the “Christians for Darwin” define “Darwinism”.
velikovskys:
Unguided evolution can’t even account for asexual reproduction, let alone sex. Do rocks survive?
Only to a person who doesn’t understand what I said.
And your equivocation is duly noted. They definitely do not model Darwinian evolution as darwinian evolution is neither a search nor does it have any goals.
NAZI’s were creationists??? In fact the ‘pseudo-scientific racism’ Darwinism engendered was so insidious, and obvious, that Darwinism can be traced back as a primary root cause for the NAZI holocaust:
From Darwin to Hitler – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A
The Role Of Darwinism In Nazi Racial Thought – Richard Weikart – October 2013
Excerpt: The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology.
http://www.csustan.edu/history.....hought.pdf
The racist implications of several common atheist beliefs – December 17, 2014
http://www.examiner.com/articl.....st-beliefs
Sure racism has been with man throughout history and some people have rationalized Slavery in the name of religion throughout history (forgetting that Christians were at the forefront of emancipation), but only Darwinism allowed that insidious racism to be unleashed from the moral shackles of Christianity, and to produce a horror that can scarcely be imagined
jwt:
Who cares what Joe has to say about “Darwinism”?! To claim that News is incorrect you have to understand how the ” Christians for Darwin” define Darwinism
I am sure Joe has high regard for his pearls of wisdom. I find generally it is simpler just to assume News is inaccurate, but go on, define Darwinism as used by the fabled group ” Christians for Darwin”.
BA:
NAZI’s were creationists??? In fact the ‘pseudo-scientific racism’ Darwinism engendered was so insidious,
Nazis were none to fond of Darwin unless forbidding the teaching of Darwin was a seal of approval. But sure,my guess is a certain percentage considered themselves both Christian and believed in creation.
But your quote mentioned savage races, it wasn’t Nazis who rubbed out the native Americans or the aborigines or enslaved millions of Africans and transported them across the ocean.
“Nazis were none to fond of Darwin”
yep no bias there! 🙂
BA,
“Nazis were none to fond of Darwin”
yep no bias there! 🙂
On the list of banned books ” 6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H?ckel).
Now how about all the Creationists who wiped out the ” savage races” ? Care to rebut or just avoid?
BA:
Sure racism has been with man throughout history and some people have rationalized Slavery in the name of religion throughout history (forgetting that Christians were at the forefront of emancipation),
So racism exists and has been justified by numerous means,
but only Darwinism allowed that insidious racism to be unleashed from the moral shackles of Christianity, and to produce a horror that can scarcely be imagined
I’m sure it is a comfort to all those Native Americans that were killed and all those people enslaved that if it had been Darwinists wielding the blade they would have in big trouble.
velikovskys in your rush to defend the unparalleled atheistic atrocities of the twentieth century, I think you are far too quick to dismiss the horror of unfettered atheism. So let’s take a bit closer look shall we?
Those are pretty horrific numbers. Each number attached to a unique human being that was created in God’s image and treated as worthless trash under atheism.
Thus, when you try to attach Christianity to such unmitigated horror as to what atheists have committed, it is with more than just a touch of irony that I know for a fact that most devout Christians are always seeking how they can be of better service to their fellow man.
Moreover, the nihilism inherent within atheism plays out in everyday personal life in that atheists die quicker and are less happy than Christians:
Verse and Music:
Vel, as God would have it, this just ‘coincidentally’ popped up on my Facebook feed:
Native American Reservation Declares “Jesus Christ is Lord” With 30-Foot-Tall Billboard – January 30, 2015
http://blessings.buzz/2015/01/.....billboard/
BA:
velikovskys in your rush to defend the unparalleled atheistic atrocities of the twentieth century,
Try to stay on topic, we are talking about Darwin not atheism, nice try. I have no doubt that if the settlers to America had been atheists the Native American would have suffered the same fate.
You seem to confused between how one justifies his actions with the cause of the actions. The cause of racism is not Darwin or passages from the Bible, those are only used to justify. Stalin destroyed his enemies not in order to create a master race but to hold on to power, the same as the carnage created by the religious Japanese.
I think you are far too quick to dismiss the horror of unfettered atheism. So let’s take a bit closer look shall we?
No I didn’t BA ,my point if both evolutionists and creationists engage in the same behavior then there is another source of that behaviour other than how one believes man came to be.
BA:
Vel, as God would have it, this just ‘coincidentally’ popped up on my Facebook feed:
God messes around with your Facebook posts? The Creator of all things is on Facebook, good grief.
Native American Reservation Declares “Jesus Christ is Lord” With 30-Foot-Tall Billboard – January 30, 2015
Apparently God is near sighted as well
“we are talking about Darwin not atheism,,,”
Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin’s Latest Biographer — and a Pretty Devastating One – David Klinghoffer – October 14, 2012
Excerpt: “Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief,” were students of Darwin, ,,,
Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection “to its logical conclusion.” “Leading Communists,” moreover, “from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung” considered evolution “essential to the self-respect of Communists. … Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power.”
Even Stalin,, “had Darwin’s ‘struggle’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ in mind” when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,,
,,the “emotional stew” Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century’s genocides.,,,
No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin “for millions of deaths.” But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin’s theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences — well, that’s obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein).
There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history).
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65281.html
Moreover, God is far more active than you are willing to believe Vel. As Shakespeare put it:
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
velikovskys:
Survival and sex are not goals?
Unguided evolution can’t even account for asexual reproduction, let alone sex. Do rocks survive?
It only matters that reproduction occurs, are rocks living?
So basically you are saying that there is not difference between Darwinism and evolutionary mechanisms.
Only to a person who doesn’t understand what I said.
My question is do you understand what you wrote ” Darwinism and the modern synthesis require all genetic change to be blind and undirected- happenstance changes. No goals, no targets, just survival.”
I believe they are modelling evolutionary processes,
And your equivocation is duly noted. They definitely do not model Darwinian evolution as darwinian evolution is neither a search
It is not a goal oriented search ,Joe . Plate tectonics and the Colorado River did not have the Grand Canyon as a goal, but there it is, out of the multitude of possible configurations