Happy Darwin Day

Posted: Friday, February 09, 2007 6:48 PM by Alan Boyle

The calendar boasts plenty of religious holidays, but how many scientific holidays can you name? One of the red-letter days is coming up on Monday, when more than 850 events around the globe will mark Darwin Day, the 198th anniversary of the evolutionary theorist's birth. You can hear about Charles Darwin and the revolution he sparked from hundreds of church pulpits this weekend, as part of a program called Evolution Sunday.

AP file

Charles Darwin in an 1875 photo.

By the time the big 2-0-0 rolls around in 2009, Stephens hopes Darwin Day will be a day to remember - not only for the most ardent supporters in the cultural debate over evolution, but for everyone who uses the scientific method. And that should take in everyone, period.

"Our long-term goal is to establish a new international tradition ... an annual secular celebration of Darwin, science and humanity," Stephens told me.

The way Stephens sees it, the scientific method is coded right into our DNA. It's even evident in other species - for example, when chimpanzees turn twigs into tools to fish termites out of their mounds.

"To me, science is an international language, and it's a language that transcends tribalism, sectarianism, denominationalism and even nationalism. ... I'd like to think that it could play a role in building a world without war," he said. "I tell people that it's a 1,000-year project, but someone had to get it started."

Stephens rejected the claim that Darwin Day was somehow aimed at deifying the man himself.

"I think of Darwin as being a very good symbol for what we're doing," Stephens replied. "He did give us an alternative to mythological origins ... and going forward from that, we have solidified the knowledge that we have about evolution, all the way to the human genome."

But the ideas outlined in "The Origin of Species" and Darwin's other works shouldn't be taken as received wisdom. Since Darwin's day, fresh discoveries have led to deeper insights into how organisms change over time and transmit those changes to succeeding generations. It should come as no surprise that evolutionary theory is incomplete - even though Darwin's present-day detractors try to make a big deal over that.

The current cultural clash between science and religion isn't anything new, Stephens noted. "The argument that's going on right now in this country is really a duplication of the argument that went on in Darwin's day," he said. But Stephens sees no reason why a celebration of science should necessarily cut into religious faith.

"I'm very pleased to support everybody's individual religious beliefs," Stephens said. "Where we have a problem is with religious fundamentalists."

The effort to bridge the gap between science and faith is what Evolution Sunday is all about. The chief organizer of the Evolution Sunday project, Butler University's Michael Zimmerman, provided a progress report in an e-mail:

"We have expanded by over 27 percent from last year. Last year we had 467 congregations participating, and right now we have 595. Interest is coming from all over, urban and rural, red states and blue. Check out the specific congregations participating by going to [this Web page].

"The majority of places that participated last year are doing so again. The ones who explained why they are not have simply said that this isn't an issue for their congregation because everyone there is comfortable with the compatibility of religion and science.

"There are three major goals for Evolution Sunday.

"First, we want to demonstrate to the American people that religion and science need not be at war. We want people to understand that, unlike what some fundamentalists are saying, they don't have to choose between religion and science. They can have their faith and modern science.

"Second, we want to significantly elevate the debate about this topic. This is going to be done by having meaningful dialogue in small groups around the country and around the world - rather than having biblical literalists screaming that people believing in evolution are going to hell.

"Third, we want the world to recognize that those loud fundamentalists who say folks have to choose between religion and science are not speaking for thousands upon thousands of Christian clergy members. Indeed, The Clergy Letter itself has now been signed by more than 10,500 Christian clergy members.

"You asked about ways to bridge the gap between religion and science. I have two answers. First, the premise of The Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Sunday is that there doesn't have to be a gap. The gap is the artificial creation of biblical literalists. Second, as an educator, I have to believe that education matters. Therefore, the more we talk about this topic in reasoned ways, in more than sound bites, the greater the likelihood that people will begin to understand our message."

If you're not able to attend an Evolution Sunday service, never fear: A huge archive of sermons and other writings can help you get in the proper meditative mood. And if you're looking for other scientific holidays to pencil onto your calendar, check out these dates:

March 14: Pi Day, which is also Albert Einstein's birthday. If you want to get really technical, you can focus your festivities on 1:59 p.m. or 3:14 p.m. (The a.m. times might be a bit inconvenient.)
April 12: Yuri's Night, marking the anniversary of the first manned spaceflight as well as the first space shuttle flight.
April 21: Astronomy Day, which is traditionally marked by Saturday star parties - and which serves this year as an early 17th-birthday party for the Hubble Space Telescope. Click on over to the Astronomical League or Astronomy.com to find out what's going on in your area. This year, organizers are also testing whether an autumn date - Sept. 15 - might work better for Astronomy Day.
May 4: Space Day, an educational event sponsored by Lockheed Martin to recognize past contributions to space exploration and inspire future generations of explorers and scientists.
July 20: Evoloterra, the anniversary of the first Apollo moon landing.
Oct. 4: World Space Week, which runs from Oct. 4 to 11 every year. This year Oct. 4 takes on special significance because it's the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik 1, the world's first artificial satellite. That event also marked the beginning of the space age.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Bizarre!! The only thing I see that the religious and the scientific have in common on this subject is that the mystery of life is very profound and unanswered. And may never be answered completely.

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Friday, February 09, 2007 7:33 PM)

Are those godless secularists trying to take on the trappings of religion? Not at all, says Robert Stephens, one of the organizers behind Darwin Day. "We're not trying to make a saint out of Darwin," he said. "We're just using him as a symbol." Stephens and his colleagues say this long weekend is as good a time as any to turn science into a cause for celebration.

Thus spake "an organizer of Darwin Day". I cringe at this. Please tell me the basic difference between a "saint" and a "symbol" in terms of their use and misuse in social and political squabbles. It is clear that Stephens' statement is the same as the priest who would promote reverence of a relic or a politician who relies chiefly on party affiliation to justify his actions in governance.

We don' need no stinkin' symbols and furthermore no historical figure is properly a symbol. They are flesh and blood like the rest of us. What is symbolic are their achievements and the resultant legacy (i.e. Plato, Christ, Einstein), societies' evolving reaction to their contributions, and the evidence, manifested in later generations, that said legacy is intact.

Saints and symbols are identical in how they are used by special interests to convince and convert potential contributors of the financial type. A huge percentage of these contributions are fed directly back into some huge PR monster to purchase more . . . air time. Not the kind of thing that contributors might be thinking of when the cut that check.

I think that Mr. Stephens could have better served the spirit of Darwin Day had he spoke thusly: "We aren't trying to beatify Darwin but rather to show how his interpretation of evidence gathered over a monumental voyage followed by years of continuing study opened secrets of life to human inspection that has inspired a phenomenal increase in our understanding of how all things living actually go about that business. If the current state of biology and the related life sciences are any indication of what is to come, then the symbolic strength of Darwin's leap of comprehension will not be lost on students, scientists or even the average consumer."

Such a gentle trap to fix upon one face and one name accolades and praise that he would deflect from himself towards the science and logic that he followed. And science is something we all can do.

Things are symbols, symbols are an ersatz place keeper that is easy to remember. People appeal to symbols, and sometimes wave them wildly about. Symbols are mute unless the story behind it is understood. Symbols are important to societal cohesiveness yet their use is hugely overdone because of the economy of symbols (logos, sound bites, slogans, jingles) to the media folks. A tiny bit of type, a few seconds of video, some flashy graphics and presto! a nudge to popular conception. And so easily dismissed.

Would it not be more seductive to entice the average person not with a name or visage, but by a succinct distillation of the fortunate confluence of real world truth with human apprehension, and comprehension?

Crudely Wrott, Dayton, OH (Sent Friday, February 09, 2007 8:07 PM)

Hooray for Charles Darwin! Remove the veil of religion and see the real world. Should we allow Creationists to go to the doctor? Now that we know bacteria and viruses EVOLVE and develop resistance to medications? Perhaps they should stay home when they get sick...and pray a lot.

Dave Chad (Sent Friday, February 09, 2007 8:39 PM)

Despite my doubts of evolution (used to fervently believe in it, but that is another story) I do not see how Christianity and Darwinism can mix.

One only has to look at Genesis to see how much Darwin's theory of evolution and the Creationism contradict.

- Creationism: Earth before stars, oceans before land, plant life before moon
- Evolution: Stars long before Earth, land before oceans, moon before plant life

How someone can claim to believe both in the origin of species as well as the Bible (at the same time) is either very ignorant of either or is IMHO a fence sitter unwilling to settle on a belief system.

Some may choose to believe in God, or that he used evolution, but to simply imply it from the Bible (let alone in Church based on the book) is not only laughable, but a living example of what an oxymoron is all about.

Darnell Clayton, SC (Sent Friday, February 09, 2007 9:34 PM)

"we know bacteria and viruses EVOLVE and develop resistance to medications"

Yes...but neo-Darwinism is extrapolated WAY beyond "adapting" to environmental changes. If anything, drug resistence shows the limited creative power of the supposed Dawrinian mechanism. After literally billions of generations of lab bacteria...all sorts of adaptations have been observed. But at the end of the day you still have the same old bacteria. Only "story telling" gets you truly novel functions and form.

"Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology," [Dr. Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook]

mike angove (Sent Friday, February 09, 2007 11:35 PM)

Darwin Day should also be Lincoln Day.

(Dar-Lincoln Day?)

Abe and Charles were both born on February 12 in 1809.

Shelley Ackerman New York, NY (Sent Friday, February 09, 2007 11:50 PM)

There is only one reason why people reject evolution. They have a comic book understanding of the subject.

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 2:15 AM)

After observing the conduct of the scientific community regarding climate change, any snarky comments implying a stark difference between religious faith and the "scientific process" can only be seen as risible. Demands to decertify climatologists whose research and conclusions disagree with accepted dogma, calls to forbid and punish the funding of research done from a questioning angle, comparison by respected journalists of non compliant climatologists with Holocaust deniers without a squeak of protest from science community leaders. The scientific community has inflicted a severe and lasting beating on its credibility as objective finders of scientific truth.

Mike Maddox, Looneytown, DC (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 5:02 AM)

Religious traditions which allow for critical thinking and examination can reconcile the mystery of creation with proven scientific theories such as evolution. To accept the creation story of the Bible or any other creation story(of which there are many), as literal fact when scientific fact demonstrates that such creation stories are not factual, diminishes rather than strengthens such beliefs. To acknowledge Darwin, Wallace or other scientists important in the theory to explain the complexity of life on earth does not diminish a thinking religion or the symbolism of creation stories, or the"why" of life as opposed to the "how" of life.

S. C. Wolf Norman, Oklahoma (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:04 AM)

Interesting. This project is purported to be some sort of great reapproachment between the pulpit and the lab. It isn't. It is actually nothing more than a capitulation on the part of the theologians, an admission that their faith in their doctrines is not sufficiently strong to resist scientific inquiry. On a grand scale, the priests are saying, if you cannot beat them, join them, at least a little bit.

This is Natural Selection at work! The worldview which holds that the Bible is "god-breathed", that the Creation is literal, is participating in one aspect of natural selection -- extinction.

It's also interesting that this union will not result in a hybrid species, seomething different than both dam and sire. This crossbreeding of Mother Church and Father Science will not result in a creature with the features of both -- it will be a true son of the father.

Why does mankind so stubbornly refuse to admit that the selection process applies not only to our biology, but to our thought processes as well?

Mark Gillis, Conway, SC (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:15 AM)

Hooray for Darwin and Scientific Method. And yes, gravity is a theory as well just like evolution. I wonder how the Pope would interpret the importance of Darwin Day as it relates to the progression of human thinking and civilization in general. Just another gosh darn scientist trying to make sense of this whole mess. But look how far we have come!

Peter Hegeman, Orlando, Fl (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:33 AM)

Pardon me -- I did not think the celebration of Darwin and the scientific method, nor recognition of science and its contributions to society were to be debated as heretical?? I thought, I believe it is a very good idea, that we have some recognition of science discovery, method, and the scientific mind. It just might encourage children to seek the truth and to pursue careers in a sound, logical, and honorable endeavor -- science, for instance, contributes to medicine, to health, to nutrition -- and where would neo-Darwinism be if Darwin and his scientific method had not existed???!!!!!

Sure, any one who studies Darwin learns that his ideas were extrapolated by Spencer and mis-applied -- but these were stages in scientific growth, testing of methodology, erring and adjustment.

Let's think beyond the little black box. Research and science need to be recognized as a strong component of society and the general public needs to be educated as to how science is integral to their life.

Siren's Wish, Austin, TX (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:06 PM)

For all those out there who do not know why Darwin started the Theory of Eveloution here is the straight poop,, Darwin was very angry at his father and to get even with God for having given him a bad father. It was Darwin's vendetta against God , a revenge, check it out, it is very public, Bud Thilly in GA

Bud Thilly (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:10 PM)

Why is it so important to "bridge the gap between religion and science?" Our beliefs, behaviors and existence itself are fraught with contradictions. To me, it is an exercise in futility to force alignments of these things into nice congruent connections. We seek an elusvie peace of mind by doing so. Better to to investigate the physical world for the sake of utility and leave the rest to work itself in our spirits, as we (hopefully) strive to better ourselves as human beings - which necessarily means treating others and ourselves with greater compassion.

Gerhard Franck (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:46 PM)

This editorial cartoon just came through our anthropologists' news-list. How timely!

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/
store/add.php?iid=11168

B D-L (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:46 PM)

you left out 6:02 AM or PM on October 23rd

Mole Day!
(ask someone who knows chemistry)

Tim Cooper (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 1:38 PM)

Well, it's all very nice and everything, but I'm of the "Good fences make good neighbors" side of the argument. Science is great; science is indispensable, but one thing it cannot do is give meaning to life, something that is indispensable to human life, civilization and morality. God cannot be (and should not be) scientifically proven. While science and religion may occasionally echo or reflect each other, science is about observing and measuring. The consequences of science--technology-- are often immoral (nuclear weapons, WMD, anybody?)

Faith is transcendent and intuitive. If science shows anything, it's how little of reality we actually see. The Creator is something our poor measuring sticks will likely never be able to comprehend. To try to turn science-whose knowledge is always termporary--into religion--something eternal--is foolish. And trying to turn religion onto science--like the Creationosts are trying--is also not only foolish, but *dangerous* to the very faith they're trying to protect. If you really did get God under a microscope, would S/He be God anymore?

Thomas Burchfield, Emeryville, CA (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 1:51 PM)

Darwin put forth the novel idea of evolution. Countless numbers of scientists, teachers, and philosphers completed the concept, and all of this has been based on scientific approaches and thinking. Those who deny its total reality can not also say they are scientists. To even say that a person of faith can also be a scientist is a contradiction of terms. An oxymoron of serious relevance to the progression of understanding about who and what we are.

Ed McClendon (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 2:03 PM)

The pope and Catholic Church acknowledge the validity of evolution. They understand that the Bible is a moral book, not a scientific treatise. It was written by and for people who where shepards and carpenters and thought the world was flat and the sun went around the earth. Some of us are more advanced in our understanding of God's universe.

Dale Lanz, Lakewood CA (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 2:16 PM)

Evolution

He it is Who created the skies (universes) and the earth in six days - and His Throne was on the water - that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. But if you were to say to them, “You shall indeed be raised up after death”, the deniers of the truth would be sure to say, “This is nothing but obvious sorcery!” (7) chapter 11

Do not the hiders of the truth see that the skies (universes) and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (30) chapter 21

And God has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things (45) chapter 24

It is He Who has created human from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for Rabbkum (your Nurturer) has power (over all things) (54) chapter 25.

We created the skies (universes) and the earth and all between them in six days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us! (38) chapter 50

What is the matter with you, that you place not your hope for kindness and long-suffering in God (13), - Seeing that it is He that has created you in diverse stages? (14) Don’t you see how God has created the seven skies (universes) one above another (15), - And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (glorious) lamp? (16) And God has produced you from the earth growing (gradually) (17), and in the end He will return you into the (earth), and raise you forth? (18) chapter 71

Do not the denier of the truth see that the skies (universes) and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (30) chapter 21

- Qur'an

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

- Albert Einstein

Mohamed Najafali, Arkansas (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 2:24 PM)

Happy Birthday to Charles Darwin who noticed that 'there are no handicapped ramps in nature'!

Yes, according to Charles Darwin, nature is designed to strengthen us to the extent that we co-operate with her (Nature).

As (if) an individual moves along his (or her) evolutionary path they will gradually discover that there is a distinction between 'container' (the body) and 'contents' (the consciousness).

Lower life forms make no such distinction and see and experience consciousness and form as an inseparable unity.

More 'evolved' life forms begin to discern that pure consciousness is 'dumbed down' according to whatever form it is occupying. Therein rests the dichotomy that has established the debate between "Darwin's physical-based Natural Selection" and "Intelligent Design". It is a debate from two entirely different perspectives: 1) the physical body and 2) the indwelling consciousness of a physical body.

From a Darwinian perspective, 'consciousness' is shaped by its physical container (i.e. the human form) and from the 'Intelligent Design' perspective the physical form is shaped (re-formed) by the commanding and indwelling consciousness.

All 'true religions' (less their ridiculous machinations) are designed to accelerate the realization that our consciousness is, in fact, an 'entity' that can be distilled from 'matter' and has an eternal shelf-life. Whereas, the scientific perspective sees consciousness as an inherent component of the body and, as such, dies along with the physical form.

So (therefore?) if the test is "survival of the fittest" than I would argue that attaining the remembrance of 'eternal life' is the ultimate act of 'survival' (endurance).
In other words, the end result of "Natural Selection" is the realization of an "Intelligent Design".

John Charles Webb, Jr. (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 2:37 PM)

there is no dog - science rules - churchifying is for fools

andy, canada (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 3:04 PM)

Cool! Now I can wear my Santa Beard on Darwin Day. Now if we can just do away with that evil theory of gravity we can all float to heaven.

Greg K, Chicago, Il (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 3:22 PM)

To Darnell Clayton: You're also forgetting that in the 2nd chapter of Genesis it says that God created animals after man, to be his companion. Although, in the 1st chapter of Genesis it says God created the animals before man. So, not only does Science not agree with the Bible, the Bible doesn't agree with the Bible. Obviously, Genesis was meant to be metaphorical and not to be taken literally.

John Anderson, Nashville TN (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 3:38 PM)

Quoting a neurosurgeon in defence of creationism is pretty weak, in my opinion. I have a thorough respect for surgeons, but in working with physicians for a few years now (I'm an immunologist, doing basic research at a large medical center) and they tend to be quite dogmatic and a pretty religious lot, in general.

The fact of the matter is, in order to think about science properly, you must come at it with an atheist perspective. I'm not advocating that anyone give up their belief in God, but in asking and answering scientific questions, there is NEVER a supernatural explanation for anything. The ideas about the mechanisms of speciation and their ecological and molecular biological bases are as sound as the germ theory of disease or the theory of plate tectonics.

And BTW, I grew up in a very conservative southern Baptist congegation, and I have lots of respect for religious people. But on this issue of biological origins, I think the "biblical literalist" view is just backward, boneheaded, and wrong. Especially so when public policy is based on a literal reading of the mythology of a bunch of nomadic Hebrew sheep herders.

Wayne, Denver, CO (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:24 PM)

religion or cult is an human evolution!
any religion comes with violence is a cult!

Darwinism is the best answer so far!

yamio
san francisco

yamio noh (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:00 PM)

Darwin was only being truthful. pity for those millions of poor souls who died because of really idiotic religeous beliefs. Science should be the main staple of our educational system with religion simply an elective....

Richard (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:00 PM)

At least there aren't any cases of Darwinites molesting liitle boys (I survived catholic school - yeah)

James (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:03 PM)

in most fundamentalist mega churches with their own education system from preschool to college, creationism is undoubtedly taught and students are taught not to question, as it is written in the Holy Book,and is god's word. if the parents of these students so highly value education and success, how will these students ever compete in the real world scientific or ortherwise?? Will the students who are being indoctrinated with creationism be able to put these believes behind them, and their faith ,which is based on this dogma?? They will be so totally uniformed how will they become futuer scientists and educated individuals??and be able to make real contributions to a society? this type of thinking is in full evidence in the white house today, being led by someone who actually believes everything is god's will and he can do no wrong.

frank thomas, fresno, california (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:12 PM)

speaking about great science holidays, what about Mole Day? Both my kids celebrated this in school. From the Mole Day website: Celebrated annually on October 23 from 6:02 a.m. to 6:02 p.m., Mole Day commemorates Avogadro's Number (6.02 x 10^23), which is a basic measuring unit in chemistry. Mole Day was created as a way to foster interest in chemistry. Schools throughout the United States and around the world celebrate Mole Day with various activities related to chemistry and/or moles.

Dana Knox, Sugar Land, TX (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 6:20 PM)

A lot of my co-religionists are loath to admit it, but Christianity is only one of dozens of faiths around the world. If we're going to treat the Bible as a science textbook, then what about the "factual truth" of those other religions' creation stories? The Navajo have their Coyote who brought forth the world, the Hindus' earth is held up by four elephants that stand on the back of a turtle, and on and on. Which one is right - and why?? (Note - NOT just "because the Bible says it's so")

If in fact some great being went "POOF!" and put everything in place 6000 years ago, he/she/it left a lot of contradictions hanging around! Scientific research is not a smörgåsbord - you can't selectively scrap the pieces that you don't care for. If the age calculations returned by carbon dating and DNA modifications are wrong, then our understanding of everything from particle physics to chemistry to genetics is wrong!

Oh, and then there's the troublesome problem of the speed of light, measured to within millimeters of accuracy: if all those stars aren't more than 6000 light years away, then everything we know about celestial mechanics, all the way down to basic geometry, has to go in the tank as well.

Sorry gang, but if you're gonna accept creationism then you can't accept the idea of a God who gave us the intelligence to try to understand the universe as it really is, rather than as a fairy tale. The creationist alternative is a God who's one day going to tell us that everything we humans ever managed to figure out is wrong, and it's all been a cosmic joke.

I'm not laughing.

Chuck D. (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 8:08 PM)

As listed in the calendar, World Space Week is October 4-10. All you space fans are encouraged to celebrate the first 50 years of space that week and imagine the next 50 years. Whether you hold a small event, write about space in your blog, or attend an event, your participation will be an important part of an historic, global event. For more info, please visit our web site or email me. Ad astra!

Dennis Stone, Houston, TX (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:17 PM)

It should be noted, at one point Darwin studied for ordination in the Church of England, and maintained communicant status the rest of his life: you CAN have your brain and religion, in spite of American evangelicals & fundamentalists

Richard, Ferndale MI (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:56 PM)

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When a group of people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.

Rick Borrell (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 10:19 PM)

For anything to be science it must be observable, repeatable and testable.

Religion and evolution IS NOT science!

fred (Sent Saturday, February 10, 2007 11:09 PM)

Oh my, the creationists are out in force. Please, please, please, try and remember that the TOE has nothing to do with steller evolution or the origin of the earth. Those are entirely different topics. Trying to confuse your fellow christians by lumping 30 different disciplines into a single mass called, "evolution" is really, really dishonest (not to mention nutty but thats another matter).

Bubba, Tampa, Florida (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:07 AM)

Those who praise Darwin's Theory maybe ready to explore and believe the possibility that after they die, they have the same kind of "soul" as monkeys...and the "bacteria". After all, according to their views, human and monkeys have the same origin.LoL. Or, perhaps, they even do not want to think how they will go after their period in this world expired. With say 80-90 years living on earth, they feel satisfied already...and do not want to explore beyond that. Maybe they think that they do not have something eternal in them. Well, it is up to them..I do not want to be the judge.
Darwin's theory is brillliant....but it is still in lack of something..it is too naive for those who reject religion just because of this theory. They are celebrating "the victorious trend" nowadays & mocking the Creationist people...insulting etc.....if they think they are much better than those of the creationists who live today or in the past...they are completely WRONG...they are NO BETTER and their cynical pride overshadow their ability to think further make them paralized. In fact, they are FANATIC people,fanatic with the theory itself...then, fanatic with science and logical thinking...IQ, and other Inteligence aspects. The same as those of the fanatic in any religious group, ie : blaming, mocking/insulting others, too proud of them selves, always remember other's fault for their ammunition, etc. Any science which is going to be too proud will fail...only resulting chaos,ie : medicine developes as fast as desease developes....and round-round round...never ending disaster accross the globe. Or maybe some scientists are happy to see the phenomena as it provides soil to develop their research ??? Hey...don't get the wrong idea. I am not against science...but something which is too much...very imbalance...make me sick. Thus, my point of view is that Religion and Science have to be in balance. Balance creates harmony in life.

karenina suan, outside United States (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:41 AM)

Science = reason
Religion = imagination.

Chuck Concord, CA (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:03 AM)

Instead of attacking religion with their recorded accumulated faults in the past and today (while rejecting to acknowledge the religious contribution to society) to prove science superiority and build up theories over theories, why don't they (the scientist society & the fans) make larger efforts to find solution on todays world's mega problems: energy alternatives, AIDS, Avian Flu, how to stop natural disasters, etc.

For those who have experience suffer in catholic school, you have to know that not all people experience the same thing as you do. Many people especially those who have been raised in catholic foster home feel grateful with what the catholic have provided for them (as Nobody cares). Do all of the priests molest small boys ? It is very very unlikely. As a matter of facts, I have seen none at all. Why do you people like to generalize things ? It sounds like stereotype or prejudice. It is no good at all. Later, a crowd may feel a right to attack just because of this stereotype or prejudice.

As for education, I believe a human needs education not only in science and others which stimulate intelligence, a human also needs some education which is beyond material things...this could be satisfied with religion. Religion education is still needed...can not be dismissed at all. Maybe needs some altenative progressive method so that individual is able to catch and articulate the religion's essence and feel in their spiritual being to be wise person...hence they can contribute well to society (Not fanatic...as fanatic is off the correct way...it is imbalance). The world can not simply managed by science or so called "logical thinking" only (ie.: human's ability to think logic often can not understand natural acts) Again...Balance is important. Balance between Science and Religion...why not ?

Karenina Suan, outside United States (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:32 AM)

I'm a creationist, yes I know, you think I've had a lobotomy for saying that and now you can dismiss my opinion. Not so fast. Irregardless of your disdain for me I am still a creationist. I have given this subject a great deal of thought and have considered my position very carefully. I have arrived at my conclusion based on the scientific facts and my underlying assumptions. This is how scientific theories are developed. Since I believe in God and the Bible my theories about the scientific facts will include God in my interpretation and conclusions.

In my studies I have found no reason to reject science, but i do reject the naturalistic interpretation of science. I have to, because I believe in the supernatural ie God. Does that mean I then have to throw out science? No it doesn't, because science is neutral. Scientific facts are independent of interpretation. I interpret scientific facts based on my assumptions and naturalists interpret science according to their assumptions. Scientific Theories, like evolution, are interpretations of the facts based on assumptions or bias. You may disagree with this but you will not be honest or logical in doing so. All scientists know that assumptions have to be made when developing a theory about scientific facts. This is why there are creationists and evolutionists. Both start with the facts and base their theories on their assumptions. We arrive at different conclusions based on the assumptions we start with. Creationists include God and evolutionists do not. Both theories are valid but both sets of assumptions are not. Based on the laws of logic (non-contradiction), only one set of assumptions can be true. I choose God.

Jeff Bromley, Albany OR (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 4:53 AM)

It is really curious how we are all so different. I come from a large family and within that family there are persons steadfastly on both sides of this issue. I have been educated in the sciences and have pursued a highly technical career while others have not.

It is striking to me that those who have little or no training in science, even in high school, are more inclined to question even the most fundamental aspects of things such as the age of our planet. Some suggest (vehemently) that somehow scientists have gotten it wrong when they say the earth is X billions of years old and prefer the idea of a few thousand years.

In the sense of family we have all been raised within a religious community and as the second oldest I was exposed to more stringent religious beliefs that my younger siblings. Interestingly enough, the catholic school I attended was very big on the sciences and math and without that foundation I am quite sure I would be doing something very different. I have never felt conflicted by this. I was taught religion and science side by side so I am fairly convinced that people are best served by an understanding of both. And short of that I am quite sure that people will suffer the invevitable negative consequences that are a product of bias. And particularly as this applies to our national and global leaders it is all too evident that such a bias serves us all very poorly.

John, Syracuse NY (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:01 AM)

Science keeps my two little feet on the ground; religion raises my arms. God is stretching us.

Joe Weismantel, San Diego, Ca (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 6:19 AM)

If he was right, why bother?

J Grant - Lakeland, FL (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:25 AM)

As McChurch, the drive-through, fast-food temple of the Christian Right, has merged with the Republican Party, so does it now hasten to merge with the scientific community - on some issues, that is.

Is there not room for mystery in the passions of both? Is it not permissible to retain a "missing link" without descending into spasms of unbelief?

The biblical creation account was recorded from oral tradition and is mythological in genre. Faith requires simply that God created and that there was a beginning to all creation.

While the evidence of intraspecies evolution is scientific fact, the fossil evidence of interspecies evolution is zero.

How about the common ground of "We don't really know, exactly."

Stan Moody, Christian Policy Institute, author of "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry."

Stan Moody, Manchester, Maine (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:34 AM)

Well, I was going to do a different post but I think Chuck Concord in CA said it the best.

We teach our kids that Santa Claus exists, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. How much of Reality is that? These may be simple, fun things we do with kids, but we are also teaching them to be what I call, gullible.

Marcia J, Sugar Land, TX (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:39 AM)

Ummmmm, let's see here. Darwinism teaches that survival of the fittest is our lot in life and that our most primitive urges are to dominate so that we won't be dominated. Some win, most lose.

Contrast that with this ridiculous statement quoted from the article: "To me, science is an international language, and it's a language that transcends tribalism, sectarianism, denominationalism and even nationalism. ... I'd like to think that it could play a role in building a world without war," he said.

Natural selection IS war. If Darwinists want to establish a tradition of believing in natural selection, then they need to accept the "natural" consequences that will arise.

Religion, with all of the flaws that human beings of faith exhibit, at least _tries_ to elevate itself above the natural and material world of war and competition. The fact that we haven't always achieved this transcendence shouldn't mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Rob, Chicago, IL (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:12 AM)

I shudder when I see delusional fundamentalist responses regarding Evolutionary Theory.

You can actually feel the stupidity flowing through their words.

Evolutionary Theory is FACT that is irrefutable, it is testable, observable, repeatable and one can make predictions based on it. All of Biological Science has been based on it for over 100 years.

Creationism is pure fantasy, fairy tales of millennia gone by and the Christian version can be traced right back to "The Sumerian Tablets".

People that have "faith" in the insane babblings of bronze age Bedouins and believe these scribblings to be 100% infallible truth have the mind set of pre dark age savages.

These people need help, they need psychotherapy & medication.

Religion is a disease, its a mind plague that utterly destroys the host rational thinking processes.

In the case of Evolution/Darwin Vs Religion/Creationism the infected person must completely deny factual reality that is supported by overwhelming empirical evidence in favor of mythology, magic & fairy tales of which Archeology has proven comes the active imaginations of bronze age humans.

People that are so weak minded as to believe religious dogma should not be allowed to walk the streets freely, let alone allowed to vote & take positions of authority over others such as we have today in the US Gov.

Nunyabiz (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 12:20 PM)

I think this article helps to confuse the issue of what "holidays" in today's society. Perhaps we should remove the "holi-" and call the secular ones commemoration days. I'm referring to such uncontested "holidays" as Presidents' Day and Fourth of July which surely have to basis in any sacred text. On another note, as an anthropology instructor, I think this is a great idea for raising awareness, but we must always remind people that Darwin neither invented evolution (in fact, he co-presented his findings in 1859 with Alfred Russel Wallace who had independently come to the same conclusions but didn't have so much data), nor did Darwin have anything approaching a clear understanding of the process (he didn't know about genetics, and he dealt only with change that was steady and gradual). Still, all we can do is keep the conversation going so that people can realize that it is not such a big deal after all. This ideological crisis is very similar to the one touched off by Copernicus when he pointed out that the earth wasn't the center of the solar system (nor the universe, as many would have imagined it).

Deborah Shepherd, Minneapolis, MN (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 12:44 PM)

Evolution IS testable and repeatable at both the micro and macro level. We can observe its microeffects in real time through adaptation and speciation of everything from bacteria to finches. At the macro level over the much longer time span of the earth's history (yes, billions of years, not a few millennia) we can observe the fossil record of gradual morphologic changes (e.g. dinosaurs to birds) and repeated development of similar characteristics (e.g. at least 4 different types of sabre-toothed cat having developed and gone extinct at different times).

Where will we end up if the creationists have their way and we replace scientific exploration with a simplistic "God did it!" explanation for every question and conundrum?

The Catholic Church was perfectly willing to imprison Galileo because he dared to go beyond the Church's doctrine of a God-directed universe with the Earth at its center. Should we still insist that the geocentric hypothesis (NOT a theory; see below..) be taught as a matter of fairness?

Or suppose that Galvani had observed that frog's leg would twitch when an electrical current was applied and concluded that it was God's will animating the limb? Edison might have ended up as a monk somewhere and we'd still be reading by candlelight.

Please look at what has happened in the Arab world. In the first millennium the West was a feudal society that made few advances beyond castle-building. At the same time Arab thinkers and scientists developed algebra, codified the base-10 number system, invented the battery, and made dozens of other advances that are part of our modern world's foundations. But after that period, religion in many parts of the Arab world turned from advancing knowledge along with faith, to simply protecting faith. Just read the headlines to see where "faith at all costs" has left us today.

>>> To the creationists who keep chanting that evolution is "only a theory": Please grit your teeth long enough to take just one basic science class and understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

Chuck D. (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 12:44 PM)

Religion, at the very core, is devisive and evil. 'Our people' will have eternal happiness, but the non-believers will have eternal torment. Sounds like highschool to me.

Happy Darwin Day!

Sean, Torrington CT (Sent Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:26 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=53659

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG