Darwin’s Birthday Celebration

There are quite a number of articles on Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th year of “Origin of Species.” Organizers will be offering various lectures, museum exhibits, and workshops, as well as reenactments of the Scopes Trail and the likes of two well known atheists, Dawkins and PZ Meyers will be touring the lecture circuit. The celebration is suppose to last for the month of February beginning on the 12th, which makes it direct competition with “Black History” month.

It has been interesting to say the least, reading about how people are conducting themselves and what they are advocating with this unique but unbiblical celebration.

On billboard states;Praise Darwin: Evolve Beyond Belief” with the implication that evolution has disproved God’s handy work, and His existence and has been replaced by Neo-Darwinism. Of course the claims are absolutely false, but it goes to show, Darwin’s birthday is not all what some people are celebrating…

British Humanists are pushing for a National Holiday for Darwin…

The motion, tabled by Ashok Kumar MP says:

“That this House notes the extraordinary achievements of Charles Darwin; notes that 2009 marks both the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species; welcomes proposals for the creation of a Darwin Day in recognition of the ground-breaking work of the British scientist responsible for the theory of evolution by natural selection; and calls for Darwin’s birthday, 12 February, to be designated a public holiday in honour of one of the fathers of modern science and one of Britain’s greatest, if not the greatest, scientific minds.”

All the fuss is not surprising considering what Darwin’s beliefs are to humanists and atheists, even some religionists compared to the importance of Christ to Christians.

However, evolution is not all what it’s cracked up to be. One needs a lot of faith to believe in this very complex system. Almost 200 years with evolutionary theory evolving, many predictions have been way off…In an online book, “Darwin’s Predictions” makes some interesting statements about this…

“Many predictions of evolution have been falsified, including foundational expectations. Evolutionists have added explanations to their theory to account for these problematic findings. The drawback is that this greatly complicates the theory. Scientific theories are supposed to be parsimonious, explaining future findings with simple explanations rather than explaining past findings with complicated explanations.”

Therefore evolutionists are faced with a accuracy-versus-parsimony tradeoff. The scientific findings make their original theory inaccurate. That is, the theory does not fit the empirical evidence well. The only way to increase the evolution’s accuracy is to complicate the theory tremendously and sacrifice parsimony. Evolutionists have consistently preferred low parsimony over low accuracy, but either way the theory is problematic.

The theory of evolution has consistently failed and as a consequence it has grown far more complex than anything Darwin ever envisioned. Therefore evolution is not a good scientific theory and in this sense it is comparable to geocentrism. Both theories grew ever more complicated in response to the evidences of the natural world, adding epicycle upon epicycle.

Hunter who is the author of this book, hits it right one the money about many predictions in evolution being falsified. This is why we see the theory of evolution getting more and more complex each day, month by month, year by year, because scientists continue to add onto their original proposals.

I happened to mention only a few of these predictions when new data comes in which generally doesn’t match with the hypothesis or theory but point directly or indirectly to the creationist framework. Darwin being unable envision the complexity of evolution most likely wouldn’t bother him in the least, but numerous failed predictions would have if he were living today.

Darwin’s birthday even has promoted debate about evolution (either for it or against it), even witnessing, similar to that of the movie, “Expelled.” We already see some of it in articles like here

“Evolutionary biology is a diverse field, and I do not think that it does justice to Darwin or evolution to present to the public such a one-sided picture of science and present it as a fact,” Bartlett said in a letter to OU President David Boren.”

“According to Bartlett, Nick Matzke and Richard Dawkins, who are scheduled to speak at OU this year, present a biased view of evolutionary theory that is weighted too heavily toward Darwinism.”

“OU is a public university, so this series of lectures is oriented to the public,” Bartlett said. “I don’t begrudge people speaking their viewpoints, but there is a responsibility to genuinely look at other sides.”

I agree, Universities in America are taxpayer funded, thereby allows a diverse ray of opinions and beliefs which includes Christians. Private schools are different, they are allowed to have their own special agendas despite if their Christian, or not.

More polling is being done as a result of Darwin’s birthday. A recent poll conducted in England suggests that 51 percent do not believe in evolution. The details indicate more people disagree with evolution than people who are going to church. A major concern for militants who are sorta mixed with the results. For one thing, they can’t understand after all these years why so many disagree with evolution, but are happy with only 22 percent of those who reject evolution in the UK consider themselves creationists.


4 thoughts on “Darwin’s Birthday Celebration

  1. Darwin was a scientist, so he did not ‘believe’ in evolution. Scientist do not ‘believe’ things, they collect facts (evolution is one of the facts of live), and produce theories to explain these facts.

    ‘Evolution’ is a set of facts, and there is a ‘theory of evolution’ to explain those facts.
    Just like ‘gravity’ is a set of facts, and there is a ‘theory of gravity’ to explain the facts.
    And ‘electromagnetism’ is a set of facts, with a ‘theory of electromagnitism’ to explain those facts.
    And there is a set of facts for ‘atoms’. With an ‘atomic theory’ to explain the facts.
    Etc. etc.

    All of these are not beliefs – they are part of science today. Including the facts and theory of evolution. The facts are just observables, but about the theory you can argue – which one works best ? Darwin’s was a first attempt, and his theory has been updated quite a bit. He did not know about genes etc., of course, so that is not very surprising. So, he made a big contribution, but it is no longer just his theory. Just like gravity is no longer just Newton’s, but mostly Einstein’s. For now, at least.

    So why are you not contesting the facts and theory of gravity, electromagnetism, and atoms ? Why are you just picking on evolution ? What’s so special about evolution ? It is just part of biology.

  2. Theories of “Gravity” doesn’t change nowhere near as often as evolution does and who’s to say someone will not come along and correct Einstein’s theory. Predictions in the theory of gravity do not fall flat like evolution does. Scientific law is absolute, and simple which explains the lack of updating which the complexity of evolution needs all the time because the predictions are not accurate. Theories are more complex and diverse not scientific law. It’s enormously much harder to update scientific law like “gravity” than it is Evolution. Name me one theory that has changed as much as evolution has and still retains it’s original proposal?

  3. I don’t seem to find your answer to my question (why you are picking on evolution). Oh well.

    I do not understand your complaint about the ‘complexity of evolution’. Have you ever tried to understand general relativity ? Or quantum field theory ? If nature is complex, so be it.

    So why do you insist that scientific laws should be simple ? That’d be nice, sure, but why should that be ? Most are not …

    Prediction from the theory of evolution do not fall flat, that is not what people find. It works really, really well, and keeps a lot of people alive.

    I have no idea what you are trying to ask in your last question, and I think you are trying to imply something that is not quite the case. The theory of evolution has changed but is still the same ? How would you do that ?

    Of course the facts of evolution, which the theory tries to explain, cannot just be denied. It is fine to argue about the theory, but ignoring the observed facts is denialism:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s