Thursday, February 12, 2009

There Are Plenty of Good Reasons to Celebrate Darwin Day

Atheism isn't really one of them

Today is Charles Darwin's birthday. Were he alive today, the originator of the theory of evolution would be 200 years old.

Today people all over the world are celebrating Darwin's achievements as a scientist. And rightfully so. But amongst all of these revellers are thousands of individuals who have missed the mark and simply aren't wise enough to recognize it.

These, naturally, are the individuals celebrating Darwin day as an atheist holiday.

There's little question that Charles Darwin was an agnostic -- once a committed Christian who came to believe that there was no evidence for God's existence. But to make Darwin's life about his agnostic religious views rather than what really sets him apart in history -- his science -- is absolute farce.

The value of the theory of evolution isn't as atheist scripture. The value of theory of evolution is as a scientific theory.

To distort Darwin's birthday into something of a Christmas for atheists can be considered to subordinate science to atheism. Science's value isn't in promoting atheism, it's in providing an empirical basis for knowledge that anyone enterprising enough to study the world can understand.

The folly of these atheists using Darwin day to promote atheism is akin to the folly of actor/Christian fundamentalist Kirk Cameron, who blames the theory of evolution on atheism then chooses to debate the issue with individuals so intellectually inept that they can't fashion a decent response to his ridiculous arguments.

The theory of evolution isn't for atheists alone. The legacy that Charles Darwin established is the right of all those who believe in science, believer and non-believer alike.


  1. even the current pope (as well as the last one) accepts evolution, so obviously the theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of god.

    In fact all Evolution says is that IF god exists and IF he created man, then he almost certainly did so through evolution.

  2. Well, technically, Dan isn't that what intelligent design really suggests?

  3. You could possibly argue that in the most general definition of intelligent design what I sated above would qualify, but I think we both know that ID proponents are arguing for something else entirely... aka something very much akin to creationism as the Dover trial made clear.

  4. Not according to my readings of ID research.

    According to what I understand about Intelligent Design research, ID researchers are applying engineering principles to cellular biology in order to find evidence of a designer.

    Which, if you ask me, doesn't logically make an over abundance of sense. After all, most of the things we've learned about engineering we've learned by observing them in nature.

    The argument that the principles we use in design is evidence of a designer simply doesn't make sense when one considers that we derived those principles from nature in the first place.

    This is just an elaboration on my earlier point: that if we agree that God used evolution to create life, then God would very much be life's intelligent designer.

    I don't believe in Intelligent Design -- nor do I believe in Creationism -- so I couldn't personally accept either proposition.

  5. I'm going to be brief, since I am typing this on my phone.

    I think you are misinterpreting my position (l probably wasn't very clear). I agree with what you say, my point is that ID sees complexity and assumes that that is proof of a creator/designer. Evolution does not.


Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.