Co-authored by U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) and American Humanist Association Executive Director Roy Speckhardt.
On Feb. 12 we'll commemorate the anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a celebration around the world known as Darwin Day, to appreciate the advancement of human knowledge and the achievements of science and reason. It must also be a day when we push back against the politicization and undermining of science by ideologues and zealots.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Charles Darwin, who changed the course of human history by bringing science and reason to the fore. His theory of evolution by natural selection not only provided a compelling explanation for the diversity of life on earth, it became the foundation of modern biology, genetics, and medicine. His scientific curiosity and discovery led to breakthroughs that have helped humanity solve innumerable problems and improve our quality of life.
Modern science is a direct result of the foundation that Darwin set for us. Humanity would be far less healthy, wealthy, and wise about the natural world without his contributions. This alone is enough to celebrate Darwin Day and the successes of modern science, but other factors also motivate the acknowledgment of this important day.
Unfortunately, too many politicians are gripped by an anti-science fervor. One only need have listened to recent presidential debates to hear firm denials of the overwhelming evidence of climate change -- or even assertions that vaccines somehow cause mental disabilities in children. This fervor isn't just rhetoric: many in Congress reject teaching science-based health and sexual education in public schools. Politicians around the country remain opposed to teaching evolution in public schools or want religious texts brought into science classrooms.
This opposition to scientific knowledge and inquiry, and the religious traditions that often feed such opposition, merits a strong rebuke. Our country and our world face serious problems that will only be solved through the application of reason and the scientific method. Science must be elevated, not treated with disdain.
By furthering scientific knowledge, we encourage human beings to practice critical thinking and inspire them to wonder about the world they live in. Great things can emerge from such curiosity, such as a paradigm shift in the scientific understanding of the natural world, or a conversation between parent and child about where we all come from and what we can do to make the world a better place. By encouraging people to think critically and scientifically we help to promote an environment of learning that advances human development and fosters a sense of interest and respect for the natural world.
Last year, one of us introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives to designate Feb. 12 as Darwin Day in recognition of Charles Darwin as a worthy symbol of the achievements and importance of reason, science, and the advancement of human knowledge. This resolution signified that Members of Congress are dedicated to promoting science and reason for the greater good. We hope that additional Members will join the call to make Feb. 12 Darwin Day.
On this Darwin Day, we encourage people to celebrate science and human reason and redouble their efforts to improve the world through education, reasoned discourse, and scientific inquiry.
Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) represents California's 13th district and is the only self-described non-theist in Congress. In 2011 he introduced the Darwin Day Resolution.
Roy Speckhardt is the executive director of the American Humanist Association, which manages darwinday.org, the official website promoting hundreds of Darwin Day celebrations around the world.
Follow Roy Speckhardt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/americnhumanist
That's not exactly true.
William Paley's "Watchmaker" argument for the necessity of God was an early, fairly respectable version of the Intelligent Design argument.
But Darwin's theory establishes fairly well that the Divine Watchmaker-Maker is not actually necessary. Dawkins's "Blind Watchmaker" book shows due deference to Paley, and shows that he's wrong.
But David Attenborough's example of an argument that if there is a God, he's not very good to His Creations, is the existence of a horrible worm called the Loa loa, which makes children blind by drilling into their eyes.
This, and the agonies of all sorts of diseases, and the fact that headaches trump sexual desire, is a much more conclusive disproof of a Loving Creator than any need for the extended application of genuine intellect needed to read and understand Darwin's magisterial works.
The trouble that the writers of ancient Scriptures had, in trying to explain the world, is that they didn't have microscopes. They had no conception that disease is caused by living microscopic entities that bear us no actual malice, any more than an avalanche or falling tree does. But if God made all living things, including the really horrible ones, what's His excuse?
Good people usually do good things, bad people do bad things. If you want good people to do bad things, give them a religion.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/full/nature03466.html
Is a scientific article that is the result of over 200,000 [man hours] of research that went into descover the facts that were presented in that brief video by Dr. Miller. This is modern genetics, confirming predictions made by Charles Darwin more than 145 years earlier.
For those who still are thinking evolution is a bit 'iffy' or unfounded..
This article pretty much puts a nail in that coffin.
○ It is a fact to say that Humans are related to Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutans and other great apes.
○ It is a fact to say that Humans evolved from a common ancestor to these modern great apes.
○ It is a fact to say that speciation occurs.
○ It is a demonstrable that you call evolution and the theory of natural selection; a scientific fact.
-----------------
Genetics demonstrates common descent in humans.
Deal with it.
Even Darwin acknowledged that the evidence he was presenting was open to interpretation. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) said:
"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume [The Origin of Species] on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
Go to drdino.com and see some debates when evolution is scrutinized - you will be amazed.
You do realize there has been 150 years worth of study on evolution since Darwin wrote "On the Origin of the Species," right? Try reading some of it.
“Evolution” is a vague word.
Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.
The conflict pertains to Darwinian/Macro evolution which asserts that:
1) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
2) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.
The vague and changing definition is poor science and a thinly disguised strategy to make it easier to defend and propagate.
Dr John Sanford (Geneticists and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
“The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
Darwins book "On the Origin of Species" gives no significant evidence to support Darwinian/Macro evolution. Good science demands clarity in definitions lest consider the definition of "evolution". “Evolution” is a vague word.
Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.
The conflict pertains to Darwinian/Macro evolution which asserts that:
1) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
2) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.
The vague and changing definition is poor science and a thinly disguised strategy to make it easier to defend and propagate.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
Dr John Sanford (Geneticists and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
“The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research said:
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.
This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.
It is useless."
The theory of evolution implies no such condition. Are you lying, or have you simply failed to adequately research the subject that you are discussing?
Arguments presented on YouTube are not a viable substitute for peer-reviewed, scientific publications. Nonetheless, I conducted a search as you suggested. This was one result. Are you able to explain how it constitutes an argument debunking the theory of evolution? Are you able to identify any peer-reviewed, scientific publications that dispute any aspect of evolutionary theory or any that presents a viable alternative for evolutionary theory?
Emergence of new information resulting from mutations and natural selection -- which will frequently happen when gene duplication is followed by point mutation -- has been directly observed. Dr. Sanford's claim is demonstrably incorrect.
You are relying upon a quote of questionable origin and accuracy.
Darwinian/Macro evolution is NOT supported by the scientific evidence; people believe it for philosophical reasons but upon critical examination it crubles.
I have watched over 15 debates between creationists and evolutionists and it is clear when evolution is challenged it is significantly deficient.
Go to drdino.com and watch some debates to see what I mean.
Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia) said:
"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable.
They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."
The main problems you have with your ideas are that you somehow think there is a difference between micro and macro evolution. There is not. The distinction is only found in the minds of creationists. Once you've accepted that small changes can take place, accumulation of changes combined with reproductive separation will lead to speciation. To prevent speciation you would need to posit a mystical force that would prevent speciation.
So yes, you are an ape of family Homonidae, also known as the Great Apes. Your parents were apes. Your DNA is 97% identical with that of a chimpanzee, because 7 million years ago their ancestors and our ancestors belonged to the same species. Your DNA is 75% identical to that of a dog because about 70 million years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the most recent common ancestor dogs and humans wandered the earth. Your DNA is about 2% identical to a banana, because the last common ancestor of plants and animals was a single celled organism that lived about 3 billion years ago.
Regarding Micro and Macro - you are totally dreaming. Go to the evolutionist website http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 and let them expain the difference to you. These terms were coined by evolutionists.
Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission said:
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever!
In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."
http://centersolid.blogspot.com/2011/02/darwin-day.html