Should Darwin Day Be Observed?

Several countries have recently set aside February 12, Charles Darwin's birthday, as a special day to remember him. Evolutionists in America are calling for its adoption here too, and have tried to use the day to promote his work.

Certainly Charles Darwin was a major figure in world history. Few people have "changed the world" as he did. While he wasn't the first to propose evolution, or even natural selection as evolution's cause, when he published his book, Origin of Species, it captured the fancy of western scholarship like no other work. After a time it fully caught on, and now his ideas dominate thought. It extends not only into biology, but into geology, archaeology, sociology, astronomy, theology, economics, etc. Almost everything is thought to undergo gradual change over time, by means of random, natural processes. Truly it has become an entire worldview, affecting virtually every discipline. Maybe he deserves a day of remembrance.

As we consider this proposal, let's remind ourselves of the nature of biological systems and the main mechanisms of Darwinian change of one type into another; mutation and natural selection.

All forms of life which exist today are unimaginably complex. Even the simplest form of life is not at all simple. Even the simplest living thing is more complex than a super-computer. Furthermore, each form of life has its own unique genetic code, the DNA. The genes residing here dictate how the organism develops, functions, and reproduces. In order for one type of life to evolve into another, new genes must be obtained, presumably through random mutation of existing genes. Evolution claims that the most fit of these new genes can then be selected by natural selection. The accumulation of such better genes leads to new traits, features, and eventually organisms.

The letters in the DNA code have been deciphered recently but it hasn't really been decoded or read. Its complexity far exceeds human intelligence.

Note that all of this is thought to operate by random, natural processes. No intelligent input is required. Darwin had trained to be a pastor, but as his concept took shape, he renounced his belief in a personal, intelligent Creator God in favour of random forces of nature to design complex life. As his life progressed he essentially became what we now call an atheist, insisting that no Designer was responsible for the design we see.

But is it reasonable to claim that complexity which far surpasses human comprehension can be achieved by random mutation? Is this school of thought worthy of a special day of recognition?

The Bible has something to say about atheistic thinking. "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 14:1). A fool in Scripture is not an id-iot, but an atheist. It is foolish to ascribe complexity to random forces. Those who embrace evolution may be brilliant, but how foolish to believe that complexity can arise by random, thoughtless processes. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22).

This being realized, foolishness certainly doesn't need a special day. Actually, many have noted that there already is such a day. It's in April each year.

For more . . . .

^^^
Ola, religion is inseparable from Faith, thus until you can justify faith, the reasonableness in religion will be accepted.

Apostle Paul also called Christians fools in matters of reason and logic. However, if God is life why say Life has a beginning?

Kay 17: ^^^
Ola, religion is inseparable from Faith, thus until you can justify faith, the reasonableness in religion will be accepted.

We all have faith it is just that the Christian faith is not blind as your faith in evolution. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrew 11:1). You can see from this verse that biblical faith is having confidence in something that we have not perceived with our physical senses of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling or touching. Religion may be misunderstood to be believing in the absurd but biblical faith has good reasons for our faith because our God encourages us to have faith that is rationally defensible.

Reason is not antagonistic to faith, it is appropriate and biblical to have a good reason for our faith. The apostle Paul that you referred to reasoned with those in the synagogue and those in the marketplace (Acts 17:17). Our faith makes sense of what we experience in the world, and morally, Christians are obligated to think rationally just as God does (Ephesians 5:1).

Tomorrow is April 1.

I am waiting.

Deep Sight:
Tomorrow is April 1.

I am waiting.

Today is their day let them celebrate it.

Kay 17:
Apostle Paul also called Christians fools in matters of reason and logic. However, if God is life why say Life has a beginning?

If you don't have a clue as to how physical life originated how do you think you will get the meaning of eternal life?

This man shares the same birth day with Charles Darwin and yet they were diametrically opposed to one another.

OLAADEGBU:

We all have faith it is just that the Christian faith is not blind as your faith in evolution. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrew 11:1). You can see from this verse that biblical faith is having confidence in something that we have not perceived with our physical senses of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling or touching. Religion may be misunderstood to be believing in the absurd but biblical faith has good reasons for our faith because our God encourages us to have faith that is rationally defensible.

Reason is not antagonistic to faith, it is appropriate and biblical to have a good reason for our faith. The apostle Paul that you referred to reasoned with those in the synagogue and those in the marketplace (Acts 17:17). Our faith makes sense of what we experience in the world, and morally, Christians are obligated to think rationally just as God does (Ephesians 5:1).

Is it possible to make a true statement without resort to our sensory perception?

Reason will question events that suggests the supernatural. Like an entire cemetery resurrecting. Reason concludes that a man is likelier to lie than Nature to change its course.

OLAADEGBU:

If you don't have a clue as to how physical life originated how do you think you will get the meaning of eternal life?

What is spiritual life, can you prove that?

The Spiritual Senses

"O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in Him." (Psalm 34:8.)

Frequently, Scripture uses our five physical senses in a figurative way to help us comprehend our interaction with the heavenly realm of God’s presence and power.

We can "see," for example, with spiritual eyes. Paul prayed thus for the believer: "The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints" (Ephesians 1:18.).

Similarly, we are privileged to hear the voice of the Lord with spiritual ears. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10:27). "A stranger will they not follow, . . . for they know not the voice of strangers" (John 10:5).

The sense of touch is the sense of feeling, and God can both touch and be touched. We read, for example, of "a band of men, whose hearts God had touched." (I Samuel 10:26). Of Jesus Christ, it is said that He is not a remote deity "which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities." (Hebrews 4:15). Even people who never knew Him can perhaps "feel after Him, and find Him" (Acts 17:27) if they truly desire His great salvation.

We can even become "unto God a sweet savor of Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:15). To the world, the faithful Christian life and testimony can either be "the savor of death unto death" to those who refuse it, or "the savor of life unto life" (2 Corinthians 2:16).

Finally, we are exhorted actually to taste the Lord, and see that He is good! His Word will be, according to our needs, either "sincere milk" (I Peter 2:2), "strong meat" (Hebrews 5:14), or "sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb" (Psalm 19:10). HMM

For more . . . .

Sorry you didn't prove that, you simply quote some verses. PROVIDE evidence that there is a spiritual realm.

^ Think about what you are saying. What type of "evidence" are you demanding? Physical evidence of spiritual realms? Do you think that is logical?

^^i believe it's logical. The fact being that: it's supposed that our maker made us with physical perceptibility,while He(our maker), is essentially of the spirit. If this is true, then i challenge that such a maker should be aware of the limitations He has placed on us; as such, whatever evidence the said creator provides as a yardstick for evaluating the possibility of His existence, must and should be of a "physical" nature. "What has been hardwired to perceive in the physical dimension, simply cannot fathom a spiritual essence through spirituality- by virtue of the fact that it is not of the spiritual nature".....FACT #1

^^^ Actually men are indeed of a spiritual nature but merely carry a physical cloak. Secondly, physical evidence exists in every single thing around us: but the eyes that will not see, will never see.

^Deep Deep Deep.
no questioning the fact that you are a smart individual. The question that still persists is: where is the evidence? At best, what the natural world around us provides us with is an evidence of an intelligence behind its creation, but not the evidence of the creator(s) itself-no more than that. Do you by any means have even an ounce of proof that such a spirit realm is possible? I ask in good faith.

@deepsight

Deep Sight: ^ Think about what you are saying. What type of "evidence" are you demanding? Physical evidence of spiritual realms? Do you think that is logical?

If such a "world" has had such an influence in our world, such as creation and the regular deux et machina, if its a world of order like ours, I think its reality will be impressable, imprintable in our minds and senses.

Kay 17: @deepsight

If such a "world" has had such an influence in our world, such as creation and the regular deux et machina, if its a world of order like ours, I think its reality will be impressable, imprintable in our minds and senses.

And it is. You experience it every second of everyday in the nature of consciousness that you have. It rests evident in the formless precursor of the matter that we understand to be finite. It is also implicit in the concept of eternity.

However I have learned that the man that will not see, will not see.

usisky: ^Deep Deep Deep.
no questioning the fact that you are a smart individual. The question that still persists is: where is the evidence? At best, what the natural world around us provides us with is an evidence of an intelligence behind its creation, but not the evidence of the creator(s) itself-no more than that. Do you by any means have even an ounce of proof that such a spirit realm is possible? I ask in good faith.

I am pleased that you have referred to the natural world disclosing evidence of intelligence. It is indeed all about us. It is multi-layered, and staggeringly grand.

Now about the spirit realm, you know that even that which we observe in the world of matter shows transition of forms and not destruction. Things are not destroyed: they merely change form. Given that understanding, it stands to reason that the intangible consciousness of man also changes form at death: and is not destroyed. In whatever form it exists: that may not be matter, but being intangible in its essence: is what is thus called the spiritual.

Deep Sight:

I am pleased that you have referred to the natural world disclosing evidence of intelligence. It is indeed all about us. It is multi-layered, and staggeringly grand.

Now about the spirit realm, you know that even that which we observe in the world of matter shows transition of forms and not destruction. Things are not destroyed: they merely change form. Given that understanding, it stands to reason that the intangible consciousness of man also changes form at death: and is not destroyed. In whatever form it exists: that may not be matter, but being intangible in its essence: is what is thus called the spiritual.

I think your claim stands only as pure speculation on a mystery. I think consciousness is a form of the diversity and dynamics of matter. Like time. Intangibility is still a form of the physical.

Matter by itself could NEVER conjure consciousness.

I think consciousness can be roughly likened to the projection of a TV screen.

Kay 17: Sorry you didn't prove that, you simply quote some verses. PROVIDE evidence that there is a spiritual realm.

Physical things are the evidence of the spiritual. There are scientific evidences that shows that there has to be a Creator God.

Did God create everything from nothing?

Kay 17: Did God create everything from nothing?

That question can be answered by the lessons learnt from this anecdote.

A bunch of atheist evolutionists who thought they were scientists, got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. They picked one "scientist" to go and tell God that they no longer needed Him.

God listened patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist finished, God said,

"Very well! How about this? Let's have a man-making contest."

To which the man replied,

"Okay, great!"

But God added,

"Now we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said,

"Sure, no problem"

and bent down and gathered a handful of dust.

God just looked at him and said,

"No, no, no. You have to make your own dust out of nothing!"

How does something then pop out of nothing? If God can create from nothing which is logically impossible, its fair to conclude god is logically impossible

Kay 17: How does something then pop out of nothing? If God can create from nothing which is logically impossible, its fair to conclude god is logically impossible

Since you only rely on your physical senses let me use the known scientific evidence that points to the unknown Creator God. I hope all "atheists" including jayriginal are following.

Scientific Evidence That Demands A Creator God.

There are only three possibilities from where the universe can come from. By way of the elimination we will arrive at the answer.

The universe created itself; The universe has always existed, and The universe was created.

1. The universe created itself:

Can something create itself? Can nothing create something? The answer to these is an absolute No. We all know that something cannot create itself and nothing can't create something. From Latin we have the phrase "ex nihilo, nihil fit" meaning "from nothing, nothing comes." It also violates the law of cause and effect, that says for every effect there must be a cause. The effect can't be greater than the cause and nothing cannot be greater than something. Therefore, based on the laws of science and logic, the universe couldn't have created itself. That leaves us with options 2 and 3.

2. The univese has always existed:

Lets go to the 2nd law of thermodynamics that basically teaches that "the whole universe is losing usable energy for doing usable work." This means that the usable energy in this universe is wearing down. The universe as a whole is losing energy. In other words, molecules as a whole are slowing down.

Therefore, if this universe was eternal we will be in what is called a "virtual heat death." This means that there will be virtually no molecular movement. Everything would have lost its available heat energy for doing work. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal, it must have had a beginning. The theory that the universe has always existed or is eternal has to be false based on the law of science and logic, another speculation gone with the air. This leaves us with only one possiblility based on science. Which is that:

3. The universe was created:

"In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1

The universe creating itself is absurd because its self cause. Likewise God creating it ex nihilo, its a contradiction, except he creates it from his substance.

Existence can't begin to exist, Being is eternal, as long as there is existence now, there was always it prior to now.

Kay 17: The universe creating itself is absurd because its self cause. Likewise God creating it ex nihilo, its a contradiction, except he creates it from his substance.

Existence can't begin to exist, Being is eternal, as long as there is existence now, there was always it prior to now.

Do you agree that the universe was created?

Taking the universe as everything that exists, it can't be created. So that's the source of our disagreement.

OLAADEGBU:

Since you only rely on your physical senses let me use the known scientific evidence that points to the unknown Creator God. I hope all "atheists" including jayriginal are following.

Scientific Evidence That Demands A Creator God.

There are only three possibilities from where the universe can come from. By way of the elimination we will arrive at the answer.

This is slightly disingenuous - to claim that there are only three possibilities is the first mistake - who said those are the only possibilities?

We simply do not know the mechanics of how the universe came into being, be it from an atheist perspective or a biblical perspective. The bible says God created the heaven and the earth - did anything (apart from God) exist before then? We don’t know.

The problem many have is this (unreasonable?) need to force fit everything into the bible, even when it isn’t mentioned.

As for the reference to a Latin quote to justify the creation, we might as well use Latin references that justify the existence of Latin gods. It makes no sense.

Even if we don’t do that - the common interpretation is that God created the earth out of nothing, he simply willed it into existence - is that not contrary to the Latin phrase above? If so how can God’s creation both agree and disagree with the Latin phrase?

Kay 17: Taking the universe as everything that exists, it can't be created. So that's the source of our disagreement.

The only logical answer is that the universe had to be created, saying that it can't be created means that you are ignoring the laws of science and good logic that is known. If you ignore the laws of science and logic in the physical world how then do you expect to know of the spiritual?

debosky:

This is slightly disingenuous - to claim that there are only three possibilities is the first mistake - who said those are the only possibilities?

There are only 3 possibilities as to what caused the universe to come into existence and if you know of any other possible option why don't you say it?

debosky:
We simply do not know the mechanics of how the universe came into being, be it from an atheist perspective or a biblical perspective. The bible says God created the heaven and the earth - did anything (apart from God) exist before then? We don’t know.

If an atheist or agnostic is saying this I will understand that they are just brushing it off so as to avoid the question but from someone who claims to be a Christian?

debosky:
The problem many have is this (unreasonable?) need to force fit everything into the bible, even when it isn’t mentioned.

The Bible has all the answers for sincere seekers.

debosky:
As for the reference to a Latin quote to justify the creation, we might as well use Latin references that justify the existence of Latin gods. It makes no sense.

Based on all known scientific understanding and logic we know from nothing, nothing comes.

debosky:
Even if we don’t do that - the common interpretation is that God created the earth out of nothing, he simply willed it into existence - is that not contrary to the Latin phrase above? If so how can God’s creation both agree and disagree with the Latin phrase?

And if you are referring to the Creator God, He is no thing, He is not bound by the universe and He is not part of the chain of effects within time. God does not require a cause since He always existed and is beyond nature and time, He is not part of this physical universe.