Darwin Day for Dummies

I realize we need another post on Darwin Day, maybe even less than we need Darwin Day itself, but I can't resist the temptation to point out some of the absurdities of the thing. To do so I'll comment on the following discussion.

Liberal Pastors Rally to Defend Darwin on “Evolution Sunday” 02/11/2006

Quotes and comments;

1. Not only are schools and communities rising to make Darwin Day an occasion for standing up against creationism and intelligent design (see MSNBC and LiveScience), many churches are joining the celebration of what Darwin symbolizes: the triumph of human reason over revelation. MSNBC states “more than 400 churches of many denominations – most of them in the United States – have agreed to participate in ‘Evolution Sunday’ by giving a sermon, holding classes or sponsoring discussions.”

- I don't know why anyone should think this odd; so called 'liberal' (liberal with the truth at any rate) churches always teach the opposite of what the bible teaches. Pick any subject and what they teach is radical, revolutionary, humanism. In politics they teach socialism and communism; in business they teach State ownership; in marriage they teach promiscuity and libertinism; they favor homosexuality, they defend abortion, and so on.

2. 'The number 400 may be a serious underestimate. Michael Zimmerman, a biology professor and dean of the University of Oshkosh, put out an appeal to churches to sign a letter affirming evolution. He got over 10,000 responses to his Clergy Letter Project, all of whom are listed on his website by name, church and city. The letter they supported states that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally; “Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.” The stories from Genesis contain “timeless truths” about God and man and nature, but did not actually happen.

- one wonders how he knows this. If the bible doesn't explain itself, it has no truth, and can mean anything a reader wants it to... therefore it means nothing. It certainly didn't transform the heart of Darwin, or of the liberal clergy.
- Z. gives us a false dichotomy. (i.e. either scientific information or heart transforming fuzzies.) The bible instead gives truth.

3. 'The second paragraph proclaims that science and religion are completely separate spheres, and that denying evolution amounts to ignorance and blasphemy (by denying the “God-given faculty of reason”).

- Oh yes, here the libs offer a new definition of blasphemy. Well, why not? They've redefined everything else.... making everything into its opposite. (A good definition for the satanic.) Good is evil, evil is good, the bible is false, humanism is true, hell is losing an election, heaven is a good meal, the family is a couple homosexuals and a fireplace, etc.
- how can science and religion (even allowing such things exist, which they don't) be completely seperate if they share so many things; namely language, the human mind, human nature, logic, a view of reality, etc.

4. "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."

- it's nice to hear a lib clergy person speak of the 'timeless' (really? timeless?) truths of the bible... but I wonder what he can possibly mean. I thought the whole point of lib theology was that there Were no timeless truths :=) Somebody is being less than honest here. (I'm sure Darwin wouldn't approve of such deception... but then again.) The whole key to lib theology is that since the 'world' is ever evolving (turning on the spit of Humanism) morality must change (evolve) as well.
- it's such a shame he didn't tell us what these timeless truths are. (But maybe he forgot.... being so unused to discussing them.) Oh wait, I bet I know what they are; a. man is basically good, b. but women are even better, c. and homosexuals are better yet, d. it's love makes the world go round, e. we should all be be nice to cats and dogs.

5. "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests."

- I wonder how they know this; I thought science and religion were completely seperate realms. How then can a clergy person have a right to comment on science? I don't get it.
- what knowledge would that be? that clergy persons evolved from monkeys?
- what achievements? the Darwin awards?

6. "To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

- Truth? I thought the whole point of lib theology was that there was no such thing as truth.... only the ever evolving opinions of the moment.
- let's see evolution isn't a theory? is this what he means? does he mean it's just philosophy? well, I'm amazed... I finally found something I can agree with a lib on :=)
- But of course evolution is a theory; to claim X is true, but to have no idea how it could be.... is to be in serious danger of losing even one's theory status. (i.e. materialists have NO idea how living organisms emerged on this planet.... this means evolution cannot possibly be a fact. At best it can be a theory... but in my opinion it's not a theory even, only speculation.
- our children? our children? hmm... sounds like Marxism to me.

7. "We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator."

- well gee; this isn't what evolutionists teach now is it? I thought you said you accepted evolutionary theory as a fact, as truth... but now you tell us the human mind is a gift of God. What's going on here? are you perhaps speaking out of both sides of your mouth? (I cannot abide this double speak one gets from the lib clergy.)
- but maybe when he speaks of god he doesn't mean god in a way the ordinary person does. Maybe he doesn't even believe god exists. (As is the case with many lib clergy.) Maybe he's one of those people who define god as human idealism... or the compassionate community... that speaks thru the advocate for social responsibility... maybe that's the god that gave this gift... though that's admittedly hard to see.
- I have to admit I find all this a little confusing... let's see, it's the will of the creator (who doesn't exist, and doesn't have a will) that we reject creationism in favor of evolutionism. Have I got that right? (But how does he know this? the bible after all is just a collection of fairy tales... written by primitive nomads... that doesn't speak to us in our day... so how would he know what the will of this imaginary being is?

8. "To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.. "

- you got to love these people... they have turned every Christian doctrine upside down, but yet insist (vehemently) that they are Christians! (And not only this, the claim that they, and only they, are the true Christians.) Clearly words are just tools to be used for the task of the moment for these people.
- having said this I sure would like to know what this loving plan of salvation for humanity is all about. (Humanism by another name?) Gee, it sure sounds exciting.
- what is this reason he's talking about? (From what I can gather reason is any idea the libs like.)

9. "We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

- forms of truth? I wonder what that means? what form of truth is the bible? (oh I forgot, libs don't use the bible) what form of truth is Christianity I wonder? (oops) what form of truth is the baptized humanism the lib clergy preach? what form of truth is evolutionary theory?

Summary;
- when I read stuff like this I despair. People who are supposed to be shepherds are seen to be wolves. Are these clergy persons so clueless they don't understand evolution theory is the very opposite of Christianity? (Being great opponents of true Christianity I'm sure they are.) Their defense of Darwinism is utter hypocricy. They don't believe a word of this nonsense, which is no doubt why so many of them signed the pledge. (i.e. they wouldn't dare to reveal their true opinions) They love lies, deceit and pretense.
- all this reminds me of ancient Israel, where pagan gods were brought into the very temple... and worshipped publicly on 'every' green hill.... where people pretended to believe in Yaweh, but had their own household gods, and trafficked with Moloch and other abominations. The unregenerate heart is ever the same. If it adopts true religion it does so in pretense, and works to pervert the truth, to exchange the truth for lies.

Notes;
1. I found this story (discussion) at Creation/Evolution Headlines.
1. I've looked through the list of Darwinist 'churches' and notice that a fair smattering aren't even Christian in name; i.e. Unitarians and the like.
2. At lib churches every Sunday is 'Darwin' Sunday. This is the real joke.
3. I wouldn't be surprised if the old Soviet Union had a Lysenko Day.
4. I see on rereading this post I speak of Zimmerman as a member of the clergy when apparently he's not. (But I assume he wrote his letter in with some clergy help, and the letter is speaking in the voice of the clergy.)