Yes indeed David, Happy Darwin Day.

The insights he made, and regularised for modern consumption revolutionised the biological sciences and will always be remembered.

Rusty

Runner>>Darwin's theories have be proven hopelessly flawed but I suppose in many ways he is no different from any other dead idol.<<

Runner I respect your view, although evolution or adaptation to an environment and the subsequent changes or mutations in DNA is fact. Your opinion that there is a creator is as valid as the evolutionist’s theories. They do not know, I do not know, and you do not know how or why matter exists, and human consciousness is a whole other ball game.

All I can say about physics is the best they can come up with is that there was nothing, then in a microsecond there was everything............that is the quandary.

Thank You David for reminding us of Darwin's Birthday.

Many people do not accept the theory of evolution
because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Judaism, Christianity, and a number of other religions
teach that God is the sole guiding force in the universe.
According to the Bible: God is the Creator, Sustainer,
and ultimate End of all things. The wide variety variety
of forms of life is interpreted as a reflection of His
love and inspiration. The Bible also states that human
beings were created in the image of God and thus were
elevated above all other forms of life. Some people
find it difficult to reconcile these views with the
concept these views with the concept that life on earth
has evolved through natural processes.

Some people also feel that the evolutionary
theory conflicts
with the Bible's teachings regarding
the reality of sin and of redemption
from sin. They believe that sin tends to become
mere imperfection if humans are seen to be in the process
of evolving from a lower state and thus the Gospel of
redemption from the guilt of sin tends to lose meaning.

However, many people accept the basic principles of
evolution within the framework of their religious beliefs.
For example, some Biblical scholars interpret the story of
the Creation as a symbolic, rather than literal account of
the origin of human beings and other living things. They
do not find this symbolic interpretation incompatible
with the findings of evolutionary biologists.

For many people, the idea that human beings evolved from
lower forms of life does not diminish the uniqueness
of human capabilities and the accomplishments of human
civilizations.

Happy Birthday Charles Darwin!
Thank God for creating you!

Dear sonofgloin,

Darwin published no speculations or judgement on how life on earth originated. Darwin was a scientist and made observations and conclusions on those observations. Darwin also published no speculations or judgement on how matter originated.

Runner>>Darwin's theories have be proven hopelessly flawed but I suppose in many ways he is no different from any other dead idol.<<

I don't respect runner's views. They are baseless superstition. He makes statements like the above, but they are mere assertions not based on evidence. He doesn't state how Darwin's theories are flawed. Assertion is not proof.

The resurrected man already has two holidays devoted to his life. He is a semi-mythological deity. If God is omnipotent, all-knowing and benevolent why does he need a sidekick? Is Jesus to God as Robin is to Batman?

Darwin was a living man who made great contributions to knowledge. One definition of idol is - an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship. According to that definition Jesus is an idol.

Runner is partially right when stating that Darwin theory is known to be flawed. Although I quite confident in predicting that he's doesn't understand in what way modern scientists say that it is flawed. (Scientists today realise Darwinian evolution that it is not the complete picture, but the basic ideas of Darwin and other contemporaries were/are very important groundings for evolution).

For example, there is debate, which has been running for decades, about how much of a role natural selection v's genetic drift plays in evolution.

However, even though scientists debate the exact nature of evolution, what is certainly not in debate is that species have, do and will continue to evolve. What science also says is that this evolution doesn't necessarily require the need of god(s): randomness, provided ultimately by quantum theory, is more than adequate to provide the necessary "driving force".

(Note that science only says that life doesn't need/require god(s). However, science cannot ultimately say that some god(s) didn't do it, since a god could have set up the universe to produce life by evolution. Whether god(s) did create the universe and life is something which can't be rule out or in by science: it is purely a matter of personal belief.
None-the-less, science definitely does say that some of the stuff written in holy texts, such as the bible, make claims which are not supported by any evidence and in many cases demonstrable evidence overwhelming supports claims contrary to direct/littoral interpretations of these books-- ie: the bible/koran/etc. tell lies.)

sonofgloin,

I also don’t respect runner’s views. They’re rubbish and based on nothing but assertions. runner’s opinion that a god exists is not as valid as the theory of evolution. There is no reliable evidence for a god and yet there are mountains of evidence for evolution. How you can consider the two to be equally valid is baffling.

The big bang theory doesn’t assert that there was nothing and then suddenly there was everything. The furthest back physicists can go is to the point where all matter was condensed into an infinitely dense singularity. At that point all the laws of physics break down, so we may never know what, if anything, came before that. But that’s not evidence for the existence of a god, nor does it even suggest that a god may exist.