Democratic Congressmen Again Introduce ‘Darwin Day’ Resolutions in House, Senate

WASHINGTON — Two Democratic congressmen have again introduced “Darwin Day” resolutions in the House and Senate in an effort to commemorate the birthday of the controversial “father of evolution.”

Rep. James Himes and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, both of Connecticut, submitted the resolutions, which would recognize Feb. 12 as a day to celebrate the life of Charles Darwin.

“Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, which, together with the monumental amount of scientific evidence Charles Darwin compiled to support the theory, provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth,” the resolution reads in part.

It also claims that “the teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the education systems of the United States,” and that the advancement of science must be protected against those who doubt global warming warnings.

“Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all the people of the Earth,” the resolution further asserts.

The bill is co-sponsored by a number of other Democratic lawmakers, including Reps. Judy Chu of California, Bill Foster of Illinois, Derek Kilmer of Washington, Jim McGovern of Maryland and Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C., as well as Sens. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

“In our modern political climate, when the very facts and truths revealed by science are under attack, honoring the efforts of scientists, the true heroes of human history, is vitally important,” Himes said in a statement. “By celebrating and commemorating the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, we not only acknowledge his enormous contributions to our better understanding of the origins of life, but send a message that we value education, knowledge and science as our guiding principles.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Read the resolution in full here. “Darwin Day” resolutions have been submitted in Congress for the past five years.

Jeanson

However, some find the proposal to be more than just an effort to recognize Darwin, but to declare evolution as fact and to stamp out disagreement with liberal beliefs.

“At face value, the recognition of a noted scientist’s birthday is an issue of minor importance, one that politicians are free to debate. However, the bill’s language goes far beyond simply recognizing the indelible stamp that Darwin left on Western civilization,” Nathaniel Jeanson, research biologist with Answers in Genesis, told Christian News Network.

He pointed to language in the resolution that asserts that the theory of evolution provides a “logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth” and that it is “strongly supported by the modern understanding of the science of genetics,” as well as its claim that teaching Creation in public schools is harmful to the education of students.

“[T]his bill wants to codify evolution as fact—as if scientific facts needed the help of politicians to become reality,” Jeanson lamented. “And if this topic weren’t sufficient for ambitious political agendas, the bill also claims that ‘the advancement of science must be protected from those unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global warming and climate change.’ In other words, ‘Darwin’s birthday’ is a thinly-veiled disguise for an elaborate liberal agenda.”

He said that he found such contentions disconcerting as they are erroneous.

“For example, as I document in my book ‘Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species,’ the advances in science over the last 150 years have not only rebutted Darwin’s claims, they have replaced them entirely,” Jeanson noted. “Furthermore, it’s the field of genetics that provides the strongest confirmation of the scientific claims laid out in Scripture.”

“Creation science doesn’t compromise the scientific and academic integrity of education; it advances it,” he also outlined.

As previously reported, not all of those who accompanied Darwin on his journeys supported his theories. During the 1860 Oxford evolution debate, Admiral Robert FitzRoy, who had once served as the captain for Darwin’s voyage to the Galapagos Islands and played a significant role in the development of the Origin of Species, repented of his participation.

Reports state that FitzRoy walked to the front of the room during the debate, “lifting an immense Bible, first with both and afterwards with one hand over his head, [and] solemnly implored the audience to believe God rather than man.”


Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Reason2012

    You can always spot anti-science like fish to mankind evolution – they need such tactics to promote it.

  • Vince

    The left embraces Darwin because they hate religion.

    They tend to ignore what a white supremacist he was:
    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
    Statements like that endeared him to Marxists and Nazis. In fact, Karl Marx was such a fan of Darwin that he wrote to him, asking if Darwin would approve if Marx dedicated his book Das Kapital to Darwin.

    • DrIndica

      Darwin was a materialist scientific pioneer, Marx and Engles were prophets of human sociology

      • Vince

        As my quote from Darwin proves, Darwin was a racist and white supremacist.

        If you wish to honor a white supremacist, go right ahead.

        • DrIndica

          A quote cherry picked out of context proves nothing.

        • Croquet_Player

          His political views don’t matter in the scientific context. You could be the most odious person in the world, or the most admirable. The point is, do your scientific claims stand up. It has nothing to do with your political, religious, or personal views. You can be a complete nutcase and still present a reasonable scientific claim. Darwin did.

          • Vince

            He was a white supremacist. You atheists have much to be ashamed of.

          • Croquet_Player

            If there was a direct correlation of atheism to white supremacy, then certainly. But there isn’t. Just as there are religious people who are white supremacists too. We may all be ashamed of the odious notions of racial supremacy, by anyone.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The KKK, Southern white supremacists…..you Christians have much to be ashamed of.

            Though I’m NOT saying racism is limited to Christians, or even that Christians are more racist than any other group. We should all be ashamed of racism, anywhere.

          • LynnRH

            I totally agree with needing to be ashamed of racism. But please be careful of condemning ALL Christians just because there’s a few nit-wits claiming to be Christians while condoning and/or participating in white supremacy. They are NOT Christians.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No, I’m certainly not condemning all Christians. That would have been as wrong as someone trying to condemn all atheists.

            And, by the way, I really don’t get how discussions about evolution always have to become about atheism anyway.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          If a white supremacist discovered the cure for cancer, would you not use it, not give him the credit for doing so? If a notorious anti-Semite popularized a method of mass production and revolutionized one of the world’s biggest industries, (which is true, by the way) would you not honor him for those achievements?

          Before someone jumps in and accuses me of this, I am NOT defending racism, just saying, you don’t erase what someone achieved in their field and pretend they didn’t do it because they hold some reprehensible views. Or, at least, you shouldn’t.

    • james blue

      The left embraces Darwin because they hate religion

      There’s plenty of religious people on “the left” and plenty of non religious people on “the right”

      They tend to ignore what a white supremacist he was

      Point in case, Darwin was a right winger.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        Nope …… has absolutely nothing to do with his political leanings ……… “race supremacy” has to do with his rejection of God ……………

        • james blue

          Probably explains why the KKK and other white supremacist groups are overtly “christian”

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it explains how they read their own ideas INTO scripture instead of taking their ideas FROM scripture …… so i would say CINO ….. “Christian In Name Only” …….

          • james blue

            Funny how often that works out like that. With all these “CINOs” perhaps we are not a Christian nation

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i never believed we were …… we are a nation of christians ….. not the samething …..

          • james blue

            Okay

            With all these “CINOs” perhaps we are not a nation of Christians.

          • LynnRH

            I think there are many “Christians” that think they are Christians just because they believe there is a God. But according to Jehovah God of the Holy Bible one has to accept His Son Jesus as their Savior and repent of their sins in order to be saved. When you do that you are a true Christian. Problem is that many of those that do that fail to “grow” in His Word and understand how they are suppose to behave and what to believe is right and wrong. God gives us those guidelines in His Holy Word. But so many people just won’t take the time to open that Bible and read.

            So it’s not just believing there is a God. After all…..Satan knows there is a God. Lol

          • james blue

            I’m not arguing that, Although I watch a documentary where a reporter went inside a White supremacist group and filmed them praying in the name of Jesus.

            I was simply opining that with all these people being called “Christian In Name Only”, it seems that we aren’t really a “nation of Christians”.

          • LynnRH

            I’m overtly Christian but i’m definitely NOT KKK or other white supremacist. There is ” Christians” and then there are TRUE Christians.

          • james blue

            Where did I say overtly Christian equals white supremacist? Amos claimed “race supremacy”had to do with rejection of God, I simply pointed out that is not the case.

          • LynnRH

            Oh okay. Sorry, I apologize if I misunderstood. 🙂

          • james blue

            No problem.

            Have a blessed evening.

          • LynnRH

            And you too.

  • bowie1

    “It also claims that “the teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the education systems of the United States,” and that the advancement of science must be protected against those who doubt global warming warnings.” Sounds like any good old fundamentalist religion and anyone who question it is a heretic who “stands in the way of scientific advancement.”

  • TheSayer

    Besides the Federal Reserve, Darwin is up there in the biggest frauds of the past millenium and they want to give him a holiday.

    2 Timothy 3:1-5 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    1But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

  • ZappaSaid88

    No such thing as creation science.

    • Croquet_Player

      Well, there is, except it’s not really science. It’s “science”.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    i find it ironic that this measure is being put forward by the party in which Darwinianism is being shown for all to see in the “McCabe Out at FBI Hours Before #ReleaseTheMemo Vote” ……

    • james blue

      He’s taken earned leave up to his retirement date.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        So ………

  • Open Mike Knight

    Don’t ever let a liberal get away with claiming to be pro-science. These are the people who believe that:
    1. someone is born gay and can never change, but
    2. someone who is born male can be changed to female.

    They’re not scientific, and they are not rational.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    After Killing 20-Week Abortion Ban, Democrats Resume Lecturing People About Compassion
    January 30, 2018

  • with the monumental amount of scientific evidence Charles Darwin compiled to support the theory, provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth,” ….. only to the simple mind.

    • What is Wrong with Society?

      Not, true, as if it were, you, simpleton, would be able to understand it. West-hater.

      • What evidence did Darwin provide other than supposition, conjecture and observation. He had no empirical data et al.( 1850’s)
        Well lets talk about the present day and if you can understand: the human cell, the protein molecule, DNA, RNA, stellar red shift, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, irreducible complexity. Take a good objective look at all these and give your reasoning on how all these things are supported by mindless, uncaused, random mutations.

        • What is Wrong with Society?

          Evolution is still a FACT. You should OBJECTIVELY look towards your irrational hatred of Charles Darwin and admit it’s part of your disdain towards Western Civilization, sir.

          • Sir. Evolution is not a FACT it is theory! Frankly. You have lost me. How does my refuting of Darwin result in my hatred and disdain toward WC???? (And you completely ignored the points I raised in my initial response.) At this juncture, i would have to say that you are close minded and unable to engage in a meaningful conversation — which is typical response from a secular leftist. You should try to be less emotional and more engaging.

          • What is Wrong with Society?

            Sir, you should try admitting that you were in error and admit I was right.

          • For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1:20-21 I will pray that the Lord opens your heart to receive His truth. God bless you. Finis

          • What is Wrong with Society?

            Ah, so your refusal to see facts IS based on your hatred of Western Civilization. This Middle Eastern hogwash is being rejected as the worthless tripe that it is, intend to geld Westerners into accepting a “slave mentality”, feel shame for their civilization, and induce us into destroying it so your type can install a totalitariam theostate in the same vein as the Islamists.

    • What is Wrong with Society?

      That after 159 years, none of you “critics” has EVER been able to disprove Darwin but still continue to smear him shows the level of hatred you have for him and Western Civilization,

  • Croquet_Player

    Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. It is a proven fact, and those dear folks who always say “it’s just a theory!” don’t understand that “theory” is as far as science goes. “Theory of Gravity” etc. The field is, as always, wide open to anyone who can knock the “Theory of Evolution” off its perch. Just like the “Theory of Gravity”. So far, no one has been able to do so, although many try. I understand many people are upset about this from a religious perspective, but they are always more than welcome to present alternatives.

    • LynnRH

      The Heavenly Father says to believe by faith. And we true Christians do. We don’t have to have proof. We feel it in our souls. We wish sooooo much that other’s could/would allow themselves to feel it too. They just don’t know what they are missing.

      • Croquet_Player

        Dear LynnRH, I understand that you have faith, and you take it very seriously and feel it very deeply. I hope you will believe me when I tell you that I entirely support your right to have, and practice, your faith. Not only that, but I respect you as a person. I would never dismiss your views out of hand, but I welcome what you have to say, and am interested to hear your views. It might interest you to know that some major scientists working today are also deeply religious Christians, who have no difficulty with apparent conflicts between science and religion.

        • LynnRH

          I appreciate your respectful comments very much. thank you. and yes I am aware that there are some major scientists working today who are Christians. I thank the Lord for that. As far as conflicts between science and religion goes I believe God has the answer to those and we will be able to understand about them one day. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            Thank you so much, LynnRH, for your very kind response. While we may disagree on certain matters, I think it is far more important that we can respectfully hear one another’s views, and engage in fascinating (and sometimes very lively!) mutual dialogue. I want you to know that I am very moved by your kindness and graciousness, and it means a great deal to me. Thank you, again, so very much indeed. My very best wishes to you and yours! 🙂

    • airstart

      Evolution is a fairy tale with less empirical evidence than the theory of gravity. When I speak of evolution, I’m speaking of molecules to man, otherwise known as “macro-evolution”. It simply doesn’t happen, & never has.
      One can take wolves and with enough selective breeding, inbreeding, and time you can get Chihuahuas but never any kind of creature besides canines
      The loss of or triggering genetic material will result in speciation, and massive loss of genetic material, but never add new genetic material.
      Darwin wasn’t even a scientist, he was an aristocrat, and a theologian. His family sent him on the world cruise aboard the Beagle because he flunked out of medical school, and was a family embarrassment. He married his 1st cousin and their children were sickly, and many died of genetic diseases in childhood. His grandfather was his inspiration and an evolutionist. Just as the current day evolutionists, Darwin never provided any evidence other than specimens with small mutations, within a species, like his finches. They all (even today) have more speculation, just so stories, with zero empirical evidence to prove their claims.
      It takes more personal faith to believe evolution than it does creationism.

      • Croquet_Player

        Yes, Darwin, like all humans, was a flawed individual. But of course that doesn’t matter when it comes to what a scientist produces. We need look no further than Issac Newton, a genius of staggering magnitude, who was extremely horrifying as a person. In his position as Master of the Mint (the person whose job it is to make sure the money “coin” of the realm was accurate and true) he went with great glee to attend the public hangings of petty criminals who had shaved a bit of silver off a coin, or some equally trivial offense. That these were usually the poorest of the poor, trying to buy bread enough not to starve, for themselves or their children, apparently made no difference to him.

        Newton was also a deeply religious person, who spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what he imagined were biblical codes which could, if understood correctly, describe alchemy, or the process of transmuting base metals into gold. It goes without saying that he got absolutely nowhere on that line of endeavor. Nevertheless, his pursuits in other matters were astonishingly successful. In mathematics, optics, etc., he paved the way. One wonders what he else could have achieved had he put aside his alchemy interests.

        And of course that’s the thing about science. If there’s a math problem that has been puzzling scholars for many decades, or even, as it sometimes happens, hundreds of years, the personal character of the individual makes no difference. Nor does their station in life. Prince or pauper, ax murderer or beloved pillar of the community, did they solve the problem or not?

        As I often try to explain to people, science is an open field. While degrees from the greatest universities are usually the precursor to great discoveries, they are not a prerequisite. Any individual with access to a good library and pencil and paper can still blow up the world with an new insight. I recommend to you a lovely movie, “The Man Who Knew Infinity”, the story of a brilliant math genius, who was deeply religious in the Hindu faith. He suffered odious racial ostracism from the institutions he sought, and that’s a crying shame. Nevertheless, he persevered, and his work lives on.

        Evolution is the same. I understand it doesn’t square with some people’s religious beliefs and texts, and it makes them very upset. (Of course, other religious people say God presents us with these facts, and if it doesn’t match with the bible, quran, talmud, – insert preferred religious texts here – then we’re misinterpreting the texts.)

        The point is, like any other thing in science, you, or anyone else, may present something that either entirely refutes it, or changes it in some fundamental manner. To date, the theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is simply fact, with overwhelming supporting evidence. The only people trying to “debate” it are religious zealots, from any number of faiths.

        • airstart

          You dare reference Isaac Newton in this sense. He was not deeply religious, he was an informed Christian, scientist, like most scientist of his day. His accomplishments made Darwin look like the goober he was. How about Pasture, he demonstrate empirically that abiogenesis is a lie. So much for evolutionary theory. Life only comes from life.

          • Croquet_Player

            The theory of evolution does not address the origin(s) of life. It addresses the origins of species.

          • airstart

            I should point out, the origin of the species is the origin of life. The fact that speciation and adaptation occur has nothing to do with origins. Speciation and adaptation is a function of genetic mixing within a taxon, and environmental triggers that turn on or off existing genetic characteristics. The type of evolution, force fed the gullible public , never explains / demonstrates how a reptile could turn into a bird, or an amphibian can turn into a mammal. It just makes the irrational claim, and and declares it to be fact, without any corroborating evidence.

          • Croquet_Player

            I’m very sorry, but you seem to have a profound misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is (and isn’t) about. You are claiming the theory is stating things that in fact it does not state. I really can’t help you other than to direct you to a local low cost, or free, community college biology course in your area. Obviously if you feel you can refute or even significantly change the theory of evolution, it’s not me you should be presenting your claims to. Like anyone else, you are free to submit your paper(s), with supporting evidence, for peer review.

    • Drake

      No, evolution is NOT a proven fact. It flies as a fallacial farce in that it cannot account for one kind of animal developing into a completely different kind of animal, cannot account for the development of bisexual reproduction from asexual organisms, cannot account for the development of DNA or RNA from amino acids, cannot account for the formation of the first stars, etc. Evolution isn’t even a theory, though many people falsely make that claim, or erroneously repeat it because they’ve heard it so many times. The only evidence for evolution comes from Hollywood movies, cartoons, and handbook sketches.

      There is no better explanation of fossils, layers in rocks, and the Cambrian Explosion than direct creation by God and the Genesis Flood.

      • Croquet_Player

        It is not me you need to convince. It is the scientific community as a whole. I would suggest you write up a paper (as anyone may) and submit it, with your supporting evidence. If your paper(s) are accepted after extensive peer review, yours will be the defining work in the field, and you will very likely receive a Nobel Prize.

  • airstart

    Why not legislate an Adolf Hitler day, after all Hitler was Darwin’s biggest fan. Hitler’s dream (super human race) was straight out of Darwin’s play book. The whole nation/ world has been dumbed down to buy a fairy tale and a lie, rather than the truth.

    • Croquet_Player

      Whoa, hang on. If a guy publishes a book, and a completely demented fan entirely misinterprets the book, the book/author is wrong or at fault? I’m sorry, but no. Also, the theory of evolution simply describes a very basic process at work in the natural world. It makes no claims about how human beings should or should not behave. In fact – and this is very important, so please pay attention – the theory of evolution entirely refutes some sort of twisted “It’s every man for himself, and we must weed out the sick, damaged, elderly, etc.” This is a bizarre and stupid misinterpretation. It’s about species, AS A WHOLE.

      Altruism, which can represent as caring for young, sick, or elderly at one’s own personal expense, by feeding, sharing warmth, and safe habitat by guarding behaviors, IS A FACTOR TOO. On the most basic level, animals who have “societies” fare better when they function together as a group. The elderly individual might be slow in moving, but may be the first to spot danger and call out a early warning to alert the group to move to safety. That is an enormous evolutionary advantage to the group. The baby with the hurt leg might be very slow now, but if the group waits and protects her, she might recover to be a member with a knack for finding new food sources, which enhances the entire group’s success. Another enormous advantage.

      In short, anyone, like the ignorant psychopath Hitler, who takes Darwin’s work to mean, “Oh, we therefore must weed out the most helpless among us to preserve and help ourselves along” IS GETTING IT WRONG. Because it entirely fails to account that altruism – group or individual care at what appears to be the temporary expense of an individual or a group – is a very significant factor in the overall process.

      • airstart

        If you take a serious look at Darwinian theory you will see how harmful it’s been to the culture. The vast majority of evolutionary teaching in public education is presented as scientific proof to the exclusion of any other theory. Macro-evolution, what I’m referring to is not scientific, it’s speculative, it has no empirical evidence to validate it. The presentation of Darwinism as scientific fact has ultimately degraded human life, produced an anti god, anti creation culture. It’s a driver of post modernism, abortion, mass murder such as we’ve seen in events like Columbine and others. Altruism plays little or no part in natural selection, survival of the fittest or the randomness claimed by evolutionist.

        • Croquet_Player

          It is not me you have to convince about the theory of evolution. It is the scientific community as a whole. You may write up your paper, submit your evidence and take your chances.

          • airstart

            If one spreads the truth to enough people , the science community will eventually be discredited.

          • Croquet_Player

            O.K., so I suppose we’ll both just take a wait and see approach to your claims. Until then, I’m sticking with science, which has an outstanding track record as a method to determine how things work. I’d like to thank you for taking the time to share your views, I’m always interested to hear what other people think. Best wishes to you.

        • Blue

          The Theory of Evolution explains all the evidence. Just like the Theory of Gravity explains all the known facts about gravity and the Theory of Plate Tectonics explains all the known facts about the movement cof continental plates.

          Feel free to come up with an alternative theory that likewise explains all the evidence and it will be considered. Despite decades of quibbling, quote mining and focus on random carefully selected data points, creationists have not devised a clear, comprehensive and testable alternative.

          • airstart

            Where’s the evidence for macro-evolution? Certainly not in the fossil record, it’s Cambrian explosion and multitudes of specific animals, no transitions.
            Where’s the evidence in genetics, mutations are usually deleterious or harmful to the organism and results in a net loss of information.
            Where’s the evidence for amphibians transforming into mammals, or fish turning into amphibians.
            Evolution (molecules to man or macro-evolution) is a bankrupt theory with no empirical evidence.
            Evolutionary claims are not testable, repeatable and have not been observed.
            The question comes to mind, considering the available facts, why is evolution called scientific? Science is testable, repeatable and observable. Super natural creation is at least as plausible as evolution, especially when you consider the irreducible complexity and design of living organisms.
            PS, you nor anyone else can explain gravity, why it does what it does, all you can do is observe how gravity effects matter/energy and theorize on the whys or what for’s. This same prohibition applies to all the natural laws, for instance weak force, strong force, electromagnetism, laws of motion, all the way into quantum particle physics.

          • Blue

            I challenge you to:
            1. Read a solid book on Evolution, such as Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
            2. Read “Intro to Evolution,” “Evolution,” “Natural Selection,”Transitional Fossils” and “List of Transitional Fossils” in Wikipedia
            3. Read the Berkeley Evolution site, including the Lines of Evidence section

            Learn about transitional species.
            Learn the many ways genetics confirm evolution.
            Learn about the other lines of evidence supporting evolution.
            Learn how the evidence supporting evolution is testable, repeatable and observable.
            Learn the relationship between variation and natural selection.

            If you are right, your confidence that the Theory of Evolution is not supported by evidence will remain intact. Are you brave enough to learn about evolution from reliable sources?

          • airstart

            How about “The Blind Watchmaker” by Dawkins? Is that solid enough evolutionary, or maybe Michael Ruse “Evolution and Religion” . These authors have nothing to say but the same “just so stories” as all the rest.
            Evolutionist need an extreme imagination to identify transitional fossils. It’s not like they have ever observed a raptor evolving into hawk, or an ape like creature becoming human.
            If you’re predisposed to rejecting a creator, you must by necessity be an atheistic naturalist who needs to explain origins with evolutionary theory. Evolution is a religious belief that requires more faith than Biblical Christianity. I’m of the opinion there’s no such animal as a intellectually honest evolutionist.

    • What is Wrong with Society?

      //Why not legislate an Adolf Hitler day, after all Hitler was Darwin’s biggest fan.//

      Argumentum ad Hitlerum, the LAZIEST argument there is. You’ve already proven that you have no evidence whatsoever.

      //Hitler’s dream (super human race) was straight out of Darwin’s play book.//

      Strange, since The origin of Species makes no advocacy of eugenics whatsoever.

      //The whole nation/ world has been dumbed down to buy a fairy tale and a lie, rather than the truth.//

      Yes, we know creationism is a fairy tale peddled by fascists such as yourself.

      • airstart

        You’re the fairy tale dude, you are clueless. The whole socialist dream is based on origin of the species. From Marx, (another Darwin fan) to Margret Sanger. Whether Darwin openly advocated genocide is irrelevant, he considered the white European ethnos the most highly evolved human species and the black African, Australian Aborigine the least evolved, barely out of the animal stage. Your ignorance of world events, sociology, and ethnology is pathetic. You should avoid conversations with intelligent people until you actually do some serious research.

        • What is Wrong with Society?

          What is so wrong with Darwin holding on to views that the vast majority of citizens in the UK held in the 19th century? You keep (dishonestly) singling him out for holding the majority view at the time.

          • airstart

            I would question your claim about the vast majority of UK citizens holding Darwinian views 19th century. I don’t think statistics from that time period will validate it.

          • What is Wrong with Society?

            You have NOTHING to refute it.

          • airstart

            During the days of Darwin, most of the UK were practicing Christians. If it hadn’t been for Charles Lyell, and his books, “Principles of Geology”, (Lyell was a lawyer, not a geologist) Darwin’s theories would have never been accepted by anyone. You see Charles Lyell invented uniformitarianism and old earth (millions of years) Darwin needed these long ages to make his theory plausible.

          • What is Wrong with Society?

            Again I say, “You have NOTHING to refute it”. Deal with the FACTS, sir.

    • Blue

      Hitler had Darwin’s books burned.

      Before concluding Hitler’s agreement with something is reason to reject it, remember Hitler was a christian.

      • LynnRH

        Bwahahaha!! so he said.

      • airstart

        Hitler was a Christian as long as the Catholic Church would cooperate. Hitler was a Christian like Stalin and Darwin were both Christian theologians. Hitler eliminated Christian clerics by the thousands, have you ever heard of Bonhoeffer, or Corrie ten boom? The fact that he tolerated the Catholic Church, as long as they didn’t oppose his agenda, does not make him a Christian. That is a foolish speculation devoid of any truth. If Hitler had any religious leanings they were toward the occult.

  • What is Wrong with Society?

    Darwin was a HERO to Western Civilization, and West-haters (don’t be fooled by any of their claims, folks; Creationists, like Mohammedans, hate Western Civilization) have NOTHING to stand on in regards to factual evidence against Darwin, so they resort to slander and defamation to get their way.

    Charles Darwin MUST be defended from creationist smears.

    Defend Darwin!

    DEFEND THE WEST!!!

    • calduncan

      Weird.

  • Tonya Elise

    GOD CREATED THE BIG BANG…… THE END ! Darwin was not completely wrong but not right either. Living thing do evolve and have done this throughout history,even people have. i am a Christian and i can see this as truth and logic. Darwin’s down fall was that he was not a Christian. Gen, 1:1-2

  • Chet

    Whether Jew or Gentile, lost and undone, without God and His Son…

  • Drake

    Darwin is dead. Christ Jesus is ALIVE and well,having been crucified, dead, buried, and resurrected by the power of the Living God and is returning to take His throne. Praise be to Jesus! Glory to God!

    You become like who you worship.