Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:13:11 +0000 – By Tommy De SenoAttorney/Writer
Today, February 12, marks the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, author of "Origin of Species," which brought together various tenets of Evolution.
His science is important, but his legacy has been seized by the anti-religious who wrongly think Darwin's ideas are contrary to God. Groups who despise religion come together every February 12 commemorating Darwin's birthday as a holy day of obligation, deifying the scientist. They turn evolution, a scientific concept, into "Darwinism," a religious concept. "Evolution" and "Darwinism" are not the same.
Darwinists try to pit religion against science when history shows the opposite is true.There is simply nothing contrary to God in evolution and vice versa. The Catholic Church for instance has never denied the scientific concepts.
The "Darwinists" point to the Genesis creation story and note that in it birds came before land animals, but the fossil record (as we currently know it -- it's always changing) shows the opposite. Here is what they don't know: Christian churches accept various "senses of scripture." The church allows those with a literal interpretation of Genesis to pray next to those with an allegoric sense of scripture and those with an anagogic sense of scripture.
Christianity is not a "dead scroll" religion.
The "living word" of God is paramount; the Bible assists one's understanding of it. The Bible contains many poems and songs, so much is intentionally metaphorical; it is not promoted by the Church as a history or science text (although archeology has provided proof of Biblical events).
Darwinists lump all religions together as "anti-evolution" without telling us what in our religions are contrary to evolution. Religions are no such thing. Read Francis Collins' book "The Language of God." Collins headed the Human Genome Project and knows more about genetic evolution than anyone. He is also a devout Christian and finds the two compatible.
Evolution as a science has some problems. While adaptation in creatures has scientific proof --so I accept it (it's how I build up immunities to the flu), the idea that one Genus of beings will morph into another Genus is without proof. So why would I scientifically accept it?
In fact the proof (actually lack of it) of Genus morphing in the fossil record shows it doesn't happen. Most notably, Darwin spends two whole chapters in "Origins of Species" trying to explain why fossils of animals in transition from one type to another are never found, but he doesn't do a very good job of it.
Some scientist today grab at anything to claim a fossil is a transitional being, but a cursory review of their claims proves them wrong. They hold up an ancient giraffe with a short neck. But it's still a giraffe. Or they hold up a bird with teeth, and since birds don't have teeth but dinosaurs do, they claim birds came from dinosaurs. But scientists have teeth and they aren't dinosaurs. There are no transitional beings.
Since evolution requires the smallest possible changes over huge amounts of time, transitional beings should outnumber all other fossils by the hundreds of thousands. That the fossil record has scientists straining to find any transitionals is empirical proof that Darwin's idea of Genus-to-Genus changes is a faith and not science.
Darwinists try to pit religion against science when history shows the opposite is true.
Consider Galileo. Our schools teach children that he was persecuted by the Catholic Church for claiming the earth revolved around the sun, even though he was right. Here is what our schools leave out: It was Copernicus -- a Catholic Cleric, who developed the theory that the earth moves around the sun. Galileo was supporting the cleric's theories.
Two scientists -- Aristotle and Ptolemy, had developed the wrong idea that the Sun moves around the earth. By persecuting Galileo, the Church was supporting what science said, even though we know today the scientists were wrong and Copernicus, the Catholic cleric, was right.
One area of science where the Darwinists get it wrong is creation itself. They get emotional when it is pointed out that science has proved supernatural creation:
The Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic priest: Georges Lematre. He proposed the universe began in a small "primordial egg" (today scientists call it "The Singularity"). It expanded suddenly and with great energy -- the "Big Bang."
Scientist first rejected the Big Bang because the universe would have a "beginning." A beginning requires a creator. Since those scintists hated religion, they developed an alternate "Steady State" theory which proposed no beginning to the Universe. They did this not for scientific reasons, but to be anti-religion - not a very scientific postulation.
Even Einstein signed on to the "Steady State" theory. He later renounced that, calling it his "greatest blunder" and accepted the Big Bang. We know today by using Hubble's work on universe expansion and the discovery of the radiologic background "noise" of the Big Bang that the priest was right (again) about science.
At the moment before the Big Bang, science concedes time and all our natural laws didn't exist. That means the singularity was outside of nature -- scientifically that is termed "super-natural." That really irks Darwinists, but they can't deny it.
If you get the chance to argue these points with Darwinists, Secular Humanists or Ayn Rand-styled haters of religion, challenge them on the science of creation -- The Big Bang. It drives them crazy when science confirms religion.
Read more Tommy De Seno at www.JustifiedRight.com