The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Pete Stark jabs at religious right with ‘Darwin Day’ resolution

Rep. Pete Stark, who made waves in 2007 by coming out as Congress’ only avowed atheist, delighted secular humanists and took a jab at religious conservatives this week by offering a resolution to proclaim Saturday as “Darwin Day.”

Stark, D-Fremont, introduced H. Res. 81 on Wednesday. It praises Darwin’s theory of evolution and the “monumental amount of scientific evidence he compiled to support it,” which “provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on earth.”

Full story: Pete Stark jabs at religious right with ‘Darwin Day’ resolution

  • opaobie

    Colossians 2:8
    “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
    and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
    rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

    …and this quote from an expert:

    “Since evolution is being re-written everyday, then it should be a red flag that there is something wrong with that belief system. Why add that belief system to the Bible? Would we want a Bible that changed or a God that did (Psalm 119:89; Hebrews 13:8)? The issue is simple: if you can’t fully understand how God can create in six days as opposed to the atheistic belief in millions of years, then grant God the honor of being more learned than you are.

    It is time to stop trusting in the “religion of the day,” and get back to the authority of the Word of God.

    With kindness in Christ,

    Bodie Hodge”

    • Free Willy

      A great man once said.
      “Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
      Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.”

      Observation is on going as such science changes.
      Faith is based on denial of observation so it does not have to change.

      Your quote,
      “Since evolution is being re-written everyday, then it should be a red flag that there is something wrong with that belief system.”

      So (excluding the Torah) are all religious texts bad because they have all been rewritten?

      • opaobie

        “Scientists adjust their opinions based on what’s observed, usually excluding any exculpatory findings.
        Faith in a failed theory such as synthetic Darwinism is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.”…fixed it for you.

        Well, since observation points more and more to an intelligent force behind all of creation, eventually “science” will reach the point where Creationists have been since the beginning. So far, there are NO observations of macro evolution and no transitions (no molecules to man or dogs to cats), but evolutionists continue to act on blind faith and rewrite the theory with every failure; whereas, creationists simply examine the evidence and conclude it didn’t occur by Brownian motion and random chance over time…besides, there hasn’t been enough time elapsed to “evolve” a single protein under perfect laboratory conditions, let alone the harsh conditions of the universe.

        “So (excluding the Torah) are all religious texts bad because they have all been rewritten?”

        Only the Bible was written under the direct inspiration of God. It was written over thousands of years by hundreds of independent writers yet carries a consistent theme of God’s plan for mankind. There is more proof of the accuracy of the Bible than any other book ever written and any other religion. The founders of all other religions are all dead. Hundreds of witnesses watched a live Jesus Christ ascend into Heaven. Dozens of others had encounters with Him after his crucifixion. If His body had been taken away, it would have been paraded for all to see, and Christianity would have been as dead as He was. All of His disciples died horrible deaths. They would not have died KNOWING they were perpetrating a hoax. Discoveries, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, have added more detail to what has been known about the Bible for two centuries, and none of it has refuted it. The Bible says there is only one way to establish a personal relationship with God, and that is through Jesus Christ. Either the Bible is right and all other religions are wrong, or the Bible is wrong and all other religions are also wrong or the Bible is wrong and one or more of the others are right, so now you can answer your own question.

        • toomuchinfo

          Thephranc is not in at the moment, so I’m going to help him out and say it’s probably, “or the Bible is wrong and all other religions are also wrong.”

          • opaobie

            Including Atheism (and by extension, macro evolution)? Now you have a dilemma.

          • toomuchinfo

            How does not believing in religion, make me religous?

          • opaobie

            http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

            Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
            “Atheism is the position that ~affirms~ the non-existence of God. It proposes ~positive belief~ rather than mere ~suspension of disbelief~.”

            Atheism as defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists; therefore, they DO follow a religion.

          • toomuchinfo

            Some philosophers have maintained that the widespread phenomenon of religious experience also constitutes an argument for the existence of a supernatural object of such experience (see Religious experience; Mysticism, history of; Mysticism, nature of). Most contemporary philosophers regard these arguments as unsuccessful (see Atheism; Agnosticism).

            From Routledge. So at least “most contemporary philosophers” agree with me.

          • opaobie

            Worth repeating:

            Colossians 2:8
            “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
            and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
            rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

            …and this one, which defines “fool” not as a pejorative but as a Biblical term:

            New American Standard Bible (©1995)
            A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

            …and finally:

            Aldous Huxley was a British novelist who wrote Brave New World (1932), and was a grandson of ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, Thomas H. Huxley. He was also the brother of the leading atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley and died the same day as Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. Aldous Huxley made this frank admission about his anti-theistic motivation. As you can clearly see, it had no relation to whether he really believed in a “God”; just his reason for rejecting and not wanting to be accountable to God:

            ‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political. It allowed me to indulge my sexual fantasies without having to answer to a ‘higher moral authority’”.

            ‘A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to coordinate men’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. Such ideas underlie the various forms of Rationalism, the Ethical movement and scientific Humanism.’

            ‘Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the centre of interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional Christianity, is characterised by its faith in the power of human beings to create their own future, collectively and personally.’

            In other words, evolution = religion. That is, people (not God) set whatever rules they want. In practice, this usually becomes ‘might makes right’, including the tyranny of the majority. — Aldous Huxley

            ‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared — the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’

            Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

            ‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents — the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts — i.e. of materialism and astronomy — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’

            C.S. Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.

          • toomuchinfo

            Brave New World is one of my favs. I do appreciate the dialogue and will ruminate on the Huxley. Thanks, OP.

        • Free Willy

          “Scientists adjust their opinions based on what’s observed, usually excluding any exculpatory findings.”

          I am finding it hard to take this as anything other than you don’t believe in science.
          What does one say to such a person???
          I find that view funny but hey your choice.

          Personally I trust scientists because they put their name to their observations and write down their process for arriving at a conclusion.
          Other scientists then read that and mock them for their errors and point out them out or they nod their heads and sagely agree that modern science does work.
          I don’t think ignoring certain elements of scientific testing is all that common when I look at the fact I am conversing with you while being thousands of miles away.

          • Free Willy

            Oh and in relation to that other stuff people saw.

            “the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not data”

            My cool quote for the day.

      • toomuchinfo

        Oh, no! I’m finding myself rereading FW, and finding it profound! I must be losing my mind! Somebody shoot me before it’s too late!

        • Free Willy

          Don’t worry you probably like the quote the best and that’s not mine.

          Check out “Tim Minchin Storm” on youtube, guarantee its worth it.

          • toomuchinfo

            Thanks for the reassurance. I live another day. I’ll look him up. ;-)

  • libertyatstake

    Memo to Stark: Darwin Day has already been scheduled – it’s election day 2012. Leftist ideologues will be rendered extinct on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

  • truebearing

    Leave it to Pete Stark, a fool who bases his political beliefs on a failed political theory from the 19th century, ie Marxism, to base his atheism on a failed theory of evolution from the same century.

    Darwin himself had doubts about his theory of evolution and his theory vacillated between Lamarckism and intelligent design whenever he ran into the problematic parts of his theory, and was grasping for explanations.

    Darwin was also strongly influenced by Malthus, the nutjob who was obsessed with drastically reducing the human population, by any means possible. Obama’s idiot Science Czar, John Holdren, is a disciple of Malthus, Darwin, and Marx, as are the majority of people in the Environmental Leftist religion. Hmmmm, maybe there is something to that mutation stuff….

    Darwin was a bright guy with a compelling theory, but like all theories, if the evidence isn’t there, it remains just a theory, and in fact, a refuted theory. Neo-Darwinism, like global warming, are theories without the evidence to prove them, yet are still promoted by the secular humanists as the sacred…er “scientific” truth.

    • toomuchinfo

      So are you saying you don’t believe in natural selection? Humans didn’t evolve from Lucy and Homo Hablis? It’s just coincidence that our DNA matches up 96% to chimps? C’mon TB, stop hating a man for getting things mostly right. Only the truth can set ye free. We are apes. Now go eat a banana, and take a shower. At least we can be clean apes.

      • opaobie

        “Evolutionists have claimed that chimp and human DNA is up to 99% similar. These studies only looked at gene coding regions, which are a tiny fraction of the 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. When the chimp genome was sequenced, the number was reduced to 96%, twice as much difference as was previously thought. No matter what the difference, evolution would predict it, and evolutionists would claim it as proof. It is estimated that 40 million mutation events would be required to produce 125 million differences in the DNA sequences. There’s not enough time in the evolutionary explanation for this to happen (Haldane’s Dilemma), and no new information is generated in these types of mutations anyway.

        Some scientists are surprised at the anatomical, physical, and behavioral differences between man and chimpanzee when they see so much apparent genetic similarity. With a philosophy that excludes a Creator God, they are forced to accept similarity as evidence of common ancestry. However, similarity can also be the result of a common Designer. The differences make the difference, and the most important difference is that man is created in the image of God.”

        Did Fords and Chevys “evolve” just because they have thousands of similarities, or were they “created”, thus, can the similarities be linked to common “design” and common designers, in this case, man?

        …find out more at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-humans

      • opaobie

        To make an apelike human ancestor appear out of the fossil record, paleoanthropologists do one of three things. First, they combine pieces from an ape fossil and a human fossil and call it a hominid ancestor. This happened in the case of Piltdown man, which was identified as a hoax after being promoted as man’s ancestor for 50 years. The second way is to emphasize the ape features of a human fossil, such as oversized jaws, sloping foreheads, and other features that are found within the range of human variation. An American orthodontist was banned from the British Museum of National History for properly aligning the jaws of several “ape-man” skulls to show how they had been intentionally misaligned to make them appear to be “ape-men” when in fact they were simply human skulls. Finally, they emphasize the human features on an ape fossil. This is evident in the fossil “Lucy,” an Australopithecus afarensis specimen. Even though A. afarensis’ hips don’t support the idea that they walked upright and the foot bones are curved like an ape’s, it is usually shown standing with human feet—a blatant misrepresentation of the fossil evidence.

        (same source as above)

        • toomuchinfo

          Look, if I believe you, I have to believe that Vishnu created everything with the help of a cobra. Where’s it gonna end? And they just found Lucy’s arch for gosh sakes, which proves she was a baller. Check it out.

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210141213.htm

          • opaobie

            “…studied a 3.2 million-year-old fourth metatarsal of Australopithecus afarensis….The foot bone ~SUGGESTS~ that these hominids had stiff, arched feet, similar to humans.”

            So the perceived shape of the fourth bone up from the toe next to the “little” toe on a fossil that has been decaying for “3.2 million years” is enough evidence to PROVE what? The hip structure does not support upright walking, but of course that part is disregarded because it doesn’t fit the theory; so tell me, what is your favorite flavor of KOOL AID?

          • toomuchinfo

            Koolaid? Dude, it was a religous cult that invented Kool aid! I’ve got a 3.2 million year old pinky toe, but you’ve got zilch. Nada. Not one shred of physical evidence.

          • opaobie

            http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/02/12/news-to-note-02122011

            More to think about:

            “A new analysis of 35 other australopithecine fossils sheds light on how Lucy may have walked, according to scientists who report their findings in the journal Science. The fossils are also from Ethiopia and, by piecing fragments together, the researchers believe they now understand the skeletal structure of Australopithecus afarensis feet. “The way the two ends of the bone were twisted in relation to each other in the fossils suggests that when one end was on the ground, the other end was raised about 8˚ to attach to the rest of the foot,” ScienceNOW reports (emphasis ours), the implication being that A. afarensis feet had well-formed arches like humans’. The researchers therefore conclude that Lucy and other australopithecines spent most of their time walking upright.

            Some scientists disagree with the study’s conclusions, however. American Museum of Natural History paleoanthropologist Will Harcourt-Smith argues that the study does not settle the question of whether Lucy had crucially important arches on the inner foot. “It’s hard to envisage an animal that had entirely made the leap to full, obligate bipedalism,” he explained. (A composite photo in the National Geographic News coverage of the story helps illustrate Harcourt-Smith’s
            point, albeit unintentionally.)

            As with many high-profile fossils, a layer of interpretation lies between what the creature was really like and our idea of what the creature was like. This interpretive layer thickens the less complete a fossil is, and Lucy is a perfect example of that. Even if australopithecines sported an arched foot, it does not mean they were our ancestors; even if the outer portion of some australopithecines’ feet were arched, it does not mean their entire foot was; even if certain foot bones were twisted in a certain manner, it only “suggests” the outer portion of their feet was arched; and so on—at each step, the scientists have made a jump from the evidence to the conclusion. Moreover, how partial and interpretation-laden are the 35 fossils used in this analysis, and how certain is their connection to Lucy?”

          • toomuchinfo

            You keep messing with my physical evidence, and there’s plenty more. Museums full of it. But where is your physical proof? Science requires evidence. It doesn’t really seem fair that you can say bad things about Lucy’s poor old bones, but you don’t have a one of your own. Not even a birth certificate. It doesn’t seem right.

          • opaobie

            There are millions of fossils substantiating an ordered universe of creatures but not a single fragment from a “transitory” creature. The evidence is on the side of intelligent design, not random reactions over billions of years.

  • craigiri

    Science?
    Listen, since we Americans are at the back of the pack when it comes to Science and Math, we can’t be going around and celebrating actual science! Instead, we should pray that our kids will automatically become educated…….by a bolt of lightning, the voice of the chosen one, or an image of the Great One in their Grilled Cheese Sandwich.

    • truebearing

      craigirl,

      You champion science, which is an evidence driven discipline, yet always fail to support your drivel with anything other than poorly worded sarcasm.

      Why don’t you explain for all of us the difference between Lamarckism and Darwin’s theory of evolution, and then explain how Mendel’s genetic discoveries debunked both? It’s science vs theory, bonehead, and I want to see if a great science lover like yourself can explain the difference. Go for it, Einstein.

      The reason our country is falling behind in math and science is because of you lying sack of crap lefties ruining our schools. The Progressive agenda, combined with the corrupt, evil unions, have turned our schools into indoctrination centers where kids learn the fine art of sodomy, but can’t add 2+2 and arrive at 4. You a-holes are the problem, and you fools don’t know science from Scientology.

  • diamndgirl

    He’s a nutcase that should have been expelled let alone voted out looong ago.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bill-Nelson/100000172083764 Bill Nelson

    Liberalism defies the most basic tenets of Darwinism-
    Survival of the fittest and natural selection. Not to beat you with your own stick or anything

    • toomuchinfo

      Excellent point. “Darwin Day” could be celebrated as, “Sink or swim, get off the dole Day.” ;-)

      • toomuchinfo

        Btw, if you’re reading this, than you’ve probably been bombarded with the shirtless, bad boy congressman just off to your right. What better advertisement for the power of nature? Just don’t blame Darwin for explaining it.

      • rectonoverso

        First, there is no such thing as Darwinism. We are talking science here not religion or ideology.

        Second, those who used Darwin’s work to justify Eugenics and so-called social-darwinism are of the same ilk as those who justified slavery using passages of the Bible.

        Conclusion, go back to school and learn.

  • clw

    Darwinists kill me. They think Darwinism vs creationism is an either/or proposition and it’s well known that they are not mutually exclusive.

    Creationists acknowledge evolution OF COURSE! BUT there had to have been a catalyst for human life to actually BEGIN. I am not particularly religious, I don’t go to church, but someone needs to explain that catalyst coherently, (and I don’t mean lightning striking a puddle of ooze, let’s get real here).

    I don’t particularly care about Pete Starks views on anything, but when he wastes taxpayers time and money on something like ‘Darwin Day’ he gets my (negative) attention.

    We have MUCH bigger fish to fry right now Pete. Get a clue!

    • toomuchinfo

      The problem with Creationism is that it opens the door for thousands of religions to be taught as acceptable scientific theories. I think the most difficult hurdle to understanding how life could come from dead matter is how much can happen in a billion years. Here’s a new vent theory for those, like CLW, having trouble swallowing the primordial soup. Remember, we didn’t have a video camera running during the actual event. This will take some time to figure out.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jasmine-Clark/1785223171 Jasmine Clark

      to clw: well creationists accept microevolution at least but not macro.

      to toomuchinfo: “The problem with Creationism is that it opens the door for thousands of religions to be taught as acceptable scientific theories.”

      no, no one is saying teach thousands of religions. just teach that an alternate theory to the big bang is that a higher power (or powers) created the universe and arranged the sun, earth, moon, stars, fine-tuned the earth to be the only place that supports life, and some believe that this higher power created lots of different animals at the same time instead of a single cell that evolved.

      that above statement can cover lots of religions. and, a lot of people believe that. if both that and evolution are taught then all students would feel like their view is represented in the classroom.

      • thephranc

        You can teach alternate theories than the big bang but you have to be able to actually back them up and make them testable. Since god isn’t real teaching that god is an alternative to actually testable facts that the big bang is based on is dishonest and insulting to science.

        • opaobie

          “You can teach alternate theories than the big bang but you have to be able to actually back them up and make them testable.”

          Then you just defeated your own argument in favor of evolution as well as the big bang since neither fit your criteria. Care to try a “scientific” answer?

          Too much more to say, but it is late, and I am tired of educating the closed-minded.

    • craigiri

      >Creationists acknowledge evolution OF COURSE!

      That is a bunch of BS.
      7 of 9 GOP Presidential hopefuls said they did NOT believe in evolution.
      Most Creationists think the world was created in the last 6-10,000 years.
      Polls have been done on this…..many (not most, but many) Americans are completely clueless…including many teachers, who may not be clueless, but are now scared to teach evolution because of the wrath of the stupid parents who want their kids to be allowed to be ignorant also.

      Almost no evolution has occurred in that space of time (6,000 years since Genesis) , so your point is obviously false.
      However, once you buy the BIG LIE (someone telling you fairy tales), then anything is possible.

      The big problem is….unlike Americans, the rest of the civilized world are educating their children in reality – math, science, biology, evolution, etc.

      The more you yap, the further we fall behind…….

  • murrayabraham

    Since the debate has, as is often the case, degenerated into a pugilistic fest between poorly informed adversaries, I can only refer you to Bishop and Biologist Katharine Jefferts Schori to explain why faith and evolution are not mutually exclusive:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130

    • toomuchinfo

      I thought faith and Episcopalians were mutally exclusive.

      • Patrick Henry

        LOL. As for the Episcopalians you are probably correct

        • Citizen Jerry

          Correct indeed! The Episcopalians walked away from classic trinitarian Christianity decades ago. Now they’re mostly agnostics who like to play dress up on Sundays. And those who still recite the Nicene Creed believe not a word of it.

          Pete Stark (raving mad) always reminds me of an old riddle. What do a dead atheist and a dead saint have in common? They both know there is a God.

  • Sndee1997

    Question? How many of you knew Darwin wanted to be a preacher? How many of you knew Darwin had a daughter who passed away? Wonder if Darwin simply was blaming God for his Daughters death and was just angry at his God.

    • toomuchinfo

      This is so ridiculous. Try reading before you write. Darwin’s interest in science developed from a young age, and his discoveries were a culmination of lifetime observations. To say that he wrote Origin of Species as a vengence piece is really nuts.