Support the 2013 Darwin Day Resolution

 

The American Humanist Association is proud to announce that Representative Rush Holt proposed H. Res. 41 to Congress, expressing support for the designation of February 12, 2013, as Darwin Day and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity. This resolution is a culmination of collaboration between Representative Holt and the American Humanist Association.

Contact your Representative now in support of H. Res. 41 to establish February 12, 2013 as Darwin Day!

  • Bill Love

    I support the recognition of Darwin Day. It doesn’t have to be one of the big, fancy holidays with a day off work or school or anything, but just its existence and acknowledgment might open a few more eyes to science — something that’s VERY sorely needed in the USA to counter the religious fanatics.

  • Pingback: Darwin Day 2013 in Portland, February 12 | The Dispersal of Darwin

  • Suhas

    I have a great regard to Darwin’s work. But each of us must work to wards making his theory fails i e Survival of Fittest ,…..We must prove Survival of ALL .

  • John Heininger

    Darwin’s evolutionary theory is a historical theory, rather than a scientific one. As it is based on subjective hypothetical inference as to what supposedly happened in the unobserved distant past. With no possible way of every scientifically verifying that events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether the evolutionary continuum happened at all. The fact that evolutionary theory is even equated with empirically verifiable science is the real achievement.

    • Eric

      I’m sorry, John, but you are sadly misinformed. Evolution, in and of itself, is an obervable, measurable, testable, and repeatable fact. It can, in principle, be oberseved and measured by anyone, including you or I. Darwin’s theory (specifcally, natural selection) was his explanation for those observations. This theory, although refined through time, has been repeatedly supported through a variety of converging lines of empirical evidence. Your offering of the tired creationist trope is more an example of your ignorance, than of anything useful. You are just another in a long line of denialists that clearly demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about the subject that you are denying. Please spend some time learning about biology and evolution from sources other than creationist ones.
      thank you.

      • John Heininger

        Eric, there is no delusion like self-delusion. In regard to evolutionary “historical theories” as to what “supposedly” in the unobserved distant past there is NO testable, repeatable or empirically verifiable scientific evidence for ANY of the essential stages of the evolutionary continuum. None!

        So, to prove me wrong all you have to do is supply us all with “verifiable” experimental and observational evidence that will enable us all to bring dead matter to life, produce a DNA
        double helix from scratch; consciousness from unconscious material, mind from mindless matter, reason from no reason, intelligence from no intelligence, and conscience
        from no conscience. So, we would all be interested in the “testable” “repeatable” and “verifiable” empirical scientific for all the above. And every other attribute possessed by humans and other forms of life. So, lets see what you really have.
        Off you go!

        I should warn you the Nobel Committee does not regard
        evolutionary “historical theories” as “prize-worthy”
        science. And if they are not regarded as prize-worthy science, they can hardly be regarded as a “scientific fact”. This is why the Oxford dictionary equates theories based on subjective inferences and assumptions as Theory Sense 2: Namely, “A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.”

        And while your at it, Eric, could you also provide testable,
        repeatable, and verifiable empirical scientific evidence to proves that the assumptions of naturalism, on which you operate, are TRUE. This will show us all that you are not just operating on the basis of “blind faith”. So, if you can do this the scientific community would be very interested. As they are still desperately searching for testable, repeatable and verifiable scientific evidence for the godless “theory of Everything”.

  • Brian Lauer

    Why honor somebody who believed:

    ” . . . the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” – Charles Darwin, The Descent or Man