An ordinary boy with mediocre grades and school performance, Darwin loved collecting all sorts of things including rocks, shells, bird's eggs, coins, stamps, and bugs.  While his family called him "Bobby" after his father, his grade school kids nicknamed him "gas" when they found he assisted his brother Erasmus with chemistry experiments in a tool shed laboratory. 

     Darwin followed in his father's footsteps and at age 16 went to Edinburgh to study medicine.  This was at a time before anesthesia when surgery was done quickly on screaming patients strapped to the operating table.  After watching two operations on a child that went badly, Darwin quit medicine.  In Edinburgh, he met Robert Grant, a marine biologist whose interest in the similarity of the structures of animals of different species led Grant to support Lamarck's suggestion of common origins.  Darwin's diary however shows that he was not convinced of these notions.

     In 1828, Darwin left Edinburgh to study theology at Christ's College, Cambridge.  At age 19 he wrote that he believed the Bible to be literally true.  He envisioned himself as a country minister who would study nature and further reveal God's beauty and perfection.  It was at Cambridge that Darwin developed a new interest in collecting beetles.  He also met his mentors, Reverends John Sevens Henslow and Adam Sedgwick.  Henslow, a professor of botany, became Darwin's idol and role model.  Rev. Sedgwick was a geologist who taught Darwin about stratification and sparked an interest in geology.  Sedgwick later became one of Darwin's harshest critics because despite his belief in the "old earth" he would not accept evolution.  Still, it was the study of geology and Darwin's own observations that led him to accept that the earth's slow and constant changing often results in surprising and seemingly inexplicable outcomes.

     After his graduation in 1831, Darwin began a five-year trip around the world aboard the HMS Beagle as an unpaid naturalist.  At age 22, he wrote that the South American forest is "a temple filled with the varied productions of the God of Nature."  He continued to collect a variety of creatures and gained much notoriety by sending back numerous large fossils he collected on a trip to Argentina.  It was obvious, he thought, that the "pygmy" species living there were quite similar to the gigantic skeletal remains he obtained.  He also visited the Galapagos Islands and collected 31 birds from four different islands.  At the time he failed to recognize that they were all finches.

     In 1836 Darwin visited Australia.  At the time he wondered why God put so many marsupials on this one island, but he wrote in his diary that the hand of God was still obvious in the design of the Australian antlion, a beetle that catches its prey in the same manner as those he saw in England.

     Darwin returned to England in 1837 with 1,529 specimens in jars and 3907 labeled skins, bones and other dried specimens.  He had nearly 2000 pages of written notes.  Naturalist John Gould identified the 31 birds as 13 different species of finches unique to the Galapagos.  Darwin had mislabeled them, based on the differences in their beaks and had failed to note from which island each one came.  Yet the realization that they were all the same class of bird, began his wondering about the origins of their variations.  He later showed that the structures of the birds had changed to adapt to the changing environment and food sources.

     It was in his first year back that Darwin sketched out a "tree of life" that connected all species in existence by tracing them back to common ancestors, an idea that had been around for some time but had not received the sound scientific evidence needed to convince most academics.  Darwin also became interested in the breeding of various pigeons and set up his own pigeon coops.  He wondered if nature acted like the pigeon breeder, somehow selecting for various traits. Still, he was unsure how this selection process resulted in animals being perfectly fitted to their environment.

     Darwin also began to consider the relation of humans to other primates.  He often visited the zoo to observe the behaviors of the Orangutans.   Then, in 1838 Darwin read Malthus' book on Population, and realized the growth of population leads to the struggle for existence as the food supply and other resources cannot meet demand.  This was the essence of evolution: that traits are selected by the reproduction and survival of select individuals.

     Darwin began collecting books of all sorts that contained facts that might address his theory that species change over time.  He became more and more convinced that the variations in nature were the product of natural processes and that certain traits were somehow passed on.  It took the later discovery of genetic inheritance to show exactly how.  Still, his accumulation of facts and examples elevated evolution into the realm of mainstream acceptance.  During this same period, Darwin's belief in literal Christianity crumbled as he realized the metaphors and allegories failed to explain the true design and workings of indifferent natural forces.  He was left in conflict because his wife maintained her orthodox beliefs and feared his growing skepticism and reliance on scientific observation as the source of truth would jeopardize their being together in eternity.

     Darwin wrote that by 1848, "[D]isbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at least complete."  Still, he postponed writing his theory because he realized the implications it held for those who believed in a literal Biblical interpretation of Genesis.  In 1858 he received a manuscript from the young naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, who also had developed a theory of natural selection.  With spurring from his colleagues, Darwin proceeded to publish his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection -- 22 years after his voyage.

     In July, 1861, Darwin took a break from writing a book on animal domestication and went on holiday with his daughter, Henrietta, to Torquay on the Devon coast. While there he spent many hours examining the way insects pollinate orchids in the fields around the town. He noticed that only certain insects pollinate one particular orchid variety.  When he returned home he immediately switched from breeding pigeons to raising orchids. During the Victorian era, orchids were all the rage, and as soon as word got out that Darwin was raising them he was flooded with specimens from admirers all over the country.  He set out to study how orchids used intricate petal designs to attract bees and moths to their pollen.  He later wrote a book on his observations and experiments with orchids and their evolutionary relationship with insects.

     Darwin continued to publish many books and papers on an array of topics in biology.  His son Francis became a successful botanist; George, a geologist and astronomer; Horace, a noted inventor and engineer; and Leonard, an economist and scientist.  In his old age Darwin wrote, "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.  And this is a damnable doctrine."  This phrase was stricken from publication by his wife, who feared it would offend their religious family and friends.  Still, Darwin always stressed that his theory was merely a statement of the obvious and should have no dire effect on religions.  He maintained that he was "agnostic" to his death.  A few years later, stories circulated that he recanted his theory and loss of faith, but his family stated that these were stories simply were untrue.

      The approaches fundamentalist Christians have used and are now using to oppose the teaching of evolution is addressed in a current article by Deborah Reule in the Vanderbilt Law Review.  Three strategies now used are: (1) attempts to remove evolution from state science curricula and state- mandated tests; (2) teaching evolution as a "theory" and not a "fact"; and (3) employing a "disclaimer," read before teaching evolution, to caution students that evolution is a "theory" and not a "fact."  The second and third of these exploit the general ignorance about what constitutes a "theory" in science, suggesting it is more "a hunch" or guess -- in scientific terms, "a hypothesis."  Still, these strategies fail to introduce religion into the public school, a goal that is clearly the real intent of Christian fundamentalists.

      In two landmark cases the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed it ruled against laws banning and criminalizing the teaching of evolution (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968) and laws mandating the teaching of creationism (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987).  Both were found to violate the First Amendment clause that prohibits government from establishing a religion. 

      Out of these defeats has arisen a new approach, termed "Intelligent Design theory."  The proponents of this "theory" have carefully removed any reference to Christianity or religion — hoping that the Court will take a textualist approach to evaluating laws requiring this "theory" to be taught.  In other words, based on the text of this theory, this does not appear to be Christian or even religious in nature since the "intelligent designer" is never made explicitly clear.  Proponents thus hope that the Court will not deem this to be establishing religion.  On the other hand, if the Court considers the context and history and sees this "new theory" as arising from past creationist notions, they will clearly rule against it.

      With "intelligent design" arguments creationists attempt first to undermine evolution by arguing against the "chance" occurrence of the laws of physics.  They make the "fine tuning" argument that states that any slight variation in the laws of physics would make material existence and life impossible.  Astronomical probabilities are given for the likelihood that the laws of physics exist as they do.  This is given along with the subtle twist of having students realize the great likelihood of their nonexistence, exploiting both the fear of death and egotism that naturally arise in adolescence and young adulthood.  The error in this argument is that it is impossible to calculate the base-rate number of possible universes or possible conditions, so these "odds" are basically meaningless.

      Similar arguments are given for the occurrences of "life," the existence of DNA, and  the variations of DNA between species.  These "odds" often ignore the constraining laws of physics that affect such probabilities.  For example, creationists fail to state how many other "possible universes" could produce life.  It is assumed none.  The conclusion of the creationists' reasoning (which precedes any arguments) is that the universe was created specifically for humans to exist.

      For intelligent design theorists, the "saving grace" here is that even if one accepts evolution, the "laws of physics" would still point to an intelligent designer (aka god) who made the universe especially for humans (or leaches, slugs, and flu viruses) to exist.  In his article "Intelligent Design: Humans, Cockroaches, and the Laws of Physics," Victor J. Stenger  writes: "The most common argument that is still given by believers when they are asked to present scientific evidence for a creator is: ‘How can all of this (gesturing to the world around us) have happened by chance?' As we have seen, the most brilliant exposition of the case for evolution will not answer this question, because it still presumes the pre-existence of laws of physics and values of physical constants that had to be delicately balanced for human (and cockroach) life to evolve."

      "Intelligent design theory" also promotes "irreducible complexity" of organs and organisms to argue against the possibility of evolution.  The fundamental assumption is that "chance" cannot explain the existence of complex organs or species with differing complexity of genetic information.  While creationists now allow for variations within a species, they disavow the notion that these new species could arise from genetic variation.

      The authors of intelligent design, like previous creationists, also link evolution to atheism and suggest that there is a conspiracy behind its success in academia.   They strive to turn science into a descriptive, rather than an explanatory, process, undermining intellectual curiosity and established, reliable facts about natural processes.  The true intentions of the authors of intelligent design were stated in a February 1999 speech by Phillip Johnson, the "unofficial leader" of the movement.  Johnson said these theorists "intend to drive a wedge into the ‘philosophy' of evolution" and through the use of this "people will be introduced to the truth of the Bible, then ‘the question of sin' and ultimately ‘introduced to Jesus.'"   Most importantly,  the intelligent design "theorists," who are mostly lawyers and engineers,  have a good chance at getting their theory past the Supreme Court if the court ignores the history and context of their movement.  So far they have not and the Scopes Monkey trial stands as the lone victory for those who wish to impose their religious views on everyone.
                                                                                                                                           -- Jim Dew

      This [19th] century will be called Darwin's century.  He was one of the greatest men who ever touched this globe.  He has explained more of the phenomena of life than all of the religious teachers. 

      Write the name of Charles Darwin on the one hand and the name of every theologian who ever lived on the other, and from that name has come more light to the world than from all of those.  His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of the survival of the fittest, his doctrine of the origin of species, has removed in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox Christianity.  He has not only stated, but he has demonstrated, that the inspired writer knew nothing of this world, nothing of the origin of man, nothing of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of nature; that the Bible is a book written by ignorance -- at the instigation of fear. 

     Think of the men who replied to him.  Only a few years ago there was no person too ignorant to successfully answer Charles Darwin; and the more ignorant he was the more cheerfully he undertook the task.  He was held up to the ridicule, the scorn and contempt of the Christian world, and yet when he died, England was proud to put his dust with that of her noblest and her grandest.  Charles Darwin conquered the intellectual world, and his doctrines are now accepted facts. 

                                                                                                              -- Robert Green Ingersoll
                                                                                                                 Orthodoxy (1884)

 The 2002 Darwin Day celebration takes place on Feb. 12, at 7:30 p.m. in the Roseman Auditorium.  This year's speaker is Dr. Randolph M. Nesse, an expert on Darwinian medicine. 

Nesse is a professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Michigan.  His talk is titled, "Darwinian medicine: Why isn't the body better designed?"  A reception will precede the presentation in the natural history museum on the third floor of Upham Hall at 6:30 p.m. UWW guests are encouraged to bring a dessert in the form of an organism. The desserts will be arranged to illustrate the evolutionary tree or the, "tree of life." 
All are welcome. 

     Planning a career in online Christian fundamentalist apologetics? How about the exciting world of Young-Earth Creationism?  Witnessing to, and debating with, atheists and other hellbound unsaved sinners on the internet can be hard work, so you need to familiarize yourself with the tried and tested methods used by fundies all around the world. After completing this simple training course, the shadow of doubt will never again flicker across your mind whilst listening to the lies and deceptions of those ignorant infidels who disagree with your self-evident truths.

1) Inerrancy
     First and foremost, the Bible is the absolute, literal word of God. Contrary to popular opinion, it contains none of the following: errors of any kind; contradictions; or absurdities.

     When you understand this, dealing with those who claim to have found a contradiction is simplicity itself: there are no contradictions, so he cannot have found one! You see?  Easy, isn't it? If your opponent continues in his error after having this explained to him (nice and slowly), elaborate on your answer using an appropriate response from the following list:

     That translation is incorrect - in the original texts a different word is used, so it is not a contradiction. 

     He is taking the verses out of context, so there is no contradiction. 

     Satan has blinded him to the truth. There is no contradiction, and he should pray to be shown the correct meaning. 

     This is only an apparent contradiction. That is not the same as an actual contradiction. 

     If the verses are interpreted correctly, it is obvious that there is no contradiction. There are no contradictions in the Bible, so this is not a contradiction. 

     The contradiction is caused by his anachronistic thinking. The word [insert word here] had a different meaning back then. 

     Having just demonstrated that the supposed contradictions do not exist, you have now proved that there are no contradictions in the Bible, reinforcing your claim that it is truly the unsullied Holy Word of God.

2) Science
     There is but one measuring stick required to determine the truth of any claim - how it compares with Holy Scripture. More precisely, how it compares with your personal reading of Scripture. So, if some secular humanist scientists dare to dream up a theory (or "wild guess", as it is more accurately known) that apparently conflicts with the teachings of the Bible, clearly these egg-head mad professors have made yet another idiotic mistake, possibly under demonic influence. How do we know they are mistaken?  [See "Inerrancy" above]

     Conversely, when science agrees with the Bible we should applaud the brave, Bible- believing investigators for supporting the Holy Word and showing the glory of Creation. But usually they are wrong.

     Never forget, the atheists are quick to use the findings of science as "evidence" in their arguments, but this is because materialism and science are their god and religion. They want the men in white coats to save them from the God they know will judge them.

3) Debating techniques
     Here we delve into the murky world of online debating with heathens. You can witness to lost souls in USENET newsgroups (such as alt.atheism and talk.origins), or in message fora on their websites.

     a) Self contradiction
     In a heated argument, you will often find yourself losing track of your previous posts, and the atheist will often accuse you of contradicting comments you made earlier. As your words are Bible-based, it stands to reason that they should therefore be correct at all times. [Refer to "Inerrancy"] Alternatively, remember that, as slaves of The Evil One, atheists will do their best to twist your words and attempt to confuse you. If this appears to be happening, ignore their comments and pray for strength.

     b) Logic and reason
     These are the playthings of the unbeliever, and you should have no truck with them. Faith in the Lord is all you need. The atheist will try to imply that God should be bound by the rules of logic, but God invented logic and so cannot be constrained by it! The more illogical and unreasoning you are, the harder it becomes for atheists to refute your statements. They will scream "But that doesn't make sense! It is logically impossible!" -- be that as it may, your faith will tell you that you are correct.  With God, all things are possible -- including impossible things.  What more do you need?

     The burden of proof is on the skeptic.  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" you will be told. But just who is making the extraordinary claim here?  You, who simply observe the Creator's hand in all things, or the infidel who against all logic and reason denies the very same.  Clearly, it is incumbent on the unbelievers to support their ludicrous assertions that "there is no God."  Ask them if they can prove God does not exist.  Ask how they can be so arrogant to make this claim, when they have not searched the entire universe for God.  They will come back and ask you to disprove the existence of Zeus, Vishnu and unicorns, but you should dismiss such childish nonsense -- there is no comparison between the fairy-tale gods of other religions and the Truth of Christianity. Their inability to disprove God is evidence enough that He is real.  If they cannot overturn your theory, they are clearly being unreasonable by refusing to accept it.

    c) Repeating yourself
    After spending a few days debating with a group of atheists, you should leave them alone for a week or so.  This will give them time to come to terms with the truths you have revealed.  Also, it will provide time for new people to join the discussion.  This allows you to return to the forum once more and repeat your statements, unchanged, for the benefit of newcomers.  We recommend storing your longer arguments in a text file, so it can be easily cut-and-pasted into the forum.  If the forum regulars object, explain that, having already corrected their misconceptions, you are now simply trying to reach the new members and those who still unreasonably reject the truth.  If they are civilized people, they will respect this and stand aside.  Repeat this technique until you are banned from the board or placed in everybody's killfile.

     d) Huge posts
     To take the wind out of your opponent's sails, reply to the smallest query with pages and pages of text.  Ideally, you should spend a couple of hours writing this yourself, but if you don't have the time cut-and-paste relevant (or, if possible, irrelevant) information from other Christian websites or resources.  Try to spend at least ten kilobytes explaining why they should pray more, why they should fear Hell, how Christ died for their sins, why prominent Christian philosophers and scientists disagree with them, how long-dead Christians have already proven them wrong, and so on.  Ask as many obscure questions as possible.  If they are truly sincere (which, being atheists, is impossible) they will answer all of your points.  If they fail to answer all of your points and questions, victory is yours.  Make a note of this humiliating defeat and remember to bring it up often when dealing with this particular individual.  (This is also a handy technique to use during a live debate with evolutionists. )

     A variant on this theme is to post numerous verses from the Bible to support your argument. Why bother with a hundred words of explanation, when a single verse will do it all for you.  Simply post the verse that refutes the atheist, and then maybe two or three more referring to hellfire.  As the verses are known to be true, little more need be said on the matter.  If the atheist predictably comes back with a counter argument, post the same verses again but suggest that he actually read them this time. 

     e) Grammar and spelling
    Are not important, as long as the Spirit guides you.  If you are criticized for being unable to form a sentence in English, or using words like "athiset", "Noahs arc", "evolotin" and "revilatian" -- worry not.  It is not the trivia of punctuation and spelling which is important, but getting the message of God across.

     Consider this excellent example. To the untrained eye, the writer may appear to be an illiterate, ignorant dolt, but just feel the love in his words:
 

     Only the coldest of hearts could not be moved by such testimony.  This is the sort of level of incoherent drooling you should be aiming for.

     You should combine a flimsy grasp of the English language with your own distinctive writing style.  The following are quite fashionable at the moment:

     i) writing everything in lower case without any punctuation at all this can be quite difficult to read but is very easy to type which is a bonus dont you think

     ii) ALTERNATIVELY, WRITE EVERYTHING IN CAPS.  THIS MAKES YOUR IMPORTANT MESSAGE STAND OUT AND PEOPLE WILL TAKE NOTICE OF IT AND REALIZE THAT YOU REALLY MEAN IT.

     iii) short, disjointed..... sentences separated by long...... strings of dots..... this makes you look quite..... thoughtful as if you are...... pausing every now and...... then.

     iv) Overuse of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! can emphasize the point you are trying to make!!!!!!!!!!!! Question marks also work well, don't they ???????????????????? 

     v) Show ur mastery of the Internet by using words like "u" instead of "you", "2" instead of "to" and "too", "ur" instead of "your" and "you're", and u 2 can spread the gospel 2 other kewl d00dz.

     If English is not your first language, all the better.  The way you present your argument says a lot about you, so pick wisely.

      f) Knowledge of the subject
     Whether you are talking about evolution, the origins of the universe, basic human anatomy, or the structure of the solar system, there is no need to concern yourself with learning anything at all about the issue. [See " Inerrancy"] By definition, those who disagree with you are wrong, deluded and possibly perverts, so it is a bad idea to pollute your mind with their religious beliefs.  All the evidence in the world is no match for a single grain of the True Faith.

     If they say "But evolution doesn't work like that! You are completely clueless!" remind them that evolution doesn't actually work at all.  Has a cow ever given birth to a dog?  Do we see hydrogen turning into people around us?  If we "evolved" from chimps, why are there still chimps?  Why do we not see amoebae sprouting legs and talking?  These harsh insights will cut through their dogma like a hot knife through butter.

     If they refer you to papers or websites showing that the universe is billions of years old, refer them in turn to Genesis.  Explain how carbon dating  methods have been shown to be  hopelessly flawed.  For  instance, when the Turin  Shroud was dated, the so-called  experts put it around the 14th  Century, instead of 33 AD. This  obviously calls into question all  the other radiometric dating  guesses they will throw around.

                                                                                                                - Adrian Barnett
                                                                                      http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/fundy.htm

Click here for Part 2

                                                                                                    - Marie Castle