[SampleMan]

If it were causal to derision, we’d have a Ronald Reagan Day, George W. Day, and Winston Churchill Day.

Evolutionary scienists run amok only when they start to pretend that they know causal elements (that always cracks me up) and that certain things are facts, when they are in truth just reasonable assertions based on a lack of contrary evidence. I blame it on “publish or perish” in fields where nothing (or very little) truly new information has been uncovered in 100 years.

There is plenty of people around (like me) who think very little of Darwinian scientists, based not on evolution, but on their insistance that evolution is both chance and purposeful (it can’t be both), depending on which side of the coin helps them make their case. Not unlike many fields of science at the moment.

Darwin Day smacks of self-importance, but maybe that’s just me. My attitude might evolve.

[goodusername]

"If it were causal to derision, we’d have a Ronald Reagan Day, George W. Day, and Winston Churchill Day."

--Darwin Day is certainly nothing official, just something tossed about on Feb 12, much like - well - what we just had for Reagan this past Feb 6. And actually "Ronald Reagan Day" is more official than Darwin Day is.

"There is plenty of people around (like me) who think very little of Darwinian scientists, based not on evolution, but on their insistance that evolution is both chance and purposeful (it can’t be both), depending on which side of the coin helps them make their case."

--I'm not sure what that is a reference to. There are elements of evolution that are chance (mutations) and elements that are not (selection). I don't know why anyone would see that as problematic though.