Skip to comments.Evolution's bottom line
Posted on 05/12/2006 12:13:47 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
In his op-ed "Evolution's bottom line," published in The New York Times (May 12, 2006), Holden Thorp emphasizes the practical applications of evolution, writing, "creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does," and citing several specific examples.
In places where evolution education is undermined, he argues, it isn't only students who will be the poorer for it: "Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?" He concludes, "Where science gets done is where wealth gets created, so places that decide to put stickers on their textbooks or change the definition of science have decided, perhaps unknowingly, not to go to the innovation party of the future. Maybe that's fine for the grownups who'd rather stay home, but it seems like a raw deal for the 14-year-old girl in Topeka who might have gone on to find a cure for resistant infections if only she had been taught evolution in high school."
Thorp is chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina.
I know, I know, the Times is a commie rag. But science isn't left or right, and there's nothing patriotic about ignorance. This is a good article.
So it's about cash. Makes more sense to me now.
God bless you!
Applications of evolution? I assume he mentioned naziism, communism, and eugenics programs?
"reationism has no commercial application."
So you are saying the major religons are not wealty and the cable churches don't make money?
And that's the bottom line... 'cause Richard Dawkins SAID SO!
Executive Director Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist who taught at the university level before becoming Director of NCSE in 1987.
he pro-evolution community continues to endorse organizations like the National Center for Science Education (executive director, Eugenie Scott) and the National Academy of Sciences as resources for unbiased mainstream science. What they conveniently fail to mention is that Eugenie Scott is a self-professed atheist. Moreover, a survey given to representatives of the National Academy of Sciences that was later published in a 1998 volume of the Journal of Nature confirms that 73% of its members are atheist and 20% are agnostic.1 In the same article, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins said, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I dont think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge."
Eugenie Scott was quoted in a Dispatch editorial on 03/14/04 as saying, "By definition, science cannot consider supernatural explanations: If there is an omnipotent deity, there is no way we can exclude or include it in research design." However, this exact type of scientific research is published in peer-reviewed journals consistently. An example is a paper published in the 1999 volume of the Journal of Archived Internal medicine titled, "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit."2
The genuine problem with Eugenie Scotts contention of limiting scientific study only to naturalistic processes is that the definition of science today incorrectly accepts a much broader scope. Science today claims that every observation must be explained by naturalistic processes and therefore concludes that there is no such thing as miracles or an omnipotent deity. By embracing this expanded definition, science has now completely overstepped its authority in attempting to explain the natural world.
Science can revert back to the more limited definition of only studying known naturalistic processes, but this assertion must be supplemented with the recognition that science is not capable of explaining the natural world in its entirety. The "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson clearly attempts to use the limited definition of science by teaching that there is no naturalistic explanation or mechanism for macroevolution and consequently reveals why the militant pro-evolutionists are hyperventilating.
The atheist wing of the evolutionist community desires the more expanded definition of science because it demands the teaching of a natural world completely devoid of an omnipotent deity. The more limited scientific definition does not teach of a deity, but it correctly recognizes that if a naturalistic explanation does not exist for a given observation, then it is irresponsible to invoke some pseudoscientific extrapolation that has no basis in the scientific method.
I'm sure Dr. Scott doesn't have an agenda.
They don't create wealth, they merely receive it.
From the article: "Since evolution has been the dominant theory of biology for more than a century, it's a safe statement that all of the wonderful innovations in medicine and agriculture that we derive from biological research stem from the theory of evolution."
This is a ludicrous statement! If you look to journalist such as this to defend your beliefs, you need to look farther...
Is this author trying to say that we would not have medical nor agricultural science today if not for the theory of evolution?? That is a tough pill to swallow. Do you agree with that statement??
So next time ask a pro-homosexual agenda activist if they believe in evolution, why are they promoting behavior which is inconsistent with Darwin's postulates (natural selection and survival of the fittest). Homosexual behavior doesn't propagate the species, and therefore is illogical and inconsistent with good evolutionary theory.
I will psuedoscientifically extrapolate if I feel like it!
Applications for religious fundamentalism: flying airplanes into buildings. Perhaps we should compare the number of evolution opponents who have flown airplanes into buildings with the number of biology teachers that have done so.
Perhaps we should compare the number of clergymen convicted of child molestation with the number of biology teachers convicted of child molestation. Ideas apparently do have consequences.
Didn't your mother warn you that you'll go blind if you do? ;)
Darwinism is goofball science, and it's way to the wacky left.
There yet seems more suggestion than show, though interesting within the fossil record.
Then there's always reproduction, which couldn't have evolved since it had to work from the beginning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.