Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution's bottom line
National Center for Science Education ^ | 12 May 2006 | Staff

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: butwecondemnevos; caticsnotchristian; christiannotcatlic; crevolist; ignoranceisstrength; ignorantcultists; pavlovian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,201-1,243 next last
To: visually_augmented
It is interesting that the doctrine of evolution is a critical tenet of the religion of atheism.

Your statement does not appear to make any sense. Evolution is not a doctrone, and atheism is not a religion, nor does it have any tenets.
101 posted on 05/12/2006 1:11:42 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jec41

Not true.

But, since you so desperately want to believe that Hitler was a devout Christian, I will leave you to your delusions.

But, history proves you wrong.


102 posted on 05/12/2006 1:11:46 PM PDT by Skooz (Chastity prays for me, piety sings...Modesty hides my thighs in her wings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Okay. Hint - there are a lot of preachers out there who have never harmed a child. But if it makes you feel better to argue that preachers are more dangerous to children than evolutionary theory, go right ahead.


103 posted on 05/12/2006 1:12:01 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: hawkaw

What "observations?" Whenever there is an observation that doesn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm, it is either ignored or the evolutionary theory becomes ever more preposterous to accommodate it. Like the recent backwards evolution nonsense.

I chuckled to see how evolutionists reverently embraced the kooky story about the Turkish family crawling around on their knuckles! How eager to believe!


104 posted on 05/12/2006 1:12:27 PM PDT by Elpasser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; Junior; PatrickHenry
Follow the money.

The Discovery Institute (promoters of ID) has an annual income of about $4.5 million. Pat Robertson brings in about $300,000,000 a year, Jerry Falwell brings in $200 million a year.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) limps along on a mere $700,000.

It is a a very unequal contest, except that NCSE has evidence and reason on their side.

105 posted on 05/12/2006 1:12:33 PM PDT by thomaswest (Just curious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles; PatrickHenry; hosepipe
...those who reject religious and philosophical approaches to the problem of human duty and destiny, manage to smuggle in by way of simile and metaphor the elements of meaning and value that their formal philosophy of nature and natural science excludes from consideration.

Yes indeed. But if you point this out to such people, the typical response is outraged yelps of denial with great gnashing of teeth.... They refuse to see the self-contradictory position they place themselves in by their relentless insistence that everything in the universe is "natural," by which they essentially mean material.

From your excerpt, Dr. Morris' book looks looks like a great read, JCEccles. Will have to track it down. Thanks so much for the ping!

106 posted on 05/12/2006 1:12:45 PM PDT by betty boop (Death... is the separation from one another of two things, soul and body; nothing else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Junior

But if we are wrong, so what? If you are wrong...well, time will tell.


107 posted on 05/12/2006 1:12:52 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
I thought our genes were more selfish than that.

. You are mistaken, then.
108 posted on 05/12/2006 1:13:16 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

I suppose there are closet atheists, though I have no way of knowing.


109 posted on 05/12/2006 1:13:24 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: ROTB
Gee, it isn't only priests getting caught in the love that shall not be named.
110 posted on 05/12/2006 1:14:16 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I sit in a frickin' cube farm. I don't have a window.


111 posted on 05/12/2006 1:14:53 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Exactly what proof would convince you? Those who refuse to believe in God aren't going to be convinced by me.

As Junior does not "refuse to believe in God", your objection is not relevant.

Of course you aren't going to convince me humans descended from ape-like creatures either.

This may be accurate, as I have witnessed you denying fundamental biological facts -- including classifications made by a special creationist -- because you do not wish them to be true.
112 posted on 05/12/2006 1:15:06 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Blaming Hitler's actions on evolution only demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what evolution is.

The only term that makes sense in describing Hitler's policies is Intelligent Design, not that he understood it any more than he understood evolution.

113 posted on 05/12/2006 1:15:18 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
"It seems strange that human beings would have such motives-- as natural as we are.

I thought our genes were more selfish than that. "

Cooperation is an evolved, useful trait. To say nothing of having an instinct to defend your closest relatives. There is no contradiction with evolution.
114 posted on 05/12/2006 1:15:23 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

I'm not the one who asserts that evolution leads to bad behavior.

I think, if it does, it ought to be evident by comparing the number of church leaders and activists convicted of child molestation, sodomy, fraud, tax evasion and the like, with the number of biology teachers convicted of these crimes.

I'm told that ideas have consequences.


115 posted on 05/12/2006 1:16:32 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
Applications of evolution? I assume he mentioned naziism, communism, and eugenics programs?

Who knows. However, there is certainly a huge commercial application for Intelligent Design. It's called the biotech industry....

116 posted on 05/12/2006 1:17:55 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Science isn't left or right? Buwahahahaha


117 posted on 05/12/2006 1:18:27 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest; RadioAstronomer; Junior; PatrickHenry
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) limps along on a mere $700,000.

Any organization that can only generate $700,000 in contributions can hardly speak for a large constituancy.

118 posted on 05/12/2006 1:18:51 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Natural selection is not random.

Correct, but the "features" competing against one another for selection are random.
119 posted on 05/12/2006 1:18:55 PM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Blame that on Hitler. He took the false doctrine, and said, "We'll survive and Jews won't."

Nothing in the theory of evolution suggests that any group of humans should be put to death. There is no logical means to use the theory of evolution to justify genocide.
120 posted on 05/12/2006 1:19:08 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Don't give me that "you aren't going to be convinced" crap. If you actually had demonstrable evidence to support your position, you'd put it out there for the lurkers to see, regardless of my reactions. You have nothing other than arguments from awe ("that's just so incredible, God had to have made it!").


121 posted on 05/12/2006 1:19:29 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: js1138

"I'm told that ideas have consequences."

Darwin certainly proved that.


122 posted on 05/12/2006 1:19:54 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Regarding your post #48...indeed there is grand money to be had, promoting books, and tapes from the creationist side of this...

Just take a look at the CreationNetwork on TV, when it airs its 'scientific' programs...its like one long running commercial touting its speakers current books, reruns of the programs,and their various tapes...its a big money making racket, not that there is anything wrong with making money...it is just when they say they are going to actually discuss a science topic, it is a bit aggravating when the topic is constantly interrupted with 'commercials', constantly trying to get folks to buy their wares...just go to their website, and you too, can purchase their wares, if you dont get their TV program...

So, neither side in this is doing this for free, for the benefit of all...there is money to be made...the point is, while making this money, who exactly benefits?...is it just the ones doing the true scientific research, the ones selling their 'creationist' aids, or is there a larger benefit further down the road, and for who?...who actually produces the very results, that benefit all of us?


123 posted on 05/12/2006 1:20:36 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

My favorite example of money making using creationism is prospecting for pigeons.

http://store.nwcreation.net/


124 posted on 05/12/2006 1:15:12 PM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
However, you may not always feel that way.

Religion always comes with an implied threat. Of course, other religions have other threats. Were I not so cynical, I'd think that they were trying to raise money.

125 posted on 05/12/2006 1:15:14 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
So it's about cash.

In the sense that knowledge leads to wealth, sure.

126 posted on 05/12/2006 1:15:27 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent (Chloe rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
Does anyone seriously believe that we creationists don't understand and appreciate genetics and adaptability of organisms?

Given a number of the comments from creationists in evolution discussions, yes.
127 posted on 05/12/2006 1:15:35 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Junior

There is all kinds of information on AIG website, if you are really interested. However, after being familiar with your stance on the issue, I know you aren't.

BTW, amazing how fast you all get pinged. Good work.


128 posted on 05/12/2006 1:15:36 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

Do a search for Hitler and Christian on these forums. You can find thread after thread where this discussion takes place.

Read some history, not the evangelical propagandists.


129 posted on 05/12/2006 1:15:57 PM PDT by 2nsdammit (By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
I believe what the author is saying is that medical or agricultural science would still be in the dark ages if not for the theory of evolution. That of course is the truth.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while.
130 posted on 05/12/2006 1:16:03 PM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Dimensio: "Consider the resulting disasterous effect to the Soviet agricultural industry when Stalin outlawed the teaching of Darwinian evolution."

This could never be a proper proof case.

You could just as easily postulate that the lack of religous teaching (caused also by the Stalinist regime) was the cause of a poor agricultural industry.


131 posted on 05/12/2006 1:16:13 PM PDT by visually_augmented (I was blind, but now I see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: newguy357

"Correct, but the "features" competing against one another for selection are random."

But the organisms that survive do not do so at random; therefore, the selection isn't random.


132 posted on 05/12/2006 1:16:58 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

People who read your webpage would be pretty shocked if they read some of your posts here, too. You go from a rebel-flag waving states' rights advocate to an Earl Warren-style proponent of federal supremacy and governance by federal judicial decree with the mere switch of the forum.


133 posted on 05/12/2006 1:17:34 PM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
What "observations?" Whenever there is an observation that doesn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm, it is either ignored or the evolutionary theory becomes ever more preposterous to accommodate it. Like the recent backwards evolution nonsense.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this, by providing a specific example. I chuckled to see how evolutionists reverently embraced the kooky story about the Turkish family crawling around on their knuckles!

What do you mean by "reverently embraced"? Please provide references.
134 posted on 05/12/2006 1:17:43 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
What "observations?" Whenever there is an observation that doesn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm, it is either ignored or the evolutionary theory becomes ever more preposterous to accommodate it. Like the recent backwards evolution nonsense.

That's a flat out lie.

If an observation from a test shows the scientific theory to be wrong then the scientific theory becomes invalid. The test must be repeated and repeated and of course everything must be peer reviewed in order to be published.

Scientific theories are not absolute.

Quit making stuff up.

135 posted on 05/12/2006 1:18:30 PM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Darwin certainly proved that.

Then perhaps we should compare the number of regular church goers and Boy Scout leaders convicted of serial killing, torture and mutilation with the number of biology teachers convicted of these crimes.

I'm glad you agree that ideas have consequences and that people's behavior is caused by the ideas they espouse.

136 posted on 05/12/2006 1:19:00 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

And vice versa, my friend.

I have found time and again that the vast, vast majority of people who reverantly adhere to evolution really don't understand it.

One Sorbonne-educated man told me quite seriously one day that due to the effects of evolution, modern man is slowly losing his little toe. !!


137 posted on 05/12/2006 1:19:02 PM PDT by Elpasser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Considering you have absolutely no clue as to my beliefs on the afterlife, your remark is rather inane, don't you think? You see, I do not equate accepting a tried-and-true, well-supported biological theory with my prospects of an afterlife. However, you are incapable of seeing more than two positions at a time; the aforesaid does not mean I do not believe in an afterlife, or even a Christian afterlife, though you drew that conclusion without evidence.

One of these days I'm going to run into a creationist that does not have an either-or mentality, but it has been eight years on these threads and so far I'm batting zero.

138 posted on 05/12/2006 1:19:05 PM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
"I am driven to observe of the ultra-Darwinists the following features as symptomatic: first is their . . . almost unbelievable self-assurance, their breezy self-confidence

Finally learning and acknowledging the truth of Darwin after a lifetime of being exposed to the lies of fundamentalist bible thumping religion, alien astronaut books, and new age hype sure had that effect on me! When it comes to understanding life on earth, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the only thing that makes any real sense.

Open your eyes, educate yourself on real science, and see the truth. Then you will feel exhilaration of the almost unbelievable self-assurance and breezy self-confidence yourself!

139 posted on 05/12/2006 1:19:16 PM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
Does anyone seriously believe that we creationists don't understand and appreciate genetics and adaptability of organisms?

Based on the general incorrectness of postings, comments, web-sites, writings, tracts, etc., by creationists, yes.

140 posted on 05/12/2006 1:20:19 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"However, there is certainly a huge commercial application for Intelligent Design. It's called the biotech industry...."

What the biotech industry does has nothing whatsoever to do with ID, as proposed by ID's main proponents. ID'ers are not attempting to design ANYTHING; they are saying that something else designed the universe and directed, actively, the evolution of life. They have as yet produced no way to test this claim.
141 posted on 05/12/2006 1:20:35 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: visually_augmented
You could just as easily postulate that the lack of religous teaching (caused also by the Stalinist regime) was the cause of a poor agricultural industry.

A good case can be made for bad biology being the result of the demise of the Soviet agricultural industry by demonstrating how the state-sponsored biological explanation for species diversity -- Lysenkoism -- is demonstratably false, and attempting to grow crops based upon that biology will almost certainly yeild undesirable results, as it is impossible to "shape" an organism beyond what its genetic makeup will allow.

Do you have a coherent explanation as to how a lack of religious teaching can lead to agricultural disaster?
142 posted on 05/12/2006 1:21:43 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

There's a difference between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection is certainly true. I've got doubts, though, about evolution.


143 posted on 05/12/2006 1:21:58 PM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
I have found time and again that the vast, vast majority of people who reverantly adhere to evolution really don't understand it.

I will agree that a number of people who accept evolution are ignorant of aspects of it, even fundamental aspects, but I do not understand what you mean by "reverently adhering to evolution".

Of course, the same can be said for proponents of intelligent design, many of whom seem blissfully unaware that intelligent design does not assume Biblical literalism, a global flood and accepts that all organisms existing today originated from common ancestry.
144 posted on 05/12/2006 1:24:03 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: js1138

This is getting weird. I thought we were discussing evolution but that does get boring, so let's talk about serial killers instead. Are serial killers evidence of survival of the fittest?


145 posted on 05/12/2006 1:24:15 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
But if we are wrong, so what?

Perhaps God expects us to use the faculties for rational thought that he gave us, and punishes those who hold beliefs not supported by evidence. This may be unlikely, but can you really afford to take that chance?

146 posted on 05/12/2006 1:24:20 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent (Chloe rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Show us the positive evidence that creation was created by a creator. Go ahead. We'll wait. Just look out the window, you dolt! Look out the window! Look out the window!!!!!

Well, I took your advice and looked out the window and I suppose you're right. Someone had to create all those cars and houses and place them right in the middle of an otherwise perfect view of the evolution that occurs all around us.

147 posted on 05/12/2006 1:24:57 PM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Faith - belief in what can't be seen.


148 posted on 05/12/2006 1:25:11 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
Does anyone seriously believe that we creationists don't understand and appreciate genetics and adaptability of organisms?

Yes. Yes! YES!!! By George, I think you've got it!

What is your reaction to the following gem of creationism?

Let's say that one day a snake gives birth to a bird, never mind how unlikely it is that all those favorable mutations could happen at once. What are the odds of another little bird for it to mate with also being born in the same time and place?
Or how about this one?

A dinosaur's claw can't have become a bird's wing because the in-between thing is no good as a claw or a wing. Thus, evolution is a joke.
Or, pick anything you like from this is your brain on creationism.
149 posted on 05/12/2006 1:25:33 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Are serial killers evidence of survival of the fittest?

No, however your question is evidence that you have decided to change the subject when you saw that your position was being rather soundly disproven.
150 posted on 05/12/2006 1:25:34 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,201-1,243 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson