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 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 1,241-1,243 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 1,241-1,243 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