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.
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!").
"I'm told that ideas have consequences."
Darwin certainly proved that.
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?
My favorite example of money making using creationism is prospecting for pigeons.
http://store.nwcreation.net/
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.
In the sense that knowledge leads to wealth, sure.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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. !!
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.
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!
Based on the general incorrectness of postings, comments, web-sites, writings, tracts, etc., by creationists, yes.
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.