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.
Okay. Show us the positive evidence that creation was created by a creator. Go ahead. We'll wait.
Yes! To keep the pseudo science crap out of the classrooms.
Stay on subject. Hitler took evolution and applied it.
If evolution corrupts, then biology teachers should be absolutely corrupted. Let's compare the number of biology teachers who have been convicted of diddling children with the numbe of ministers convicted of diddling children.
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.
Yes, I always form MY opinions based on what the NYT and its columnists think. How 'bout you?
A conclusion not supported by the facts.
Has nothing to do with the evolutionist's claims concerning common descent/universdal common descent. And it certainly says nothing about macro-evolution.
Well then, it's next on the hit list!
'Not all of the champions of the modern synthesis have been as open as [Julian] Huxley is in acknowledging the religious aspects of their devotion to evolutionary biology, but most of them, especially 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.'
"Despite this, such scientists have no foundation for their reaction agaisnt pointlessness other than the not unworthy and intuitive sense that the world should be built as it is; embedded in the Universe are not only neutrons but such edicts as, to echo Chesterton, 'Thou shalt not steal.'"
Simon Conway Morris, Life's Solution, pp. 314-315, (Cambridge University Press, 2003). Dr. Morris is professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Cambridge. A fellow of the Royal Society, his work on Cambrian soft-bodied faunas figured prominently in Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life.
When "science" determines how humans were created(evolved)..
It is a religion.. Creationism covers a whole range of how that happened with different creators and mechanisms for that creation.. Even Peter Falk(Columbo) would have to close that case as unsolved.. and unsolvable..
It takes "faith" to believe in God or Evolution.. Heck it takes a measure faith to believe that you will get from point "A" to point "B" intact.. alive.. Many people have faith in people(scientists) or (clergy).. or even dogma..
Jesus came to make ALL religion obsolete, AND DID..
You gotta love him for that.. if only for that only..
He is and was what he said he was... and still IS.. -OR-
He is not or wasn't who he said he was, and still isn't..
Its really quite simple.. Its a choice..
Well I suppose you think the enjoyment of commercial applications in the here and now trumps eternal life. However, you may not always feel that way.
Thanks for the ping...I just finished reading the entire article, and it was interesting...
I get the feeling that some folks think that coming up with new and better scientific innovations, which will create more wealth, is somehow a bad thing....creating wealth is a bad thing?...Why?
Forget the wealth part, what about the advantages that new and better scientific innovations, will, as this article states, improve society for all of us...applications in medicine alone will benefit all of us, whether now or in the future...I would not want to be living in a society, which practices medicine as it was practiced 50yrs ago, and am sad that I will not be around 50yrs from now, to see the benefits of research and innovation in medicine...but I sure want my children, and my future grandchildren, and so on down the line, to be able to benefit from research and innovation in the field of medicine..
And on to the matter of what students in other countries are learning, and how our students will fare, when in competition with them....I think this is quite an important issue...students from other countries eagerly come to the USA for their college educations, if they can get in to those college they have applied to...they are competing with American students all the time...will they return home better educated than our American students, whose own lack of credentials disallow them from entering those very same universities?...
When my son graduated from Cornell(yeah, I know, I am waiting for all the booers and hissers to appear), with his degree in Applied Physics Engineering, I was shocked to see the makeup of those receiving this particular degree..virtually everyone was either from a foreign country, or if they were Americans, they were almost all Asians, except for my own son, and one or two of his best friends...I had to ask myself, why was this...do Asians tend to concentrate more on math and sciences, and leave religion to the parents and their church?...I dont know, but am wondering...and women receiving this particular degree?...very, very few...I can only remember one or two ladies receiving this degree...why is this?...do we really think that the women cannot learn this discipline?...this was 10yrs ago, I would be interested to see the makeup of those earning this degree currently...
Whether we like it or not, more and more countries are providing excellent science education in their schools, and their students are taking advantage of it...they then come here for their university educations(as the USA still has the best universities), but they are returning home to their own countries, and putting what they have learned here, to advantage back home...
And no, I dont think that I am over-reacting...
>Perhaps we should compare the number of clergymen convicted
>of child molestation
The Bible advocates marriage for deacons and bishops. It's in the book of Timothy.
If preists were only ordained if they could get and stay married, the Catholic Church would not have a problem with homosexuals in the clergy.
Have a good day my fellow Freeper.
Are you one of the Dixie Chicks?
Just look out the window, you dolt! Look out the window! Look out the window!!!!!
If I'm getting the point of your post, you're saying that you are now obligated to reject the theory of evolution, despite its enormous evidentiary support, because the NYT published an editorial defending its presence in science curricula. Is that about right?
No. Hitler took Luther's dictates and applied them. Anti-Semitism and pogroms predate Darwin by literally centuries. Christians were preaching hatred against the Jews at least as early as the Second Century. The only innovation Hitler brought to the table was mechanization.
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.