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.
Actually, it was the idea that blacks were inferior that came later. Read the Iliad or the Bible and you'll see in them no hint of the idea that "Ethiopians" were inferior.
And Plato promoted the equlity of females in the Republic long before any "feminist" did.
Anyone who says otherwise is engaging in ad hominem libel, and I invoke Godwin's Law.
Seen any papers Hitler wrote on his fossil discoveries? His analysis of Dart's Australopithecus finds?
Give it a rest and argue the actual merits of evolution and leave the Hitler-nazi junk to the trash bin of history, where it belongs.
You certainly have a perspective on this issue, that probably most of us cannot even grasp...thanks so much for sharing that perspective with us...
To some it seems. I will defend myself anytime I am referred to as a Darwinist, Atheist or Nazi by one that still thinks themselves a clone. I am rereading Darwin now after 46 years and yea, he is boring.
Well said...I would appreciate seeing the merits of evolution evaluated, as well as any well composed, well thought out, scientifically proposed rebuttals...
The nonsense that comes with these threads, about how evolution is responsible for every single ill that has befallen mankind, and how evolution was supported by some of historys most evil folks, all too often, takes away actual meaningful discussion....
Only because you know the ending. It was white hot stuff 150 years ago.
I try to be funny and most of the time I'm a flop, but if you find my stuff funny, I'll make sure to ping you when I think I'm being pretty hilarious.
You'll probably be disappointed, though.
Interesting that.
Could he have done the same thing with the Theory of Evolution?
... NAH.
First of all, he wrote the book after his trial was over. He was going to serve a life sentence no matter what he said. Hence I fail to see any incentive to lie about Hitler's religious beliefs.
Second of all, I don't see how relating that statement to the public would have benefited him even if he had done it before his trial. It might have even hurt him with the Soviet judges, who were anything but devout Christians.
Table-Talk, to the extent that it's a transcript of Hitler's private conversations, and that we have two independent versions, is probably the best we have. You just can't rely on the 1953 translation.
Fair enough. I looked at Carrier's article. While he exposes some of the quotes as be mistranslations, some still appear quite hostile at least to Catholicism. From the article you linked, Carrier claims this to be an accurate quote:
"Christianity teaches 'transubstantiation,' which is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions, a mockery of all that is godly."
Some Catholic.
Or again, Carrier points out:
For instance, in an entry for the afternoon of 13 December 1941, Hitler rails against the idea of a physical resurrection and in favor of a spiritual one
We now have him denying the most central docrine of Christianity.
The consensus scholarly view seems to be that Hitler had a disdain for traditional Christianity. He had his own theology that incorporated some Christian elements, but it would be an abuse of language to call it Christian since he seemed to deny most of the central doctrines.
Those living in deserts. Or on the ocean.
You don't need a source. All you need is simply logic.
How can we expose something that is already naked?
LOL.
.
I read somewhere a long time ago (in a kingdom by the sea) that Hitler had plans for a new German religion, and he was to be God. Either of you misremember something like this?
Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!
you haven't made one yet on this thread; I didn't think i had to.
OK. Funny is always good. Thanks.
It doesn't mean that he didn't consider himself a Christian. You can see that same perversion of Christianity (without the malevolence) on Sunday Morning TV.
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.