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.
Speaking of fruits, that was a cheap shot.
Here's my synopsis of that conversation:
Evolution=Atheist=teh Nazi!!!1
Actually, Hitler was a Christian.
You can't prove that!
Well, here's what Hitler said.
What!? Quoting Hitler!!?! YOU NAZI!!
Catholicism embraces darwinism. I didn't say Catholicism lifted racism from darwinism. I did say that Hitler did.
I was rather careful in what I said because I'm all too aware of the tendancy of some of you to run out, tie yourselves to the railroad tracks, then start shouting and boo-hooing that someone else did it. It's like a running gag on any thread where the word catholic and something remotely bad (even a pointy stick) is mentioned on the same thread. Not to put too fine a point on it, but some of you go off at the mention of your own history as though mentioning your history is an indictment of you or something - oh, wait, that might be..
Buy a clue and get over yourself, you aren't *that* important.
I don't see how you're making this connection.
Forget Darwin for a moment. The Catholic Church has never called for the extermination of "lesser races".
Just the opposite--- the Catholic Church has historically wanted all people to become Catholics, regardless of race, and it has been against all forms of family planning, such as the one child poicy of China.
So how is the Catholic Church racist? Racist against who? Is Francis Arinze, the Nigerian Cardinal, supposed to be racist? Edith Stein? Or Augustine, who was from North Africa?
Maybe you're against immigration and free trade. Well, historically, the KKK has also been against those things. Does that mean you're a racist since they are?
Or course not! Painting with that kind of broad brush would be totally unwarranted!
So why are you doing it?
I never said that Catholicism did. I only stated that catholicism embraced darwinism.
Catholicism, by and large, kindof cherrypicks what it will heed from any given source. If Origen, say, were Pro-gay and anti-prostitute, Rome might cite him on the pro-gay and demean him on the anti prostitute, or vice versa. Or they might discount him altogether on the two issues or affirm both. They might also cite him out of context in support of something he's actually refuting. But that's another story.
The point of mentioning Catholicism and tying it in was specifically "replacement theology" - the place where Hitler got his notions that the Aryan race could substitute itself as the chosen. Catholicism had already formulated that notion. With racism picked up from Darwin who is affirmed by catholicism as evolution is concerned, Hitler grabs it all.. thus the racism.. not from Catholicism; but, from Darwin's writings because Catholicism affirmed him.
I think it was noted (not by me) that Hitler considered what he was doing to the Jews as a continuation of Rome's Crusades and inquisitions. I didn't initially mention that because I haven't read about it to back it up; But if true, it would further support the point I'm making. There are consequences to actions. And affirming darwin seems to have had consequences that may or may not have been intended by Rome. I don't offer an opinion either way.
You guys don't pay much attention to what is actually said and go off half cocked at the first thing you can stir into a self-martyrdome act. So spare me.
Really, it's enough to make you wonder how the Age of Enlightenment ever happened, and science and technology flourished, and exploration happened, and this country was founded (on those dreaded Biblical principles no less) without Darwin's ToE to drive it all. Goodness knows, no *proper* science should have been able to be done before 150 years ago. I guess someone forgot to tell Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pasteur, to name a few.
Except the 'god' that it serves doesn't create THINGS; merely PROCESSES.
2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
In math, some things are a given.
Yeah, you almost got there. Who did I say was racist - Darwin and Hitler. Gee, how much more plain can it be. Catholicism I explicitly excluded from that. I specifically say Darwin was and I specifically say Hitler was. End. Done. You can't bloody read. As I said, you tied yourself to the tracks on that one. I never laid the charge.. didn't even imply it.
Now, are you gonna let the train roll over you or are you going to untie your self-tied ropes,stand up and quite acting a fool?
(One is assuming these are 'innocent'.)
I know this is how we look on them TODAY....
But, since we assume that 'innocent' kids go to heaven; what is the big fuss?
We do the same rationale to accept CHOICE these days.
An honest statement.
From those of us who believe in God, prayers for your search.
This ain't math.
Good luck; for it is hiding in the penumbra of your statements....
Only CG can find it.
That's like saying that because Hugo Chavez praises democracy at times, he must be a democrat. By that line of of reasoning ID people say they are not anti-science, so they must not be anti-science.
To say that Hitler was Christian is just misleading as saying that he was an atheist.
Hitler talked about God, sure. But his belief in God was subservient to his belief in "the Volk." This "Positive Christianity" accordingly excluded all beliefs that did not glorify the Volk. It was therefore a man, not God centered system of belief, but it certainly wasn't atheistic.
Hitler despised traditional Christianity, and as has been noted on this thread, said as much. As for "Positive Chrisitianity" I think this is a pretty good good summary of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
Have you quit beating your wife? ;^)
Other folks have noticed.....
Elsie, thanks, but I believe in God!
The man who I was was quoting was the former radical David Horowitz. Like you, I greatly admire him for his honesty.
He has written imho very movingly about his continuing spiritual journey away from Marxism in his book, "the End of Time" http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18123
I've been reading this thread all morning and just got to here.
Evidence that certain comparisons may be permitted in one only direction around here.
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.