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.
I follow the construct but this seems to be a bastardization of Genesis, where women were depicted as a special and unique helper for man, rather than as created to be lower.
And following Genesis, it was Eve's role in temptation and the fall, not her being created out of Adam's rib, which resulted in women being treated as weaker.
Indeed, Darwin forced onto churches the radical notion that if some humans have souls, then all humans must have them, even women, Africans, Asians, American Indians, and “pagans”.
You must have missed my quotes from Galatians and my reference to Mary. Repeating your erroneous assertion will not suddenly change its truth value. Please re-read my prior post.
Cheers!
Not necessarily true. I have known some small-town, Midwestern type Lutherans who were anti-Catholic specifically on account of the raucous behaviour of the Catholic teenagers the next town over...
They were alarmed at the apparent lack of a conscience of the Catholics with whom they dealt.
Cheers!
I was assuming the human infants killed in the flood to be innocent for the purposes of discussion. However, I think for us to judge them deserving (or undeserving) of the flood due to their own sinfulness would be to fall into the same mistake made by the neighbors of Job who so judged him.
From our limited human point of view, I think no creature can ever be so innocent as a human infant.
How that relates to Original Sin and and the Jesus freeing us from its chains and how God looks upon human infants, I don't know, except that I know He looks upon them with love as He looks upon all of us with love.
Same here. Just got it at a used book sale. More readable than I expected.
I was primarily reacting to jec41's equating him with a Christian, given other posts in this thread where I quoted (with ISBN number) scholarly, historical books on Nazi teachings and thought which directly contradicted the supposition that Hitler was a Christian.
The reason I jumped on him about Mein Kampf was twofold:
1) It looked like the quote mining so favored by cre's on this thread, without considering historical context or other quotes in the same text
2) By quoting Mein Kampf "in the raw" it left things open for and lurking DU'ers or others to pull the entire post itself out of context and claim that Free Republic is too a Nazi, white-supremacist stronghold.
Nonetheless, thanks for taking the time to at least read the post and to comment on it.
Cheers!
And I objected to that specific point. The word "propagate", incidently, seems rather obviously NOT to constrain itself to sexual reproduction. One may propagate things with no sexual component.
I was not disputing whether your point was factually correct; merely noting that it did not follow from what I had written.
Yes, still a correct statement: I objected to the claim you originally made. Are you aware that there's a difference between being ignored and being argued with?
That is, if the social behaviour is learned, and since learning is an acquired characteristic--then if the social behaviour does confer a survival advantage, would that imply that acquired characteristics could be inherited? Or would it just mean that socialization to adapt to homosexuality in certain ways would become so advantageous that an otherwise "recessive" trait would not be rapidly deselected?
To call it social behavior is to mentally severe the link between emotional response and trigger events. Social behaviors as fundamental as sexual responsiveness is tied to emotional triggers, such as, for example, the feeling of helplessness combined with frustrated sexual desire when confronted by an alpha male. What speaks against your notion that this is learned behavior channeled back into the genes in some Lysenko-esque feedback loop, is that homosexuality has very characteristic behaviors in different mammalian species. Some will have nary a trace of it, and some even though close relatives, will be flaming fairies, of some particular type or another, with no apparent regard for the evolutionary sequence. This indicates that it's an hormonally induced strategy, like a dietary preference.
Since you apparently agree with spreading the notion that Hitler was a Christian...(and by implication, then, you might agree, and classify Hitler as a Christian himself)...
How many did Hitler silence? Cheers!
"Who did I say was racist - Darwin and Hitler."
And you said that the Catholic Church embraced Darwin. (BTW, you never did answer my point that *races* in the title of the Origin of Species* had nothing to do with human races, and that human evolution was not even the subject of that book.)
"Gee, how much more plain can it be."
It's pretty plain that you were saying that Hitler embraced Catholicism, and that the Catholic Church embraced Darwin, and in the next sentence you said that Darwin and evolution are racist. You weren't even very subtle in your anti-Catholic sentiments.
"As I said, you tied yourself to the tracks on that one. I never laid the charge.. didn't even imply it."
You made a very plain accusation against the Catholic Church. You make it often in these threads, and in other threads. You hate Catholicism, and go out of your way to attack it.
Again, your quote:
"The thing that penetrates the fog to my way of thinking is the fact that Hitler was Roman Catholic and Rome embraces Darwinism. Darwinism is, bottom line, racist as Darwin's original title for 'origin of the species' shows. Rome and Hitler both supported Darwin. Rome and Hitler both supported replacement theology. And Hitler was a dyed in the wool racist just as Darwin *appears* to have been. Rome had already much earlier in History been a plague to the Jews." Darwin just Gave Hitler another excuse. Go figure."
Thanks, Elsie. ;)
You're a dense one. Evidently others see what was said and that you can't bloody read. So, I guess I can finally leave it at that. It's your rope and your train, fella. Knock yourself out. But it ain't martyrdome, it's sucicide. Learn the difference.
Albert Einstein Medical College was started in the 1950's because Jews mostly were not allowed into medical school.
"Gentlemen's Agreements" prevented Jew from buying houses in many areas.
Quite aware, it's just that in this particular instance, your execution was somewhat lacking.
What speaks against your notion that this is learned behavior channeled back into the genes in some Lysenko-esque feedback loop
Yes, what prompted this was an evolutionary article read on an airplane trip maybe 10 years ago, in which the feedback of behaviour and coloration was discussed. For example, the behavior of some Central American frogs whose males go to great lengths to attract a mate, including bright colors, loud croaking, and prominent visual display, despite the increased marginal risk of being eaten before getting to mate. Or the hiding / flight behaviour of garter snakes of different coloration patterns, where the snakes with one color scheme ("blotches") freeze when confronted with a possible predator (to blend in better), where the snakes with a different type ("racing stripes") slither quickly, (the continuous flowing lines make it hard for the predator to pinpoint the snake's head). In other words, I was not attempting to attack your claims on homosexuality by linking them to Lysenkoism, but to relate the mechanism to others I had read about.
Some will have nary a trace of it, and some even though close relatives, will be flaming fairies, of some particular type or another, with no apparent regard for the evolutionary sequence. This indicates that it's an hormonally induced strategy, like a dietary preference.
Or that there remains a behavioural and social component. Without your adducing specific examples, or looking at the other factors at play for the species considered, I cannot decide between hormones, social component, or other causes. Has that question in fact been addressed in good faith in the sources you rely upon?
Cheers!
Darwin isn't really bad. The Descent of Man, being less abstract, is even more readable. It even has lots of cool pictures.
The real delight among old-timey writers for me is Gibbon, he of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. My biggest complaint of him is he deals with truly sexy material by hinting at the content in English, then putting the expansion in a quote from his original source in the original language (typically Latin or Greek) in a footnote for his scholarly readers. Anyone educated enough to be able to read the footnotes was presumed not to be a bluenose moralist and thus able to deal with the material without clamoring to get him banned like jec41.
yes, some do. All the ones that were killed because they preferred death to the dishonor of being the alpha male's sweetie, didn't.
where otherwise they would have been killed? Or do they stay homosexual? If the former, is that necessarily a good analogy to homosexuality in other species or in other social settings?
Bonobo females stay flagrantly faggoty throughout their lives. That doesn't prevent them from getting pregnant, any more than it prevents gay human females from getting pregnant. Faggotry is not an exclusive commitment in most humans, why would you think it would be?
But, you are missing much of the point of the examples I've raised. It isn't necessary to mate at all for homosexual behavior to prove valuable to the genes of one's near relatives. The survival of beta males is advantageous to a tribe in a crowded and stressful environment where warriors are worth keeping around and feeding. And a tribe is full of relatives who all carry part of your genes around inside them. Again, you could look this up under altruist, or Red Queen theory.
That's why you need the controlled studies.
We have plenty of controlled studies. It's called comparative zoology, and its findings are plainly obvious and hard to duck: mammals deploy homosexual behavior as a survival resource which forms distinct and consistent patterns that vary from species to species--much as, for example, human females have done, in discarding estres, and allowing their mates to have their way with them even when impregnation is not the guaranteed result of mating. Since this means most human sex does not bear fruit, recreational sex should have been eliminated from the gene pool long ago, according to your spartan prescription for genetic survival, right?
That there have been bigoted Catholics is beyond doubt.
That historical Catholicism--- which is to say historical Christianity--- has engaged in anti-semitism is beyond doubt.
But Replacement theology is and has always been considered a heresy--- it used to be called Marcionism. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm
It's also beyond doubt that, as in all wars, the Crusaders committed atrocities. But it should be remebered that the Crusades were a defensive action against the the attempt on the part of the world that ws Islamic to conquer the rest of it http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1127751/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1396463/posts
We all owe the Crusaders a great debt-- without them, Europe would have been conquered just as Egypt, Syria and most of the rest of North Africa and the Middle East was.
(snickering on behalf of the Roman catholics you just said were dishonest).
After an earlier thread's posting of "Big Dummy"? I checked up on some Jack Chick stuff. He's the guy who writes religious tracts that get stuffed under your windshield wiper before being unceremoneously dumped in the garbage.
Please don't disparage the word "intellectual" by using it in the same sentence as "Jack Chick", unless you are drawing a distinction between them ;-)
Cheers!
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.