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.
Meaning, it isn't the strawman that you've built about what "ID'ers" claim.
Shows how much you know about the institution.
The Inquisition courts followed very strict rules of procedure and evidence. They were very much concerned with the technicalities of Canon Law. They did not try people over whom they had no jurisdiction, and they had no jurisdiction over any non-baptized individual, Jew, Moslem, or pagan. Period.
Not that this exonerates the institution, mind you. Just stating a fact.
And, in fact, did I not see that you have already conceded to someone else that there were, in fact, jews put to the torch by the inquision, and have now retreated to "only a few jews"?
It was one incident mentioned without documentation. Forgive my skepticism.
Consider the jew-obsessed writings of some of the most influential figures of the Inquisition:
Very interesting, but they don't support your contention that either inquisition routinely persecuted openly practicing Jews.
you say this is a “good article,” but probably its central proposition is so specious(e.g.:By studying animals given to him by his regal employer, Harvey eventually developed an accurate theory of how the heart and circulatory system operated.((William Harvey lived 1578-1657)), what would be a “bad article?”
My only point is that this was the exception, not the rule in most of Europe.
This is weaselry of the first magnitude. Jews were subjected to forced or coerced conversions. If they tried to maintain their Judaism in secret after their ostensible 'conversion', they were then subject to the Inquisition. If they did not convert, of course, they were often killed or expelled.
Yeah, well, people don't often live up to their ideals. What can I say?
Sure it is. It's a fact that you continue to toss around convenient (for you) definitions of "IDers" -- which is what strawman-building is all about.
Demonstrating that design is possible by humans demonstrates that design is possible.
And now you're strawman-building again.
I've read Miller's book, and didn't think it refuted Behe. but it's interesting that you mention Miller, since he accepts ID on the cosmological level (the fine-tuning argument) and seems to be close to getting read out of the movement along with Michael Ruse.
It's true that Behe, even within his own department, is thought of as a crank, as are all IDers. But when his book came out, several reputable and well known scientists admitted he was on to something because at the time the literature on prebiotic molecular evolution was pretty scarce. I remember grilling my roommate at the time, a Ukrainian biochemist, and he agreed this was the case, and although I know Moran and others would dispute it, I believe him because, being an atheist and an expert, he had no dog in the fight.
So, I consider Behe's negative criticisms to at least have had demonstrated positive value. Dembski's work also has had value, taken purely as an aspect of probability theory in philosophy.
But, I'll be the first to admit that ID hasn't developed much and that these aren't triumphs to shout home about, given the ambitions of their program.
I just find it completely counter intuitive that buying into ID will lessen someone's scientific aptitude anymore than being a Platonist in mathematics owuld lessen someone's mathematical aptitude.
What hurts scientific aptitude is a lack of imagination and skill when it comes to thinking of and setting up experiments, inumeracy, etc. Right?
Poland was an exception. Spain was an exception. Portugal was an exception. The Papal States were an exception. Prague was an exception. Those exceptions do tend to fill up the map, don't they?
Correct, but largely limited to the context of 14-15th century Spain. Other than that, ther are very few places and periods wherein Jews were being forcibly converted.
Jews prospered in Poland for most of their history there, actually.
Portugal was an exception.
Ruled by the same people ruling Spain.
The Papal States were an exception.
I'm not aware of any massacres of Jews in the Papal states.
Prague was an exception.
Not aware of this one, either.
Portugal was an exception.
Ruled by the same people ruling Spain.
No, it wasn't. Portugal was an indepedent state, and had its own Inquisition.
I'm not aware of any massacres of Jews in the Papal states.
They were expelled, as they were from Prague, and Spain.
Huh?? What the...?
No one claims that design isn't possible. Where you got that from is simply beyond me.
That something (well, just about anything) could have been designed by an unknown designer with unknown abilities resp. limitations and the right motivation, is trivially true and no one denies that but it's equally worthless as a scientific explanation.
What you said! :)
Since there's no proof in science, there's also no definitive refutation, science does however, try to suggest the best bet with the hand dealt, and that ain't a theory that things that exist are unachievable barring a miracle. That has been a losing bet in science every single time it's been tried.
but it's interesting that you mention Miller, since he accepts ID on the cosmological level (the fine-tuning argument) and seems to be close to getting read out of the movement along with Michael Ruse.
Miller is one of the authors of the commmonest undergrad intro to biology texts. It will come as big news to many that he is about to be drummed out of the club.
But, I'll be the first to admit that ID hasn't developed much and that these aren't triumphs to shout home about, given the ambitions of their program.
And maybe there's a reason for that.
I just find it completely counter intuitive that buying into ID will lessen someone's scientific aptitude anymore than being a Platonist in mathematics owuld lessen someone's mathematical aptitude.
Well, in what scientific institute does this reasoning prevail? Most of the scientists I know entertain some mild form of creationism, ID, or at least panspermia, and I don't see them ducking for cover. It's just that, unlike the Discovery Institute, they don't mistake their flights of fancy for seriously contending scientific theories that have done enough homework to warrant a seat at the scientific table.
Interesting-- what do you think the motivation of those scientists is? Do you most of them have similar reasons for buying into those alternatives?
I'm surprised that you're surpised that Miller would take heat buying into fine-tuning, but mayve things are just that much more open than I realize.
Expulsion .NE. Forced Conversion or (necessarily) Mass Murder (the Bataan Death March and the Trail of Tears notwithstanding).
Normally you are more precise than this. Don't relax your standards.
Cheers!
That was a good post. I, for one, don't have any problem with natural selection. I'm confident that Darwin was correct on this issue, and it is an inherently conservative concept (not that that has any bearing on its scientific accuracy).
Nor do I wish to restrict the teaching of evolution, as a THEORY, in schools.
However, I do object to the dogmatic assertion that we all must believe that the myriad species on earth are absolutely the descendants of micro-organisms, or be considered "anti-science". Not to mention the assertion that any consideration of the possibility that God exists and had something to do with the universe, its nature, and the existence of life, is to war with science.
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.