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.
Hmm.. And lets think about this a bit. Is George Bush ex-communicated if a federal officer roughs up a suspect that happens to be priest, monk, or nun? Did Hitler personally rough up a priest, monk, or nun? Did Hitler's minions illegally rough up a priest, monk, or nun? If it was illegal, did Hitler explicitly and knowledgeable order it? If he did, who would know? If an ex-communication falls in the forest, with no one to hear it, does it make a sound?
That story about Darwin recanting really is a phoney one-- don't be fooled by it. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html
Read any book from rabid IDers or whatever and it'll say the same as the neo-Darwinists on this point.
Darwin's God by Cornelius Hunter is a good book by a a biophysicist skeptical of aspects of Darwin's theory that deals with Darwin's religious belief.
The natural theology of William Paley was convincing to Darwin in its logically taut, scientifically educated argument from design. But the theology of Paely regarding the Problem of Evil was a simplistic dismissal of the existence of evil akin to that of Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss.
The rejection of Paley's simplistic theology regarding the problem of evil was one of Darwin's motivations in rejecting design and God in toto. This page has some of his (I think) interesting thoughts on religion http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters1_08.html
Yes, it does.
Ah, but that's not scientific. In fact, it's not even scientific if you do hear it, because you didn't move your ear thru every millimeter of the forest, at the same speed at which the sound traveled, to prove that there was a direct connection between the tree falling, and you hearing it. These gaps in the air displacement theory of sound demonstrate that you could never actually hear a tree fall in the forest. There can only be microsound, which God generates right in front of your ear canal, science can't prove the existence of macrosound.
you cheated :)
No, I learned from PH, but at this hour he is:
Early to bed, early to rise
Makes you yawn with bloodshot eyes!
I don't think that homosexuals are all that concerned with the next generation, being more concerned with the momentary sensation.
On the other hand, some homosexuals adopt that lifestyle as a defense mechanism to trama.
Of course, a diety could make even a homosexual union productive. Interesting: religious people who assert that marriage is about producing children can justify homosexual marriage by cracking the door to let in a miracle!
I would suggest that Hitler was a Catholic, but not a Christian.
Also, rather than being the son of Alois Hitler, he was probably the illegimate son of Mr Schicklegruber, for whom his mother worked as a maid during her marriage to Alois Hitler. After Alois died, Adolf Hitler's mother married Schicklegruber, and had a (second) child with him.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Excommunication means you're no longer a member of the Church and therefore don't have access to the sacraments. Nothing more. There's nothing in Canon Law about "shunning." Catholics are free to form friendships with excommuncated people, and are in no way restricted from associating with them. An excommunicated person can even come to Church, as can all non-Catholics. He just can't take communion.
Given that Hitler didn't partake of the sacraments, it hardly matters.
Had the Pope actually, publicly excommunicated Hitler, and any priest that co-operated with the SS, it almost certainly would have halted the holocaust in its tracks.
RFLOL. That's a good one. You really overestimate the temporal power of the Holy See.
Why would SSmen have cared, given that most left the Church (see Speer, p. 142)?
If the pope had declared the excommunication, Hitler would have confiscated every piece of Church property in Germany and disbanded every Catholic school, seminarary, nunnery, and the like, just like he did in the Netherlands when the Dutch Bishops condemned the Nazi party.
He sent many to concentration camps where they were killed, and yes it was known. See Edith Stein and Maximillian Kolbe. He also ordered the confiscation of a good deal of Church property, and that was also known.
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.