Evolution's bottom line

National Center for Science Education ^ | 12 May 2006 | Staff

[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.

[RunningWolf]

I don't, sorry that comes across that way.

Take these threads and those dynamics the players there, for a proper context.

Take Care,

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

I see you have fell into the donh tar-pit!

LOL, now you see what it is like to be on the other side of a few of these people, forget whatever the argument is!

Wolf

[donh]

Hitler co-opted elements of Christian theology to make his race-based pseudo-philosophy more palatable in the social context of the times.

Yes, exactly. Think about what you are saying. Hitler and the nazi propaganda machine called on the Bible, and RC doctrine, law and tradition, by specific verse, event, and document, to justify murdering jews. Hitler did not think that vegetarian nudist Odin-worshipping jew-hatred would turn the trick, now did he? He thought christian-based jew-hating would turn the trick, and it did. It is irrelevant to what extent Hitler's christianity was a pose, and to claim it was entirely a pose flies in the face of his early history, and his frequently repeated public affirmations. You can't make someone not a christian based on the fact that they are hypocritical and you don't like them: that policy would cause the abandonment of churches from Portland Or. to Portland Me.

...

Running Wolf--please feel invited to bug off, I had quite enough of your disjoint, cryptic style of argument last time around.

[jwalsh07]

But it does render legitimate the question: on what grounds do you gain your apparent Certainty that Hitler was in fact a believing Christian?

His final act of suicide is testament to his unfailing belief in Aryan Chirstianity which evidently sees suicide as the final sacrament.

The idea that Hitler was a practicing Christian, or particularly a practicing Catholic, is about as stupid as it gets. Looney tunesville.

Hitlers religion was Naziism, period.

[Sun]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN is falsifiable:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=494

(Incidentally, for those who don't know, falsifiable does not mean false.)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"INTELLIGENT DESIGN is falsifiable:"

No. it isn't. The alleged *designer* can do anything and everything. There is no conceivable observation that can't be waved away with "That's how the designer designed it". ID is for losers.

[RunningWolf]

I am not sure what this crusade against Christianity is all about but crusade it is and that you will pick up just about any tool topic you can as a foil to attack it with shows just how irrational and unscientific of what goes on on there inside of that head of yours.

It is about as absurd philosophically and historically correct as 98% of what the evo guitar guy says. IOW /NOT>

Wolf

[Coyoteman]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN is falsifiable:

Sure it is: All you have to do is have a unicorn's horn puncture a UFO's pressure hull, causing it to crash and drain all the water from Loch Ness, thereby exposing the monsters, who, as it happens, sing in perfect four-part harmony.

Well, no. That won't do it. The designer planned it that way. Sorry.

[With CS and ID, The designer planned it that way is the answer to anything and everything.]

[Sun]

God could have used either evo or ID.

Wouldn't it be exciting for students if both theories were taught in the classroom?

Just say YES. :)

[Sun]

I'll say this for Darwin, though - he was a heck of a good salesman in his time.

Good night.

[Coyoteman]

God could have used either evo or ID.

Wouldn't it be exciting for students if both theories were taught in the classroom?

Just say YES. :)

YES! I've seen the light.

Just funnin' ya.

The problem we face is that there are not two theories. There is a scientific theory and a religious belief.

The scientific theory relies on naturalism, the religious belief relies on supernaturalism.

A further problem: there are multiple religious/supernatural beliefs; I know you have yours and hold it firm, but others do so as well. And still others do not believe in the supernatural at all.

When you say "Wouldn't it be exciting for students if both theories were taught in the classroom?" you really should be referring to science/naturalism on one hand vs. hundreds or thousands of religious/supernatural beliefs on the other. It is not just your religious belief vs. evolution; once you open Pandora's box, the problem is much larger.

I'm partial to Old Man Coyote, myself. Should that be taught also?

[donh]

But it does render legitimate the question: on what grounds do you gain your apparent Certainty that Hitler was in fact a believing Christian?

His final act of suicide is testament to his unfailing belief in Aryan Christianity which evidently sees suicide as the final sacrament.

Oh, sarcasm, I get it. May I take it that any Christian who ever committed suicide may therefore be taken to be an vegetarian nudist tree-sprite worshiper, rather than a Christian?

The idea that Hitler was a practicing Christian, or particularly a practicing Catholic, is about as stupid as it gets. Looney tunesville.

He was every bit as much a "practicing Christian" as the countless church-goers whose motivation is primarily to get connected to loyal customers for their business.

Hitlers religion was Naziism, period.

You mean this Nazism?

That's just wishful thinking in opposition to utterly overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He was educated by the church, he playacted at being a minister with his sister, he spoke of his faith extensively with his teachers, and he contributed his own original theologically couched works of art and literature, however humble. And in his last years, his attempts to murder the Jewish people were not couched in nudist vegetarian Odin-ist terms (which wouldn't have even been comprehensible to the vast majority of the Christian Germans), they were couched in biblical phrases and references. We have pictures of him going to church, we have him confirming his Christianity and Christian references scattered throughout his speeches, and we have pictures of him attending church, and causing religious icons to be erected at his private domain, while chancellor. Hypocrisy doesn't prevent countless millions from being regarded as christians--what's so special about Hitler, other that that you find his Christianity particularly embarrassing?

[Sun]

ID and evo are the two front running scientific theories.

Either both should be taught or neither.

[Coyoteman]

ID and evo are the two front running scientific theories.

Either both should be taught or neither.

Sorry, I can't agree about the scientific nature of ID. I think ID is CS lite, following the Supreme Court decision which blew it out of the water in the late 1980s.

But, I very much appreciate that you are such a polite poster. That is starting to be a much-appreciated virtue on these threads.

I think I will put the spine to the feathers; lots of work to do in the morning (I'm a scientist, ya know--don't try this at home!).

;-)

[donh]

I am not sure what this crusade against Christianity is all about but crusade it is and that you will pick up just about any tool topic you can as a foil to attack it with shows just how irrational and unscientific of what goes on on there inside of that head of yours.

Was it our team that tried to suggest that Hitler was hand-in-glove with Darwin, so Darwin was responsible for the Holocaust? As far back as I can remember, that's been a tactic of your team. I'd suggest that if you don't want this question looked at analytically, you cease bringing the bible to the table as a scientific alternative or viewpoint.

It is about as absurd philosophically and historically correct as 98% of what the evo guitar guy says. IOW

The comprehensibility, depth and precision of your analysis and rhetoric is up to your usual standards.

[grey_whiskers]

Right, because you prefer not to cope with the tellingly obvious, about which there is no significant historical doubt, even within the RC church.

No, it's because I'm something of a World War II buff.

[donh]

Right, because you prefer not to cope with the tellingly obvious, about which there is no significant historical doubt, even within the RC church.

No, it's because I'm something of a World War II buff.

That's not a real argument. That's just an appeal to authority.

[grey_whiskers]

No. You said explicitly that you knew better than me what my motives are for concentrating on Hitler rather than the historical basis of Catholic and European anti-semitism; that I didn't want to cope with it.

You remain incorrect. I concentrated on Hitler because I am more interested in the history of WWII than in the broad swath of European history for the prior two thousand years or so...

Try reading Heinz Guderian's Panzer Leader sometime.

Cheers!

[donh]

No. You said explicitly that you knew better than me what my motives are for concentrating on Hitler rather than the historical basis of Catholic and European anti-semitism; that I didn't want to cope with it.

And you called me a troll. If you don't want me speculating about your motivation, than don't speculate about mine.

You remain incorrect. I concentrated on Hitler because I am more interested in the history of WWII than in the broad swath of European history for the prior two thousand years or so...

So what? That doesn't stop it from having a material bearing on the the question of the source of Hitler's anti-semitism.

Try reading Heinz Guderian's Panzer Leader sometime.

If you have a germaine argument, or some evidence related to this book, feel free to trot it out.

[grey_whiskers]

And you called me a troll. If you don't want me speculating about your motivation, than don't speculate about mine.

My verbatim quote from post 1144 is:
"You are acting like a troll, don."
I was describing your behaviour: it resembled that of a troll. I phrased it like that because many of your posts here and on other threads are in fact very cogently argued and full of useful information. But on this particular topic, your behaviour does resemble that of a troll.

I said nothing about your actual motivations.

If you have a germaine argument, or some evidence related to this book [Panzer Leader], feel free to trot it out.

The germane argument was about my motivations, which you presumed (incorrectly) to know in advance. The book is sufficiently obscure that lay people would not know about it : it indicates my interest in WW II.

Say good night, don.