No problem.
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.
No problem.
"...explain why body hair, etc. came at the cost of bigger brains."
Because humans with less body hair are sexier :)
Well, you never know what tomorrow will bring.
Have a wonderful weekend!
I remember a Far Side cartoon about micro-organism porn movies. It showed some bacteria and other tiny organisms sitting on a couch, drinking beer. They were watching a video of cells dividing.
Don't know, never heard him speak and have never read any of his publications or writings.
Well, just so long everyone knows that Dr. Scott is the director and an atheist. It is always good to understand who you are dealing with and what their agenda might be.
And it's always good to understand when you are dealing with an irrational creationist religionist.
Question number 5 is nonsense. There is no axiomatic definition of fitness. Fitness is simply an after the fact description of the traits leading to reproductive success. Much of animal evolution is driven by traits the girls think are cute.
Forgive me for asking, but where did you receive your "rigorous education in organic chemistry and biological science?"
No doubt ar Patriot University. Either that or the University of Sarasota.
I work in industrial R&D in FL. I can speak to experience that it is very difficult to get research scientists with families to move to this state because of the poor reputation, nationally, of the schools here, in particular how well science is taught. We've actually hired people to work here who leave their families up north just because of the school systems. If you don't have a reasonablely strong elementary and high school education in place, you simply have a hard time attracting research organizations and talent to your area.
LOL, but I'd have said "gulls"
You are quite right. Religious organizations do make quite a bit of money. But innovating new, value added products, doesn't accumulate wealth from others, it creates wealth. Just like was previously said in this thread. Strong sciecne and technology research improves the value of products and can profit from increased margin those products carry. Or they reduce the cost of production, thereby increasing margin.
Depends on your church! Last I checked, God offers eternal life as a free gift.
"I guess God is a charlatan, too. He just flat-out lied about creation, didn't he?"
Twaddle.
You are just too arrogant to admit that maybe you have not interpreted Genesis correctly.
So God just lied when he created all kinds of misleading geological, biological, and physical evidence, to mislead us? What good would God be if he lied to us?
Nothing like hyperbole in an editorial. ;-)
If what you say were truly practiced, evolution would be discarded tomorrow as failing every test of reasoned observation.
'failing every test of reasoned observation'? That's an absolutely ridiculous and ignorant statement.
Did you know that the Discovery Institute, the ID think tank, accepts about 99% of evolutionary theory?
And the last I looked, most anti-evolution creation science web sites accept what they call 'micro-evolution'.
So what are these 'reasoned observations' that all these people, both pro and anti evolution, are missing?
No.
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.