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.

[mlc9852]

LOL - can I do it just till I need glasses?

[theFIRMbss]

>He made them cut up frogs and grasshoppers and prick their fingers to get blood out of them

"It's okay to say
the kids pricked their fingers, but
we cannot say they --"

[Junior]

What they conveniently fail to mention is that Eugenie Scott is a self-professed atheist.

So he evidently eats small children and tortures animals? What has his being an atheist to do with the validity of the website he directs?

Oh, I get it. Ad hominem. If you can't counter the ideas, insinuate the ideas' holder is a bad man. Typical liberal strategy, but it should work with the relatively ignorant masses.

[aimhigh]

What they conveniently fail to mention is that Eugenie Scott is a self-professed atheist.

Ahhhh, the core of evolution.

[mlc9852]

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. In this case, Dr. Scott's agenda is crystal clear.

[aimhigh]

Applications for religious fundamentalism: flying airplanes into buildings. Perhaps we should compare the number of evolution opponents who have flown airplanes into buildings with the number of biology teachers that have done so.

So, you can proudly claim NAZIism, which is a result of evolutionary doctrine.

[Junior]

So, the folks who are Christians at AIG and DI don't have agendas? Only atheists have agendas, huh?

[mlc9852]

Why just biology teachers? Why not all teachers who have molested students? If you can lump all "fundamentalists" together, certainly we can lump all teachers together. They are all the same, right?

I would expect a better argument from you, though it is late on a Friday so I'll give you a pass.

[hosepipe]

[ Thorp emphasizes the practical applications of evolution, writing, "creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does," and citing several specific examples. ]

So then; most/many churches are NOT businesses?..
How many empolyees do American churches have?..
How big are their payrolls?..

No commercial application is silly.. or disinformation..
How much property(of all kinds) do American churchs control(own)?..

Thorp is delusional.. I've mentioned a small portion of America church economic impact.. Whether Evos worship the protein manipulator God is another issue.. completely..

[mlc9852]

Christians don't attempt to hide who they are.

[bahblahbah]

"Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?"

WTH, can't mom and dad scientists do their own teaching. End public education and STFU.

[microgood]

LOL...

[2nsdammit]

Wait, I wanna be the first!!!

HITLER WAS A CHRISTIAN!!!

[mlc9852]

Ping - just in case you're bored this afternoon. LOL

[Junior]

Well, biology (and evolution) actually put products on the market. Churches basically bilk the gullible out of money in return for assurances that after the payee dies he'll be all right.

To put it succinctly, evolution sells commercial applications; religion sells hope.

[lonestar67]

Why should individuals try to intelligently design cures for such diseases?

Wouldn't it be better to let such cures evolve through random selection?

I am intrigued as to the motives scientists might have for interfering with such natural processes.

:)

[2nsdammit]

Waitaminit....

I thought Creationism was science? Now you're telling me that it's actually religion?

[visually_augmented]

mlc9852: What they conveniently fail to mention is that Eugenie Scott is a self-professed atheist.

aimhigh: Ahhhh, the core of evolution.

It is interesting that the doctrine of evolution is a critical tenet of the religion of atheism.

[Junior]

Maybe he doesn't wear his atheism on his sleeve the way some Christians wear their religion. So what? I don't go around announcing I have no wisdom teeth. It doesn't mean I'm trying to hide that fact.

[2nsdammit]

Gee, I don't know, saving lives, maybe?