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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I am rereading Darwin now after 46 years and yea, he is boring.

Pop quiz on the barnicles next week.

[curiosity]

So why shouldn't we take Adolph Hitler's word for whether he is a Christian?

Because he said one thing in public and another in private. Several independent sources attest to the peculiarity of his beliefs and his private disdain for traditional Christianity.

Every time a Creationist tries to attach Nazi to Darwin they are going to get this and it is appropriate.

No it isn't, because you're distorting the truth, and that's never appropriate. You don't win an argument against a troll by descending to his level.

[js1138]

I'm kind of into earthworms.

[curiosity]

I read somewhere a long time ago (in a kingdom by the sea) that Hitler had plans for a new German religion, and he was to be God. Either of you misremember something like this?

No.

[js1138]

No one wins, but sometimes you have to illustrate an absurdity with another absurdity.

I only know of two people who have changed their minds on evolution. One of them is Michael Denton.

[jec41]

Only because you know the ending. It was white hot stuff 150 years ago.

If one hasn't already read Darwin it should be white hot today. Most won't actually sit down and read it.

[curiosity]

It doesn't mean that he didn't consider himself a Christian.

Sure. But what he believed would not be considered Christian by most people. Denial of the ressurection, the claim the Jesus was Aryan, denial of the atonement, etc.

Lots of folks who aren't Christian say their Christians. Like the Mormons, for example.

You can see that same perversion of Christianity (without the malevolence) on Sunday Morning TV.

Well, I'd say Hitler's distortions are a wee bit more extreme than the average televangelist's.

[mjolnir]

Yes, this is exactly why Carl Sagan felt intelligent life must be very common in the universe. So far, however, the notion that life exists anywhere else at all seems rather unlikely-- thus all of the multiple universe theories.

[Virginia-American]

He didn't attend confession, mass or catechism. He did not partake of the sacrements.

I don't think anyone said that Hitler was a good (in any sense of the word) Catholic. In particular, there was no chaplain in the bunker when he took his and Eva's lives.

[Coyoteman]

Well, I'd say Hitler's distortions are a wee bit more extreme than the average televangelist's.

Big deal. This little guy is more important than Hitler to the theory of evolution. [What is it with this Hitler crap, anyway?]

---

Fossil: Taung Child

Site: Buxton Limeworks, Taung, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: M. de Bruyn, 1924 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.3 mya * determined by Faunal & geomorphological data (1, 4, 5)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 3, 7, 8)

Gender: Unknown (1)

Cranial Capacity: 405 (440 as adult) cc (1, 3)

Information: First early hominid fossil found in Africa (7, 8)

Interpretation:

• Juvenile (3 years old based on deciduous teeth, first permanent molars) (1, 3, 4, 7)
• Bipedal hominid (based on position of foramen magnum, brain endocast, small canines) (1, 3, 4, 7)
  
• Killed possibly by bird of prey (based on fractures and puncture marks on skull) (1, 10)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=27

[phantomworker]

"How can we expose something that is already naked?"

And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.
William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616)

Sorry, a quote seemed so...appropos, at this point. LOL

[curiosity]

I looked at some of your previous posts, and noticed this jem:

However he most believed and followed Martin Luther. Its easy to rewrite history to suit one's needs. "I am a Catholic I will die a Catholic" and fifty years later someone says thats not what he meant.

This is just too funny. First you claim Hitler followed Martin Luther and then claim he meant it when he said he was Catholic. Do you even know who Martin Luther was?

[js1138]

That's a keeper.

[curiosity]

They worshiped and went to Church every Sunday but they still fought and believed in Hitler and thought they would win.

Sure. Many of the rank-and-file of the Nazi party continued to profess traditional Christianity and attend Church, oblivious to the fact that the teachings of the Nazi party were incompatible with their religion.

[curiosity]

Hey, great. Let's change the subject. I'm with you. I'm sick of the Hitler crap.

I was only trying to stop our side from trolling with Hitler. Just because the creationists do it doesn't mean wwe should too.

[stands2reason]

BTW, amazing how fast you all get pinged.

Do ya not understand how pinglists work? Really, that line of attack is pretty lame. Why don't you leave it to Mamzelle?

[andysandmikesmom]

I was going to let something slide, but then I rethought it, and decided to post anyway....I take note of what you said in your post #407 which was...."Lots of folks who aren't Christian say their Christians. Like the Mormons, for example."...

Now, I am not a Mormon...still I am uncomfortable with some Christians of one religion, declaring Christians of another religion to not be 'real' Christians...I am sure that within all Christian religions, there are true, real believers, and then there are the 'fakes', so to speak...but I cannot judge who is a 'true' Christian, and who is a 'fake' Christian, based on the religion that they practice...

I know that many different Christian religions have their very profound differences with the Mormons, and their own reasons for believing that Mormons cannot be Christians, but those are personal beliefs, and as such, are just opinions, not facts...

[andysandmikesmom]

Sure leave it to Mamzelle...she will accuse us of all being the same person, accuse us of contacting each other via IM, and then she will go into her speech, telling us that we all have some weird disease...loads of fun...great for laughs...
In any case, I dont see why it is of anyone elses concern about how fast we do get pinged...goodness, as you said, its a really lame line of attack...what in the world are ping lists for, if not to let interested posters know, when a subject they are interested in, comes up as a topic for a thread...

[furball4paws]

It is always appropriate to fight fire with fire.

Earlier on this thread we got the usual crap that Communists came from Evolution. I posted threads to show, conclusively, that that is crap. But it will appear again, probably from the same sources. Did (do) these facts win an argument? No.

So saying that Darwin spawned Nazism is rationally idiotic, but the only way to get through the crap is to show that Hitler was a professed Christian, by his own words, and therefore just as easily attached to Creationists as to Darwin, and that is true. The argument is not sound either way, but perhaps it will penetrate the fog and make them think that by smearing Charles Darwin with either Communism or Nazism, they can be just as easily smeared with the same.

Until they see that guilt by, in many cases just "supposed" association, is a false argument, they need to be reminded that smearing cuts both ways. Thus we see the references to fundamentalist Islam and other crackpot anti-evo groups like the Hare Krishna.

Smearing is a tactic of the Left. Sometimes it works, but it is usually phony.

We see petitions saying "scientists" disagree with Evolution. We see Project Steve in favor of Evolution. Both are phony arguments. The only real true arguments concern the mountains of evidence for evolution. In all my hours here in Crevoland, I have never seen a Creationist attempt to undermine this evidence. They can't, so they resort to smearing.

Should we react with just a yawn?