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.
According to Christian doctrine, "we are all sinners" etc. etc. and would be destined for perdition anyway.
Christianity maintains that God took it upon Himself to offer us a way out; and that to do so at all is sufficient evidence of His mercy and love, given that He was under no external compulsion to do so (and that the redemption vouchsafed was acquired at great personal cost to Himself).
Cheers!
Hugh Trevor-Roper? That would be SERIES! ;-)
Cheers!
I agree that scientific theories make no moral statements.
If it was somehow possible that they could, and they did, I suppose we would make moral judgments about them, which is a silly idea--- "the laws of conservation are EVIL!"
However, that is different than saying that scientific theories have no moral implications.
As you said, scientific theories are about the way things are--- what things are made of, the way things happen.
Well, the way things are has implications for the way things ought to be.
This holds even if you subscribe to the is-ought distinction of Hume.
Kant explained why: while Hume may be correct that "is" never implies "ought", "ought" always implies "can".
So if human nature is as not elastic as Marx thought it to be--- which I think we can agree turns on a question of science, not morality--- then the morality of his system is rendered false, because it demands man ought to do what he cannot do.
In other words, the (scientific)fact that human nature is far more stable than Marx envisioned has the moral implication that Marx's system is immoral--- but only if you accept as a further premise that a politcal system which demands man ought to do what he cannot do is wrong.
In other words,
1. A political system that demands man ought to do what he cannot do is morally wrong. (moral fact)
2. (Scientific discovery)Man's nature is not elastic; therefore it is not possible that his nature be changed in the way Marx intends.
3.(Conclusion)Marx's theory is morally wrong.
Similarly, the discovery about curare's affect on the patients has moral implications if we assume as a further premise that it is wrong to torture patients.
I'll admit that, unless one admits that there are such things as moral facts (such as (1)) then one does not have to admit that scientific theories can have moral implications.
But in that case, nothing at all has moral implications.
<< Belated welcome to FR!
Are you a fan of Ptolemy? >>
Thanks! Been reading for years. Finally decided to start flapping my jaw. LOL!
Fan of Ptolemy? Yes -- and of Aristotle, and of Aristarchus, Eratosthenes, and too many to name. Also -- a fan of Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho, Kepler, Newton, etc.
Fan of great scientists. Even those I listed who turned out to be wrong were great in many ways. I started out as a physics major, but -- big mistake -- switched to history. I love history, but I regret not sticking with science.
Cheers back!
True, but if everyone was gay, that would put the "population" at risk.
Oh, the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
No doubt they are as objective as AIG. ;-)
(I will try to read up on the site later, I've bookmarked it...)
in fact, I can quote you a dozen authentic examples from the original source where he spoke favorable of Christianity, and particularly Catholicism.
Bill Clinton (not to mention Jimmuh Carter) have already provided ample evidence for us Freepers that a politician mouthing belief in Christianity is no guarantee of his bona fides.
By the way...
It is somewhat odd that some atheists seem anxious to claim Hitler as a Christian, but quickly exclude others (such as televangelists) from being Christian, on the grounds of far more menial (sexual) sins.
At first blush, that is. If it were nearly anyone else on this thread, I would have flamed them for this, but I have come to know you over a number of threads-- you take great efforts to maintain logical consistency and clarity of thought, for which you should be commended. Could you please fill in the philosophical "missing link" for the above circumstance? (Private Freepmail is good, too, if you find the subject too tiresome. I am NOT trying to bait you.)
Full Disclosure: I remember seeing an atheist at an invited talk at the University of Minnesota, and he proudly claimed that atheists walked along side the Rev. Martin Luther King...as though King's Christian faith was irrelevant to his committment to civil rights, and only the atheists deserved credit. Maybe the fact that it was oh-so-liberal Minnesota kept the speaker from publically criticizing a Black man. ;-)
Cheers!
<< Nice misstatement, there.
According to Christian doctrine, "we are all sinners" etc. etc. and would be destined for perdition anyway. >>
I taught that doctrine for forty years, so I'm familiar with it by now. But I'm happy to tweak my little joke to make it fit better:
"You deserve to have the crap beaten out of you by Hank -- forever. But Hank offers to forego that punishment if you will kiss his feet. This offer is a free gift. But if you do not accept the offer -- it's back to the beatings for you."
Would you like me to tweak it the Calvinist way next time? It gets even uglier. I'll stick with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Blest be his noodly appendage!
So ... Kinda what your saying is ...
John:
"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary:
"Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's butt with us."
Me:
"Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His butt?"
John:
"If you kiss Hank's butt, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the snot out of you."
Me:
"What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John:
"Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His butt."
Me:
"That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary:
"Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the butt?"
Me:
"Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John:
"Then come kiss Hank's butt with us."
Me:
"Do you kiss Hank's butt often?"
Mary:
"Oh yes, all the time..."
Me:
"And has He given you a million dollars?"
John:
"Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me:
"So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary:
"You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the snot out of you."
Me:
"Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's butt, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John:
"My mother kissed Hank's butt for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me:
"Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John:
"Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me:
"So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary:
"Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me:
"What's that got to do with Hank?"
John:
"Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me:
"I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John:
"But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's butt He'll kick the snot out of you."
Me:
"Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."
Mary:
"No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me:
"Then how do you kiss His butt?"
John:
"Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His butt. Other times we kiss Karl's butt, and he passes it on."
Me:
"Who's Karl?"
Mary:
"A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's butt. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me:
"And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His butt, and that Hank would reward you?"
John:
"Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
From the Desk of Karl
1-Kiss Hank's butt and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2-Use alcohol in moderation.
3-Kick the snot out of people who aren't like you.
4-Eat right.
5-Hank dictated this list Himself.
6-The moon is made of green cheese.
7-Everything Hank says is right.
8-Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9-Don't use alcohol.
10-Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11-Kiss Hank's butt or He'll kick the snot out of you.
Me:
"This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary:
"Hank didn't have any paper."
Me:
"I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John:
"Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me:
"I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary:
"Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me:
"I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the snot out of people just because they're different?"
Mary:
"It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me:
"How do you figure that?"
Mary:
"Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me:
"Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John:
"No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me:
"But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John:
"There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me:
"Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary:
"But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me:
"I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John:
"Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me:
"We do?"
Mary:
"Of course we do, Item 7 says so."
Me:
"You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John:
"Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me:
"But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary:
She blushes.
John:
"Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me:
"What if I don't have a bun?"
John:
"No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me:
"No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary:
She looks positively stricken.
John:
He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me:
"So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary:
Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John:
"That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me:
"It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary:
She faints.
John:
He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the snot out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's butt for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off ...
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php
(end)
Thats the drift i think ...
If you want BORING, try Daniel Defoe's A Journal of The Plague Years.
Talk about your survival of the fittest...
Cheers!
If you want BORING, try Daniel Defoe's A Journal of The Plague Years.
Talk about your survival of the fittest...
Cheers!
LOL ... I was cutting and pasting "Hank" as you posted ...
<< LOL ... I was cutting and pasting "Hank" as you posted ... >>
Hahahaha! I beat you because I gave the Reader's Digest version!
That story never fails to crack me up -- and upset others that I confess, I enjoy upsetting sometimes. A double blessing.
The expulsion of Jews from Spain is no the same thing as the Spanish inquisition.
Come on now. How precious can you get?--it is, in very many important ways, the very same thing as the spanish inquisition. The connection is intimate. You can't get much more intimate than to torture a jew claiming to be a christian.
Orthodox jews are the original heretics--they deny the divinity of christ, and consider salvation thru christ blasphemy. Are you not aware of this? You are totally out to lunch on this subject.
In Canon Law, a heretic is one who is baptized, professes to be Christian, and denies Catholic doctrine.
And what bread does that butter? The fact is, that a belief is a heresy whether a catholic professes it or not, and the church didn't hold back from mass murdering those who held such notions whether they'd been baptised or not.
A Jew who was never baptized cannot, by definition, be a heretic.
But he can hold heretical notions, and be murdered by christians for it; as a heretic--if need be, the instant they force a baptism upon him. Fat lot of comfort for him to know he's not being murdered as a heretic. I'll grant the distinction, but not the significant value of it.
Yes, it does. Or it wouldn't exist as promenently and persistently as it has, in such distinctly variant patterns, in so many mammalian species.
Anal-genital contact, annilungus, and oral sodomy .NE. fertilization.
Do you even know the meaning of the word "propagate"? Try Wikipedia.
Tonight was especially satifying though ... in a side argument regarding the Inquistion .. I got to use ... David A. Plaisted (www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/)... against one of them (www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/estimates.doc) ... it made me feel satified and kinda icky at the same time ...
Tonight was especially satifying though ... in a side argument regarding the Inquistion .. I got to use ... David A. Plaisted (www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/)... against one of them (www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/estimates.doc) ... it made me feel satified and kinda icky at the same time ...
Yes, I think perhaps we don't disagree but are defining our terms differently.
I would say that if "Scientific theories have implications that can suggest likely outcomes for certain actions" and those actions have moral status, then the scientific theories themselves have moral implications for those actions--- in other words, whether and in what respects the theory is true or false--- has implications for whether the actions taken are right or wrong.
The standard of moral judgment is, as you say, outside of science, but I would say that how we may apply that standard is constrained by science.
For instance, let's say lie detector tests are pretty unreliable. Even if I'm a prosecuting someone who's failed the test and I believe killers should be punished, I'm be constrained by the inefficacy, as proven by science, of that device.
Again, the standard--- "killers should be punished" lies, as you say, outside of science.
So even if we're putting things differently, I don't think we really disagree here.
So, with regards to eugenics, the question is, was it the moral standards of the eugenicists that were our of whack?
Or was it their understanding of Darwin, Malthus, or Galton's theories?
Like I said, I don't think this is a simple question, and most who bought into eugenics, as Teddy Roosevelt--- who, like Darwin, was a great man--- were not monsters.
But I do believe it is an important question.
The very point of my argument was that sexual behavior only needs to be advantageous to be sustained in the gene pool. Fertilization isn't the only way a behavior can be advantageous.
Do you even know the meaning of the word "propagate"? Try Wikipedia.
Do you even know the meaning of the word "responsive"? Try a dictionary.
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.