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.
Apologies for dragging you into a crevo flamewar--I was referring to your more current experience in the dating world of Europe.
Cheers!
I did, at this site (came up during Google).
Man, I wish I was independently wealthy so I could code some o f that stuff up to simulate it: this to me (along with some details of biochemistry) represents the heart of evolutionary theory, the subtle and complex interplay of selection pressure, mutations, and the environment.
Cheers!
LOL
Great tag!
They must have been a terribly oppressed community to be able to come up with the resources to start their own medical school!
"Gentlemen's Agreements" prevented Jew from buying houses in many areas.
Yes, Jews were not allowed to buy into some posh neighborhoods, like 5th Ave on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. This horribly oppresive discrimination led to...Jews building their own posh neighborhoods like Central Park West on the Upper West Side and Park Slope in Queens. Such a tragedy!
Look, it's undeniable that Jews suffered some descrimination in the early 20th century America. It was unjust and should be condemned. Nevertheless, as community they did pretty well long before these injustices were corrected. My only point is don't fall for the left's tactic of exaggerating the past evils of America. They were real, but kept in perspective, they prove little else than pre-1960's America was not perfect, but still a pretty darn good place to live.
Talk about "survival of the fittest" :-)
Cheers!
I can't argue against that, as far as the long run goes, but that doesn't alter the fact that the moslems in the holy land weren't aching for a fight, nor the fact that the avowed reason for the crusades was christian control over the holy land, and the actual reason was plunder and real estate. Not some long-ranged scheme to defend Europe.
It's more, I think, that The Masters of the Universe will insist that the moral implications which are, are irrelevant; that that which is is; that that which is not is not; and that is all that is.
Consider that the Ottoman Turks nearly took Vienna in 1683
Yea...but not in the 11th century. In the 11th century, moslem power did not have the capacity to thrust itself meaningfully into Europe, either from Spain, or the Levant, whereas Europe had the demonstrated capacity to thrust itself into the middle east. The main interest of the Moslems who fell under christian jurisdiction was growing tasty things in an arid environment.
The Spanish Inquisition did not have the authority to expell Jews.
You can't get much more intimate than to torture a jew claiming to be a christian.
I never denied the Spanish Inquisition persecuted false converts to Christianity. It did not have jurisdiction over Jews who were openly Jewish, and every single thing you posted thus far confirms this.
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.
The only groups the Church (and by this, I mean the authorities in Rome) sanctioned the killing of were baptized Christian heretics. Not that I am defending this practice, but it is a historical fact. There is not a single instance of the Church sanctioning the mass murder of Jews. Not one.
But he can hold heretical notions, and be murdered by christians for it; as a heretic
Nope.
--if need be, the instant they force a baptism upon him.
Forced baptism by Catholics was not sanctioned by the Church. It did happen, but it was the exception, not the rule. Its occurrances are limited to a handful of historical episodes, like the reconquista of Spain and the Prussian crusade by the Teutonic Knights.
Fat lot of comfort for him to know he's not being murdered as a heretic.
The Church never sanctioned mass murder of Jews. There are instances of mobs of Catholics murdereing Jewish villages, but over a thousand year hisotry there are only a handful of episodes. Orthodox Russia is another matter, of course.
BTW, why all this talk about Spain? We got on this topic because you originally claimed Hitler got his ideas about killing Jews from the Church. Last time I checked, Hitler wasn't Spanish. In fact the Jews of Spain were spared during WW2, despite Franco's friendliness with Hitler. Nothing comparable to the Spanish reconquista and inquisition ever occurred in Germany.
If your hypothesis is correct, Spaniards should have been more eager to murder Jews than Germans. That doesn't fit the facts, though.
Islam - Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town. If you don't, he might kick the shit out of you.
Islamic Fundamentalism - Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town. If you don't, we're going to kick the shit out of you, and we might even make you leave town early.
Nation of Islam - We have stars on ours, so we can kiss Hank's ass properly. Those without stars on thars are bad people; they will never get a million dollars.
Shi'A Islam - A long time ago, Karl died. Then his father-in-law tried to make his own list, but we know Karl's wife hid the real list and gave it to her son. Listen to Karl's wife's son, or we'll kick the shit out of you.
Sunni Islam - Baloney. You know Karl's father-in-law's list is the real one, and if you don't admit that, we'll kick the shit out of you.
Sufism - If you read Karl's list (any version) you'll see that Hank really loves you a lot and wants to give you a million dollars. If you look closely at even the ugliest painting for a long time, you'll see Hank in there, smiling. Or you can just spin around in circles until you get dizzy.
It's the way that it was arranged that was entirely un-Christian, whether or not the banning was in itself just. Sometimes I'll catch my daughters doing this to their little brother: "Jake, how high can you jump on the couch?" followed by, "Mom! Jake's jumping on the couch!" (To take a dim view of that is not to countenance couch-jumping, I might add.)
One might justly take the position that you can't have a sucker-punch without first having a sucker, but only a cynic would call that Christian.
But to go beyond that, to advance the position in earnest, deserves rebuke.
As you say, but people on these threads regularly and earnestly advance the position that evolution is connected to/caused by/results from Nazism, but I've never once seen such a rebuke.
This claim has yet to be verified with scientific rigor; certainly many phenomena once thought "irreducible" have been found to have many elements where empirical methods have determined the presence of evolved traits (the vertebrate eye and blood-clotting cascade are two that come to mind). It seems to me a bad assumption to assume irreducibility in such systems. If IDers really have some honest research that can find this sort of thing out, they should submit it for professional peer review, to the ones who actually have proven expertise in the biological sciences. I can't really critique that sort of work either way - it's way outside my field of expertise.
ID may or may not be comparable to SETI (many here will argue it's not), but remember, SETI has never claimed to have found anything. IDers are free to look for what they want and submit their findings like anyone else - I would be quite fascinated if they actually did come up with something that met the rigorous standards of practical research.
My hunch (and it's only a hunch) that they won't find anything, though - if only because past experience has shown that God isn't in the practice of leaving 'secret messages' in nature that conclusively prove His existence; it seems quite apparent that He has left the assumption of His existence to faith and faith alone, and that natural laws are the most common tool He employs to enforce His will. I do believe that God did "intelligently design" the universe; I think it's also quite apparent that science doesn't have the ability to prove this, though. Time may prove me wrong, but I don't expect to see this happen in my lifetime.
Thanks for the links.
Your second quote confirms that the medieval inquisition killed a lot of people. I never denied this nor do I defend it. It DOES NOT, however, support your contention that the institution systematically persecuted Jews. The most you have come up with is ONE alleged instance in 1288 in which a dozen or so Jews were burned at the stake. If true, this instance was tragic and indefensible, but it does support your contention that Church authorities sanctioned mass murder of Jews. It is only one incident for an institution with a 2000 year history, and is therefore hardly representative, even if true.
Eh? Interesting, about Russian birth rates, but so what? We're talking about why nature might arm one with certain sexual instincts, which would be to help us survival in small, isolated tribes on a veldt.
But, let me point out, that instinct may be operating accurately even yet: have you ever seen a mother cat kill and eat the runt of her litter? Did you know that solitary mammal predators will frequently eat all the offspring of a litter if times seem particularly bad just then? Do you want to claim that these are bad investment strategies, genetic survival-wise? If you do, I would disagree: survival is as much about securing resources--and in humans, that could even mean philosophical/emotional/social resources as much as meat on the table--as it is about reproduction.
It seems revisionist history by a computer scientist at UNC is worth about as much as revisionist history by a linguist at MIT.
That's odd; it looked like your post was posted again to me. That's why I responded twice. Sorry. :)
Finally, I was not trolling to get anyone provoked, or banned: see for example my replies to junior in 464 and 474. In 4 Junior said that the only innovation Hitler added was mechanization. I asked him to read Mein Kampf, not for anyone to reprint it in toto ;-)
For background, see also curiosity in post 432 explaining the tactic of illustrating absurd ad hominem by doing it back...
Cheers!
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.