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.
Doc wrote to andysandmikesmom:
<< I've observed this board for some time now. At no point have I found you to be other than honorable. I cannot say the same for your accuser. >>
Ditto.
In what manner?
In terms of persection, before Hitler, the Jews weren't much different from other minority groups around the world. It is part of the human condition for minorities to endure episodes of persecution at the hands of the majority from time to time. To somehow say Christian Europe was unique in this regard is absurd. Just as absurd as your contention that persecution of Jews was continuous and universal for 1400 years.
Yes, there were some popes and Church Fathers who were anti-semites, but where did I deny that? There were also some who were philosemites.What's your point?
You still have not substantiated your claim that the Church taught that wonton killing of Jews was Christ's work. I stand by my statement that such a teaching NEVER was given.
You have also not substantiated your point that the Inquisition targeted Jews. And no, I have not conceeded this point. Yes, the inquisition did persecute Jewish converts to Christianity who converted dishonestly. That was never in despute. The most you have done is provide a Jewish Encylopedia article that cites ONE INSTANCE in which the inquisition killed about a dozen or so Jews, but it gives no documentation, so forgive my skepticism. Even if this incident happened, however, it's still one incident. That hardly proves your contention that the inquisition targeted Jews.
As to your photos, all they domonstrate is that some SS men went to mass. Well, yes. That's true. Who disputes that? There have been bad Catholcis around at all times in all periods. So what? This hardly proves the Church leadership was somehow complicit with Hitler.
You have yet to substantiate your claim that priests, with the Vatican's permission, accompanied SS troops on Ghetto raids. As evidence, you posted a photo of some Nazi soldiers in prayer next to a machine gun, with one of the soldiers wearing a cross. Sorry, but that doesn't look like a Ghetto raid. Furthermore, there's no indication the man wearing the Cross is a Catholic priest, which seems very unlikely given that he's not wearing a Roman collar.
Your photo of the Nazi Chaplain's hat merley proves the Nazis had Chaplains. Where did I deny such a thing? Again, it hardly proves priests went on Ghetto raids. Furthermore, I see no indication that the hat belonged to a Catholic priest.
You're acting as fast and loose with the evidence as a typical creationist.
Finally, the pictures of Hitler praying and the propaganda posters merely prove that Hitler tried to associate himself publicly with Christianity. That's what I've been saying all along! Again I ask, what's your point?
Well, that does it for me. I have nothing to add to this conversation. You can have the last word. Nice chatting with you.
"I will agree that your response is emotional and doesn't address the point."
Hmmm... I must be getting through to Havoc! He agrees with me now! What's that? He agrees with me that I'm an idiot?
I guess I set myself up for that!
What I was trying to say was that I don't mean to argue those doctrinal points with you, because I think while they are important, they are not the most important thing. Christ accepted the thief on the cross, who had faith in Christ, without asking him his take on the relation of his faith to his works.
It may be true that everyone has faith in something. however, Catholics have faith in Christ, and you still haven't shown why their faith in Christ is actually faith in some sci-fi evil duplicate Christ. I still don't get how you think you can say with certainty that the prayers of Catholics refer to someone other Jesus.
This is an evo thread, though, so I'll just ask you what I've been asking others. What do you think of this? http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May05/selfrep.ws.html
Is this self-replicating robot the first step in creating Von Neumann machines that can adapt on their own? Could machine evolution then outpace the organic kind in some way? http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/vonNeumannprobe.html
I'm not the only one here by far that went through history and science classes that taught us about the big bang and some early chemical soup from which life 'derived' according to evolution etc.. My memory of 12 years of public screwl isn't that lax.
LOL. Now now. I didn't beat on you, so why are you beating on yourself. Not called for. ok? :)
Are you saying that Aryan's are BELOW average then?
is his just a coincidence then?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632139/posts
LEt me see if I've got this right:
It's ok to use a Call to Authority if the Pope says we should not be against Evolution, but,
It's NOT ok to use a Call to Authority if the Pope calls Darwin (and evolution) racist?
Now I AM confuser!!
It's the ol' wheat and tares.....
While many in 'correct' theology Christian churchs are NOT gonna make it (But they LOOK good on the outside) I've come to the conclusion that some in the 'INCORRECT' ones will, because the Holy Spirit has gotten to them, and they truly trust in Christ only for their salvation!
No, he's just saying that without genetic diversity, they would be more easily victimzed by diseases. That's why he was talking about how the plants we breed to eat wouldn't be able to survive in the wild http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Rice-Diversity-Yield.htm.
And those are in our CHURCHES!!!!!
Biblical 'illiteracy(?)' is rampant!
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.