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.

[Elsie]

Please, if you want, post that again here; let's see what people think of it. I wasn't the only one who read it as I did.

There you go AGAIN!!

Wanting to dredge up an old argument and bring it into THIS thread!!

---

Something that JimRob says is a NO-NO!!!

SHAME!

You'd do better to defend your reasoning of the things in THIS thread.

[donh]

Yes, Jews suffered episodes of persecution in Catholic Europe. You did an admirable job proving it, though I never denied it. What you fail to note is that they also enjoyed long periods of toleration and prosperity in many countries.

Well now, I have to agree that that is admirable in much the same sense that it's admirable that serial killers do not murder every person they see.

Finally, the pictures of Hitler praying and the propaganda posters merely prove that Hitler tried to associate himself publicly with Christianity.

That is utter balderdash, based on carefully not looking at the evidence--a mistake the USArmy intelligence corp did not make in its assessment--much as church apologists would like to wish it so. Look again at the pictures, look at his face. Think about how much time and effort he put into painting religious scenes. Think about the fact that he aspired to the priesthood while quite young. That is not how hypocrisy manifests itself.

Well, that does it for me. I have nothing to add to this conversation. You can have the last word. Nice chatting with you.

Ok, here's my last word. Anyone with two still-functioning neurons to rub together, unless they are desperately trying to avoid seeing it, can tell two things from the available evidence--which I have hardly scratched the surface of--that the catholic church was cheerleading jewish pogroms from the get-go, regardless of the feeble hypocrisy that church clings to, that they didn't actually explicity call for the outright mass murder of jewish communities: they pounded the pulpit for 1400 years about the sub-christian & sub-human nature of jews, they set up laws guaranteed to make them vulnerable, easy targets, they insulted, degraded, and, finally tortured and murdered them--your see-know-evil, acknowledge-yet-deny defense to the contrary notwithstanding. Secondly, to deny the thoroughgoing entwinement between this catholicism, with it's thoroughly embedded anti-jewish tradition, and the everyday workings of Hitler's nazi regime is to wear blinders so tight those neurons we mentioned are being strangled.

Here's what Joseph Ratzinger, our new Pope Benedict XVI, and ex-Hitler youth member, had to say about it:

"...it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity [the Holocaust] on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians."

This new Pope is not exactly a poster-boy for pro-jewish sentiment in the catholic church, but even he has to acknowledge that the catholic presence in Germany was a far cry from being a source of comfort for the Jews.

This poster brings the point home so well, it's worth repeating.

"When you see a cross, remember the gruesome murder of the Jews on Golgotha..."

A front page of the Nazi publication, Der Stuermer.

Headline: "Declaration of the Higher Clergy/So spoke Jesus Christ: You hypocrites who do not see the beam in your own eyes. (See Matthew 7:3-5) Cartoon: depicts a group of Hitler Youth marching forth to drive the forces of evil from the land. The caption under the cartoon reads, "We youth step happily forward facing the sun... With our faith we drive the devil from the land."

For a christian, particularly a catholic, Not to remember and acknowledge this, is to invite it to happen again, over and over and over--as even a facile examination of history affirms with glaring authority.

This was a monumental sin for all time, against basic human decency, and in my opinion, covering your eyes with your rosary and proclaiming "I see nothing, God's church didn't do this", is a woefully inadequate response.

[Elsie]

Your snarky statements about me to Havoc; you know, where you butted into the dispute to stir up more trouble.

WHAT!?

You can't exactly recall????

We'll wait while you backtrack to get my EXACT words.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There you go AGAIN!!

Wanting to dredge up an old argument and bring it into THIS thread!!"

Are you that dense? YOU brought up the *enemies* thread, not me.

"Something that JimRob says is a NO-NO!!!
SHAME!"

Yes, you should be ashamed, as YOU are the one thread hopping with old debates.

"You'd do better to defend your reasoning of the things in THIS thread."

You'de do better to take that advice yourself, as YOU are the one do just what you are condemning.

[mjolnir]

Hmmm... I see... I thought my explanation was strong enough, but I guess it wasn't PH balanced for a woman.

[Elsie]

...I thought my explanation was strong enough...

It was a fine reasoning.

It's just that he may THINK differently than you do.

He tends to sputter much less than CG does.

[mjolnir]

"This new Pope is not exactly a poster-boy for pro-jewish sentiment."

Why do you say that? Surely you don't think John Paul was anti-semitic or that Vatican II was. What makes you think Benedict doesn't hold the same beliefs? Why would thoughtful Jewish people like Dennis Prager and Michael Medved hold him in such high esteem?

[Elsie]

Please, if you want, post that again here;

---

Are you that dense? YOU brought up the *enemies* thread, not me.

Again: you can't read (well, maybe... It's comprehension that is your weak suit.)

I MENTIONED the old thread, while YOU want to want me to POST from it!

(Ok, you DID say, "Please".)

[Elsie]

Goodnight all.....

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"WHAT!?

You can't exactly recall????

We'll wait while you backtrack to get my EXACT words."

It was your posts to both Havoc and RW.

"To: Havoc
That's not a request, it is a demand.

Good luck; for it is hiding in the penumbra of your statements....

Only CG can find it."
575 posted on 05/13/2006 9:08:10 AM EDT by Elsie

To: RunningWolf
Psst Psst, its not working give it up.

But he THINKS it is....
814 posted on 05/13/2006 11:11:20 PM EDT by Elsie

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Again: you can't read (well, maybe... It's comprehension that is your weak suit.)

I MENTIONED the old thread, while YOU want to want me to POST from it!"

At least you admit it was YOU who brought up the old thread dispute. Of course I would want you to post it; you brought up an old thread and made dishonest claims about it as a bludgeon against me; how the hell am I going to defend myself unless the relevant posts are posted again? YOU broke the rules that JimRob made, not me. YOU were the one trolling for responses.

Which reminds me; my rule now is to be unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses. That means don't expect anymore posts from me. You're beneath me.

[JCEccles]

You're beneath me.

You're evolving?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You're evolving?"

Bye. :)

My rule now is to be unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses. That means don't expect anymore posts from me.

[Virginia-American]

Sorry, some how I screwed up the link.

try this

[donh]

Why do you say that? Surely you don't think John Paul was anti-semitic or that Vatican II was. What makes you think Benedict doesn't hold the same beliefs?

Ratzinger was JP's secretary, and as the tradition holds, he deep-sixed his own feelings to become his Pope's champion mud-wrestler. However, he is not a carbon copy of JP, he is Old School to the bone, and entertains the same scriptural literalism that has caused catholics to view jews as unsaved for failing to acknowledge jesus as savior, that has been the fundamental driving reason foruu anti-jewish preachings since time out of mind, and I have every confidence that that will be manifesting itself shortly. He has been pressed on this point, and made it perfectly clear that he will not follow JP's half-blazed trail on this subject.

Why would thoughtful Jewish people like Dennis Prager and Michael Medved hold him in such high esteem?

Because there aren't familiar with his track record prior to assuming the Secretariat?

Go ask your local catholic priest if any orthodox jews can be counted amongst the saved yet--since they don't acknowledge jesus as savior--according to church teachings. For all of JP's virtue, that wasn't a hurdle he could clear, and certainly Ratzinger isn't going to either. All this sonorous feel-good talk of the brotherhood of jews and christians can vanish with the next turn of of civilization's screws, but the this doctrinally fundamental reason catholic clergy preached against jews will never go away unless the church makes it go away--and thinking that that's happening under JP and Ratzinger is wishful thinking, exacerbated by mistaking headlines with glamor shots for important news, which jewish intellectuals are just as good at as anyone else.

[donh]

Hey, in my limited ways, I have contributed positively to the discussion. I'm also learning more and more about evolution and Darwin. I was reading earlier today that Darwin before he died he no longer believed in his pet theory. I don't know if it's true or not. Darn it! I got keep those links more organized because I know someone if not in this thread, in another thread, may not believe that Darwin recanted his theory.

That's hogwash from some creationist talking points site. Darwin went to his maker proud of his work, as he deserved to be.

[Havoc]

I'm not betting any such thing. I'm pointing to the fact that
evolution hit a brick wall because science couldn't prop up their version of biogenisis. Both have had to back away and that is what we've been witnessing in the rhetoric. In point of fact, you are the flat earther 'finding Jesus' on this subject. You climbed the hill that you been shouting up at as a group for years hollering your big bang and soup to zoo nonsense only to find when you got there that it was nonsense and we were sitting up there waiting on you to get there. You've been the flat earther. You still are on Evolution.

[Coyoteman]

Hey, in my limited ways, I have contributed positively to the discussion. I'm also learning more and more about evolution and Darwin. I was reading earlier today that Darwin before he died he no longer believed in his pet theory. I don't know if it's true or not. Darn it! I got keep those links more organized because I know someone if not in this thread, in another thread, may not believe that Darwin recanted his theory.

Where is Coyoteman when I need him for moral support?

Hi. Thanks for the ping.

The Darwin/Lady Hope/deathbed story is incorrect. It has been debunked for somewhat over a century now.