[PatrickHenry]

The full article which appeared in the Times, and which we can't post in full, is here: Evolution's Bottom Line.

I know, I know, the Times is a commie rag. But science isn't left or right, and there's nothing patriotic about ignorance. This is a good article.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 370 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[wideawake]

So it's about cash. Makes more sense to me now.

[tomzz]

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"

Applications of evolution? I assume he mentioned naziism, communism, and eugenics programs?

[edcoil]

"reationism has no commercial application."

So you are saying the major religons are not wealty and the cable churches don't make money?

[Tim Long]

And that's the bottom line... 'cause Richard Dawkins SAID SO!

[mlc9852]

Executive Director Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist who taught at the university level before becoming Director of NCSE in 1987.

http://www.ncseweb.org/about.asp

he pro-evolution community continues to endorse organizations like the National Center for Science Education (executive director, Eugenie Scott) and the National Academy of Sciences as resources for unbiased mainstream science. What they conveniently fail to mention is that Eugenie Scott is a self-professed atheist. Moreover, a survey given to representatives of the National Academy of Sciences that was later published in a 1998 volume of the Journal of Nature confirms that 73% of its members are atheist and 20% are agnostic.1 In the same article, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins said, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don’t think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge."

Eugenie Scott was quoted in a Dispatch editorial on 03/14/04 as saying, "By definition, science cannot consider supernatural explanations: If there is an omnipotent deity, there is no way we can exclude or include it in research design." However, this exact type of scientific research is published in peer-reviewed journals consistently. An example is a paper published in the 1999 volume of the Journal of Archived Internal medicine titled, "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit."2

The genuine problem with Eugenie Scott’s contention of limiting scientific study only to naturalistic processes is that the definition of science today incorrectly accepts a much broader scope. Science today claims that every observation must be explained by naturalistic processes and therefore concludes that there is no such thing as miracles or an omnipotent deity. By embracing this expanded definition, science has now completely overstepped its authority in attempting to explain the natural world.

Science can revert back to the more limited definition of only studying known naturalistic processes, but this assertion must be supplemented with the recognition that science is not capable of explaining the natural world in its entirety. The "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson clearly attempts to use the limited definition of science by teaching that there is no naturalistic explanation or mechanism for macroevolution and consequently reveals why the militant pro-evolutionists are hyperventilating.

The atheist wing of the evolutionist community desires the more expanded definition of science because it demands the teaching of a natural world completely devoid of an omnipotent deity. The more limited scientific definition does not teach of a deity, but it correctly recognizes that if a naturalistic explanation does not exist for a given observation, then it is irresponsible to invoke some pseudoscientific extrapolation that has no basis in the scientific method.

http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/oped03.html

I'm sure Dr. Scott doesn't have an agenda.

[jec41]

placemarker

[visually_augmented]

From the article: "Since evolution has been the dominant theory of biology for more than a century, it's a safe statement that all of the wonderful innovations in medicine and agriculture that we derive from biological research stem from the theory of evolution."

This is a ludicrous statement! If you look to journalist such as this to defend your beliefs, you need to look farther...

Is this author trying to say that we would not have medical nor agricultural science today if not for the theory of evolution?? That is a tough pill to swallow. Do you agree with that statement??

[microgood]

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."

My high school biology teacher made sure no girls in our class would ever go into a biology related field. He made them cut up frogs and grasshoppers and prick their fingers to get blood out of them. He enjoyed watching them squirm. I seriously doubt any girl that class remembered the evolution part.

[JCEccles]

I know, I know, the Times is a commie rag. But science isn't left or right

Darwinism is goofball science, and it's way to the wacky left.

[onedoug]

Thanks for the ping.

There yet seems more suggestion than show, though interesting within the fossil record.

Then there's always reproduction, which couldn't have evolved since it had to work from the beginning.

[hosepipe]

[ Thorp emphasizes the practical applications of evolution, writing, "creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does," and citing several specific examples. ]

So then; most/many churches are NOT businesses?..
How many empolyees do American churches have?..
How big are their payrolls?..

No commercial application is silly.. or disinformation..
How much property(of all kinds) do American churchs control(own)?..

Thorp is delusional.. I've mentioned a small portion of America church economic impact.. Whether Evos worship the protein manipulator God is another issue.. completely..

[bahblahbah]

"Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?"

WTH, can't mom and dad scientists do their own teaching. End public education and STFU.

[mlc9852]

Ping - just in case you're bored this afternoon. LOL

[lonestar67]

Why should individuals try to intelligently design cures for such diseases?

Wouldn't it be better to let such cures evolve through random selection?

I am intrigued as to the motives scientists might have for interfering with such natural processes.

:)

[Gritty]

Thorp is chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina

I'm embarrassed this man is from my state.

[shuckmaster]

"creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does,"

Actually, there's good money to be made in deliberately keeping people ignorant about science as the proliferation of charlatan book writers and lying creationist tape sellers and donation collectors demonstrate. I agree with the op-ed writer that it's the students who are deprived of an honest education who eventually suffer economically.

Teaching school students creationist anti-evolution lies is a form of child abuse and should criminally punished as such.

[VadeRetro]

But science isn't left or right, and there's nothing patriotic about ignorance.

There is now an' Satan's gonna gitchew, commie boy!

[Elpasser]

Yes, I always form MY opinions based on what the NYT and its columnists think. How 'bout you?

[connectthedots]

So evolution has some pretty exciting applications (like food), and I'm guessing most people would prefer antibiotics developed by someone who knows the evolutionary relationship of humans and bacteria.

A conclusion not supported by the facts.

Has nothing to do with the evolutionist's claims concerning common descent/universdal common descent. And it certainly says nothing about macro-evolution.