Free Republic Poll on Evolution

Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

[Heartlander]

Scientists divide into two schools of thought over the best tactics with which to face the threat. The Neville Chamberlain ‘appeasement’ school, as I have called it in my book, focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease ‘moderate’ or ‘sensible’ religion (not a difficult task, for bishops and theologians despise fundamentalists as much as scientists do). Scientists of the Winston Churchill school, by contrast, see the fight for evolution as only one battle in a larger war: a looming war between supernaturalism on the one side and rationality on the other. For them, bishops and theologians belong with creationists in the supernatural camp, and are not to be appeased.
- Dick Dawkins

[Liberal Classic]

Alas, I suspect that you realize that "educated" has been defined as "agrees with EVOS!"

Tell us more about crop circles, won't you please?

That's just what the Republican part should be known for: Weird-science UFO nonsense.

[editor-surveyor]

Crop circles are not 'wierd science,' they are elaborate pranks.

[Liberal Classic]

For once, we agree.

[js1138]

Wow.

[Liberal Classic]

In recent weeks, many of the advocates of intelligent design that I have run into seem to hold somewhat, uh, unorthodox views. We have the abiogenic oil folks, the UFO buffs, newage-healing advocates, the anti-Papists, Darwin caused the Holocaust crowd, etc.

It is my position modern conservatism should be joined at the hip with modern science. I reject these fringe viewpoints, as being unscientific or too conspiratorial.

In the words of Barry Goldwater:

I cherish a day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who - unafraid and undaunted - pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment and produce the inventive engines of production, science, and technology.

[Dimensio]

Szent-Györgyi clearly stated that when pure ascorbic acid was administered, it could not cure scurvy.

You are not representing the statement accurately. The finding was that "pure ascorbic acid" produced "no response". This is a problem with absorption, not because ascorbic acid is not vitamin C.

[editor-surveyor]

"We have the abiogenic oil folks..."

You should cut them some slack, they just made the biggest oil strike in 30 years in the gulf due to their perseverance. They will now go for the gold ring on some really deep holes into the 'methane' zone. You may believe that it isn't there, but who has the capital?

[Virginia-American]

... No animal has yet been identified that produces a single one of the polyphenols that constitute 'vitamin C' even though some of them do produce ascorbic acid. How any of this could support the failed theory of evolution is beyond me. You are reaching in the dark. ...

All mammals produce ascorbic acid except for guinea pigs, primates, and a couple of species of fruit bat.

The evidence supporting normal biology (ie common descent) is the fact that all the primates could make ascorbic acid if a single base pair were added to their genomes. This is hard to account for in creationism or ID-ism: why insert something into a genome that almost, but not quite, works?

Whatever role polyphenols play in nutrition, the fact that one enzyme needed for ascorbic acid synthesis is missing in the primates, and that there is a stretch of primate DNA that could code for the enzyme, if a single base pair was inserted, won't go away. It has a simple and obvious explanation in normal biology, but not in creationism or other forms of ID.

[editor-surveyor]

No, you are twisting the facts. The essence of all the articles is the same, even the ones you linked: the bioflavinoids are the key to the effect. There is no problem with absorbtion of ascorbic acid, but by itself it only cures constipation (in the most dramatic way!). In large IV doses (10 gm. /hour) it's also often effective against colon cancer, but not against scurvy.

[Heartlander]

It is my position modern conservatism should be joined at the hip with modern science. I reject these fringe viewpoints, as being unscientific or too conspiratorial.

But evolution and ‘current science’ explains everything:

4. Evolution explains family values. The following characteristics are the foundation of families and societies and are shared by humans and other social mammals: attachment and bonding, cooperation and reciprocity, sympathy and empathy, conflict resolution, community concern and reputation anxiety, and response to group social norms. As a social primate species, we evolved morality to enhance the survival of both family and community. Subsequently, religions designed moral codes based on our evolved moral natures.

5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts. Much of Christian morality has to do with human relationships, most notably truth telling and marital fidelity, because the violation of these principles causes a severe breakdown in trust, which is the foundation of family and community. Evolution describes how we developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust. Likewise, truth telling is vital for trust in our society, so lying is a sin.
Michael Shermer

Now, I realize that some might view this as a parody. But I see no hint of that. In fact, Shermer writes, "Because the theory of evolution provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives, it should be embraced."

On the other hand, others might take issue with Shermer's argument. But I see something else. Y'see, when Shermer speaks of "evolution," he is talking about the findings of modern science. In other words, this hardcore skeptic, writing in the pages of Scientific American, has felt compelled to concede that modern science supports conservative Christianity!

With the backing of science and evolution, perhaps some public school board out there may one day begin looking for ways to more explicitly re-introduce family values and specific Christian moral precepts into the curriculum, along with some specific advocacy of conservative free-market economics, since these are not rooted in religion, but instead are derived from science and its understanding of evolution.

Who needs the Wedge when you can just cite Shermer and Scientific American?

Oh, the irony.
From telicthoughts

[Liberal Classic]

No, no they didn't. Neither the Prudhoe Bay or Kealthey Canyon discoveries were made by geologists utilizing abiogenic oil "theories".

[Liberal Classic]

But evolution and ‘current science’ explains everything

Red herring. No one says this.

Modern conservatism should be strongly allied with modern science.

[Dimensio]

The essence of all the articles is the same, even the ones you linked: the bioflavinoids are the key to the effect.

Bioflavinoids are not Vitamin C. Bioflaviniods are added to Vitamin C because various companies claim that it makes ingestion of Vitamin C more effective.

[caffe]

Perhaps if you look at your post directed to me, you'll note that it's dripping with condescension.

Perhaps you would share a definition of theory to which you agree.

[freedumb2003]

Perhaps if you look at your post directed to me, you'll note that it's dripping with condescension.

My browser doesn't go back that far. I only condescend to those who deserve it.

Perhaps you would share a definition of theory to which you agree.

I understand TToE. I also no of no scientific "alternatives" to it.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Are you still on this kick that Vitamin C is not Absorbic acid?

Good grief, well, can't say you're not energetic.

Too bad all that energy is going into something that is fundamentally nonsense.

[Heartlander]

Deal with the article from Scientific American – “Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution”

Morality, values, conservatism, etc…

[Liberal Classic]

No one says science has all the answers. That's a red herring.

[freedumb2003]

With the backing of science and evolution, perhaps some public school board out there may one day begin looking for ways to more explicitly re-introduce family values and specific Christian moral precepts into the curriculum, along with some specific advocacy of conservative free-market economics, since these are not rooted in religion, but instead are derived from science and its understanding of evolution.

Got strawman? (I know you are quoting but the author is being quite disingenuous). The fact the article suggests that TToE supports Christian morality doesn't mean that Christianity should be introduced into school. Mathematics supports the ability to make weapons. It doesn't follow we should teach Islam in school.