Shoot…still no Sunny? I was hoping for a continuation of our conversation. Heck, we hadn’t even scratched the surface on just the Bald Eagle and DDT issue. True, it might have required more than a google search and a wikipedia entry to discover that the issue is much more complicated than Rachel Carson would have us believe—but it’d have been fun doing it, I think.

But if you want to know more about the issue of Bald Eagles and DDT, you can start with this:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Oh, of course we could (and would, I’m sure 🙂 quibble about certain things, but the upshot would be that Sunny would have to resort to, once again, something like:

“if we have a choice, and we do, why not…”

do whatever it is that Sunny wants us to do. It happens ever time.

Sunny…you say you’re

“…not even sure i understand the basis of your argument.”

Well, let me try to be a little clearer. I’m saying you want us to believe in evolution as long as it suits you. But then you want to inject some fuzzy, personal morality into it when it doesn’t.

You want us to believe that man is the result of an evolutionary process—a process that has resulted in the extinction of 99% of all the species that has ever existed—yet we’ve, somehow, gotten bigger than the box we came in…that we’ve, somehow, acquired paranormal powers that behooves us to defy the very process that led to our existence.

On what premise you’ve based this argument, you’ve not told us. I’ve told you I suspect you’ll have to resort to imposing some kind of personal belief system that you’ll be unable to support…and you’re disinclined to do that.

So…in order to obscure this, you’re forced to blustering nonsense like “you seem to think mainstream science is bogus”.

Of course, you have no support for that observation…but hey, fortunately, you don’t have to concern yourself with what I think about mainstream science. All you have to do is to present scientific evidence that supports your claim that evolution is true and that mankind needs to concern itself with species extinction.

Can you? I’ll be waiting…

And about Eagles and DDT? I’ve already said we would quibble about that—and we could have an open and honest discussion with open and honest disagreements about conclusions.

I could point out things like the fact that Bald Eagles were reportedly threatened decades before DDT came into the picture.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202447,00.html

And that they were already recovering by1970

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm#ref7

(there’s some other interesting information in the above article, including this little nugget:

“Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.”

Hmmmmmm…misanthropes support the ban on DDT—anyone surprised?

Dave, I don’t think I’ve ever ruled out the possibility that evolution occurs. That was/is not my intention. I know “science” is God’s handiwork and it wouldn’t bother me one bit if it turns out that evolution is the mechanism that got us where we are.

And I don’t have a problem with the theory of evolution being taught in school, either, if that surprises you. Let’s go ahead and talk about the ideas of constant speedism vs variable speedism (either discrete or continuously?).

I have no problem with that. However, I DO have a problem when the whole theory is placed in an “unquestionable” status; especially when it is done by knuckleheads like TGINDH, who wouldn’t know ecotypic from typostrophic variation—and you should have a problem with that, too.

History is filled with examples of how dangerous and inaccurate this can be. How many “mainstream” scientists thought the sun circled the earth and chastised Galileo as he propounded the heliocentric theory? And remember, the geocentric theory was but forth by giants like Aristotle—proving that even great, smart men can be wrong.

And did Christianity collapse when it was proven that the earth circled the sun? No…the truth is the truth and Christians, above all, must always seek the truth.

It does get wearisome to be lectured to (by people like Sunny—not to insult you Sunny, by any means) about microevolution—which could just as accurately be called selective breeding. They presume we’re just blindly opposing evolution because it threatens our precious belief system; they’re the modern day equivalent to the geocentric henchmen.

And YOU, my friend…who I know and like…mystify me. The Theory of Evolution is no more scientific than Greek mythology—but you won’t admit it. Why? Do you fear we’ll sink into some sort of deep, dark, religious intolerance by merely admitting that science doesn’t know everything?

Never fear, real liberals (like myself 🙂 will work just as hard to prevent that from happening as we do trying to prevent the current dominance of misanthropists. Well…perhaps you should hope we’d be a little more successful than that…LOL.
But together, I think we could prevent that from happening.

So…no, I’m not saying I think BECAUSE we have a conscience and morality that evolution is disproved; I’m saying that too many proponents have imposed THEIR conscience and morality into evolution—when it suits them, that is.

They want us to believe in evolution until interferes with their belief system. THEN they want to drag out the old “stewards of the Earth” argument with them getting to determine what stewardship means.

They want us to believe that evolution occurs through a series of random mutations and some kind of selective process—and that man is a product of this random-mutation-selective-process occurrence. Yet, when it’s pointed out that this “occurrence” has led to the extinction of 99% of all species…they want to say:

BUT WAIT…NOW WE MUST HAVE A MORALITY AND CONSCIENCE THAT PROHIBTS ANY MORE EXTINCTION.

Do you see my point? My argument? Proponent of evolution will quite gladly inject morality (THEIR morality) into the subject—while the morality of those who oppose evolution is to be absolutely rejected.

Doesn’t that sound dangerous to you? Do you want to be a part of that?

This is a great, big, beautiful world—on that, I hope we can agree; I would also hope that we can agree that we truly must be its thoughtful and careful stewards. I just happen to know this world was created for US…for our use…that we have been given dominion over all—it nor nothing else is our equal and it isn’t to be treated like something behind glass in a museum.

And besides, the “environment” has continuously changed ever since there has been an “environment”; it continually renews and replenishes itself. All for our benefit.

THAT’s the statement that will cause the environmental whackos to turn themselves inside out with rage…to stomp their little feet in fury—because it isn’t THEIR morality.

Can you do it, or not Sunny? Can you tell me how you think you can justify injecting your “morality” into the issue of evolution? I had you pegged for a Teacher…but after this:

“just tell your children to close their ears and eyes when they cover evolution in school or send them to a christian school. see, you have choices too.”

Surly not!

Because a Teacher would never say something like that, would they? I mean, that’s almost as funny as telling kids they could close their ears and eyes when a two minute statement is read suggesting students question evolution; or if they happen to hear a public prayer in school; or glance at a list of the Ten Commandment posted on a wall somewhere.

But you’re dodging the issue. (We’re still waiting for Dave to explain how the theory of evolution is scientific—and we’ve been waiting a loooooooooooooong time, haven’t we Dave?)

You see Sunny, I’m not even asking YOU to do that. All I’m asking YOU to do is tell me how—by what authority—you think you can make me worry about any other living thing on this planet?

So…can you or not?

it’s simple in my opinion, dhunley and i just don’t know how else to say it. why shouldn’t we worry about other living things on the planet? what good reason do we have not to? don’t you want your children to see and feel and smell hemlocks? do you want them to wonder what a butterfly felt like in their hand? that all may be a bit cheesy to you but really think about it. i just don’t feel that we have dominion over the earth, regardless of what is written in the good book. instead, i feel it is in our best interest to live in harmony with everything on this planet. of course, that’s tricky but it is something that is worth striving for so that all the wonderful things we’ve grown up experiencing can be conserved for future generations. to me, it’s a moral issue – it’s that simple and i think it would be a real shame if we didn’t inject some morality into an issue as important as conservation. in regards to justifying that stance, i don’t think i have to. how you can use the argument that because humans are a product of evolution that all of our actions are to be accepted without question is still a mystery to me. do you honestly believe that we are no different than any other species?

as far as the teaching of evolution in the schools is concerned, you are the one with the problem. no, i don’t think it’s right for children to not engage in anything that is being taught but you obviously have a problem with the teaching of evolution in school. so since you think we have dominion over all living things, that includes your children and you have the right to dictate what they learn and how they learn it. i was just suggesting that you could either advise them not to “buy” the theory of evolution or take them out of the public school system and expose them solely to creationism. those are your choices.

honestly, i don’t see how you can be so concerned with the holes in the theory of evolution and yet, be a self-described christian. if you want to talk about a leap of faith, how about the ascension? wine into water? i mean come on, there’s not a whole lot of “proof” there either – just a bunch of fellas who decided to get together and write a book. now, i’m not saying there is anything wrong with any religion, including christianity – what i’m saying is that it seems odd that you can be so willing to go out on a limb on religion but not on science. what are you afraid of dhunley?

nope, not a teacher. did some teaching in graduate school but that doesn’t really count. there is no way i could teach elementary, middle or high school…….i mean, i like kids and all but whew……

dhunley –

first off, i made the comment on religion to make it clear that i wasn’t attacking your or anybody else’s religious beliefs. it was not my intention to imply that the treatment of women in the muslim community is something i support. that’s not what we are talking about here, it’s a whole other can of worms.

and yes, you do have the right to withdraw your children from school if you choose to do so – it is legal. people do it all the time, be it right or wrong, though i’m not sure i would go that route but then again, i don’t have children.

as far as i know, scientists do look at evolution with a critical eye – it is constantly changing, questioned and most admit that it is the most logical explanation we have at this point. maybe someday, someone will “prove” that God set it all in motion or what have you. i don’t see anything wrong with a teacher saying “there are other theories out there” – that’s my solution to preventing anyone from feeling that they are being “forced” to believe something. what i do have a problem with is dismissing it entirely because there are holes. the Bible and creationism have more holes than anything i can think of right off hand.

i don’t believe it is my responsibility to post the facts of evolution on here – you know what they are and have made a judgement. i understand that it is not a perfect theory – how could it be? the complexity is significant and can’t be fully known in the short time in which we have been studying it. unfortunately, it is not nice and neat.

you think that God has given you dominion over the earth because it says so in the Bible, right? how scientific is the Bible? believing in God is an emotional response to our own life experiences and mortality, correct? same for me when it comes to conservation issues – it is an emotional response and i don’t think i’m alone in that arena.

let’s believe for a second that the Fox News story is correct and that eagles were declining in population before the advent of DDT. is that any justification for not trying to prevent their decimation. yes, i know that almost all the species that have ever lived are extinct but i don’t think you can compare past episodes of extinction with today’s circumstances. why? humans. we have a greater impact on the world around us than has ever been known to exist and we should be mindful of that at all times.