Posted by: Lisa Pampuch | February 12, 2010


[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=charles+darwin&iid=3951364″ src=”9/a/d/d/A_Wreath_From_13d1.jpg?adImageId=10200064&imageId=3951364″ width=”416″ height=”594″ /]

Today is the 201st anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, who unlocked the mysteries of evolution. If you rely on antibiotics, vaccines, or many other marvels of modern medicine, you’ve probably got Charles Darwin to thank. Steven Newton, public information project director for the National Center for Science Education, recaps just five of the ways that modern medicine and our understanding of evolution are intertwined.

If you reject evolution, to be intellectually honest, you really ought to renounce all of modern medicine’s many advances.



  1. Can you look at inter-species evolution with an incredulous eye and still be deemed intellectually honest in your opinion?
    Most christians or evolutionary skeptics dont believe that science and religion operate in vacuums.

    • Huh?

      Big words strung together do not a sensible comment make.

      • Very Deep. Ill take that as a no.

      • Since you don’t understand this. You said, “If you reject evolution, to be intellectually honest, you really ought to renounce all of modern medicine’s many advances.”

        I said, “Can you look at inter-species evolution with an incredulous eye and still be deemed intellectually honest in your opinion?
        MEANING: Can you be skeptical of the origins of man specifically ape to man evolution and have any intellectual honesty in your opinion?

  2. I’m 100% on the evolution bandwagon. There is no question to me that the world as we know it was derived from events millions of years ago. The idea of a creation as described by religion is as plausible as getting 72 virgins when you become a martyr. That being said, who am I to tell someone else that they are wrong in their views of creation? Nothing can be definitively proven in this area. Modern medicine doesn’t have much to so with evolution. Only in the sense that viruses and the like adapt to their surrounding. Why would this not take place if creation as described by religion was reality?

    • Look, it can’t be true that millions of years of evolution are responsible for the world as we now it AND that God created the earth in 7 days 5,000 or 10,000 years ago with all the animals, plants, bacteria, minerals, that exist today. They’re mutually exclusive.

      What tells creationists that they’re wrong is evidence.

      • So your issue is strictly with “creationists” who believe in the young earth as described in Genesis?

        There are Christians and Jews that dont take the 7 days as literally though, instead deferring to time as a constant NOT under the same governing rules as we mortals. yes yes, i know thats absurd to you but im just looking for any common ground we may have. Although an all knowing, all powerful creator under the guise of Christianity and its perplexing set of rules and regs is sometimes awkward to justify, so is the idea that we are of nothing and have no consequence over simple randomly explained matter.

  3. Evolution does not claim that the universe came from nothing. However, creationism leaves unanswered the question of “Who created God?”

    My issue is with all ideologues — people who cling to a theory or world view in the face of evidence that it is wrong. Creationists ignore reams of evidence to hold onto their well-refuted theory, and worse, try to replace science with their faith-based supernatural beliefs in our public schools.

    And I’ll take your response to my other comment as an admission that you don’t even understand the words you strung together and as an admission that you’re a poseur.

  4. Lisa,

    Do you realize how condescending and angry your tone always is? I just dont get it. Im just here to challenge ideas or discuss opinions.

    Do you really believe that believing in God or A God and evolution are mutallly exclusive? If creationists have to look for who created god, are you saying that you can explain the universes creation? Or mans for that matter? You can prove this in the same manner that i can prove the existence of a creator. Neither can be done. Don’t exactly get why you take such an all or nothing approach to something so simple. Unlike what you stated, believing in God AND Science are not mutally exclusive.

    If your definition of a poseur is one to appreciates other’s opinions and doesnt claim to know everything while debating in a civil and respectful manner, then yes im a poseur.

  5. You come to my blog, lecture me, and tell me I’m condescending and angry? Ever heard of a mirror, pal?

    My definition of a poseur is someone who strings together big words hoping to sound informed, when asked to explain the meaning of the big words he strung together, doesn’t, trys to deflect the question by attacking the questioner; again, a mirror will come in handy.

    • Wow Lisa, do you even read what this guy is saying? Your inability to discuss either side intelligently and prove your point in that way is sad. It seems like your blog is only about making statements and then discrediting anyone who has a different view. I’m irritated at myself for even wasting my time reading your posts.

      • Well, that makes two of us.

        Hey look, we found something we can agree on: You’re irritating.

  6. MacGregor,

    Science is all about skepticism. It is always open to new evidence, and changes theories and hypothesis to accommodate new evidence.

    The same cannot be said of religion, like creationism, which ignores or disparages new evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: