Please don't parse. I post comments in individual posts for their related value.<quoted text>
It has certainly been politicized by evangelical Christians who cannot win this "debate" in the science journals or the courts, and so resort they try to create a media "controversy" about evolution where none exists in science.
Why do we NEED to "allow it to proceed un molested"? The weather patterns are also "rules of nature," yet we do our human best to counteract them when it is in our interest, i.e. watering crops when it is dry or in drought.
No, I think the problem here is that you don't seem to grasp that evolution is a fact observed by science, not a philosophy or worldview or behavioral prescription pushed by science or by others.
There may be a few scientists who are militant atheists and have grown so tired of being lied about and misrepresented by Christian creationists that they have pushed back with pro-atheism books and lectures, but the findings of science with regard to evolution are NOT a philosophy to be lived by, but an observation of what occurs.
First, I am sure that I've clearly stated that Evangelicals are political, or motivated by personal gain. There's not much of a difference there anyway. My point is that many people have been posting pro-Evolution comments but denying their political nature. Sorry, when it gets down to the name-calling without provocation, I'm calling it that way.
Most importantly: "I think the problem here is that you don't seem to grasp that evolution is a fact observed by science" is wrong, wrong, wrong and WRONG! Evolution is a statistical observation. Extinction is the FACT associated with Evolution. Evolution is a symptom of selective extinction. Some species cannot adapt and therefore they die. Some do survive, and we have a rather ambiguous theory that is always being revised to explain the process of adaptation.
What you "clearly" don't understand is that I'm a supporter of Evolution. But it IS a theory and there are no guarantees.
Now...... apply what we've learned. I'm not talking about forces of physical nature, although things like global warming do have a political perspective. I'm talking about the nasty, unpopular things like Welfare, Abortion, or perhaps food programs for starving countries. That is, yes, very political. There is a very significant ethical consideration involved in these political decisions.
Do we send food to our enemies?
Do we provide free abortions rather than jobs or money that target one particular racial group?
Do we provide welfare to negligent people who won't voluntarily take on the fiscal responsibility of birth control?(i.e. abstinence, if you let miserly fundamentalists decide)
Do we create an economic motivator to encourage the rest of our country to provide employment to these people rather than "let 'em burn"?
Finally, I did throw in a idea that elements of genetics are not evolutionary in nature. Simple hybridization creates strategies that are genetically true unless you can bind the combined traits onto one gene to be passed on through meiosis. My example was a theoretical one that would include traits that may measure in the thousands, making it virtually impossible to all be on one gene passed on to progeny.
Sorry. I write some long posts and probably a lot of people don't want the refresher. Now you can post in context.
Ethics, politics. Deal with it!