Posted on 09/07/2004 12:47:31 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Serbian Education Minister Ljiljana Colic has ordered schools to stop teaching children the theory of evolution for this year, and to resume teaching it in future only if it shares equal billing with creationism.
The move has shocked educators and textbook editors in the formerly communist state, where religion was kept out of education and politics and was only recently allowed to enter the classroom.
(Darwinism) is a theory as dogmatic as the one which says God created the first man, Colic told the daily Glas Javnosti.
Colic, an Orthdox Christian, ordered that evolution theory be dropped from this years biology course for 14- and 15-year-olds in the final grade of primary school. As of next year, both creationism and evolution will be taught, she said.
Creationism teaches that a supernatural being created man and the universe. Most scientists regard creation science as religious dogma, not empirical science.
[Snip here, because I don't know if we can reproduce all of this material.]
Belgrade University biology lecturer Nikola Tucic called the education ministers ruling a disaster.
This is outrageous ... We are slowly turning into a theocratic state and in the 21st century we are going back to the Book of Revelations, Tucic told Glas Javnosti, referring to the final section of the Christian Bible.
[Another snip here.]
Lecturer Tucic suspected Colics order was a move by Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica to bolster his conservative partys flagging political strength by winning church support.
This was a political decision which clearly shows the church is not minding its own business, but is deep into politics, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Science obviously contains some measure or kind of truth, otherwise it would not have such formidable predictive power or generate such wonderful technologies. It has therefore been a natural and laudable quest on the part of educated Christians to try and find some way of resolving the apparent contradictions between science and Christianity. Indeed, this is a necessity of our faith. For if the universe is one and created by one God, we must believe that the truths of the faith and the final conclusions of science (if such there can ever be) are compatible. To believe otherwise leads to a kind of epistemological Manicheism postulating two kinds of mutually impenetrable universes which cannot be comprehended from a single viewpoint, or, alternatively, to atheism or a kind of solipsistic Buddhism according to which one of the two realms is considered to be illusory.
Thus Fr. Seraphim Rose writes: Even though revealed knowledge is higher than natural knowledge, still we know that there can be no conflict between true revelation and true natural knowledge. But there can be conflict between revelation and human philosophy, which is often in error. There is thus no conflict between the knowledge of creation contained in Genesis, as interpreted for us by the Holy Fathers, and the true knowledge of creatures which modern science has acquired by observation; but there most certainly is an irreconcilable conflict between the knowledge contained in Genesis and the vain philosophical speculation of modern scientists, unenlightened by faith, about the state of the world in the Six Days of Creation.
Even when we are not talking about the vain philosophical speculation of scientists, there is no reason why the major hypotheses of modern science have to be accepted uncritically. First, science is hypothetical in essence; it proclaims no certainties; what is declared to be a self-evident law of nature in one generation is denounced as only an approximation of the truth or (more usually) simply false in the next. Secondly, several of the major hypotheses of science appear to contradict each other, at least in the opinion of significant sections of the scientific community - for example, the time-reversible laws of quantum physics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Since this is the case, there is no need to concede to the scientific world-view more than it claims for itself (in the mouths of its more honest and intelligent spokesmen). Otherwise we fall into the trap which so many non-scientific Christians have fallen into of immediately accepting the latest scientific fashion and adapting one's faith to it, only to find that science has moved on and left their "modernised faith" as an out-of-date relic. This has been the fate of the "Christian Marxists" and "theist evolutionists", who in trying slavishly to adapt Christianity to the latest and least credible fashion in science show themselves to be neither Christians nor scientists.
> Your comments are like Michael Moore's most recent movie
Blah, blah, blah. I like a good flyting as much as the next fella, but that was just lame.
> I'm really not sure what you're adding to what I'd commented on
Pointing out the obvious: just as Galileo was opposed by the Establishment, and eventually overcame it (even thought in later years his theories and ideas were adjusted as new data came in), Darwin was opposed by the Establishment, and eventually overcame it (even thought in later years his theories and ideas were adjusted as new data came in).
Going back to Creationism would be like going back to believing in an Earth-centered universe. Abandoning reason for madness.
You clearly know absolutely nothing about bioinformatics. Everything that has been observed about DNA sequences is compatible with the theory of evolution. It's true that there are ways that small amounts of genetic information can be transferred by bacteria and viruses into higher order species, but knowledge of these mechanisms has not "killed off evolution". I'm guessing that you have no training in science and your none of your "hundreds of links" is to an article in a scientific journal.
When did schools start teaching Darwinism as gospel? I wonder what the history of it is.
Asserting that he is wrong when he's clearly in the right makes you look not only ignorant, but stubbornly so.
Obviously you didn't read the thread of those replies. Appearances are in the eye of the beholder and may reveal more about his ignorance than what he beholds. There is no law of evolution.
And why we shouldn't live in fear of The Coming of the Great White Hanky.
I dunno. Christ did say to sell everything you have and give it to the poor. His disciples did pool their resources and share them in common. He took from those who had (the lad with the five loaves and two fishes) and gave to those who had not (the multitude).
There is an entire branch of communism in Latin America based upon the tenets of Christ.
Acts:
2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
I find it curious that those who say "it's good to have debate; let's hear all the alternatives" would probably have a seizure if their church started, in this spirit, to give a biology professor time during church services to teach evolution. They want equal time in science classes, but not equal time for evolution in church. I don't know for sure that creationism is wrong, but I DO know it isn't science and shouldn't be taught as science.
That's because evolution is the ONLY theory (in the scientific sense). Again people are failing to understand exactly what constitutes a theory in science. I have no problem with the teaching of creationism. Just don't teach it as science. It is not science and never will be. Science is incapable of addressing questions that deal with supernatural phenomena.
So then life has always been the same from the time of creation until today? If that's the case, then why don't we find any fossils that appear to be modern cows, horses, people, etc.? If it's not true that life has been the same since the time of creation, then by definition life has evolved. Therefore the theory of evolution must be true (at least in its general principles, not necessarily in its details).
"And you are...?"
... pointing out the methods of persuasion you employ. The above sounds snobbishly like: "How dare you question my _____?"
"Again, we're back to you not being able to prove that the universe was not sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure."
Again, I have not stated my views on the origin of the universe or man. Nor have I considered moving the Bible to the fiction section beside the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
In your last post, you blast Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Greeks, ancient Egyptians and more because they don't fully agree with you. I'm left wondering if there is anyone that you DO like. This tactic is the familiar leftist: "If you don't agree with me, then you're stupid."
Should you bother to reply, I'll be expecting either a more direct personal assault or sneering sarcasm.
Exactly! Far from being something to criticize science for, this is an example of science at its best. Newton's laws were accepted for hundreds of years until evidence was found to refute them. Dalton's indivisible atomic theory was the basis of chemistry for a long time until J.J. Thompson discovered the electron. This is the entire essence of science. One bad observation can completely kill a theory. The same is certainly true of evolution. Creationists state that since we never see a cow turn into a person, that evolution can't be true. Actually, if we DID see cows turn into people, that would be an observation that would falsify evolution. Evolution predicts that large changes should not occur, but that many small changes can build up to produce large varieties of life. This is just one, admittedly unlikely, example of a prediction that could result in the falsification of evolution. The existence of such falifiablilty is what makes evolution a science. What falsifiable predictions does creationism make?
> The above sounds snobbishly like: "How dare you question my _____?"
No, it sounds more like: "And you are...?" You suggested I dropped a dialog with you. I don't know who the hell you are; there was no previous dialog between me and you in this thread.
> In your last post, you blast Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Greeks, ancient Egyptians and more because they don't fully agree with you.
I suggest you read it again, in context with the statement I was responding to: "I ask you, without the Scripture, does not Creationism become a non-issue?" I pointed out the blisteringly obvious point that one does not have to be a Christian to be a Creationist. There are as many Creation myths as there are religions. You make the insulting suggestion that only "the Scriptures" are relevant to Creationism. They aren't.
I double-dog dare you to point out precisely where I "blasted" those other religions in that post.
> I'll be expecting either a more direct personal assault or sneering sarcasm.
Yawn.
Your form of debate is very odd. You take virtually everything out of context, and then start yelling victimhood.
Evolution does NOT teach that there is no creator or that God is irrelevant. Evolution says nothing about God. I keep seeing creationist post things like "why are you so threatened by creationism?" I would turn it around and ask why are creationists so threatened by a theory which is wholly consistent with creationism and makes no statements that in any way deal with God or creation. Evolution theory, boiled down to its basic principles, states simply that life changes over time. I'm not an expert on the Bible, but where in the Bible does it say that organisms are eternally unchanging? Even if God created a single cell and that cell evolved into all of the varied life that now exists, wouldn't you still say that God created all the life that now exists? I would certainly say so. The problem is that this is not science because supernatural explanations are not possible in science. The right answer is to teach evolution is science class and to teach creationism in church. Since they are not incompatible, there should be no problem with this.
You add nothing to the debate except rather weak insults, not at all witty.
"I double-dog dare you to point out precisely where I "blasted" those other religions in that post."
-=-=-
(Ask the Muslims. Ask the Raelians. Hell, ask the Asatruar, the Hindus, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. If you want to argue that the universe was popped into being with humans fully formed by some god or other, first you have to demonstrate the supernatural origin... AND THEN prove which god did it.
Again, we're back to you not being able to prove that the universe was not sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.)
-=-=-
You here compare several ideologies to a 20th century comedian/author's works of fiction. "Blasting" is a pretty good term for that.
>>I'll be expecting either a more direct personal assault or sneering sarcasm.
> Yawn.
> Your form of debate is very odd. You take virtually everything out of context, and then start yelling victimhood.
Both then. And no, predicting the tone of your words is not "yelling victimhood", it is foresight which comes from having had to deal with debating methods like yours before.
The historical roots of liberation theology are to be found in the prophetic tradition of evangelists and missionaries from the earliest colonial days in Latin America....
Liberation Theology is definitely a Communist movement derived directly (if not correctly) from Christianity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.