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 year’s 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 minister’s 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 Colic’s order was a move by Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica to bolster his conservative party’s 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 ...
The real question is "Why do Creationists feel so threatned by observation?"
You have a hard time conceeding that Galileo was a Christian, don't you? You have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that he was both a Christian *and* a scientist.
My point is about science and Christianity, not about "establishment"....
Aristotle -- not a Christian, obviously -- believed the universe was finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center. It was Galileo -- a Christian man -- who further investigated Copernicus' theories, and proclaimed them loudly as true.
My point is that in the one example that you pointed out, it was the non-Christian perspective that was un-scientific, and the Christian perspective that was very scientific.
That you continue to insist that Christians are incapable of practicing good science is not only getting boring, but is unfounded and unsupportable.
> You here compare several ideologies to a 20th century comedian/author's works of fiction.
Nope.
You're quite good at "reaching," aren't you. And I'll note that you never once addressed my rather simple and complete trouncing of your notion that "without the Scriptures, Creationism is a non-issue."
Nice diversionary tactics. Now, are you going to actually try to debate, or are you going to continue being irrelevant?
> You have a hard time conceeding that Galileo was a Christian, don't you?
Uhhhhh.... what?
> Aristotle -- not a Christian, obviously -- believed the universe was finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center.
Aristarchos of Samos. Pagan. Look him up.
> you continue to insist that Christians are incapable of practicing good science
What the *hell* are you blathering about? Where have you seen me post anything of the kind?
Man. What is it with Creationists? They see things that just aren't there, and then wrap their worldviews around those phantoms. Your bizarro-world claim that I said somethign akin to "Christians are incapable of practicing good science" is just so far from anything I've actually said, it's hard to come up with a response.
Take a look at Genesis 1. Throughout that chapter, we read the phrase "each according to its kind." The plants produced seeds which produced more plants "each according to its kind." God created the animals "each according to its kind." That phrase is repeated so often in Genesis 1 that it's as though the author (or "Author," if you will) is intentionally trying to point out that it was through this specific creation of species, and not through a process of "evolution," that he brought plants and animals into being.
Variation within species, of course. But not between "kinds," according to Genesis.
Scripture is not compatible with evolution. That's one reason we Christians resist the theory of evolution -- not only does evidence support creationism, but the theory of evolution is just not compatible with Scripture.
Another odd point -- if you're not familiar with Scripture, you may not realize that Genesis has plants created on the 3rd day and the sun and moon and stars created on the 4th day. That *definitely* is not compatible with evolutionary thinking.
I challenge you to read Scripture -- there's some bewildering stuff in there. Consider the "firmament," for example: that antedeluvian layer of water hovering in the atmophere that later fell during the Great Flood....
"And I'll note that you never once addressed my rather simple and complete trouncing of your notion that "without the Scriptures, Creationism is a non-issue."
That's because I agree with you. Given the wide scope this debate has taken, that argument was far too narrow.
"Now, are you going to actually try to debate, or are you going to continue being irrelevant?"
Intimidation. Good try. I don't scare easily. What's next? Are you going to "tell mommy" that I'm not being nice? (That's called "baiting")
And I'll note that you never once addressed my rather simple and complete trouncing of your methodologies. You only switch insults.
> That's because I agree with you.
Finally, some progress.
> I don't scare easily.
Nor do you debate. Divert, divert, divert...
> And I'll note that you never once addressed my rather simple and complete trouncing of your methodologies.
That's because my debating style is not the topic of debate.
Your posts have included such things as this:
Going back to Creationism would be like going back to believing in an Earth-centered universe. Abandoning reason for madness.
In those two sentences you are clearly saying that those who believe a Creator brought about "all this" cannot be practitioners of good science.
> That's one reason we Christians resist the theory of evolution
"We Christians." What an interesting phrase. Meaning those Christians who accept the fact of evolution aren't Christians?
> Genesis has plants created on the 3rd day and the sun and moon and stars created on the 4th day. That *definitely* is not compatible with evolutionary thinking.
Nor is it compatible with reason. it is, however, compatible with poor authoring, which speaks to the factual accuracy of the account.
> that antedeluvian layer of water hovering in the atmophere that later fell during the Great Flood....
I LOVE that bit! Yes, we've all seen miles-thick layers of water hovering in the sky, blocking all sunlight...
"Nor do you debate. Divert, divert, divert... "
"my debating style is not the topic of debate."
I've said several times that is exactly what I'm calling you on. Now, you're diverting the issue.
> In those two sentences you are clearly saying that those who believe a Creator brought about "all this" cannot be practitioners of good science.
ERRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing.
A person can quite easily be both a "good Christian" and a "good scientist." Can quite easily believe that a Creator brought about "all this," through natural forces including evolution.
A Creationist can even be a good scientist. Just not in the field of biology and paleontology, of course, just as an astrologer might make a fantastic linguist, but a lousy astrophysicist.
But Creationism, like astrology, is bunk, and will always be bunk. It is not only not supported by the evidence, it is *contradicted* by the evidence.
You are waste of time. You have nothing to add.
"You are waste of time. You have nothing to add."
Rather than abandon despicable methods, you continue. Now, when you cannot convince the other side to be silenced, you denounce them a irrelevant couched in two direct personal attacks.
So then where are the living dinosaurs, wooley mammoths, and saber tooth tigers? Why haven't we found fossils of modern cows, horses, and people? Reproduction according to "kind" is certainly consistent with evolution. In fact, if we observed, for example, a cow giving birth to a dog, this would be an observation that REFUTES evolution. Evolution states that variations among species are small, but that over a long time small variations accumulate into large ones. Evolution is only inconsistent with literal interpretation of the Bible. BTW, I have read the scripture and am familiar with it. I just stated the truth that I am not an expert on it; I can't quote Biblical references from memory, for example. I also am a Christian and I disagree with you that Christians in general resist evolution. Also, the creation of plants before the sun is just inconsitent with the basic facts of plant physiology, ie plants need light to survive, but is irrelevant to evolution. Evolution, in a very simplified nutshell, simply states that life changes.
First, I never said that. There is an enormous difference between between minor or even moderate adaptations within a species and one species changing to another.
> you denounce them a irrelevant
I calls 'em like I sees 'em. If you have anything useful to add, go for it.
You have freepmail.
"I calls 'em like I sees 'em. If you have anything useful to add, go for it"
Another "double-dog-dare" eh? Your behavior really speaks for itself, even if you refuse to recognize it.
I couldn't agree more. But try this; why not examine creationist theory with the same "objectivity" as you examine evolution? All I am seeing from most people who support evolution is that they are determined that any other theory not even see the light of day. Hardly a scientific attitude. From the rest of your statement, I'm not sure you understand what creationist are saying or how they refute evolution. I don't claim to be a creationist expert, but when I compare it to evolution, I see their point. You may decide otherwise. No problem here but how can you decide if it is censored?
Thanks. The name of the movement was on the tip of my tongue, but for the life of me I couldn't bring it out.
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.