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 ...
Which came first, the mountains or the mollusks?
Mollusks come first in my dictionary. And in my history book.
Interesting question.
You have forgotten the fundamental rule of debate with creationists: creationists define all of the terms. They define what is meant by "Christian", they define what is meant by "science", they define what is meant by "evolution", and you are not allowed to challenge them on any of these definitions. Moreover, they do not have to tell you what these definitions are until they want to beat you over the head with them, and they are allowed to change the definitions (without warning) at will.
Was that really necessary? I mean, a couple years ago a bunch of guys drank cyanide in hopes of hitching a ride on a passing comet. Do things like this need examination in detail?
However, they never define: "kind"!
> the fundamental rule of debate with creationists: creationists define all of the terms
Indeed. Very... Kerry-esque. "War criminal" one day means "war hero" the next...
Based on the "arguements" often used, I suspect that more than a few of the louder Creationists are actually DUers, here to disillusion reasonable people with the Conservative movement. Make Conservatives look like... well, like Creationists, and you might not win people over to the Dem side, but you might drive people away from the Republicans. And that's good enough.
> a couple years ago a bunch of guys drank cyanide in hopes of hitching a ride on a passing comet.
Evolution in action.
You have no evidence against the Heaven's Gate theory of advancing to the next stage by hitching a ride on a comet. It's a good theory. As good as creationism. It should be in the schools. Let the children decide. Why are you afraid of open debate? Isn't your faith in satanic science strong enough?
> a creationist can just say that any mutations that we've not observed are the limits to "kinds".
You have almost assuredly come across those who claim that the Neanderthal, Homo Erectus , etc. skeletons are signs not of different species of humans, but of genetic variation in "normal" humans. You know, just like all those *other* Nenderthals and Homo Erecti we see walking around all the time.....
In all seriousness... only 50% or thereabouts of those who can vote do. One does not ened to drive many people into apathy in order to effect the outcome of an election...
I never asked him about Neanderthal, Homo Erectus or the others. He had already stunned me with his utter ignorance by asserting the "six kinds of evolution" as described in the Chick tract "Big Daddy" (asserting that I was ignorant for not "knowing" that the theory of evolution covers the formation of the cosmos) that I knew that he was too stupid to be trusted with the bigger details.
RUN AWAY SCREAMING!!!
> I was ignorant for not "knowing" that the theory of evolution covers the formation of the cosmos
You know, that raises a point: Creationists complain that evolution is taught in school. But clearly it isn't, when peopel beleive that dribble.
How about we *actually* teach kids what evolution is, not some weird, mutant definition of the word?
Yup.
Dogmatic placemarker
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.