Serbia strikes blow against evolution [education]

MSNBC.com ^ | 07 September 2004 | Staff

[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.

[longshadow]

It's like old times. I still marvel at the glorious coincidence of so many wonderful new freepers showing up at the same time in the same thread. It's almost as incredible as the odds against a strand of DNA flying together from the random movements of atoms from all over the galaxy, or maybe a 747 emerging after a tornado in a junkyard. Such things are impossible, say the creos, unless planned. It makes for interesting speculation.

A very nice analysis, but can you predict which one of them will be first to claim that Saturn used to hover over the North pole, reducing the "felt effect of gravity," that pets are psychic, that Venus used to bounce around the solar system like a celestial billiard ball, and that a crank professor connected with the "scripturally-inspired" "LENT-1" free-energy/elemental trans-muter scam of the "Cincinnati Group" {whose web-site suddenly disappeared off the internet just before they were about to start selling "home version" kits of their device for $2999) was "one of America's best mathematicians"?

[jennyp]

However, they never define: "kind"!

Bryan College's Baraminology Study Group is trying to come up with a definition of just that. I haven't checked their site lately, so I don't know if they ever made any progress on that front. IIRC, they hadn't gotten past their initial attempts to agree on simple definitions of their terms.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps they could start with "ilk" (a large deer?) first.

[js1138]

They could use an Alethiometer.

[Junior]

Placemarker (this thread's not nearly as much fun as the Jenna Jamison thread).

[PatrickHenry]

... but can you predict which one of them will be first to claim that Saturn used to hover over the North pole ...

Yes, I'm pretty sure I can. I also predicted (to myself) that when I posted the list of them, they'd all run back into their closet. And they seem to have done that.

[Conservative til I die]

Should we also debate Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, or the Laws of Thermodynamics?

No, since as has been stated elsewhere, these are LAWS, and not theories at this point.

Debating these would be as futile as debating whether 1+1 really equals 2.

At some point in science, you realize that something works, and is a fact, and further debate on it is ridiculous.

You just proved my point.

Evolution reached that point long ago.

Says who?

See, this is my problem with evolutionists, though I have no dog in this fight and think Young Earth Creationism is on the level of snake-handling.

Evolutionists are as much dogmatic as any religionist. To say that the matter is essentially closed, and the only scientific inquiry necessary is a couple of details around the fringes, to me, is simply anti-scientific itself.

Closing off debate like that impedes scientific progress. An article I read recently that seems to illustrate this point is one on why we're actually LOSING the fight on cancer. It's because the medical establishment has done three things: 1) Lives and dies behind the idea of testing on mice and other animals. While testing is important, they've created dogma that what works on animals will work on humans in the same way. Not the case, historically speaking. 2) Gotten itself into the self-fulfilling cycle of relying on focusing on being published in a journal. That's how one gets money, but in order to get published one has to stay within the generally accepted principles of the field, which of course means that the funding goes towards the paper's topics, which are usually the "fine details."

3)Bases success on survival time. While extending life is noble and should not be frowned upon, this is a weak measure of success. The focus should be on the cure, on eradication, on new means of attacking the disease before it can progress, and maybe even before it can appear on tests (almost like a vaccine).

I know I'm a little off on a tangent here and maybe bit off more than I can chew, but the general idea I'm trying to get across is that to say there's only one way of doing things and the work that should be done is on the fine details will have a worse effect than considering suspect ideas.

Now, any idea should be treated with caution and anything that's obvious junk should be discarded (e.g., a scientist proposing "spontaneous generation" in the 21st Century), but if a new idea seems reasonable it should be encouraged, not discouraged because it doesn't meet with what is commonly accepted. IOW, scientists can be just as biased, just as protective of ideas profitable to them in terms of notoriety, wages, and funding, and just as willing to protect their cherished ideas at the expense of progress as anyone else. You can't change human nature.

[Conservative til I die]

Creationism is mythology, not theory

No, it's a theory. Almost anything can be a theory. There's nothing good or bad about a theory. A theory itself is just an idea. Words on paper.

Proof, facts, and evidence are what's important.

[Dimensio]

No, since as has been stated elsewhere, these are LAWS, and not theories at this point.

"LAWS" are not the same as theories. Laws and theories serve different purposes. There is a common but false belief amongst laypeople that a theory eventually becomes law. This is not the case. A scientific law never has been "theories" and a scientific theory will never become a "law".

Moreover, scientific laws are not set in stone. It is entirely possible that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed and will need revision or replacement. Newton's Laws of Motion were found to be lacking and had to be updated when new information was obtained. As such, your reply shows that you are not fully informed regarding the nature of scientific terms.

Says who?

Biologists who have studied it. What are your credentials?

See, this is my problem with evolutionists, though I have no dog in this fight and think Young Earth Creationism is on the level of snake-handling.

Okay, so how would you describe Young Earth Creationism?

Closing off debate like that impedes scientific progress.

Hey, if there is a valid argument against evolution theory, I'll be glad to hear it, but thus far no one has presented any.

An article I read recently that seems to illustrate this point is one on why we're actually LOSING the fight on cancer.

Citation?

It's because the medical establishment has done three things: 1) Lives and dies behind the idea of testing on mice and other animals. While testing is important, they've created dogma that what works on animals will work on humans in the same way. Not the case, historically speaking.

Well, no, that's why after animal tests, medicine moves on to clinical testing in humans. And yes, we could experiment directly on humans, but there are ethical concerns, though sometimes we do it anyway when the people involved volunteer.

If you have an alternate method, please propose it.

2) Gotten itself into the self-fulfilling cycle of relying on focusing on being published in a journal. That's how one gets money, but in order to get published one has to stay within the generally accepted principles of the field, which of course means that the funding goes towards the paper's topics, which are usually the "fine details."

In addition to this being a red herring with respect to evolution, it just asserts the presence of problems without actually proposing a viable solution.

3)Bases success on survival time. While extending life is noble and should not be frowned upon, this is a weak measure of success. The focus should be on the cure, on eradication, on new means of attacking the disease before it can progress, and maybe even before it can appear on tests (almost like a vaccine).

If you read an article that suggests that no one works toward cancer prevention, then you read an article written by an idiot.

I know I'm a little off on a tangent here and maybe bit off more than I can chew,

That's perfectly understandable given that you don't seem to understand the subject of evolution at all.

but the general idea I'm trying to get across is that to say there's only one way of doing things and the work that should be done is on the fine details will have a worse effect than considering suspect ideas.

The problem is not that we don't consider suspect ideas. The problem is that no one presents an alternative idea that can be subjected to the scientific method. Every single creationist argument against evolution that I have seen relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of escience, either a result of ignorance of the presenter or an outright lie. Every single argument that I have seen in favour of creationism of some flavour is inherently unscientific, as it cannot be tested and cannot be falsified.

[Dimensio]

No, it's a theory. Almost anything can be a theory. There's nothing good or bad about a theory. A theory itself is just an idea. Words on paper.

Okay, so you claim that creationism is a theory. Fine. State a means to test creationism theory. Predict what observations should result from this test. Provide a hypothetical event that, if observed, would falsify creationism.

[Dimensio]

Ugh...sorry. I thought that I'd screwed up the post in 210, hence the post in 211. Same principle in both posts...

[orionblamblam]

>> Creationism is mythology, not theory

> No, it's a theory.

Is it, now. Please define "theory" for us.

[Doctor Stochastic]

1+1=3 for large values of 1.

[js1138]

I just take that thread for the articles.

[Conservative til I die]

To be fair, scientific folks will say that in the true nature of science, they cannot say for certain what caused the Big Bang, since the pre-Big Bang would seemingly be outside our plane of existence as we understand it. So a God or whatever could have caused it to happen.

Now, in practice, many scientific folks do believe it's a purely scientific occurrence. Their theories allow for an oscillating universe with an infinite or finite beginning point or an open or closed universe with an infinite or finite beginning.

Without some sort of creator to set things in motion, these theories become somewhat absurd.

[js1138]

for large values of 1

>1⁷²⁰

[Doctor Stochastic]

No. A theory (in the common scientific, as opposed the common Creationist, usage) is a suggested explanation for a set of events, laws, observations, etc. A theory must be falsifiable among other criteria. Creationism cannot be falsified anymore than Last Thursdayism can.

[orionblamblam]

> To say that the matter is essentially closed, and the only scientific inquiry necessary is a couple of details around the fringes, to me, is simply anti-scientific itself.

No more than saying that the matter is essentially closed on astrology and necromancy. All ideas put up in opposition to evolution ahve failed miserably, while evolution fits the available data fantastically. It is now up to competitors to prove *their* validity.

> Closing off debate like that impedes scientific progress.

The debate on evolution is hardly closed, just as the debate on quantum mechanics is hardly closed.

> to say there's only one way of doing things and the work that should be done is on the fine details will have a worse effect than considering suspect ideas.

What competitors to evolution are there? This particular thread is about Creationism, which is pretty thoroughly debunked. If you want to trash evolution, come up with an explanation that does a better job. SO far, there isn't one.

> any idea should be treated with caution and anything that's obvious junk should be discarded

And hense, Creationisms day is long past.

> scientists can be just as biased, just as protective of ideas profitable to them in terms of notoriety, wages, and funding, and just as willing to protect their cherished ideas at the expense of progress as anyone else. You can't change human nature.

Indeed so. However, your last statement here *aids* the debate on the side of evolution. Because most people want some measure of fame and glory, scientists are no different... and scientists rarely get fame and glory by going along with the crowd. For a scientist to get fame and glory, he/she needs to come up with something revolutionary, and overturn Conventional Wisdom. Thus... if evolution was truly on a shaky foundation, biologists, paleontologists and others woudl be scrabbling to find and prove the Real Story That Overturns Evolution. They aren't. At most, they are fighting over thigns like whether T. Rex was a predator or a carrion eater, whether dinosaurs were good parents, things like that.

Scientists do not accept evolution just to go along with the crowd, but because the fact of evolution is fairly clear.... and the fact that no competing notions come close.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Of course, we have the Boolean Algebra on {0,1}.

Viz: 0+0=0, 0*0=0, 1+1=1, 1+0=1, 1*0=0.