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 formation of precurors, principally nucleotides and amino acids, is based on the theory that the composition of earth's atmosphere was considerably different than it is today. It has not been proved and it may never be proved.
It is shown adequately well. The composition of the Earth's atmosphere required for the formation of these chemicals is virtually identical to the composition of other planetary atmospheres (such as the previously mentioned Titan). Large quantities of free oxygen in an atmosphere is virtually certain to only exist where life has made it; oxygen is obviously an aggressive oxidizer, and will readily oxidize with hydrogen to form water vapor. Since the vast bulk of the universe is hydrogen, free oxygen will very rapidly be used up in forming water and other relatively inert oxides, while still leaving a vast surplus of hydrogen and hydrogen-based reducers such as methane.
This being the case, there is no reason to assume that Earth was any different until large masses of early lifeforms turned the process on it's head and began liberating oxygen.
In our solar system, only Venus, Mars and Titan are vaguely Earth-like planets with atmospheres. Venus's atmosphere is largely nitrogen (largely inerty and non-reacting) and carbon dioxide (oxidized carbon); Mars is largely carbon dioxide; Titan is nitrogen and methane/ethane. As for the gas giants, they are overwhelmingly hydrogen and light gasses like ammonia and water vapor. Spectroscopic analysis of interstellar gas clouds shows an abundance of hydrogen, helium, methane and the like, some water vapor, and very little free oxygen.
The universe is full of fuel, and there ain't near enough oxygen to burn with it all. Free oxygen is a *product* of life, not a requirement for it's formation.
> Most evolutionists agree that the step from amino acids to RNA or DNA is a huge one they need to answer. Most mathematicians say its virtually impossible.
It's been done in the lab under early-Earth conditions. This makes it's natural occurance in a laboratory the size of Earth and given millions of years a certainty... a certainty that almost assuredly occured independently countless billions of times.
You claimed to know the difference - you didn't and apparently still don't. Theories never become Laws, Laws do not derive from theories.
Some people look at the existence of life on earth and -- notwithstanding the obvious fact of our existence -- they assume that it's impossible. Therefore, starting with that assumption, it's entirely logical for them to conclude that something miraculous must have happened to make the impossible happen. But it all hinges on the "impossibility assumption." I suggest that this creationist assumption is employed only because it forces the desired conclusion. And when you've become attached to the conclusion, it's quite natural to hold onto the initial assumption.
> The formation of etc. etc.
That was quite a leap of faith. The real evolutionist acknowledge that proving the composition of the early atmosphere is a problem. It is conjecture and the reason they looked at the space origin theory as another alternative. As for going from amino acids to RNA or DNA, it has not been done in the lab (if it has, link please and I will graciously withdraw my statement). Only the amino acids were formed in a human designed and conducted experiment. I accept the validity of the experiment, but I don't accept the underlying assumptions of the experiment without reasonable proof. Who should I believe, you or the leading evolutionists?
They realized they couldn't enter any contestants into the annual Darwin Awards if they banned Darwin, I guess.
> The real evolutionist acknowledge that proving the composition of the early atmosphere is a problem.
Only insofar as "proving" that the sun is very far away is a problem. It is not up to evolutionists to "prove" what the early atmosphere was like... chemists, physicists and astronomers have done that already.
> Who should I believe, you or the leading evolutionists?
Believe the facts. The universe is filled with just what's needed to spark life.
>Yes, that would be you. etc. etc.
I already provided a link to a neutral and qualified site that defines the entire scientific method. I forgot the post number but I'm sure you can find it. You challenged my definition of theory and law, which were in total agreement with that site. It was your definitions and understanding of the process that were flawed. If you don't like the one posted, I'll find one more, but that's it because this conversation is becoming pointless.
Proof? You call this science? You have got to be kidding. I think I'll stick to getting my information from the experts in evolution.
> You call this science?
No. This is a discussion forum.
> I think I'll stick to getting my information from the experts in evolution.
Get your information on *evolution* from experts in that field. Get your information on planetary atmospheres from experts in *that* field.
Thank you for the news. And the link. I am delighted that reason once more prevails in Serbia. Ordinarily, that would make this thread moot, but it's taken on a life of its own.
No worries - the subject matter is a nice change from the usual Balkan milieu.
Ahem. Amino acids form readily in interstellar dust clouds.
So, no experiment can imitate natural processes?
>So, no experiment can imitate natural processes?
Those were not contested points. That you can do something in a lab relying on natural processes is acceptable evidence for feasibility. To design the conditions for a succesful experiment and then assume that is what existed is faulty logic and not proof it did exist.
Evolution has logical points that should be considered, but it also has major gaps that you just can't sweep under the rug. Evolutionary scientists know that but the amateurs never seem to get it.
You may find this interesting. It is a pro-evolution theory site that is at least honest enough to admit the problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=stryer.section.188
I think I see a need to present once more the Three Laws of Creationism, the results of decades of dedicated research:
First Law: Everything is evidence of creationism (or ID). And its corollary: Nothing supports evolution!And other assorted bits of creationist wisdom:
Second Law: Discredited arguments never die, they just get recycled ad infinitum.
Third Law: Creation science permits leaping to wild, unjustified conclusions. It's the obvious connecting- the-dots conclusions that are forbidden.
The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.Anything done in a lab proves nothing about what happens in the wild. Anything found in the wild proves nothing unless it is reproduced in the lab.
Life on earth -- notwithstanding the obvious fact of our existence -- is impossible. Therefore something miraculous must have happened to make the impossible happen. The true creationist ignores anyone who points out that this argument is precariously hinged on the "impossibility assumption," employed only because it forces the desired conclusion.
It just makes you wonder whether these people are retarded or dupes. Or both.
Regardless of their lack of information -- which is often total -- and regardless of their continued reliance on constantly discredited sources -- which is troublesome -- I'm convinced that these people are sincere. Unfortunately, sincerity is worthless if it promotes false information.
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.