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 ...
Observations do not constitute a theory. They can only help to validate or invalidate. One of the major observations required to validate evolution is missing. In addition, so is the mathematical evidence. The statistics are simply against it.
"OT. Buckets and buckets of blood."
I have, have you? Do you know why all those wars and battle were waged?
I suggest to you in reply a good reading of the NT.
the left doesn't believe in debate. look how they
treat the swiftboat vets...right or wrong, they have
the right to speak.
ps: we'll tell you what to think and when to think.
now shut up and pay us.
(vouchers bad, unions good)
Creationism teaches that a supernatural being created man and the universe.
You believe man and the universe just spontaneously popped into existence without the aid of a Creator? Sounds like you are the one relying on a miracle. I didn't think atheists believed in those.
Orthodox Churches, generally speaking, approach the TOE in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church.
But just for you, here is another perspective on what the Bible says about the earth, though not really relevant to our discussion:
The Roundness of the Earth
At different times and in different places it has been thought that the earth is flat. In fact, as recently as the 16th century, sailors would threaten to mutiny on ocean-going ships that sailed too far from land, for fear of sailing off the edge of the earth, which was thought by many to be flat like a table top. There are even a few who believe in a flat-earth today!
(Some have wrongly thought that the Bible teaches a flat earth, but it does not. The Bible speaks of the "four corners" of the earth (in Rev. 7:1), but this is only a figurative way of referring to the "four points" (basic directions) of the compass ---and this same verse speaks of the "four winds," which refers to the same thing.)
In comparison, the Bible actually says, "He (God) sits enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers" (Isaiah 40:22 NIV). In that verse, the word translated "circle" is the Hebrew "khoog", which can also be translated as "roundness," "circle," "circuit," or "compass" (ref: Strongs Dictionary, 2329). The roundness of the earth is a viewpoint from space that no mere man had in 760 BC when those words were written. (Although, it might easily be suspected that the earth is round, by looking at the sun and moon). Furthermore, from about the year 1500 BC, it says in Job 26:10, "He marks out a circle (or roundness) on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness." Indeed, a circle would be the correct shape which describes any line between darkness and day-light along the surface of the oceans.
For much more on the roundness of the earth in the Bible, see: "What Shape is the Earth In?" by J.P. Holding. --- And for a history of the "flat earth" idea, see: Who invented the flat Earth? at ChristianAnswers.net.
The Earth is Suspended in Space
For centuries various cultures around the world speculated what holds up or supports the earth among the stars and sun and moon. The ancient Greeks believed that a giant being, Atlas, stood with the earth on his huge arms and shoulders, while the Hindus believed that the earth was supported on the backs of immense elephants, which stood on the shell of a great cosmic turtle which then swam around in the "cosmic sea."
But the Bible, on the other hand, gives an amazingly accurate picture of what we have confirmed to be scientific reality today, as seen from space. The Bible says (concerning God): "He suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7). This is an accurate description of what it is like to view the earth from outer space, from any direction. It also does not run counter to the gravitational (and momentum) force which "suspends" the earth in space "over nothing." ---Amazingly, these are words written in about 1500 BC!
Your first sentence is true. The second is not. This may help:
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:source: What is the ``scientific method''?* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Even if you're right (I don't think so) teaching children that they must take the Bible as the most important science curriculum is priming them to reject God as soon as they see conflicting evidence.
Science examines conflicting evidence, and rejects it's own theories all the time. Once you lock into a childs belief that a particular science "fact" holds up his faith, just as soon as that science "fact" comes into question, so does his faith.
The Bible is not a science textbook. Treating it that way can damage a childs faith in God.
Very handy to pick and chose your verses like that. But how about these?
Ecclesiastes:
1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. [Clear, unambiguous description of the sun's orbit around the earth.]1st Chronicles:
16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.Psalms:
93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.
Quite correct. Only evolution is neither observable (in action) or repeatable, hence it can (at best) be only a theory, not science. I guess it always comes down to faith. Either in a Creator, or man's interpretation of what he sees around him (therefore, man himself.)
PS: (Shhh! Scientists at work)
1994: Eggs are bad for your health.
2004: No, sorry, we were wrong, they're not really that bad after all.
2014: Who knows?
The second sentence is correct based on the observation of the complexity of life itself, suggesting a design, and the fact there are no observations of spontaneous creation of any forms, complex or simple.
And it is because of that very same scientifc method that evolution is not a law. The observations required to confirm its predictions are missing.
That pretty well blows creationism away, doesn't it?
Maybe some, but that wasn't the case with me. Those with sincere belief will not.
Not really, it just says we don't observe rocks turning into life.
No one expects that to happen. Maybe a creationist does, but no biologist. What's your point> If rocks don't spring to life, as in the the tale of Jason and the Golden Fleece, then what -- Noah's Ark becomes the default "theory"?
Thanx for your reply. Although we disagree, I can tell you've put some thought into your answer, which is a whole lot better than most liberals would do.
BTW, the book that has opened my eyes is "In the Beginning was Information" by Werner Gitt
>>All living organisms require information to function. If we want to make meaningful and useful statements about the origins of life, then we first have to explain what information is and how it came about.<<
Oh, welcome to free republic. How nice that you found a crevo thread on your very first day.
>PS: (Shhh! Scientists at work)
>1994: Eggs are bad for your health.
>2004: No, sorry, we were wrong, they're not really that >bad after all.
>2014: Who knows?
True. Even Kepler's Law had to be modified for Relativity because of one bad observation - Mercury.
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.