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 ...
Huh, you mean the turning of the Earth on it's axis?
Er, huh, you mean the orbiting of the sun by the Earth?
I'm not clear on that.....
>You believe man and the universe just spontaneously popped into existence without the aid of a Creator?
WOW. So... you think that what you just described has *anything* to do with evolution?
>I'm going to pause to recap some earlier points. In post >49, I pointed out the definition of a theory, to show that >creationism doesn't qualify. You've pretty much ignored >that (your post 53 was just tapdancing). Your claim in >post 56 about rocks not springing to life is an absurdity. >Do you imagine that you're refuting something in the >theory of evolution? Until you seriously deal with some of >the issues raised here, you don't really deserve much more >attention. At least not from me.
I think the two theories are worthy of debate, which I thought may have been the point of the original post.
The obervation of varied and complex life forms is sufficient to form a hypothesis concerning its origin, even if that theory is based on prior knowledge or belief. The mathematical probability that life just spontaneously popped out of a chemical soup is so remote that the suggestion of a designer is not absurd. The reference to rocks (chemicals) was metaphorical. The idea that the simplest strand of DNA just assembled by chance collisions of molecules is like 1 in 10^84 - quite far fetched. That number by the way, came from an evolutionist whose name I can't remember.
Why? Just read it. Literally. The sun (subject of the sentence) ariseth. The sun (again the subject) goeth down. The sun (once more the subject) hasteth to his place where he arose. What could be more clear? You're not one of those Satanic followers of the heretical solar system theory, are you?
> Anyway, no one is asking for the Bible to be taught in science class.
Those promoting Creationism sure do. Or are you suggesting that the Raelian view of Creationism is the one to be taught?
> The ancient Greeks believed that a giant being, Atlas, stood with the earth on his huge arms
Actually, it was Greek pagans (in the form of Aristarchos of Samos) who discovered and demonstrated that the Earth was a sphere. Really quite accurate diameter measurement, too... off by something like only 7% if memory serves.
> "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
No, it's not. Suspend a pretzel over nothing, and it looks nothing like Earth as seen from space. HAd the Bible said "sphere" or "ball," then... maybe.
Forgot one thing - theories can be established by inductive reasoning - deductive reasoning is not a requirement though it usually is easier.
> evolution is neither observable (in action) or repeatable, hence it can (at best) be only a theory, not science.
A: What about "theory" so frightens you?
B: What aspect of Creationism is:
1: Observable
2: Repeatable
As for evolution, it is perfectly testable, the tests just take a long time. It is merely the effect of cause and effect on biology.
You have not successfully read and comprehended post 49. Creationism is not a theory. Not even close. It can't be falsified. It can't be tested in any way. It makes no predictions. It's based on no verifiable observations. It's a claim, nothing more. It is most definitely not worthy of debate in a scientific context. Study the situation some more. Until then, have a nice day.
That's not true.
You go ahead and believe what you want. You have no right to insist, though, that I teach my daughter that God is irrelevant and that she evolved by chance mutation.
The evidence, by the way, is not conclusive on either side. I actually see more evidence for the existence of a Creator Who brought things about ex nihilo....
Russia eliminates communism and establishes a flat tax, and now this. Sounds like the Slavic world might be passing us by.
No, it's not a "good point." It's a logical fallacy called "guilt by association."
The Russian tax makes more sense than ours does. As for the Serbians passing us by ... well, they're definitely going in a different direction.
You obviously have not kept pace with science. The new field is bio-infomatics, the study of of how DNA information is transfered. This field, by itself, has already KILLED OFF EVOLUTION as a theory. But the LIBERAL media and academic elites won't let go, because they hate the resulting alternative. And they all the cards, for now. Does this sound like a recurring theme regarding liberals. (Hundreds of links available).Please give us a few of those links. "Information theory" sounds so impressive & high-tech. Using information theory to prop up creationism falls flat on its face, but "bio-informatics" sounds even more cool, so maybe it'll be that magic bullet that hoists those braniac scientists on their own petards. :-)
Hmmm... do mixed metaphors increase or decrease the amount of information in a paragraph?
That's the first laugh I've had all day! :-)
Observed, hm? Right.
>* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
The complexity and variety of life on this planet.
>* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
Life had a creator and designer.
>* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
It was a one time event. Life does not arise spontaneously from inert materials. One species does not transform into another or multiple other species.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
This is where it becomes inductive - demonstrate that the hypothesis is not true. Produce life from inert materials or show that one species definitely turned into another - i.e. produce the transitional forms. Obviously we can't recreate the Big Bang or any of the physical laws that existed just before the Big Bang - but some people accept it as a theory. Actually, its a theory based on a theory, but certainly nothing more than that.
>* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
This is required for a law, not a theory. This is why Relativity remains a theory, and evolution is not a law.
You certianly have the right to teach your daughter that if she ever comes to believe that evolution is correct, she must by default reject God. I think that's not entirely a smart thing to do, but she's your daughter.
I think God not only has the power to create evolution, I think he has the power to create "CHANCE" itself, thereby allowing those little mutations to occur.
Fighting science didn't do the Catholic church any good when they took on Galileo. It doesn't do today's believers any good to take on the scientific universe about evolution. It's a huge mistake, and it will only damage believers in the end.
Don't you read the news? This has already been shown to be done many times in a lab.
Are you going to admit you are wrong or keep blustering about your ignorance?
Actually, it's not. All it establishes is that you don't know what either a theory or a Law is and prefer to argue from ignorance. That's curable, but only if you want to cure it.
I figured that I gave you enough hints for you to figure it out, but I guess I'll have to explain it.
The Sun does not orbit around the Earth, the Earth orbits around the Sun. And it doesn't take 24 hours, it takes 365 and one quarter days.
The verse you gave actually describes a fixed Earth that is center of the universe, and everything else revolves around it. The same argument, I believe, used by the Catholic church to attack Galileo. They were just as wrong about celestial mechanics as you are about evolution.
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.