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 ...
If so, I apologize. These threads get so complicated, I can't tell the players without my scorecard.
>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?
What you are saying only proves that a designer with a plan was required. Life did not spontaneously arise in that lab. You have proved noting to validate evolution.
I said "This is required for a law, not a theory. This is why Relativity remains a theory, and evolution is not a law."
You said "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 say - you are flat out wrong.
orionblamblam,
You seemed to have dropped your dialog with me once I admitted that I have actually read the Bible.
Please recall that I haven't, so far, said if I agree one way or the other with the basic premise of this thread, ie: Creationism -vs- Evolution.
I think I know where you stand.
It seems to me that you at every step try to degrade the importance of Scripture in this debate. I ask you, without the Scripture, does not Creationism become a non-issue?
If you answer "yes" to the above question, then aren't you engaging in a typical leftist tactic of avoiding the issue and attacking the support structure?
Galileo was a Christian, who said, "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word." He was quite a scientist, and quite a Christian.
You honestly believe that one cannot be both a Christian and scientifically sound? What about Galileo?
Why so quick to insult those of us who are Christians who've concluded that evolution is scientifically lacking, and that it's more reasonable to believe the theory that a Creator is responsible for "all this"?
The point of my posts are to say that it's a bad move for Christians to take any position at all regarding evolution. That has absolutly nothing to do with the idea that "one cannot be both a Christian and scientifically sound". It is actually the opposite.
When Christians push creationism, and even Intellegent Design (when it's done as an alternative form of creationism) it can do no good whatever, and perhaps a great deal of harm, to Christianity.
If Christians stake a huge claim in creationism/ID, then the young student who goes off to college and see's the huge amount of evidence for evolution will be forced to evaluate his faith and make decisions. However, if that young student was taught that the Bible is a guide to living and other religious matters, NOT a science textbook, then he can decide whatever he wants about evolution and not run the risk of losing his faith.
You can "think" what you want, but that doctrine is not a biblical one. God is sovereign, not one to become aloof and detached. He is sovereign over even the things we consider "chance."
(FWIW, I don't see any irreconcilable contradiction between God's "sovereignty" and our "free will," but that's another discussion altogether....)
You are being more like those who persecuted Galileo than you are like Galileo.
The Christian man Galileo proposed something that the heirarchy couldn't reconcile with what they'd learned from Aristotle/Augustine, and the leadership of the Roman Catholic church sought to silence him. Just like it appears you are trying to do -- silence Christians.
We Christians who believe a Creator brought about everything we see are more like Galileo than you are. For you to say that "it can do no good whatever, and perhaps a great deal of harm, to Christianity" to proclaim the wonder of God's Creation is absurd.
Are you one of those who've been swayed to reject Christ and believe evolution after having been taught creationism as a child? This seems to be a big part of your argument, and I'm wondering if it's your "story."
If He is sovereign over the things we consider "chance", then he created "chance" itself. That's my point.
If God sat the prophets down who were to put Genesis down on paper and ran a Discovery Channel video on the creation of the Earth and how life evolved, I think they would write "In the beginning, God created the Heaven and Earth ...".
It's all in the interpretation. I can say that "God created 'chance' itself", and you disagree saying "He is sovereign over even ... 'chance'". We said the same thing.
I believe you originally said something to the effect that your children didn't come from random chance mutations. But if God created "chance", then DNA mutations by "chance" were in fact created by God.
Bottom line, I'll restate for the umpteenth time, I believe this whole Crevo argument is a bad thing for Christians, particularly children. I think it will cause many to lose their faith. And it is just something that's not worthwile for Christians to argue about.
Let science talk about science. Christians should talk about living and God.
Somewhat.
If so, I apologize. These threads get so complicated, I can't tell the players without my scorecard.
In these complicated situations, you may use me as an anchor. (Except when I'm fooling around and spoofing the creos.) Or as Shakespeare had Caesar say:
I am constant as the northern star.
Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumber'd sparks,
They are all fire and every one doth shine,
But there's but one in all doth hold his place:
So in the world; 'tis furnish'd well with men,
And men are flesh and blood, and apprehensive;
Yet in the number I do know but one
That unassailable holds on his rank,
Unshaked of motion: and that I am he
Actually, the exact opposite. I was taught as a child that evolution and Genesis did not contradict each other. In a class during a church retreat, one of our Deacons, who was also a college science professor, taught about the similarities between sciences version of creation and the Bible. It was presented in a way that allowed us to go to science class and have no conflicts whatever with our faith.
I see the exact opposite now. The Creationism fad came after I grew up, and I see it right in these Crevo threads, where people say they "believe in God, not in Evolution".
This either/or mentality has great danger. It is a physical "hook" that someone can use to strip faith from a young person.
If, on the other hand, faithful people were taught that there is no conflict between science and God, then people are free to keep their faith, and study science at the same time. There need be no either/or.
Wipe Serbia from the list of educated societies.
What I have "proved" is that you don't know what you are talking about. Not that there was any doubt about that.
>>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. :-)<<
Okay. Many more sources available. Just ask if you want more:
http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/ramhurl?f=aig/Special/10-13-2000DrGitt.rm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/navajo.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/computer.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/gitt.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2p50.asp#box
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/information.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp
That's a bunch of really impressive-looking links, jenny. Whatcha gonna do now?
Still looks like progress to me. They appear to have gotten rid of communism and evolution in a space of 20 years or so; how many pseudosciences have we gotten rid of lately?
I learned this one in school (but not in biology class): The Greek creation myth.
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.