How come that universities in India or Egypt today are made in pattern of Roman Catholic institutions of medieval Europe?
Should not rather Western universities use Eastern gurus as scientific authorities?
Posted on 10/14/2006 11:16:50 AM PDT by lizol
Keep Darwin's 'lies' out of Polish schools: education official 2 hours.
WARSAW (AFP) - Poland's deputy education minister called for the influential evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin not to be taught in the country's schools, branding them "lies."
"The theory of evolution is a lie, an error that we have legalised as a common truth," Miroslaw Orzechowski, the deputy minister in the country's right-wing coalition government, was quoted as saying by the Gazeta Wyborcza daily Saturday.
Orzechowski said the theory was "a feeble idea of an aged non-believer," who had come up with it "perhaps because he was a vegetarian and lacked fire inside him."
The evolution theory of the 19th-century British naturalist holds that existing animals and plants are the result of natural selection which eliminated inferior species gradually over time. This conflicts with the "creationist" theory that God created all life on the planet in a finite number.
Orzechowski called for a debate on whether Darwin's theory should be taught in schools.
"We should not teach lies, just as we should not teach bad instead of good, or ugliness instead of beauty," he said. "We are not going to withdraw (Darwin's theory) from the school books, but we should start to discuss it."
The deputy minister is a member of a Catholic far-right political group, the League of Polish Families. The league's head, Roman Giertych, is education minister in the conservative coalition government of Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski.
Giertych's father Maciej, who represents the league in the European Parliament, organised a discussion there last week on Darwinism. He described the theory as "not supported by proof" and called for it be removed from school books.
The far-right joined the government in May when Kaczynski's ruling conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, after months of ineffective minority government, formed a coalition including LPR and the populist Sambroon party.
Roman Giertych has not spoken out on Darwinism, but the far-right politician's stance on other issues has stirred protest in Poland since he joined the government.
A school pupils' association was expected to demonstrate in front of the education ministry on Saturday to call for his resignation.
But I DO understand ID and it IS religion.
Well, if you say so. Most people who design things do not consider themselves as indulging relgion, but as simply doing what is natural. Intelligent design is natural, and as much a part of science as anything else.
It meets exactly zero requirements to be considered a valid scientific pursuit.
That's exactly what one of prominent Polish bishops said commenting this thing.
How come that universities in India or Egypt today are made in pattern of Roman Catholic institutions of medieval Europe?
Should not rather Western universities use Eastern gurus as scientific authorities?
The amount of circumstantial evidence is sufficient enough to warrant strong convictions. What puzzles me is how the proponents of evolution arrive at the notion their view of history deserves exclusive hearing in public schools when even our Constitution does not guarantee as much.
On the contrary, it is directly observable on a regular basis.
I have yet to see an Intelligent Designer. Convereley, if it is based on induction, EVERYTHING is the result of an Intelligent Designer.
ID is useless as science. It contrinutes nothing in forwarding knowledge.
Except perhaps for drunk sophomore philosophy majors.
A body on the floor with a knife wound, and blood droplets leading away not of the same DNA as that of the body leads police to believe that the attacker made the common mistake of cutting himself while stabbing another, and then walked away in that direction. That is not curcumstantial, it is forensic evidence that tells what happened. The same happens with the ToE. They see various fossils in various strata that have various things in common, and they can trace a line. Just like forensics, the ToE has essentially said "We see A and B, but for our theory to be right, we should see C." And that has happened with the ToE.
Why do evolutionists have to ... go on to insist their version of history is worthy of an exclusive hearing in public schools?
They don't. We teach science in the science class. The ToE happens to be the best science we have on the subject. Thus it gets taught in science class. Try coming up with a better scientific theory that's better than the ToE, and maybe even disproves the ToE, then it will end up in the science classes.
Yet there are ample examples of directly observed intelligent design
Please cite one that applies.
We do have a lot of data suggesting that evolution took place. But we do not have a real theory of evolution/ToE yet. Neither of the two XIX centuries theories (Darwin or Lamarck) cut the mustard. Nor the Jurassic Park movie is enough.
We need a new synthesis with the date, name of the author and defined claims. Science is not that different in this aspect from patent law.
The world is replete with intelligent designers, among whom you may be counted. That is enough to make the concept and theory of intelligent design scientific. Science cannot even function without it.
Seeing that list, now I KNOW I've been too nice!
Dave...I am going to agree with Satchmodog9, that the name calling does seem to be about equal, both sides being guilty...what I find very odd, is that you seem to have kept a little list of who called you what...
I imagine if we all thought about it hard enough, we could all come up with our own little list of what one poster or another 'called' us...and this proves what exactly?..that you are picked on?...hey, we all get picked on for one thing or another, thats often what happens when one says what they mean or believe...but I do believe that your are the first one I have seen on FR, who has posted such a little list...whats up with that?
I think the fair thing to do would be just to admit, that name calling occurs equally on both sides...and as far as I can see, I dont see it stopping any time soon...
Therein is the rub. The example you supplied not only has a connection with recent history but also entails blood samples of human DNA, thus making the conclusion fairly evident, but not to the extent of "proof."
Simply having "various things in common" is not enough if the theory of evolution is going to hold water. The historical connection ought to be demonstrated. Common forms do not necessarily denote common origins or history. In the case of evolution the trail must be one of consistent change from one species to another. The only thing direct observation has yielded is change to a limited degree.
All this circumstantial evidence is so freely admitted as strict science on the part of evolutionists, but all of a sudden, when proponents of intelligent design infer intelligent design from organized matter (circumstantial evidence), the subject is lumped into the realm of "supernatural," "religious," "mystical," and so forth, even though examples of intelligent design are everywhere, your own posts notwithstanding. What gives?
That doesn't even make sense. It certainly doesn't support ID as put forward by its supporters.
No. It makes plenty of sense. You, however, appear not to have the intellectual fortitude to acknowledge that intelligent design even exists.
WHAT subject?
No, in this case you have ceded the point. You have nowhere to go. Intelligent design is a directly observable process, even in your own mind, yet you refuse to accord it any scientific validity. Why? Do you believe the Constitution guarantees your version of science and history an exclusive hearing in public schools?
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.