Keep Darwin's 'lies' out of Polish schools: education official

AFP via Yahoo! News ^ | October 14, 2006

[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.

[Fester Chugabrew]

So you've ceded the point that I am on a drunken rant before I even contested it? How charitable of you.

The world has yet to see ID in action in any scientific process.

Nonsense. The world sees ID in action wherever science takes place. Without ID there would be no science. Or perhaps you could show me a hypothesis that has not been intelligently designed?

the Constitution guarantees the State shall not establish a religion . . .

Whatever you believe, the Constitution guarantees your right to express it in public and in private. The same goes for those who attribute organized matter performing specific functions to intelligent design. I'd be curious to know which particular religion espouses intelligent design, when there are so many examples of it among even atheists.

[Swordfished]

I think most people here in this discussion are wrong, pro- and anti-evolution.

We're comparing apples to oranges. A scientist can't prove God exists, and especially can't prove that a God created anything, because that creation would probably break every rule of physics we operate under (unless God created us through evolution and sat around for billions of years waiting for his creation to come to fruition)

A scientist must operate and make conclusions under the system of physical rules and parameters that exist in our world and the universe. In the question of our existence, evolution is the only scientific explanation that conforms to the physical rules of the universe as we understand them. (Though the small matter of where the first matter (or original Big Bang matter) originated from remains teasingly absent.

A philosopher can prove God does or does not exist, but he's going to use more than science, if he uses any at all, to prove his point.

We're all making the mistake of confusing data collection and data analysis (science)with philosophy, belief, and ethics. Can raw data from a science experiment tell us whether we should go to war, whether or not to enact the death penalty, who to vote for? NO. Then how could science teach us in what to believe in? Science knows no morality, no ethics,...it is just the cold analysis of raw data.

A creationist can't prove an evolutionist wrong (because he's generally right within his scientific (only) parameters). An evolutionist can't prove a creationist wrong, because a creationist believes in a transcendent God and transcendent set of laws of physics.

An evolutionist can't accept rules outside of those scientifically proven, so he can't accept creationism as a scientific theory. It is a philosophy or a belief, two areas the scientist should stay out of.

This is what creationists (and real scientists) should be most upset by: that evolutionists and scientists, are attempting to become moralists, to mix morality and ethics into their hypothesis and conclusions, areas in which they have NO BUSINESS.

[Coyoteman]

Since evolution of man has never been "observed", nor has there ever been any intermediate species still alive, ever shown, I'm wondering how science concludes evolution is "fact?"

Because of all the intermediate species which are represented in the fossil record. Many of these, for example:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[Fester Chugabrew]

In a sense I see what you are getting at, but I do not think the dichotomy between science and philosophy (or theology) is necessary from either a logical or legal perspective. As individuals our bodies do not reject what our minds either execute of feel just because the brain happens to be material and thoughts happen to be intangible. Emotions are an objective reality. It strains the intellect in general and science in particular to pretend we can hermetically seal off philosophy from science and vise versa.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Evolution is not a cult, it is a scientific theory.

If you cannot tell the difference, because evolution offends your religious sensibilities, that is your problem, not those that understand the theory.

If you wish to be a creationist, hey, have at it, but do not expect the rest of us to play ignorant, because you need to.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

An evolutionist can't accept rules outside of those scientifically proven, so he can't accept creationism as a scientific theory. It is a philosophy or a belief, two areas the scientist should stay out of.

Absolutely correct

This is what creationists (and real scientists) should be most upset by: that evolutionists and scientists, are attempting to become moralists, to mix morality and ethics into their hypothesis and conclusions, areas in which they have NO BUSINESS.

I have yet to talk to a scientist, or a socalled "evolutionist" that claims that evolution can give you any sort of morality. It is a scientific theory, nothing more, and nothing less, if someone uses that theory for the basis of their morality, they are an idiot, science does not claim any type of morality, let alone a moral superiority of any type.

Morality is a philisophical, even a religious area, and science has no wanting, nor need to be the basis of anyones morality.

To say that someone bases their morality on the understanding of evolution is idiotic, if not moronic in the extreme.

[Virginia-American]

...Pity the secular evomoonies and their black robed gods. ...

..and the Unificationist creo-Moonies and their white robed prophet. (Sun Myong Moon is a leading creationist or ID-ist).

[A. Pole]

I believe the Constitution guarantees the State shall not establish a religion and attempting to do so, in the guise of ID, is against it.

Is State allowed to establish a science or scientific theory then? What is the constitutional standing of science?

The mention of religion in Constitution is not to LIMIT religion but to PROTECT it same way or more than freedom of speech. Read the WHOLE amendment carefully.

Is the speech to be banished from public institutions too?

BTW, the only constitutional standing of science which come to my mind at this moment is as a form of speech.

[1000 silverlings]

since you are not talking science anymore.

No, because no one is talking science in the first place.

[satchmodog9]

I was told by several on your side that I was evil and that I would surely burn in hell. This was even before I stated any position. Like I said, the name calling can go both ways and I have seen threads start off on both sides with hostilities. Last post I saw, an evo posted an article and his only comment in the first line was be nice. He was flamed for that. It's tiresome.

[Coyoteman]

No, because no one is talking science in the first place.

See post #303.

[stultorum]

There you go again with Africa.

If you love the continent so much, why don't you go there and stay there?

[Coyoteman]

I only see two skulls, but no proof of evolution.

The skulls are designed to demonstrate evidence of evolution. They are data points. There are millions of other data points. The theory of evolution explains that data.

Also, modern man emerged in the cradle of civilization - Europe, Ethiopia.

I assume you mean, not in Ethiopia. Sorry, modern man originated in Africa, not Europe.

There has never been any civilization in Ethiopia that I know of until us Europeans went there, colonized them, fed them, civilized, educated, and tamed them.

Nice racism there.

[stultorum]

"Really? So there were no atheistic or agnostic or Muslim or Hindu or other religion's contributions to the current state of science?"

I said a little contribution came from non-Christians and only because they lived amongst Christian societies. Were it not for the benevolence of the Christians, non-Christians would have contributed zilch to science.

[stultorum]

"So even if scientists have different beliefs than Christianity it is really Christianity which drives their contributions."

I agree.

[Swordfished]

To say that someone bases their morality on the understanding of evolution is idiotic, if not moronic in the extreme.

Scientists are typically wiser than to make that leap, but there are millions of idiots out there being manipulated by politicians and causeheads who are using science as 'proof' of their worldview, implying that only worldviews based purely on science are valid.

Evolution, Global Warming, etc. are all cases where politicans and other 'causeheads' are using science as the basis from which to argue public policy. A leftist worldview is generally atheistic and relativist, so leftist politicians/causeheads hold up science as the highest marker or judge. Science becomes their god. The fallacy is that science is 'all we have' or 'all that we should use' to shape our public policy.

[stultorum]

erratum est...

Also, modern man emerged in the cradle of civilization - Europe, Ethiopia.

[Coyoteman]

There you go again with Africa.

If you love the continent so much, why don't you go there and stay there?

Try the following link for some information on human migrations: Mankind's Journey.

You will find Africa is the source of modern humans whether you like it or not.

[Stultis]

There has never been any civilization in Ethiopia

Try reading your Bible. Never heard of the Queen of Sheba? (The Bible also sometimes refers to Ethiopia as "Cush".) And she was only one of the later Ethiopian rulers. Ethiopian civilization dates back to about 3000 B.C. Ethiopia was also Christianized long before Europe: The Ethiopian court around 40 or 50 A.D., and Christianity becoming the official state religion in 320 A.D. (Again your Bible touches on this, e.g. the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, and high official, by Philip.)