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 that's an empty statement; a mere extension of your tautology.
It's not a matter of organizing "matter in such a way that it performs specific functions". ANY organization of matter, whatsoever; and ANY regularity in nature, whatsoever, will necessarily result in matter having certain qualities, and not having certain others, which will necessarily result in "matter performing specific functions".
Your claim therefore amounts to nothing but a bald assertion that regularity in nature (any regularity whatsoever) equals "design". You give no argument for this claim at all. You merely assert it.
I am not sure what you mean by login alter egos though.
I have not had time to reply to your post #461, above. I hope to this evening.
It has had a hearing, and has been found lacking so far.
The fact that organized matter performing specific functions can be found on a nearly ubiquitous scale only makes the theory of intelligent design that much stronger.
But you have no evidence that ID is the answer, any more than Flying Spaghetti Monsterism does.
Your example from FSM is inadequate since the FSM was created by imagination, while intelligent design and its results exist in the objective world.
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is the exact same thing as ID, with the exact same arguments. It merely gives an alternate identity to the designer. You cannot logically claim that FSM is inadequate while promoting ID.
No. They would like to see an equal application of the standards evolutionists enjoy for themselves.
You feel so persecuted. As I said before, ID is not special, science attacks new ideas (even ideas they want to hear), and we see which ones survive. Einstein had a famous debate with Neils Bohr over Quantum theory -- Einstein didn't think it worked.
You want the same rules? Okay, first you need to forget about using the schools as an end-run around science, quit trying to win based on indoctrination rather than merit. Keep fighting a scientific battle in the scientific community, and if ID ever comes to be an accepted alternative or augmentation to ToE, then it will by default get into the schools.
I was discussing science texts with my 80+ year-old grandmother, and it was amazing what her texts didn't have in them that we take for granted today (such as relativity, sub-atomic particles and DNA). Science always changes, and all sacred cows will be slaughtered if they don't withstand scrutiny. ToE is no exception.
But the ToE has withstood scrutiny for over a century, so you have lot to overcome. If you want ID in the science class, you have to play by the rules of science. For that reason, and for the fact that ID is by admission of its founders religion and not science, I don't give you much of a chance.
Intelligent design is neither defined nor created by myself individually. It is an objective process and result paradigm that holds sway in the most basic pursuit of science. As I said, it is the nature of intelligent design to organize matter. In cases where matter can be shown not to have tangible, purposeful, cause and effect properties, there intelligent design (or its effects) may be called into question.
As for falsification, it is of limited use in science and should by no means serve as a benchmark as to what is or is not scientific. Of course there are some who adopt the philosophy of Falsification-ism for themselves, and as such the theory of intelligent design appears unfalsifiable. But it stands to reason as a rule that the best sign of the absence of intelligent design is chaos because it is the nature of intelligent design to arrange matter for specific causes.
No it is not. Intelligent design as we know it takes place through human endeavor and not an FSM. Therefore intelligent design has scientifically viable agents. It also has scientifically accessible results. That already places it on a more certain footing than not only some FSM notion spun out of the imagination, but also a philosophy of history concocted from circumstantial evidence.
Actually its ability to withstand scrutiny is waning, and 150 years doesn't mean diddly in comparison to the millennia across which science has operated under both the assumption of, and by means of, intelligent design. But it's certainly our privilege under the Constitution to grant a say to cheerleaders on a sinking ship. In short, evolutionism is but an aberration in the general practice of pure science, easily overcome by common sense. Why it usurps the name "science" for itself is something of a mystery. Maybe ego has something to do with it.
You are no completely outside of any conversation relating to the ToE. Human design of organisms ("artificial selection" or simply "breeding") is not the discussion.
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is perfectly apt, as it is a theory designed to lay on top of ID, using all of its arguments, only it honestly gives the identity of the "designer" as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. By definition you must logically accept it if you accept ID, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
Wouldn't be the first time.
I see you've bought the "Teach the Controversy" program developed by the Discovery Institute (the same people who admit that ID has one main goal of Christian evangelism).
Why it usurps the name "science" for itself is something of a mystery.
There you go again, trying to redefine science in order to get religion classified as science.
Once again you overstate my point. Regularity in nature may be inferred as a product of intelligent design. Yes, the statement is axiomatic on the face of it. It fits anything intelligible the universe might have to offer. Believe it or not, there is a connection between intelligent design and intelligibility. Of course it is a claim that I assert. It is also a claim which, like those of evolutionism, cannot be refuted with pure science. It can, however, be falsified by means of the disintegration of all particle matter.
I would LOVE to see it banned, but that's not the American Way, Stultis. If they insist on teaching it, they should also be teaching ID and letting people have their own opinions and choices on which is which. They can decide if they are 'theory' or 'fact.'
Not really. Most professors and teachers I know teach it as fact and that's the way they influence students.
You have in no way shown intelligent design to be a religious concept or process. Or do you consider your posts to be products of a religious concept?
Unfortunately Brian Clough is dead.
One, it requires a designer, and unless you go in with the Raelians, that means a supernatural designer. Supernatural means outside of the realm of the natural sciences, which is what we're discussing.
Two, the statements of the founders of your movement, explicitly stating that the "designer" is the Christian god, and the movement is meant as a Christian evangelical tool.
BTW, for a god to guide evolution would be pretty easy. For a god to set up such a complicated process billions of years ago knowing it would result in exactly as it is now is pretty awesome. Why do you limit the powers of your god so?
Or do you consider your posts to be products of a religious concept?
I think it would be great if the Theory of Evolution (Natural Selection) were to be disproved in my lifetime and replaced by another theory. It is interesting to be alive during scientific advancements that big. Unlike you, I have no stake in this other than the advancement of science.
I don't favor public schooling.
And I accept the evidence for ToE.
They think they are nothing but trousered (or skirted) apes, that they are just smarter and more articulate beasts.I'm a human being, composed of body and soul. I bet you are too. Why would we want to debate self-described beasts??? Let them debate each other.
Wrong again.. I have a soul. Will you debate me, or would you rather hit at that strawman again?
How sad that so many Christians hold so much vileness and hostility in their hearts.
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.