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.
Ex 24:12
And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
That's all it claims to be. There is the fact of evolution (the Law of Faunal Succession), and a number of theories that attempt to explain this fact, eg. those of Lamarck, Buffon, and Darwin-Wallace. Only the last one, modified by modern genetics, has survived testing.
... regardless of how well validated it is.
The fact that a theory is well-validated and is accepted by 99+% of the researchers in its field should also be taught. The ToE is probably the most validated theory in all of science.
That does not answer my question.
Yet it answers all of mine. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Psalm 111:10
Because to protect it from claims of being neo-creationism, IDers like to say the "designer" isn't specified. Therefore, others are free to state what they think the designer is, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Thus to deny Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is to deny ID. To support ID and deny FSM is not consistent, and exposes the true neo-creationist purpose of ID.
Your response does not address my request. Whether or not "God" is part of intelligent design, please demonstrate what it is about intelligent design that is inherently unscientific. Unless you can demonstrate as much I shall consider your response an evasion.
I would wager you cannot provide a reason other than your own biases. Meanwhile it stands as objective fact that intelligent design is not inherently religious or supernatural. It happens in the real world and is demonstrated every time you make a post.
So you redefine evangelism to get out of it?
Not at all. Evangelism concerns making known the person and work of Jesus Christ as it pertains to eternal salvation. The Wedge Document makes no reference to this. Nor does it make reference to matters essentially antecedent to evangelism, such as sin and grace.
IMHO religion has a place in public schools -- just not in the science class.
Your opinion is understood, even though it reflects an illogical, arbitrary dichotomy between science and religion; natural and supernatural. The Constitution governs your opinion by guaranteeing your right to express it in public and in private, just like it guarantees that intelligent design may be taught in connection with science classes in public schools.
I don't see how you can read that document, and the statements of Phillip Johnson, and come to that conclusion.
I do not need the statements of Phillip John to understand that intelligent design is a scientifically accessible entity. I do not need to religion to tell me that where there is organized matter performing specific functions intelligent design might be a factor.
I also do not need to be lectured on the difference between objective reality and ways in which various religions are in accord with it. Just because certain religious people believe an almighty God is responsible for creating the universe as we know it does not mean I must reject the idea that intelligent design and its results may be at play in cases where organized matter performs specific functions.
You have not demonstrated that the statements that you are quoting are from God. Also, I do not understand how this relates to the theory of evolution.
The fact that it is not falsifiable, makes no predictions and is based on a supernatural creator.
It happens in the real world and is demonstrated every time you make a post.
How? I haven't noticed it.
Evangelism concerns making known the person and work of Jesus Christ as it pertains to eternal salvation.
The point is to reverse the supposed slide created by materialism by bringing God back to the forefront. That is quite evangelistic.
Your opinion is understood, even though it reflects an illogical, arbitrary dichotomy between science and religion; natural and supernatural.
Finally I hear the honesty. IDers want to change science so that it can support the supernatural. Great, let's go back to Atlas holding the world on his shoulders, because there's no reason for much of science if we can just say "God is doing it" for everything.
Constitution governs your opinion by guaranteeing your right to express it in public and in private, just like it guarantees that intelligent design may be taught in connection with science classes in public schools.
Cool, then can I teach science in one of your churches? Maybe use an angle trying to say that the science disproves what is being preached?
I do not need the statements of Phillip John to understand that intelligent design is a scientifically accessible entity.
Of course, ignore that which disproves your assertion that ID has no religious base.
I do not need to religion to tell me that where there is organized matter performing specific functions intelligent design might be a factor.
I do not need religion to tell me that when I fly the plane is being held aloft by thousands of little fairies either. That I have no scientific basis for my assertion shouldn't matter -- you should believe me because that's what is obvious to me when I look out the window.
The statements come from a source that has been known as "the word of the Lord" for as long as mankind has been known to exist. I choose to believe that it is-- if you choose otherwise, then that is your privilege. As for how it relates to the subject of the thread, well it's a windrous route. You have to trace it back through the posts.
I can understand why you would not be offended due to the screen name you chose.
I don't buy that for a second. No one else I have ever met (outside of a few paranoid nutjobs) keeps lists of implied insults about himself over the years.
Dude! This is not a healthy attitude.
Because it is the nature of intelligent design to take matter and organize it.
How have you determined that "order" cannot exist without intelligent design?
I haven't. I would rather not speak absolutely when dealing with relative truth, which is essentially what science is all about. That is why I allow materialistic naturalism, evolutionism, etc. a say in public schools and wherever they care to speak. I would rather say cases of organized matter performing specific functions may reasonably be attributed to intelligent design and its results. It is not outside the realm of possibility that everything we know and observe in the scientific realm is a result of non-intelligent non-design.
So . . . I have "determined" nothing. And neither have you. We both have a faith. We both place our trust in certain things that have been communicated to us, whether by word or by other phenomena effecting our reason and senses.
Whenever have those making demands on you that you demonstrate a thing/anything to them ever demonstrated themselves?
Ah well, we can give them a little light in their darkness.
Dude, how is it that all of a sudden documentation and citations are part and parcel of an unhealthy attitude? I for one appreciate the record showing a glaring propensity for proponents of evolutionism to indulge insults and rude language as if to make a point, if for no other reason than to demonstrate they have little intellectual fortitude to begin with.
Really. Saying life forms are related in history because they look the same? How intellectually lazy is that? I am surprised, given your discipline, that you would give Darwinism and evolution the time of day. But then, you think accusations of drunken rants constitute a voice of reason for conservatism, so perhaps I should not be surprised.
Not to mention the posts that they have somewhere saved, checked and cross-checked so that at a moment's notice they can pull up a quote to use against someone. Now that borders on obsession and can't be healthy. It's even against the rules of the forum.
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.