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.
I reckon the poster made use of my screen name as if it helped his cause. Whatever. He certainly was no asset to conservative ideals in what was posted and subsequently deleted, but has other strengths we will miss. Hope he comes back soon.
You mean like the one I was replying to by by Sir Francis Dashwood?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1719616/posts?page=58#58
And yet he was not banned or even given a time out for advocating gay anal sex. Hmmm... Go figure.
I've already told you how intelligent design can be falsified. I've also told you that intelligent design predicts organized matter performing specific functions. It does not take a supernatural creator to take matter and organize it in such a way that it performs specific functions. So . . .you have in no way shown that intelligent design is inherently unscientific, or even supernatural. In fact, you cannot even explain how science is able to discern the supernatural from the natural without indulging a tautology of the crassest sort.
How? I haven't noticed it.
Please do not play stupid with me. Every time you post you are taking matter and organizing it in such a way as to perform a specific function. I guarantee you science, if not a five-year-old, can recognize your posts as intelligently designed.
The point is to reverse the supposed slide created by materialism by bringing God back to the forefront. That is quite evangelistic.
Bringing "God" to the forefront has nothing to do with evangelism. It has everything to do with practicing science in a manner it has been practiced long before Darwin came on the scene. What you seem to be incapable of understanding is that there is absolutely nothing on the basis of reason or the legal documents governing our country that should prevent teaching intelligent design as a viable theory in a public school science class. There is nothing about intelligent design that militates against reason or science.
IDers want to change science so that it can support the supernatural.
You do not know for certain what is supernatural and what is not. Neither does science. As such you have not made a point whatsoever in favor of evolution or against intelligent design, and neither can science.
. . . there's no reason for much of science if we can just say "God is doing it" for everything.
This bogus claim has been championed many a time, but it does not hold water. Even if we assume that in every case of orgnaized mater performing specific functions "God is doing it," there is plenty of room for science to question how. In fact, that is essentially the business of science in the first place.
Cool, then can I teach science in one of your churches?
You may not teach anything in my church unless you accept the authority and accuracy of the biblical texts, subscribe quia to the Book of Concord of 1580, and are called to do so. The parish I attend is not a public school, but it is open to the public.
I do not need religion to tell me that when I fly the plane is being held aloft by thousands of little fairies either.
I'm not aware of any religion that teaches as much. Are you? Maybe there is one. I certainly would not subscribe to it, just as I do not subscribe to the philosophy of history put forth by evolutionists as if it were "science."
So what? That entire screed was religious, and has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with it either.
You could say that they contradict each other, but so what? Evolution is science, and religion, is, well, religion.
They have nothing to say about each other, cannot disprove each other, and are not compatible in any way. Evolution is science, and has nothing to say about your religious faith.
If the evidence points to evolution, that is where science will go, and has gone for over 100 and some odd years, your whining about how it contradicts your religious beliefs, is not it's, nor sciences problem.
If it offends your sensibilities so badly, Homeschool, or ignore that it exists, because it will not change because it upsets you.
Well, I know for sure that I am self aware, but I think that your just a figment of my imagination.
So, because I created you, out of my imagination, you are not self aware, only I am aware of your existence. ;)
Shall we solipsize for a bit, it's a lot more fun then trying to explain science to people that really don't want to understand it.
"Advocating?" You better read it again. I sense in no way that the poster thinks anal sex via forearm is a thing to be desired or promoted. Nevertheless it was over the top and properly deleted. While it did not make a point, neither did the post to which he was repsonding, which . . . surprise surprise . . was chock full of insulting remarks. But then again, maybe you thought that post, too, was a voice of reason for conservatives. I hope not, and I expect not, but then . . .
Well, Elsie, regarding miracles, and your question about can Moon do them....can any human man today do them?...plenty claim that they can...they claim to perform miracles of healing...to some it may 'appear' that someone got healed...and then those people will believe that a person as Moon, or any other 'faith healer', actually does have the gift of being able to perform miracles...but seeing what 'appears' to be a miraculous healing, may be nothing but a trick...
Magicians perform all manner of tricks, and yet we all know that they are not really sawing the lady in half, we know that they did not make that tiger in the cage disappear, we know its entertainment, its a trick, its a matter of knowing how to effectively carry out the trick, how to fool the audience...
The 'faith healers'...those who claim to carry out miracles, may be nothing but pulling off tricks...just because it 'looks' like a miracle, that does not make it one...
It is progress to note that you suggest that your soul is not "evolved" from the beasts as you apparently believe (under the influence of Darwin and Darwinism) your body is "descended from" beasts. I guess that it is better to be half-beast with a soul (mortal or immortal???)
If your God is God, accept and believe in His Word. He said it. Christians believe it. That settles it. There is nothing to debate. Assuming that you made a clever point or two, to the extent that you deny the Truth of God in favor of pathetic Darwin, you are wrong.
How do you believe as to square circles, loads too heavy for God to lift, perpetual motion machines, phrenology, eugenics to "improve" mankind, spiritualism, seances.....????? Most importantly, if science appears to disagree with revealed Truth, which prevails and why??? If you say science, prove your Christianity. This is not an invitation to a "debate" but an invitation to shore up your reputation with those who will ever disagree with Darwin because they believe in God. That is no strawman.
Capitalizing ToE seems to suggest a sort of divine status of Darwinian delusion.
Are you going to address both js1138's and Ichneumon's concerns you are not being completely truthful?
Just because you have not taken the time to actually understand what TOE is, does not mean the rest of us are as ignorant.
It was a a very plain statement. I think that is exactly what Dashwood promoted.
God is the author of all nature and of science. That which disagrees with God is neither science nor Truth nor truth.
Yes, but negatively against an adversary. Not as if it is something to be desired as "a hole."
I suspect that KarinG1 has had enough of being attacked for her faith in God by those whose faith is in what they call "science." There is nothing to debate.
I see, so the Big Bang theory must be bad as well, and any hypothesis of abiogenesis must be a bad hypothesis as well?
Perhaps Geology is a bad science because it shows a 4 1/2 billion year old earth?
How about Chemistry? Aeronautical engineering? archeaology? perhaps physics is against God as well?
If science looked at it's theories, and decided what it could and could not study, based upon the religious sensibilities of believers who are weak in their faith, then we would still be living in the dark ages.
No thanks.
I see!
I have no faith in science, and neither does anyone else that understands it.
Science does not have faith, either it can be repeated, observed, or induced through evidence, it cannot be based on faith, that is religion, not science.
Faith has no place in science, if it used faith, it would be useless.
It is not a moral system, you cannot base your morality on science, nor does it claim that you can, that is strictly the purview of philosophy or theology.
And to have you say that because one understands science, one cannot be religious, I find offensive, to say the least, not only offensive, but extremely arrogant on your part.
600?
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.