Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Keep Darwin's 'lies' out of Polish schools: education official
AFP via Yahoo! News ^ | October 14, 2006

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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; darwin; education; enoughalready; evolution; faith; keywordwars; moralabsolutes; poland; preacher; religion; seethingnaturalists; skullporn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 1,061-1,070 next last
To: Fester Chugabrew
was chock full of insulting remarks.

Fester, the post was :

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
You believe in a boiling primordial pot of spaghetti sauce...

Oh no. You might scorch the tomato paste.

how is that any different from believing in a flying spaghetti monster...

Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Woodland Pixie, or Zeus, or Odin, or Mithra, or Yahweh, or ...

Face it Dishwood, you're just one god away from being an atheist.

47 posted on 10/15/2006 6:47:56 PM CDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.) 
So unless Dashwood is the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Woodland Pixie, Zeus, Odin, Mithra, or Yahweh (and have ID to prove it), there was nothing insulting about the post.
601 posted on 10/16/2006 6:02:56 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Because it is the nature of intelligent design to take matter and organize it.

Interesting. Bombs are intelligently designed and deployed. Would you say that they arrange matter into patterns of order?

I haven't.

Then your claim that 'order' implies 'intelligent design' is wholly unsupported.

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.

That it is not outside of the realm of possibility does not mean that it is supported by any evidence.
602 posted on 10/16/2006 6:07:02 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: dread78645; Fester Chugabrew

And in case you think 'atheist' was the insult; check Dahwood's posting history. He claims to be a bible-believing atheist (!?!)


603 posted on 10/16/2006 6:13:33 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
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.

Really? Then why do the creationists keep debating science, and keep pretending, through creation "science" and now ID, to be doing science?

604 posted on 10/16/2006 6:14:54 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
605 posted on 10/16/2006 6:30:54 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
t/o/e is one fantasy of those who want to believe that they are in control of and that science promises them hegemony over God's creation. They aren't and it doesn't. Why again does any believer in the God of Scripture and His Truth care at all what the Darwinians fantasize????? I will not study your Darwin and you won't study the Teaching Magisterium of the Romamn Catholic Church. My life is very comfortable ignoring your fantasy. Go be a well-adjusted adult now and stop preaching to me.

YES! We have no bananas, we have no bananas today!

606 posted on 10/16/2006 6:31:56 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
My life is very comfortable ignoring your fantasy.

Ignore it then. Stop posting about it entirely. We won't mind.

607 posted on 10/16/2006 6:36:29 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

I know what the post was. If you cannot recognize its derogatory nature it is no wonder you cannot recognize evidence of intelligent design. That said, had you posted such tripe to me I would have ignored it or responded more cordially. Not that you seem the type to take advice, but if I were you I'd think a little more before posting in defense of your philosophy of history.


608 posted on 10/16/2006 6:37:11 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; RadioAstronomer
I will not study your Darwin and you won't study the Teaching Magisterium of the Romamn Catholic Church.

Hmm. That you won't study Darwin is mind-numbingly obvious. But I doubt that the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church would trouble RadioAstronomer overly much. Truth Cannot Contradict Truth
Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)

WITH GREAT PLEASURE I address cordial greeting to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.

He asked those whom he called the Church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, No. 1, Oct. 28, 1986; L'Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed., Nov. 24, 1986, p. 22).

2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 1/81993 3/8, pp. 764-772; address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 1/81994 3/8, pp. 232-243).

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely "Evangelium Vitae."

It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude. To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4). Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.

I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you.

Excerpted from the October 30 issue of the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano.

609 posted on 10/16/2006 6:40:02 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
Yeah, well, you insult my Faith. I have no regard for your fantasies. Why DO you care???? I don't care what you cherish as fantasy. You ought not care that I hold the Truth. I am NOT going to change and neither are you, apparently.

You offend too easily. Buddhism is a religion, after all, and may well accommodate Darwinianism for all I know or care. Darwinianism seems to be some sort of religion from the way it is evangelized at us by its believers. I am a Roman Catholic and that gives me every reason to be "arrogant" or confident or whatever. Flame to your id's content. It is not as though I will take it seriously or go whining to Mommy. If you want to believe that you have monkeys as uncles, so believe! I really don't care except insofar as you want to tax me and mine to propagate your fantasies of Darwinism or to run secretarial courses for that matter. Conservatism seems to suggest that we should pay to tach our own children and that the parents are the ones to decide what they are taught. I don't remember delegating to gummint control over my children or anyone else's.

610 posted on 10/16/2006 6:40:35 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Bombs are intelligently designed and deployed. Would you say that they arrange matter into patterns of order?

Bombs are an example of intelligent design on more than one level. Their residual effect is subject to established laws that govern particle matter. As such, neither their manufacture nor their residual effect ought be discarded as evidence of intelligent design.

Then your claim that 'order' implies 'intelligent design' is wholly unsupported.

No. My claim is only potentially unsupported, as it is with any scientific theory.

That it is not outside of the realm of possibility does not mean that it is supported by any evidence.

Correct. It is entirely possible that the theory of evolution is not supported by any evidence. I don't think so. I think the evidence for evolution is quite strong. It does not surprise me in the least that certain folks like yourself mistake it for pure science, but it does surprise me that folks like yourself would use the law of the land to grant it an exclusive hearing in public school science classrooms when the Constitution does not guarantee as much and in fact prohibits it.

611 posted on 10/16/2006 6:44:59 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I am a Roman Catholic and that gives me every reason to be "arrogant" or confident or whatever.

The Catholic Church does not disagree with the theory of evolution.

612 posted on 10/16/2006 6:45:01 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I really don't care except insofar as you want to tax me and mine to propagate your fantasies . . .

Good enough reason to care.

613 posted on 10/16/2006 6:48:15 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Ping to 609.


614 posted on 10/16/2006 6:49:15 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
I personally do not subscribe to the Anglican Bishop Ushher's notion that the earth was created in 4,000 BC on Tuesday afternoon at 2 PM on a day in March or whatever. First, I am not an ape. Second, I am a Roman Catholic. Third, you have a remarkable nerve calling weak the faith of Catholics and other Christians who KNOW that they are not beasts whatever Darwin may have imagined. That silly proposition is like suggesting that I cannot be a strong Yankee fan because I refuse to root for the Red Sox. Or that I cannot be a strong Catholic unless I worship Dilbert or Darwin or whatever the silly fool's name was.

Do you guys think that physics, aeronautical engineering, archaeology and chemistry are based on Darwin's delusion also. I had thought that physics, chemistry and archaeology certainly predated the voyage of the Beagle (all genuflect before Darwin almighty!!!!) and that DaVinci probably did some serious speculating on aeronautical enginering long before Darwin was a gleam in the elder Darwin's eye.

If you want an argument where you may receive respect, try someone who thinks that the "enlightenment" was a good thng. I don't. BTW, the "dark ages" were actually the Age of Faith. And, what think thee of "Chaos Theory" as a refutation of the silly notion that man is the master of the universe???

615 posted on 10/16/2006 6:50:37 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The Catholic Church does not disagree with the theory of evolution.

The Roman Catholic Church, like the biblical texts, disagrees with materialistic naturalism, which in turn is the underlying philosophy of a good many evolutionists. The Roman Catholic Church certainly does not support efforts to have Darwinism and evolution taught exclusively in public schools by law.

616 posted on 10/16/2006 6:53:16 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
...try someone who thinks that the "enlightenment" was a good thng. I don't. BTW, the "dark ages" were actually the Age of Faith.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone before espouse the "dark ages" over the enlightenment or later periods. This is simply amazing!

(How do you heat your cave, anyway?)

617 posted on 10/16/2006 6:55:37 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
The Roman Catholic Church certainly does not support efforts to have Darwinism and evolution taught exclusively in public schools by law.

Catholic schools teach evolution.

618 posted on 10/16/2006 6:57:35 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
"A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified . . ."

How does one verify that two common forms are historically derived from one another apart from inference? What is the difference between "proof" and "verification?"

619 posted on 10/16/2006 7:02:51 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Catholic schools teach evolution.

Dogs eat firecrackers.

620 posted on 10/16/2006 7:04:40 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 1,061-1,070 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson