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.
Bummer. That was going to be the centerpiece of my hall of insults. And now it's gone ...
Nope.
I saved it as apart of my reply. :-)
Elsie could not figure that out for some reason.
I doubt anyone on the evo side would have a problem with any of your points.
Try taking them up with the IDers.
Dave all I am trying to do is save you a lot of grief in later life. In my fifty years of moseying around this globe, I have seen people (intelligent and very well educated ones) who basically fell apart because of this kind of stuff.
It is a self imposed trap. All I am asking is for you to just think about it.
I think you are spot on. :-)
Yeah, but you're just a lying infidel from the Church of Darwin trying to impurify our precious bodily fluids.
Why should anyone trust you?
;-> *
* as required by Poe's law.
It is generally accepted that the term was invented by Petrarch in the 1330s. Writing of those who had come before him, he said that "amidst the errors there shone forth men of genius, no less keen were their eyes, although they were surrounded by darkness and dense gloom. Christian writers had traditional metaphors of "light versus darkness" to describe "good versus evil." Petrarch was the first to co-opt the metaphor and give it secular meaning by reversing its application. Classical Antiquity, so long considered the "dark age" for its lack of Christianity, was now seen by Petrarch as the age of "light" because of its cultural achievements, while Petrarch's time, lacking such cultural achievements, was now seen as the age of darkness.emphasis added - link
This is one source. Another, which I cannot locate immedately, specifically connects the Dark Ages to a lack of use of the biblical texts.
Then why not try to answer my questions: 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?" My interest is not in arguing with the Pope or with you, but in having answers to my questions.
You asserted that "explaining the concepts to [me] would be an exercise in futility." I'm not at all confused about what you said. I'm also not amused.
I think the whole post was over the top, and the response was too mild.
Flapdoodle.
The dark ages were a point in time where the church and other fanatics attempted to destroy the secular knowledge (much was) of the world and most likely set mankind 500 years or so back from where we should be now.
(We see it happening again) This tirade against evolution is just one tiny part of the pendulum swing back to fanaticism and ignorance. I fear for this world.
Men wrote the Bible. You have faith that those men wrote God's word.
I don't take another guy's word for what God says.
I guess that it is better to be half-beast with a soul (mortal or immortal???)
Immortal, Real, and unchanging. Unlike the physical.You feel your physical existence is more divine than other animals?
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.
You mean the Truth of Moses and Paul et al. in favor of physical evidence.
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.....?????
I don't.
Most importantly, if science appears to disagree with revealed Truth, which prevails and why???
Science deals with the physical world only. It is only part of Truth.
If you say science, prove your Christianity.
What makes you think I'm a Christian? I'm not.
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.
You mean, they believe in the Bible. I believe in God, but I don't equate Him to a book written by men.
Capitalizing ToE seems to suggest a sort of divine status of Darwinian delusion.
Or it differentiates it from a bodily appendage.
She was questioned because she made false statements about evolution, not because of her faith in God.
Agreed, Dashhat wasn't banned.
Anyone who tells someone to go get fisted does not belong here.
It appears that Fester is attempting to redefine "Dark Ages" to suit his whims, just as he attempts to redefine "science" and "intelligent design". Note that he boldfaces an explanation that Classical Antiquity was once thought of as a 'dark age' because of a lack of Christianity, even though his source never claims that it was formally called the "dark ages", as evidence that the historical term "Dark Ages" refers to an era without Christian influence.
"1. scientists can't prove or disprove the existence of God"
I agree and I would add the following. The primary purpose of science is to discover and explain what is going on in the physical world and it can prove or disprove theories using the evidence obtained from the physical world.
If we accept the theory that God is beyond the physical universe, the proof of God existence cannot come from scientific experiment or observation. Nevertheless, science definitely cannot prove that this universe with all its organic and inorganic beings and intricate laws of nature came out of nowhere. Plus, the more people learn in depth about science, the more they agree that there is some power beyond the physical world that directs the development of universe.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html
That analogy doesn't hold water. Evidence of intelligent design and the color of the sky are wholly different subjects and objects. Like intelligent design, however, the color of the sky can be, and has been, falsified. (Not that faslification is the essence of science, as I have said before.)
That is not a specific prediction . . .
How specific do you want it to be? Does the theory of evolution predict precisely where certain fossils will be found? No. It predicts generally, and it does so based upon a track record that is already known! You call that a "prediction?" Let's see the theory of evolution predict the condition of man 10,000 years from now since it has a "scientific" record dating back billions of years. Surely it is but a simple matter to extrapolate and predict such a short span of development.
To say intelligent design predicts order, and that order may considered a product of intelligent design is to place the intelligible universe into a scientific paradigm that has been used since the beginning. It is so ubiquitous and so obvious and to make people who object to it look foolish. The only objections one may have against this theory are philosophical in nature.
So you say some normal guy has been sitting on the sidelines for the last several billion years guiding evolution?
Your question touches upon the manner and degree of involvement between an intelligent designer and its product. At times there is direct involvement. At times it is residual. Nothing supernatural about that. Or do you get all religious when you see a machine running by itself with no operator standing at its side? Is that spooky to you?
If you're outside of the house, then by definition you're not inside.
A house is a physical object that has a generally agreed upon definition. Besides, it is possible to be inside and out of a house at the same time simply by standing at the threshold. The word "supernatural" can only be applied subjectively by each observer. It has no scientific merit.
That has no bearing on the subject.
It most certainly does. It is a concrete, scientifically accessible example of intelligent design, and it is by no means supernatural, religious, or mystical. The assertion that intelligent design is not scientific because it is supernatural does not stand to reason or science. It does, however, have a comforting effect on some people.
You may not teach anything that is not science in the science classes of the public schools.
On the contrary, it is precisely because they are public schools paid for by the public that they may allow teaching of intelligent design both as a scientific and as a religious subject. The Constitution guarantees as much. My church is not funded by the taxpayers. I trust, after this amount of time, you do not grasp the subject.
Nope. You've fallen for a caricature of history. Not surprised, however. After all, accusations of drunken rants = reasonable voice for conservatives in your book.
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.