Keep Darwin's 'lies' out of Polish schools: education official

AFP via Yahoo! News ^ | October 14, 2006

[antiRepublicrat]

That analogy doesn't hold water.

Fine, you want unordered? Take the smoke from a cigarette, unordered chaos. Disproved.

How specific do you want it to be?

It would help if you stated that you expect a specific ordered thing to appear in the future, that its appearance is best explained by your theory. Or, since we're going forensic, that an existing specific ordered thing should be found that isn't easily explained by competing theories. The ToE did this.

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.

I've read about this paradigm, as it's the one that had people thinking that lightning was caused by angry gods.

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?

Now you repeat back to me what I proposed earlier -- that God set up the mechanism and left it alone to this end result. Of course, that in no way affects the validity of the ToE, as it would be just as accurately describing God's machine.

The word "supernatural" can only be applied subjectively by each observer. It has no scientific merit.

What part of "natural science" do you not understand?

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.

As a religious subject, I'll agree, but it's still not science.

[VadeRetro]

Read the thing yourself. The "lack of Christianity" is in the "Classical Antiquity"--Greece and Rome from approximately the Persian Wars to the fall of the Empire-- the time Petrarch considers shining in enlightenment. That time was very literally unchristian until near the end. The Battle of Marathon, 490 BC. The "Pax Romana" flowering of the Roman Empire, 27 BC to 180 AD. The Edict of Milan, 313 AD. Romulus Augustulus deposed by Odoacer, 476 AD.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding the text? The term "Dark Ages" as most people us it refers to the time AFTER the fall of the Empire in the West. Nobody but Fester thinks it was dark because people didn't sit around in monasteries copying religiouis texts. That's one thing they did lots of and it was dark anyway. It was dark because people lived in squalor and political anarchy. It was dark because barbarian hordes of various types ran riot. It was dark because nobody had an education beyond that of the average YEC on FR.

Another, which I cannot locate immedately, specifically connects the Dark Ages to a lack of use of the biblical texts.

If you can find one source to support your delusion somewhere, you're still wrong. The world has been using that term with only minor variations from the time of Petrarch. Anyone who thinks a dark age is when people don't read their bibles is using it to describe the wrong era and thus not using it as you advertise.

[si tacuissem]

Does this source really support your interpretation?
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.
For me, this seems to indicate, that Petrarca defined the term "dark ages" anew:
For his contemporaries, it had meant to be the non-christian time of the classical antiquity, for him, it became the medieval times.
So, your definition of "dark ages" as a period where "the biblical texts fell into disuse" is outdated since the 13th century.

[FreedomProtector]

The two arguments the apostle Paul gives for the existence of God in Romans are valid and relevant as well.


"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Rom 1:20


"..in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." Rom 2:15

While articulated by many, one popular reading of the argument from conscience is in C.S. Lewis book Mere Christianity. He expounds the argument that universal Laws of right and wrong imply a Lawgiver in the first six chapter of the book. In his book, "The Abolition of Man"[ Abolition of Man Chapter 1, Abolition of Man Chapter 2, Abolition of Man Chapter 3 ], he tackles the subject of how education develops ones sense of morality. While doing so he provides various proofs of the doctrine of objective value, the idea that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false... Lewis calls this objective value the "Tao". The two books go together.

[RadioAstronomer]

Nope. You've fallen for a caricature of history.

Ummm... Bzzzttt... WRONG! LOL!

Looking over all the other posts to you, it seems you are alone in your view. When the whole world stands up and says "hey bud - your wrong", you may just want to go re-think your position.

[VadeRetro]

When the whole world stands up and says "hey bud - your wrong", you may just want to go re-think your position.

You don't know who you're talking to. Fester's not that kind of guy.

[RunningWolf]

When the whole world stands up and says "hey bud - your wrong"

When has this happened? In fact it has not happened (it seems) to borrow from the post.

More non-science & nonsense from the crowd that claims science as their ownership and domain (it seems)

W.

[dread78645]

The two arguments the apostle Paul gives for the existence of God in Romans are valid and relevant as well.

Well, that's nice.

What does Romans have to do with the Pastoral epistles?

[FreedomProtector]

"Nobody but Fester thinks it was dark because people didn't sit around in monasteries copying religious texts. That's one thing they did lots of and it was dark anyway. It was dark because people lived in squalor and political anarchy. It was dark because barbarian hordes of various types ran riot."


What year was the printing press with movable type invented?

What was the first book printed on the printing press with movable type?

When did the dark ages [often equated to middle ages or early middle ages] end?

What year did the scientific revolution start. (Hint: Kepler, Francis Bacon, Newton etc )?

What year was the Glorious ('bloodless') Revolution?

Francis Bacon was correct when he believed the book of God's word and the book of God's world had the same author. Michael Faraday, whom Einstein called the greatest experimenter ever to live, was correct when he believed as Bacon did. Dr. Philip Skell is correct in his analysis that Darwin provides no benefit to experimental biology. Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Why Do We Invoke Darwin ? Revisited ( Dr. Phillip Skell's response to Reader's Comments )

[VadeRetro]

Will the last person who knows the Earth isn't flat turn out the lights? placemarker.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Upon further reading it appears the phrase "Dark Ages" has been assigned more than one meaning throughout history. Those who use the phrase as if to blame Christianity for a lack of progess have taken up a new meaning and are perpetrating an incorrect version of history. "Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope."

[RightWingNilla]

Those who use the phrase as if to blame Christianity for a lack of progess

Who ever said this?

[dread78645]

... Fester's not that kind of guy.

"As a rock on the seashore he standeth firm, and the dashing of the waves disturbeth him not."

[VadeRetro]

What year was the printing press with movable type invented?

About 130 years after Petrarch coined the term "Dark Ages."

I'm going to make allowances that I'm talking to a nine-year old who plays in superhero costume on the Net. We're having a discussion about whether what people call the Dark Ages was named for its notorious inattention to biblical texts. Fester says it is. It's always fun when he says something wrong and then goes on for about 30 thread pages trying to tell everyone black is white.

Now you know what we're talking about, so you can rethink what YOU're talking about. If you're proving that a Renaissance eventually happened in spite of witch doctors like you, that's already pretty well known.

[VadeRetro]

Those who use the phrase as if to blame Christianity for a lack of progess have taken up a new meaning and are perpetrating an incorrect version of history.

Is everybody but you using it wrong? Was Petrarch using it wrong?

[FreedomProtector]

Sorry...'thought the discussion was related to highlights/interesting points of of Pauline letters, not restricted to Pastoral epistles.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Sorry, but even smoke has properties consistent with intelligent design, beginning with it's property of being intelligible, and ending with its evidence of a cause and effect process that has taken place consistently since the beginning of time, namely combustion. Speaking of lightning, science still cannot predict where it will strike. Does that make it supernatural? Science does not know the cause of gravity. Does that make it supernatural?

Intelligent design is not the antithesis of evolution. Evolution as long as we have observed it has always taken place within limits. That, too, is something we would expect of intelligent design.

What part of "natural science" do you not understand?

What part of arbitrary and subjective do you not understand? The word "natural" is not a scientific term, but philosophical. What is supernatural about intelligent design when you do it all the time? Are you supernatural and beyond the scope of the so-called natural sciences?

[Fester Chugabrew]

I think, when one understands the context in which the phrase is used, he will have to decide whether is is being used incorrectly or not. It seems to have a wide range of meaning, both perjorative and not. If at some point above I accused one of you of using the phrase incorrectly, then I should take back my words until I review its use.

Some historians use the phrase to denote a period of time where we simply do not have access to the information available. Innocuous enough. As your source denotes, however, contemporary culture has picked up the phrase and used it to bash Christianity as if it were responsible for fostering a lack of progress while engaged in superstition. This appears to be a revised version of history.

[RightWingNilla]

Notice anything a little odd about that wikipedia page? Like the first paragraph? WTF??!

[VadeRetro]

Everyone's been using it the way I've been telling you all my life and in books written far earlier.