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.
Okay, basic English here, it's a science class, so we teach science there. What is science is defined by the scientific community. We don't need the legal system, except to counter those who would do an end-run around the scientific community in order to put unaccepted pseudoscience into the science class.
As we've all told you before. If you want ID in the science class, then ID has to survive in the scientific community on its own merits, not by fiat of a school board.
Of course not. You are one of many, and by your example demonstrate that intelligent design is scientifically accessible.
You still haven't bowed to me. I am the designer.
Okay, basic logic here: Then maybe it's time we used the legal system to remove the philosophy of history known as evolution (in the wide sense) from the science classroom, because insofar as it indulges in unfalsifiable reconstructions of history it is not science.
Sure I have. Just not in the direction you might prefer.
Well, I did say the randomnness is an appearance, didn't I? Just like your source. Objectivley, however, it is anything but chaos.
My position: It seems to be random, thus it is called chaos by definition.
Your position: It only seems to be random, thus it is not chaos.
The main feature of chaos is the unpredictability, and not that it is unintelligible. This unpredictability does not necessarily root in randomness.
chaos. phlogiston.
Both are equally valuable as scientific terms. In order for chaos to essentially rule, physical laws governing physical matter must cease to function. Until then, chaos, like the words supernatural and natural, are scientifically trite.
Yes. It is very confusing. You have claimed that there is "no evidence" for Darwin's theory. You've even said you would "LOVE" to see it banned. But you've said that banning is not the "American Way," or maybe you don't think it's practical or presently possible. And so you want this "two sides" approach.
But how can a theory without evidence even have a side? I'm confused about how you think evolution can be presented as a "side" if there is "no evidence" for it. Clearly you don't mean one of these things. Either that or you think it's O.K. to blatantly lie to students, pretending there is evidence for something that in fact has "no evidence". I would find that confusing as well.
Second, even if you think it's impractical or inappropriate to affirmatively ban evolution, why wouldn't it suffice to demand creationism be taught without saying anything one way or the other regarding evolution? Why advocate (even if conditionally on it only being "one side") teaching as science a theory which you assert is "anti-science" and for which there is "no evidence"?
IOW, why establish, even advocate, the principle that ideas with "no evidence" can, even should, be included in curricula?
And, once you've established this principle, how in the world do you expect to oppose leftist and liberal pap, pablum and lies in curricula? After all liberals and leftists can claim that their ideas, even if without demonstrable academic merit, represent "one side" of whatever issue.
Which creation account does he teach, and in what context?
You need to convince the wider scientific community of the veracity of your claim first. Of course you won't. The best you can do is scientifically disprove the ToE. But because you can't, you want to drag it to your side, redefine it, so you can destroy it with a different set of rules that aren't science.
Just face the fact that you don't like the ToE because it doesn't include your god in it, because you think everything should include your god. You have a horse in this race, and are therefore extremely biased.
OTOH, I don't care one bit if the ToE gets thrown out of the schools as an outdated theory. Give me scientific disproof of the ToE and an alternate scientific theory that better explains what we see, and I'll be the first volunteer to present it. I wouldn't mind the Nobel Prize and a permanent place in the science books.
I will be your cheerleader if you can give that to me, because it will advance science. But I will not be a cheerleader for religion masquerading as science.
You, OTOH, would most likely not volunteer to promote a disproof of your god.
This concepts may be trite, but there are precise definitions, accepted by virtually everyone who discusses this terms. And until the physical laws cease to function, communication is so much easier if the terms are used in the usual way - unless stated otherwise!
I would if that were the case. I do not like the ToE (in the wide sense) because it falsely assumes the name science for itself and invokes the law to gain an exclusive hearing in public school science rooms. I am not the one trying to outlaw any mention of ToE in science classrooms, however.
Like many in your shrinking club, you apply a double standard to the ToE and intelligent design. You allow ample room for inference on the part of the former, but deny it entirely to the latter, even though the latter enjoys present day, scientifically accessible processes of intelligent design. Worst of all, you demonstrate a crass disregard for what is written in our Constitution.
Well, the "precise" definition you called forth attributes the word "appears" to chaos, just like I do. In essence science is still investigating what is chaos and what is not, so it is proper to qualify any use of the word in a scientific context. Until physical laws cease to function, any process of cause and effect may be reasonably inferred as a product of intelligent design.
What do you think this is, some creature trying to make itself grander? That it just came into existence and called itself science? The ToE started as a basic idea, and its proponents had to fight their way up the sceintific food chain based on the merit of the theory. Only after it had been vetted, attacked and rediculed for years was it finally accepted as valid science. That is why it is called science and taught in science class.
But you'd like to bypass this whole process for ID and use school boards to put ID in by the back door.
Like many in your shrinking club
"Teach the Controversy" likes to say that to make people think there's some kind of scientific crisis going on. Sorry to say, the ToE is stronger today than it was when Johnson invented his evangelical tool.
I'm glad you asked because of the present state we have currently evolved into there is no way there was enough time to go from one primitive species to our present species. The problem is evolution needs much more time for species to change according to theory. We should be no where near our current state. Look at sciences own number, they don't add up.
According to science how old is the hominid species?
I don't know that since he teaches it in school and I'm not a part of that.
Oh, something like an early horse in transition?
The essential absence of cohesiveness; the opposite of order. Randomness is neither of these, for even randomness can be mathematically, reasonably, or intelligibly assessed.
Now, I would grant vernacular use of the word to denote a general state of disorder, but when using it in connection with intelligent design theory, because the evidence of intelligent design extends to particle matter and beyond, the word chaos ought to be applied more strictly.
900?
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.