Polish MEP calls for ‘scholarly debate’ on evolution

Radio Polonia ^ | Oct 16, 2006

[JoAnka]

Polish MEP calls for ‘scholarly debate’ on evolution

Polish European Parliament deputy and biology professor, Maciej Giertych, is calling for an end to the monopoly of Darwinian theory in the teaching of evolution in schools.

'I am a scientist, I am a geneticist, my specialty is population genetics and I reject the theory of evolution on the basis of the field of science I represent. I find that in many fields of science there are scientists who reject the theory of evolution because in their fields they also find evidence against the theory.’ says MEP Maciej Giertych.

For the past decades, biology classes in Poland and around the world have focused practically exclusively on Darwinian theory when tackling the subject of evolution. Prof. Giertych and his colleagues see room for reform in this respect.

'Schools are teaching evolution as a fact and there seems to be very little reference to new research that would either support or negate the theory of evolution. There is so much new evidence that is being simply ignored by the school textbooks.’

But when last week in the European Parliament Giertych and a group of non-Darwinian scientists organized a conference, a whiff of controversy was in the air. Some commentators were quick to label Giertych a religious bigot, ridicule his views and boldly question his competence. Prof. Kielan-Jaworowska:

'There are people who still believe that not the earth is going round the sun but the sun round the earth. His views have nothing to do with science; I would not call him a scientist. We are deeply ashamed that he got the title of a professor and that he is a biologist.'

But not everyone feels that ideology on the verge of religious bigotry is on Giertych's side of the debate. Dr Otto Neuman of the Polish Creationist Society:

'That is a heritage of communism when evolutionary doctrines were taught in schools like a kind of religion.'

Meanwhile Giertych and his non-Darwinian colleagues say they want to stay away from the emotional dispute and focus on an honest scholarly debate in the spirit of academic freedom. A debate, which, they feel, should lead to biology classes being more diverse and open to newest findings.

'The proponents of the theory of evolution are not prepared to sit down and look at the evidence and present their own evidence for the theory of evolution. Debates on the subject immediately develop into philosophical conflict, a lot of emotions are involved and a tendency to label the other side as ignorant, as motivated ideologically - whereas what is needed is a serious scientific debate and confrontation of results.'

Whether a debate is possible, remains to be seen. First, scholars on both sides must recognize each other as partners. And that is still to be achieved. Prof. Kielan-Jaworowska again:

'I don't think scientific discussion with him is possible.'

In response to such attitudes the non-Darwinian side of the conflict is calling for less prejudice and more access to public debate. Prof. Giertych again:

'Since the opponents of the theory of evolution are finding evidence against it, we are struggling to get this into the public domain. We want the media and the textbooks to recognize the fact that there exists empirical evidence against the theory of evolution.'

The liberal archbishop Życiński of Lublin, has criticized Prof. Giertych's call for scholarly debate. However the official Catholic Church position on the subject was reiterated by the late Polish Pope, John Paul II, who in a 1996 statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences said, "fresh knowledge leads to recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."

[rovenstinez]

A good idea, whose time has come. A lively debate, and open minded people who arent religiously bowing to the religious altar of Charles Darwin.,

[Buck W.]

"A lively debate, and open minded people who arent religiously bowing to theany religious altar of Charles Darwin..."

[rippingmyhairout]

'"That is a heritage of communism when evolutionary doctrines were taught in schools like a kind of religion."

Communism = Liberalism....Take note Dummiecrats

[taxesareforever]

'I am a scientist, I am a geneticist, my specialty is population genetics and I reject the theory of evolution on the basis of the field of science I represent. I find that in many fields of science there are scientists who reject the theory of evolution because in their fields they also find evidence against the theory.’ says MEP Maciej Giertych.

You mean that contrary to most evolutionists opinions that there are "real" scientists who consider evolution a lie? This is great!!!!

[Dracian]

there are "real" scientists who consider evolution a lie?

Let's see their published research refuting it.

[Sopater]

Ping...

[JoAnka]

You mean that contrary to most evolutionists opinions that there are "real" scientists who consider evolution a lie? This is great!!!!

Seems like they not only exist but begin to speak up as well. God help them break through the intolerance and prejudice of Darwin worshippers.

[Grzegorz 246]

Once I read something about a Russian scientist, who claims that vodka cures cancer.

[thomaswest]

Let's have the debate include whether Noah's flood actually happened---or could have happened without violating all that is known in science.

That will keep the creationists at bay, because they know the flood myth can't be supported. Some of the early creationist planners for ID advocated ID precisely because "it will divert attention from Noah's flood [where our arguments are weak]."

[Coyoteman]

Seems like they not only exist but begin to speak up as well. God help them break through the intolerance and prejudice of Darwin worshippers.

Science follows a specific method, called the scientific method.

When scientists stop following that method, they are no longer doing science.

Here is a good example: The Creation Research Society has the following on their home page:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

Lets see what else they say.

CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research?

Anytime preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing apologetics, not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as this, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science.

[JoAnka]

Darwinian evolutionism requires a leap of faith as well. I'd like to see less of prejudice and labelling and more of an honest discussion. I'd like to see evolutionists present actual arguments against creationism as well as for evolutionism and not just silence the other side by calling them nuts.

[Coyoteman]

I'd like to see evolutionists present actual arguments against creationism as well as for evolutionism and not just silence the other side by calling them nuts.

I have been presenting evidence in these threads for years. Creationists often either hand-wave that evidence away, no matter what it is, or occasionally tell me I'm an atheist and headed for hell.

But, since you asked for evidence we'll give it a try:

This is a transitional fossil. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[taxesareforever]

That will keep the creationists at bay, because they know the flood myth can't be supported.

You are aboslutely right, because creationists do not believe the flood is a "myth". They believe it is a fact and therefore can't and won't offer support for a "myth". Creationists are only interested in facts unlike the evolutionists who dwell on theories which include the big lie.

[xenophiles]

I took a look at the first link in your list. I'm afraid I couldn't see the point of it. It seems to argue that different species of hominid are... well... different species. And then it leaps to the conclusion that evolution didn't happen. It doesn't seem to actually debunk anything. Am I missing something?

[blowfish]

They believe it is a fact

...yet can provide no credible evidence for this 'fact'. Which pretty much demonstrates their methodology in a nutshell.

[Ichneumon]

Are we going to pretend this bias does not affect the pro-evolution communities? Only if we're naive. Look what happened to Forrest Mims, Richard Sternberg, Dr. Raymond Damadian and Francis Beckwith. All of them were given a hard time because they didn't fall into line with their "peers" on neodarwinian beliefs.

No, Dave, they were given a hard time because they compromised critical scholarly standards in whorish support of their creationist beliefs. In short, they acted unprofessionally and their reputations suffered as a result. Big surprise. Try being a Catholic priest who uses the Eucharist for making peanut-butter crackers, for example, and see what happens to your reputation and your job prospects.

Similarly, being an anti-evolutionist who tells nothing but the truth is a career-limiting move.