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 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 1,061-1,070 next last
Comment #441 Removed by Moderator

To: atomsandevil
I don't follow you.

You're not supposed to. You're supposed to follow the money.

442 posted on 10/16/2006 7:47:50 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

Comment #443 Removed by Moderator

To: curiosity

ANTI-Scientific to "Discuss" a scientific theory: You must be wack..


444 posted on 10/16/2006 8:06:25 AM PDT by JSDude1 (www.pence08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
ID is hardly party to a particular religion

Phillip Johnson, a lawyer by trade, father of the ID movement, and co-founder of the Discovery Institute's ID program, said ID is "just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message." The strategy as stated in their "Wedge Strategy" document is to whitewash Creation, make it acceptable as science, and then get it into the science class for the purpose of evangelism. The leading people involved in ID who have academic credentials have also stated that the "designer" is the Christian God.

Intelligent Design is not about advancing science, but about advancing the Christian God. That's why it belongs in a religion or philosophy class, not a science class.

445 posted on 10/16/2006 8:07:43 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

Comment #446 Removed by Moderator

To: lizol

Good for him! I like Poland more and more.


447 posted on 10/16/2006 8:18:14 AM PDT by Marysecretary (Thank you, Lord, for FOUR MORE YEARS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Darwinism is anti-scientific. It's a theory for heaven's sake. It should be taught that way.


448 posted on 10/16/2006 8:19:36 AM PDT by Marysecretary (Thank you, Lord, for FOUR MORE YEARS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
ID fits comfortably into Wikipedia's definition of a theory. Intelligent design is directly observable and testable, and its effects can be inferred in any case where there is organized matter performing a specific function.

Nobody does. The problem is that when creationists call it a "theory" they mean it in the vernacular . . .

Whether the word is used in the vernacular or the technical sense, it is not the place of evolutionists to make positive statements in science class when their theory, like all theories, is subject to competing theories. It is most certainly not their place to have their theory established by law as the only one allowed to be spoken in public schools. That's what I call having one's panties in a twist, and that is precisely the motivation behind the recent Dover decision.

What are the conditions to falsify ID? What predictions does it make?

In regard to the first question: Chaos, i.e. the disintegration of particle matter into such a form as to make the universe unintelligible and science impossible. As an aside, if you are going to make falsification the ultimate test of whether a theory is scientific, then you will have to discard every axiom science works with, because no axiom can be universally tested, and all are thus non-falsifiable.

In regard to the second question, intelligent design predicts that organized matter will be found, and will demonstrate cause and effect.

One need look no further than a typical post on FR to have an example of intelligent design that is scientifically accessible. One need look no further than a single atom or molecule to have evidence from which to infer intelligent design.

449 posted on 10/16/2006 8:24:13 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary
Darwinism is anti-scientific. It's a theory for heaven's sake. It should be taught that way.

The theory of evolution is taught as a theory.

450 posted on 10/16/2006 8:25:40 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: atomsandevil

Gee, you've only been on Fr a week! Are you from the Church of Darwin Retreads?


451 posted on 10/16/2006 8:41:31 AM PDT by Mamzelle (troll-san)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
DannyTN, Have you considered changing your alter ego login name to Roadrunner? It would suit you well.

DannyTN

'scientific' coyote

...becomes so single-minded, and so fixated on his pursuit of proving that evolution is a 'fact'....that fails constantly to consider Murphy's Law, even as attempting schemes that by all standards of credibility cannot possibly succeed. The ACME materials and mythology that are utilized become more and more fantastic as evidence and mathematical probabiltiy mount against it, like tornado seeds, earthquake pills, pictures of ape and human skulls, views that time+chance+random energy can produce anything more complicated than humans have ever deisgned, dehydrated boulders, and jet-powered unicycles, all fail by their multiple fallibilities.


452 posted on 10/16/2006 8:44:33 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Intelligent Design is not about advancing science, but about advancing the Christian God.

I guess that depends on whether the Christian God is ultimately and objectively responsible for creating an intelligible universe and intelligent beings to explore it. Should science turn its back on what may be objectively true just because it does not comport with the underlying philosophies of some people? No amount of semantic shenanigans can invalidate the scientific accessibility of intelligent design. Only on the basis of philosophy can one discard intelligent design as an illusion.

453 posted on 10/16/2006 8:54:53 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
Was that a swipe at me without even a courtesy ping?

'scientific' coyote...becomes so single-minded, and so fixated on his pursuit of proving that evolution is a 'fact'...pictures of ape and human skulls...
Actually evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact part is that organisms and populations change from generation to generation. Nobody disagrees with that. The theory of evolution explains those changes.

And as for the skull pictures (posted upthread). Can you tell me which of the skulls are apes and which are humans? And why?

454 posted on 10/16/2006 8:55:06 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Why insult chimps?


455 posted on 10/16/2006 9:00:29 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: atomsandevil

Of course not!


NIV Matthew 24:5
For many will come in my name, claiming, `I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.






NIV Acts 1:9-11
9. After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.
11. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."


THIS is how Jesus will 'return'!!!


456 posted on 10/16/2006 9:10:48 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: atomsandevil
DDo you think moon is the Returning Lord?

Is the 'Reverend' a Jew?

457 posted on 10/16/2006 9:12:05 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: atomsandevil

It's Mormons - not Moonies...


458 posted on 10/16/2006 9:13:10 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I guess that depends on whether the Christian God is ultimately and objectively responsible for creating an intelligible universe and intelligent beings to explore it.

Now you're outside of science, and into philosophy and religion. Should we also study the turtles that go all the way down?

No amount of semantic shenanigans can invalidate the scientific accessibility of intelligent design.

Only semantic shenanigans can validate ID, by redefining words (confusing the vernacular "theory" with a scientific one, a common tactic) and even redefining science.

459 posted on 10/16/2006 9:13:25 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary
Darwinism is anti-scientific. It's a theory for heaven's sake.

You have contradicted yourself.
460 posted on 10/16/2006 9:13:32 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 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