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

AFP via Yahoo! News ^ | October 14, 2006

[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.

[FreedomProtector]

"Popper's statement of nonfalsifiability was pretty mild, not as extensive as it is often taken. He applied it only to natural selection, not evolution as a whole, and he allowed that some testing of natural selection was possible, just not a significant amount."


"Popper does not and has never said that TOE is unscientific or unable to produce research."
Of course he never said that. Intelligent people created in the image of intelligent God produce research [that often times reflects their presuppositions]

Popper, clearly not an advocate of theism, never said that the history of the origin of life was nonfalsifiable either.

"Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable."
Dah....


The science of changing the frequency of preexisting information within a population of a specific kind of animal has been around for thousands of years also called selective breeding, whether or not natural selection was the breeder or not. Long before Darwin, breeders used artificial selection to develop improved strains of crops and livestock. Jacob, an important historical person in the Bible (in the supposedly evil book of Genesis) .
understood the process of changing the frequency of preexisting information within a specific kind of animal well long before Darwin was ever born and was quite clever in its usage: "So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob" Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian thought has never provided any benefit to experimental biology, it has only provided a basis for secular religion.


"Directed evolution is now routine in the laboratory."
Selective breeding is routine in the laboratory. It was also routine in the supposedly evil book of Genesis. The history of the origin of life is obviously not routine in the laboratory.


....still need clarification as to which side are you on....

this obviously doesn't answer the question, and although funny pictures are always welcome, this is not a Miss America pageant

"Popper's statement of nonfalsifiability was pretty mild, not as extensive as it is often taken. He applied it only to natural selection, not evolution as a whole"

Evolution [as a whole] fits Popper's "definition to a tee", and evolution can be falsified.
OR
Evolution [as a whole] does not fit Popper's "definition to a tee", and evolution can not be falsified.

"Popper's statement of nonfalsifiability was pretty mild" is a biased illiterate statement...

"Sir Peter Medawar called it "one of the most important documents of the twentieth century." In it, Popper argued that science should adopt a methodology based on falsification, because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one. Thus, theories should be accepted as scientific only if they show the essential characteristic of falsifiability." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery

[Fester Chugabrew]

You seem bitter about the trial outcome.

I am bitter about it, yes. That tends to happen when the principles declared in our Constitution are undermined by judicial fiat and the judge's decision championed by people who claim to be "conservative." For one who accepts non-falsifiable renditions of history as "science" you really should not be lecturing me on "accepting reality."

[FreedomProtector]

How can you calculate odds on a series of events that have not been observed?

We observe in the lab that amino acids appear in left-handed and right-handed mirror-image forms. When made from scratch in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear. The only assumption is trying to put together a chain of all one kind. Never mind any meaningful designed information that one also needs or all of the other parts of a cell which are more complicated then any human has ever designed, just a long chain of all left handed or all right handed amino acids with no meaningful information is all it is asking for.


"No one believes that life comes from non-life in one step, except creationists."

The calculations are not trying to do it in one step. They are trying to put together one part once a second for a very long time. Simultaneous origins is eventually necessary...all of those necessary pieces have to be present in the prebiotic soup eventually together at the same time....many of the interdependent building blocks naturally decay left to themselves. The probability calculations do not require simultaneous origins.


"How can you calculate odds on a series of events that have not been observed?"

If you haven't observed the series of events leading to the origin of life, and you believe it happened, is it science or faith?


"But I have already stipulated that we may never know the exact history of the origin of life. We may, however, be able to demonstrate a possible set of steps"

Just because one doesn't understand the internals of a scientific process or processes, wouldn't one observe the effects of it? Wouldn't one be able to demonstrate effects of a not completely understood processes? Gravity wasn't understood until Newton, and apples still fell to the ground--one could observe the effects.

[Marysecretary]

I'm no teacher. You'll have to ask someone who is.

[Marysecretary]

Because I know him well and spent time with him when he gave lectures on the subject a number of years ago.

[js1138]

I am bitter about it, yes.

You are going to have to try to get over that, or it will make you sick. The legal case isn't going to get any better for you.

[js1138]

Simultaneous origins is eventually necessary...all of those necessary pieces have to be present in the prebiotic soup eventually together at the same time....

This is simply wrong.

[flipper999]

Its the little things in life that are the most fun!

[Dimensio]

Because I know him well and spent time with him when he gave lectures on the subject a number of years ago.

If you had attended lectures on the subject, why do you not now know the specific creation story that he taught, or the context in which he taught it?

[FreedomProtector]

Even if were are no parts of a cell that depend on each other for existence (indeed there are, and ....many of the interdependent building blocks naturally decay left to themselves), the probability calculations make no such assumption (of simultaneous origins). The calculations are trying to put together one part once a second for a very long time. The part you claim is wrong is an additional difficulty in addition to probability calculations.

Try again.

[js1138]

I have no interest in arguing abiogenesis. There is no working hypothesis, so what's the point?

It has no relevance to variation, selection and common descent.

[js1138]

Every time I point out that ID advocates accept common descent and a very old earth, you try to change the subject to the origin of life.

That's fine if you are here to score points and not have a discussion. have a point on me. Evilutionists don't know how life began.

Now on to evolution itself.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Only another scientific hypothesis can falsify evolution, ID does not fit the criteria, not one little bit.

So the answer is no, ID cannot falsify evolution, because evolution is scientific, ID is not.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Science should be taught in science classes, ID is not science, therefore it should not be taught in science class.

Evolution is scientific, no matter how much you whine that it isn't, and there is not another hypothesis nor theory that competes with it. Therefore, evolution should be the only theory that is taught in a science class.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

No, he just hasn't accepted reality. (period) end of sentence.

[dread78645]

"Free the Hovind 58" placemark

[FreedomProtector]

"Only another scientific hypothesis can falsify evolution, ID does not fit the criteria, not one little bit. So the answer is no..."


If answer is your answer is no, evolution cannot be falsified. Then evolution is not science by the definition Popper gave in The Logic of Scientific Discovery in 1959, called "one of the most important documents of the twentieth century."

"Thus, theories should be accepted as scientific only if they show the essential characteristic of falsifiability."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery


Is that your final answer?

...

If it is, Evolutionist and senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson agrees with you: “If we accept [Karl] Popper’s distinction between science and non-science, we must first ask whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical) … Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test.” [Colin Patterson, Evolution (London: British Museum of Natural History, 1978), pp. 145-146


However evolutionist and senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson doesn't agree with your next statement:

"evolution is scientific"

Evolution is not scientific if one accepts [Karl] Popper’s distinction between science and non-science according to Evolutionist and senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson.

The display of logical deduction and careful thinking by evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson stands in contrast to your contradictory statement.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Evolution is falsifiable, your entire pretext it flawed.

Show me human bones in the strata of dinosaurs, evolution is falsified.

There are numerous ways to falsify Evolution, the fact is, that no one has done it yet.

Can you do it?

Just because evolution has not been falsified, does not mean that it can't be.

Also, ID is not and never will be scientific, it is a faith based belief, with little to no evidence whatsoever.

And, ID does not claim that evolution did not occur, as a matter of fact, evolution is a major piece of ID.

So to say that ID somehow falsifies Evolution, is, well, ridiculous, and shows that you know little to nothing about it, then again, you know little to nothing about evolution, so why should I be surprised that you know little to nothing about ID, as Dembski and others define it?

[Jaguarbhzrd]

BTW, the quote from Colin Patterson, was taken comletely out of context, and of course quote mined by creationists, as usual.

The quote does not mean, what you seem to think it means.

Dr Patterson knows that evolution is scientific, and understands that it is the only theory that explains all the evidence in a coherent and scientific way.

Quote mining by a creationist, who woulda thunk it?

[FreedomProtector]

You wrote: "Only another scientific hypothesis can falsify evolution"

Then you wrote: "Evolution is falsifiable"

Logical deduction says that if your own two statements are true, there must be a scientific hypothesis that can falsify evolution, Intelligent Design.

....but instead of being consistent and logically deduct within your own statements you wrote a contridictory: "ID is not and never will be scientific"

Do you have a consistent answer or are you trying to confuse yourself with contridictory statements?