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.
And, before he died, he renounced creationist abuse of a few quotes from him.
Just in general, when you pick some five or six people from the last century of science and wave some quotes around from them to make the rest of the century go away, you're making the most ridiculous argument from authority imagineable.
If argument from authority means anything, you lose. All the authority of science says your beliefs are a cult idiocy. So get a better argument!
You have absolutely no idea how science works, do you?
The more of your posts I see, the more convinced I am that you are absolutely clueless.
The only thing more blatant then your ignorance is your arrogance.
Amazing, absolutely amazing.
Oh, and I also love the fact that you literally quote mined my post, which explained what I meant in no uncertain terms.
You took my logical and coherent post, and turned it into something that it is not, then claimed that that is what I meant.
You better wait until you can post to another page, so that someone doesn't have to just scroll up to see what you did.
You're less likely to get caught that way.
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.
This is one of the poorest attempts at logic I have ever seen.
First, only scientific evidence can falsify scientific theories. Revelation and religious belief are not scientific evidence.
That evolution is falsifiable does not mean it has been falsified. And, if fact, it has not been falsified.
To go from this to the claim that ID has falsified the theory of evolution is a flight of fancy.
Perhaps I can help you with any questions you may have on radiocarbon dating. I do quite a lot of it.
Why is it that you creationists always automatically assume that anyone that understands science, is therefore unable to understand religion, or be religious?
A person that understands science, or evolution, is not necassarily an atheist of any sort.
And to have you say that you debate science, something that you obviously have little understanding of, in order to "save" us, is arrogant in the extreme, and in all honesty, I find it rather offensive.
Oh yes. I'm one of those mean-spirited, judgmental, intolerant conservatives. Advice like the above from someone who neither understands nor values the rights we enjoy under the Constitution I take with a grain of salt. If I considered you to be a person of sound judgment I might give your advice some consideration.
The legal case isn't going to get any better for you.
How do you know? The legal case has been settled in our founding documents already. The scientific case for intelligent design is sound except for those who have adopted an alternative philosophy and deluded themselves into mistaking reasonable conjecture for pure science.
Since this seems to be a bit hard for you to understand; let me build a strawman:
When you join the service, you are issued a uniform. You are not allowed to wear anything else in boot camp. If someone tells you that you CAN, you'll be in big trouble.
So when Sarge says, "Get rid of ANYTHING Unca Sam did not give you.", I'm sure you'll know EXACTLY what he is talking about!
Same idea applied when Paul says, "Don't teach that OTHER stuff."
ID is directly accessible to science on many levels, and represents the basis for science having the ability to explore an intelligible universe intelligibly. Moving your fingers like magic wands to dismiss ID as "unscientific" reveals that you do not really care whether science is taught in science class or not.
Seeking to squelch discussion of intelligent design in public school classrooms reveals you to be an enemy of the principles established under our Constitution, not because you espouse a certain history of philosophy that may or may not be inaccord with the general population (let alone objective reality), but because you mislabel it and then seek to have it established by law as the only philosophy worthy of a hearing in public school classrooms.
But we'll suffer your your inequitable delusion here if for no other reason than to shed some light upon the nature of your fake cause and fake presence in a forum dedicated to conservative ideals, among which is a high regard for the substance and principles of our founding fathers, a regard you seem sorely to be lacking.
So true!
(Only 31 to go!)
Why... EVERYONE would!
For E's cannot QM!
If something very similar happens to be posted by the E's; then they are merely referencing a good source.
<->
Inverted Number of the Beast!
Inverted Number of the Beast!
Inverted Number of the Beast!
Inverted Number of the Beast!
Inverted Number of the Beast!
Inverted Number of the Beast!
Inverted Number of the Beast!
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.