Posted on 10/18/2006 12:14:50 PM PDT by 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."
I ... argue from a creationist perspective.
So when are you going to start doing that? You post links to AnswersinGenesis and little else. You make assertions backed up by that source and little else. You have few arguments other than from that source. So I guess the debate is not with Dave, it's with AnswerinGenesis. So why not just step aside and admit you have no idea what the h*ll you are talking about and just direct everyone to AnswersinGenesis in every post. Ooops, sorry, that's what you already do. You just fill the rest of the response in b*llsh*t.
Of course the fact that you can't agree among yourselves about which mutually exclusive slots they belong in hurts your argument! How could it not?
Am I mistaken or are you running away from your own words? Some stinkin' Lone Ranger you are, Dave!
You cannot "debunk" evolution, or even H. erectus as a transitional, with Mehlert if you aren't offering Mehlert as correct.
Here's post 14 again. The words advise that something called "man-to-human evolution" is debunked with the link contained. While "man-to-human" is not much of a transition, either "ape-to-human" was meant or you're even dodgier than I thought.
That link goes here. Link number two is Mehlert. I could have gone after John Woodmorappe or the prestigious DannyTN, but anyone who wonders about either can Google or use the FR search.
Ha ha!
Thanks for the confirmation that you are not really interested in any debate whatsoever and that you are just an AiG shill.
1. Do you post this somewhere?I just noticed that there are no results for evolutionists, amateurs or otherwise, giving the impression that all evolutionists agree, and I know that that is not true.
2. Do all ameteur evolutionists agree with the results attributed to Mainstream scientists?
3. Do all expert/published evolutionists agree with the mainstream scientists?
4. If a previously expert/published scientist doesn't agree with the mainstream scientists, are they no longer considered an expert nor a scientist?
Creationists, amateur and otherwise, on the other hand, seem to have no reluctance to tell even the most experienced scientists that they know nothing about anything when it comes to evolution.
The modern creationist talking points that "all interpretations of the evidence must be recognized for exactly what they are" and "we agree on the data, we just have a different interpretation" are additional attempts to defeat the theory of evolution without knowing anything about the theory of evolution.
In science, not all interpretations are of equal merit. First, there are hypotheses, theories, and laws. There are guesses and educated guesses. The phlogiston theory of chemistry is discredited, and astrology never made the grade as a theory.
In a similar vein, creation "science" and its offspring ID have both failed at their attempts to mimic science while peddling pure religion. The "different interpretation" attempt we are seeing more of lately is also failing.
Absolutely! Personally, I believe that hordes of invisible, all-powerful, Undetectable Garden Gnomes are responsible for the world as we see it. Science cannot conclusively disprove my interpretation of the evidence. I demand that UGGism be presented alongside the crumbling, demolished theory of evolution.
You floated this before and it sank. Got any more evidence for it this time or are you just forgetful?
No evening would be complete without a true belly-laugh!
1. Do you post this somewhere?Yes, I post it on these threads periodically and keep it updated as more creationists weigh in here or as more published claims by the prominent creationist scholars are found.
2. Do all ameteur evolutionists agree with the results attributed to Mainstream scientists?I don't know of any who don't. B thru K are all transitionals between ancient apes & modern humans. We'd positively expect there to be controversy over whether specific transitional species are more ape-like (probably walked on all fours, lived in trees, etc.) vs. more human-like (walked upright, lived on the ground, made tools, used symbolic thought, etc.) The survey states this upfront in the "Mainstream scientists" row.
3. Do all expert/published evolutionists agree with the mainstream scientists?
4. If a previously expert/published scientist doesn't agree with the mainstream scientists, are they no longer considered an expert nor a scientist?It's unremarkable if us Frevolutionists were to disagree among ourselves on which "slot" these transitionals should be put in, since they're transitionals.
But it's you creationists who insist that there is an unbridgeable gap between the created ape-baramin and the human-baramin. So y'all should be able to agree among yourselves on just where this unbridgeable gap actually is, shouldn't you?
Not exactly. IF the "ape baramin" and the "human baramin" really were distinct, there would be no difficulty in classifying the fossils. However, there is.
This is evidence that in fact these are transitional.
Translation: I don't have a particle of evidence for my opinions, and I can't find specific flaws in my opponent's evidence. So I'll just cast all of science into question in a desperate attempt to cloud the issue.
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.