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 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 1,051-1,070 next last
To: Fester Chugabrew
Could you point out some case in history where a living ape was confused for a living human or vise versa? That is to say, where one of these species was in a transitional state?

The transitional fossils are all deceased at this point. Sorry.

However, you are a transitional! You are genetically different from your parents, and if you have children you are genetically different from them as well.

But, here is an example of a fossil transitional. Check out the chart for its position (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

251 posted on 10/15/2006 11:08:51 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
No scientist (nor those of us who understand the fundamentals) believes what you have posited in the way you have said it.

There was a trick in that question. But since you "understand the fundamentals" tell me what it was then tell me what you believe.

252 posted on 10/15/2006 11:24:47 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; DaveLoneRanger

Dave,

Thank God for our enemies :-)


253 posted on 10/15/2006 11:25:50 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I was hoping there might be some record, i.e. written account, indicating an ape was once confused for a human, or vise versa; where living humans were literally at a loss as to which species the sample represents. There should be some such creatures living today that have us scratching our heads wondering: "Is it human or is it ape?" But it seems we are able to tell the difference right away and always have. Without such samples the theory of evolution is sorely lacking substantive evidence.

I believe if all the samples you post could be put together into the form they had when they were alive, there would be no problem determining fairly quickly whether they are ape or human.

It simply does not wash that, because there are small changes from generation to generation, these necessarily add up to large changes over a long period of time. Not to say the idea is preposterous or completely unfounded. It just has not been supported by the direct observation of humans or their written records over millennia.
254 posted on 10/15/2006 11:36:01 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
If he and his band of characters think they are an apt representation of the current academia, then I think we can rule out all institutions that bow to the monkey god of darwin as being genuine places of higher knowledge.

As always, the (hilarious) irony of your posts is not lost on anyone but you.

255 posted on 10/15/2006 11:50:19 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Are you a neurotic neo-postmodern deconstructionist? Do you believe in functionalized structuralism? Or structuralist functionalism?

(Short answer: No, I'm not a Mooney.)
256 posted on 10/15/2006 1:10:01 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
And I have a question to you. Do you reject then the view "that the universe is a dead purposeless machine ruled by chance"?

Yes, I reject that view. I'd also add that it has absolutely nothing to do with the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.

257 posted on 10/15/2006 1:20:11 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
I do not mean actual Darwin.

Okay. So do you broadly accept Darwin's theory as the best, empirically-verified scientific explanation for the origin of species and biological diversity?

I mean "Darwinism" as it is being propagated today.

Where is this "Darwinism" of yours being propagated?

Surely this "Darwinism" you speak of cannot be the same thing as the modern neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution as it is commonly taught in modern biology courses. I have looked at many textbooks on evolutionary biology, and I have yet to see one that claims the universe is a "dead purposeless machine."

258 posted on 10/15/2006 1:24:22 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Nevertheless I trust police forensic science which treats of a narrow line of questioning far more than I trust the typical evolutionist who accepts a tale regarding a 4.5 billion history of unobserved events

Big difference -- scientists have been working on the ToE for over a hundred years, and have not yet been able to show it to be wrong.

ID is not a scientific theory. The only thing scientific about it are individual scientific attacks on the ToE, and they have failed as have all previous attacks by regular scientists (which is why ToE exists today). But a set of scientific attacks on an established theory do not in themselves equal a scientific theory.

259 posted on 10/15/2006 1:38:18 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

If you believe in evolution, how can you conclude anything BUT?


260 posted on 10/15/2006 1:41:21 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd

God is scientifically illiterate, I see.

Ah, the cult of Darwinism. Lots of othewise decent people sucked into its fable of frog to prince....


261 posted on 10/15/2006 1:41:54 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
Matthew 5:11

Here we see a basic, and very revealing, problem. The subject is whether the ToE and/or ID should be in science classes. When the response to the defense of ToE is scripture, it shows that the opposition is there for religious, not scientific, reasons.

Therefore, your side of the discussion by default loses, since you are not talking science anymore.

262 posted on 10/15/2006 1:43:42 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
If you believe in evolution, how can you conclude anything BUT?

Because that conclusion doesn't logically follow.

263 posted on 10/15/2006 1:45:42 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
I see we have degenerated into Scripture

Leave FR, then, if you have such a distain for the Word of God. Go back to DU; you'll feel right at home.

264 posted on 10/15/2006 1:46:37 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
"Christianity gave rise to the greatest civilization of all times and all that is known in science.

Really? So there were no atheistic or agnostic or Muslim or Hindu or other religion's contributions to the current state of science?

All those Christians based their scientific work on their religious belief system?

"Other religions gave some, but only because they fed on the benevolence of Christianity.

So even if scientists have different beliefs than Christianity it is really Christianity which drives their contributions.

Instead of blindly believing your revisionist version of history perhaps you should investigate it a bit further.

265 posted on 10/15/2006 2:00:25 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: StevieJ; stultorum; unspun
"Wow. To dismiss in a single sentence the immense body of scientific work carried out before zero AD by the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Chinese (amongst others) is breathtaking in its ignorance."

Isn't it though?

On another thread there is a poster who is complaining that Science and its supporters are arrogant. I wonder what he would make of this?

266 posted on 10/15/2006 2:05:46 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
"No, I will accept it if you can you point out the last significant "change" and about when it occured in man?"

Why that particular condition?

267 posted on 10/15/2006 2:07:36 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
"I do not mean actual Darwin. I mean "Darwinism" as it is being propagated today."

You are aware I hope that the 'Darwinism' presented by your local creationist is a strawman which does not resemble the current state of Evolutionary science.

268 posted on 10/15/2006 2:11:42 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Leave FR, then, if you have such a distain for the Word of God. Go back to DU; you'll feel right at home.

FR is not a Religious site -- it is a Conservative site. Scripture is fine on f-religion, but here where we are discussing issues of science it is inappropriate (and irrelevant).

Willful ignorancre is NOT a Conservative Value.

Or do you speak for JR?

269 posted on 10/15/2006 2:23:30 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Theo
God is scientifically illiterate, I see.

No, people are.

Ah, the cult of Darwinism. Lots of othewise decent people sucked into its fable of frog to prince....

So you won't even try to mount a decent reasonable argument supporting your position.

Willful Ignorance AND Logical Fallacies: The CR/IDers' stovck in trade.

270 posted on 10/15/2006 2:26:01 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Thank God for our enemies :-)

Indeed. God has graced us with people who don't even pretend to understand science and who look like the Righty Moonbats.

If it wasn't going to make scientific illiterates out of the next generation and splash over to those of who DO understand science, it would be quite laughable.

I have to assume that Fundamentalism dabbling in science is proof God has a sense of humor.

271 posted on 10/15/2006 2:28:34 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Big difference -- scientists have been working on the ToE for over a hundred years, and have not yet been able to show it to be wrong.

Of course not. All the evidence related to the big picture is circumstantial. Even in a judicial context circumstantial evidence is not exactly held in high regard. Why do evolutionists have to elevate circumstantial evidence to the level of certitude not warranted, and then go on to insist their version of history is worthy of an exclusive hearing in public schools? Again, evolution has only been directly observed within limits. Extrapolations from there qualify better as philosophies of history than as science.

ID is not a scientific theory.

Spoken frequently and fervently, to be sure. Yet there are ample examples of directly observed intelligent design, which makes the process far from necessarily "supernatural" and beyond the purview of science.

272 posted on 10/15/2006 2:30:15 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Yes, I reject that view.

Then we might agree. But I would like you to explain why and how exactly you reject this view( "that the universe is a dead purposeless machine ruled by chance")

I'd also add that it has absolutely nothing to do with the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.

Perhaps. The problem is that this suuposed theory is not really defined. When you deal with a scientific theory like the one of Newton or Darwin or Einstein you need the name of the author, the title, date and place of original publication. And first of all, the explicit claims of the theory. Otherwise it is impossible to debate it.

Can you provide these details?

273 posted on 10/15/2006 2:30:15 PM PDT by A. Pole (" There is no other god but Free Market, and Adam Smith is his prophet ! Bazaar Akbar! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Freedumb2003...you stated,

"FR is not a Religious site -- it is a Conservative site"

Well, I am glad that is cleared up...


274 posted on 10/15/2006 2:33:14 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom
Well, I am glad that is cleared up...

Thanks -- every now and then we have to remind ourselves.

275 posted on 10/15/2006 2:35:38 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
. Yet there are ample examples of directly observed intelligent design, which makes the process far from necessarily "supernatural" and beyond the purview of science.

Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't make a process ID -- it just means you don't understand it.

Or for a better quote: "What does god need with a starship?"

276 posted on 10/15/2006 2:36:51 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
"I do not mean actual Darwin." Okay. So do you broadly accept Darwin's theory as the best, empirically-verified scientific explanation for the origin of species and biological diversity?

No, I see the Darwin's theory same way as Lamarck theory. They were XIX century attempts at explaining life in evolutionary and natural terms.

"I mean 'Darwinism' as it is being propagated today."

Where is this "Darwinism" of yours being propagated?

In media in debate and from mouths of atheists who peddle the idea of random mutation.

Surely this "Darwinism" you speak of cannot be the same thing as the modern neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution as it is commonly taught in modern biology courses.

When you study REAL scientific data, you see concrete amazing discoveries like DNA, retroviruses etc ... You do not see any unifying theory yet.

I have looked at many textbooks on evolutionary biology, and I have yet to see one that claims the universe is a "dead purposeless machine."

Of course not. It would be a give away, don't you think? :)

277 posted on 10/15/2006 2:37:22 PM PDT by A. Pole (" There is no other god but Free Market, and Adam Smith is his prophet ! Bazaar Akbar! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: lizol

What a shame that a Catholic would reject the teachings of the Catholic Church that accept evolution.


278 posted on 10/15/2006 2:40:48 PM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't make a process ID -- it just means you don't understand it.

Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't make a process ID supernatural, religious, or unscientific -- it just means you don't understand it.

279 posted on 10/15/2006 2:42:28 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Why that particular condition?

My understanding of what science does is "observe" before they form hypothesis. Since evolution of man has never been "observed", nor has there ever been any intermediate species still alive, ever shown, I'm wondering how science concludes evolution is "fact?"

280 posted on 10/15/2006 2:42:33 PM PDT by sirchtruth (No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't make a process ID supernatural, religious, or unscientific -- it just means you don't understand it.

But I DO understand ID and it IS religion.

281 posted on 10/15/2006 2:45:03 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Well, if you say so. Most people who design things do not consider themselves as indulging relgion, but as simply doing what is natural. Intelligent design is natural, and as much a part of science as anything else.


282 posted on 10/15/2006 2:47:06 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Intelligent design is natural, and as much a part of science as anything else.

It meets exactly zero requirements to be considered a valid scientific pursuit.

283 posted on 10/15/2006 2:48:18 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: DaGman

That's exactly what one of prominent Polish bishops said commenting this thing.


284 posted on 10/15/2006 2:49:15 PM PDT by lizol (Liberal - a man with his mind open ... at both ends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Really? So there were no atheistic or agnostic or Muslim or Hindu or other religion's contributions to the current state of science?

How come that universities in India or Egypt today are made in pattern of Roman Catholic institutions of medieval Europe?

Should not rather Western universities use Eastern gurus as scientific authorities?


285 posted on 10/15/2006 2:51:06 PM PDT by A. Pole (" There is no other god but Free Market, and Adam Smith is his prophet ! Bazaar Akbar! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
I'm wondering how science concludes evolution is "fact?"

The amount of circumstantial evidence is sufficient enough to warrant strong convictions. What puzzles me is how the proponents of evolution arrive at the notion their view of history deserves exclusive hearing in public schools when even our Constitution does not guarantee as much.

286 posted on 10/15/2006 2:53:01 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

On the contrary, it is directly observable on a regular basis.


287 posted on 10/15/2006 2:54:45 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
On the contrary, it is directly observable on a regular basis.

I have yet to see an Intelligent Designer. Convereley, if it is based on induction, EVERYTHING is the result of an Intelligent Designer.

ID is useless as science. It contrinutes nothing in forwarding knowledge.

Except perhaps for drunk sophomore philosophy majors.

288 posted on 10/15/2006 2:56:49 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
All the evidence related to the big picture is circumstantial.

A body on the floor with a knife wound, and blood droplets leading away not of the same DNA as that of the body leads police to believe that the attacker made the common mistake of cutting himself while stabbing another, and then walked away in that direction. That is not curcumstantial, it is forensic evidence that tells what happened. The same happens with the ToE. They see various fossils in various strata that have various things in common, and they can trace a line. Just like forensics, the ToE has essentially said "We see A and B, but for our theory to be right, we should see C." And that has happened with the ToE.

Why do evolutionists have to ... go on to insist their version of history is worthy of an exclusive hearing in public schools?

They don't. We teach science in the science class. The ToE happens to be the best science we have on the subject. Thus it gets taught in science class. Try coming up with a better scientific theory that's better than the ToE, and maybe even disproves the ToE, then it will end up in the science classes.

Yet there are ample examples of directly observed intelligent design

Please cite one that applies.

289 posted on 10/15/2006 2:57:47 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
The ToE happens to be the best science we have on the subject.

We do have a lot of data suggesting that evolution took place. But we do not have a real theory of evolution/ToE yet. Neither of the two XIX centuries theories (Darwin or Lamarck) cut the mustard. Nor the Jurassic Park movie is enough.

We need a new synthesis with the date, name of the author and defined claims. Science is not that different in this aspect from patent law.

290 posted on 10/15/2006 3:07:08 PM PDT by A. Pole (" There is no other god but Free Market, and Adam Smith is his prophet ! Bazaar Akbar! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

The world is replete with intelligent designers, among whom you may be counted. That is enough to make the concept and theory of intelligent design scientific. Science cannot even function without it.


291 posted on 10/15/2006 3:10:06 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Sadly, I witness more evolutionists degenerating into petty name-calling than creationists, such as when js1138 called me an a**hole and told me to "shove it," or when RightWingProfessor called me a stupid little man, or when WildHorseCrash said I looked absurd, or when Ichneumon called me an uninformed hack, or when orionblamblam insinuated I was a paid Howard Dean employee, or when Coyoteman called me (us) anti-science, or when Thatcherite said I had "simple logic difficulties" or when Diminsio called me dishonest ("like most professional creationists") or when RightWingAtheist said I have "d**n near ruined the board by making it a safe haven for the anti-science ignoramuses," or when WyattEarp called me a troll and said I should be banned from Free Republic.

Seeing that list, now I KNOW I've been too nice!

292 posted on 10/15/2006 3:14:44 PM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; satchmodog9

Dave...I am going to agree with Satchmodog9, that the name calling does seem to be about equal, both sides being guilty...what I find very odd, is that you seem to have kept a little list of who called you what...

I imagine if we all thought about it hard enough, we could all come up with our own little list of what one poster or another 'called' us...and this proves what exactly?..that you are picked on?...hey, we all get picked on for one thing or another, thats often what happens when one says what they mean or believe...but I do believe that your are the first one I have seen on FR, who has posted such a little list...whats up with that?

I think the fair thing to do would be just to admit, that name calling occurs equally on both sides...and as far as I can see, I dont see it stopping any time soon...


293 posted on 10/15/2006 3:31:21 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
They see various fossils in various strata that have various things in common, and they can trace a line.

Therein is the rub. The example you supplied not only has a connection with recent history but also entails blood samples of human DNA, thus making the conclusion fairly evident, but not to the extent of "proof."

Simply having "various things in common" is not enough if the theory of evolution is going to hold water. The historical connection ought to be demonstrated. Common forms do not necessarily denote common origins or history. In the case of evolution the trail must be one of consistent change from one species to another. The only thing direct observation has yielded is change to a limited degree.

All this circumstantial evidence is so freely admitted as strict science on the part of evolutionists, but all of a sudden, when proponents of intelligent design infer intelligent design from organized matter (circumstantial evidence), the subject is lumped into the realm of "supernatural," "religious," "mystical," and so forth, even though examples of intelligent design are everywhere, your own posts notwithstanding. What gives?

294 posted on 10/15/2006 3:32:02 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
The world is replete with intelligent designers, among whom you may be counted. That is enough to make the concept and theory of intelligent design scientific. Science cannot even function without it.

That doesn't even make sense. It certainly doesn't support ID as put forward by its supporters.

295 posted on 10/15/2006 3:35:02 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

No. It makes plenty of sense. You, however, appear not to have the intellectual fortitude to acknowledge that intelligent design even exists.


296 posted on 10/15/2006 3:39:44 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

Comment #297 Removed by Moderator

To: antiRepublicrat
The ToE happens to be the best science we have on the subject.

WHAT subject?

298 posted on 10/15/2006 3:42:43 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

No, in this case you have ceded the point. You have nowhere to go. Intelligent design is a directly observable process, even in your own mind, yet you refuse to accord it any scientific validity. Why? Do you believe the Constitution guarantees your version of science and history an exclusive hearing in public schools?


299 posted on 10/15/2006 3:49:03 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

Comment #300 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 1,051-1,070 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