Skip to comments.Keep Darwin's 'lies' out of Polish schools: education official
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.
Usually, your posts are never so substantive as to call me names. ;-) If you're feel left out...
I don't go digging for them. And I don't take them out of context. If you're feeling left out...
But I will use it as a theological devotional to speak to my Lord -- not as scientific evidence nor as defense to closing my eyes.
Yeah -- I'll have to try a little harder.
That's great, I hope you have a good and safe journey.
Poor little guy. Maybe he needs love.
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? This would help somewhat in substantiating what so far appears to be a "just so story." Or do you have only pictures of bone heads to make your point?
Well, let's just find out where I need to kick first ...
So, are you a Moonie?
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):
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:
There was a trick in that question. But since you "understand the fundamentals" tell me what it was then tell me what you believe.
Thank God for our enemies :-)
As always, the (hilarious) irony of your posts is not lost on anyone but you.
Yes, I reject that view. I'd also add that it has absolutely nothing to do with the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
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."
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.
If you believe in evolution, how can you conclude anything BUT?
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.