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 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 1,051-1,070 next last
To: freedumb2003
So you've ceded the point that I am on a drunken rant before I even contested it? How charitable of you.

The world has yet to see ID in action in any scientific process.

Nonsense. The world sees ID in action wherever science takes place. Without ID there would be no science. Or perhaps you could show me a hypothesis that has not been intelligently designed?

the Constitution guarantees the State shall not establish a religion . . .

Whatever you believe, the Constitution guarantees your right to express it in public and in private. The same goes for those who attribute organized matter performing specific functions to intelligent design. I'd be curious to know which particular religion espouses intelligent design, when there are so many examples of it among even atheists.

301 posted on 10/15/2006 4:02:54 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I think most people here in this discussion are wrong, pro- and anti-evolution.

We're comparing apples to oranges. A scientist can't prove God exists, and especially can't prove that a God created anything, because that creation would probably break every rule of physics we operate under (unless God created us through evolution and sat around for billions of years waiting for his creation to come to fruition)

A scientist must operate and make conclusions under the system of physical rules and parameters that exist in our world and the universe. In the question of our existence, evolution is the only scientific explanation that conforms to the physical rules of the universe as we understand them. (Though the small matter of where the first matter (or original Big Bang matter) originated from remains teasingly absent.

A philosopher can prove God does or does not exist, but he's going to use more than science, if he uses any at all, to prove his point.

We're all making the mistake of confusing data collection and data analysis (science)with philosophy, belief, and ethics. Can raw data from a science experiment tell us whether we should go to war, whether or not to enact the death penalty, who to vote for? NO. Then how could science teach us in what to believe in? Science knows no morality, no ethics,...it is just the cold analysis of raw data.

A creationist can't prove an evolutionist wrong (because he's generally right within his scientific (only) parameters). An evolutionist can't prove a creationist wrong, because a creationist believes in a transcendent God and transcendent set of laws of physics.

An evolutionist can't accept rules outside of those scientifically proven, so he can't accept creationism as a scientific theory. It is a philosophy or a belief, two areas the scientist should stay out of.

This is what creationists (and real scientists) should be most upset by: that evolutionists and scientists, are attempting to become moralists, to mix morality and ethics into their hypothesis and conclusions, areas in which they have NO BUSINESS.


302 posted on 10/15/2006 4:03:17 PM PDT by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
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?"

Because of all the intermediate species which are represented in the fossil record. Many of these, for example:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)


303 posted on 10/15/2006 4:07:17 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished
In a sense I see what you are getting at, but I do not think the dichotomy between science and philosophy (or theology) is necessary from either a logical or legal perspective. As individuals our bodies do not reject what our minds either execute of feel just because the brain happens to be material and thoughts happen to be intangible. Emotions are an objective reality. It strains the intellect in general and science in particular to pretend we can hermetically seal off philosophy from science and vise versa.
304 posted on 10/15/2006 4:12:49 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Theo

Evolution is not a cult, it is a scientific theory.

If you cannot tell the difference, because evolution offends your religious sensibilities, that is your problem, not those that understand the theory.

If you wish to be a creationist, hey, have at it, but do not expect the rest of us to play ignorant, because you need to.


305 posted on 10/15/2006 4:40:25 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Swordfished
An evolutionist can't accept rules outside of those scientifically proven, so he can't accept creationism as a scientific theory. It is a philosophy or a belief, two areas the scientist should stay out of.

Absolutely correct

This is what creationists (and real scientists) should be most upset by: that evolutionists and scientists, are attempting to become moralists, to mix morality and ethics into their hypothesis and conclusions, areas in which they have NO BUSINESS.

I have yet to talk to a scientist, or a socalled "evolutionist" that claims that evolution can give you any sort of morality. It is a scientific theory, nothing more, and nothing less, if someone uses that theory for the basis of their morality, they are an idiot, science does not claim any type of morality, let alone a moral superiority of any type.

Morality is a philisophical, even a religious area, and science has no wanting, nor need to be the basis of anyones morality.

To say that someone bases their morality on the understanding of evolution is idiotic, if not moronic in the extreme.

306 posted on 10/15/2006 4:46:14 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
...Pity the secular evomoonies and their black robed gods. ...

..and the Unificationist creo-Moonies and their white robed prophet. (Sun Myong Moon is a leading creationist or ID-ist).

307 posted on 10/15/2006 4:49:43 PM PDT by Virginia-American (Don't bring a comic book to an encyclopedia fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
I believe the Constitution guarantees the State shall not establish a religion and attempting to do so, in the guise of ID, is against it.

Is State allowed to establish a science or scientific theory then? What is the constitutional standing of science?

The mention of religion in Constitution is not to LIMIT religion but to PROTECT it same way or more than freedom of speech. Read the WHOLE amendment carefully.

Is the speech to be banished from public institutions too?

BTW, the only constitutional standing of science which come to my mind at this moment is as a form of speech.

308 posted on 10/15/2006 4:54:58 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 300 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
since you are not talking science anymore.

No, because no one is talking science in the first place.

309 posted on 10/15/2006 4:57:53 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (why is it so difficult to understand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I was told by several on your side that I was evil and that I would surely burn in hell. This was even before I stated any position. Like I said, the name calling can go both ways and I have seen threads start off on both sides with hostilities. Last post I saw, an evo posted an article and his only comment in the first line was be nice. He was flamed for that. It's tiresome.
310 posted on 10/15/2006 5:04:04 PM PDT by satchmodog9 (Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
No, because no one is talking science in the first place.

See post #303.

311 posted on 10/15/2006 5:04:15 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

Comment #312 Removed by Moderator

To: Coyoteman

There you go again with Africa.

If you love the continent so much, why don't you go there and stay there?


313 posted on 10/15/2006 5:07:07 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
I only see two skulls, but no proof of evolution.

The skulls are designed to demonstrate evidence of evolution. They are data points. There are millions of other data points. The theory of evolution explains that data.


Also, modern man emerged in the cradle of civilization - Europe, Ethiopia.

I assume you mean, not in Ethiopia. Sorry, modern man originated in Africa, not Europe.


There has never been any civilization in Ethiopia that I know of until us Europeans went there, colonized them, fed them, civilized, educated, and tamed them.

Nice racism there.

314 posted on 10/15/2006 5:09:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | 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?"

I said a little contribution came from non-Christians and only because they lived amongst Christian societies. Were it not for the benevolence of the Christians, non-Christians would have contributed zilch to science.


315 posted on 10/15/2006 5:11:18 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

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

I agree.


316 posted on 10/15/2006 5:12:41 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
To say that someone bases their morality on the understanding of evolution is idiotic, if not moronic in the extreme.

Scientists are typically wiser than to make that leap, but there are millions of idiots out there being manipulated by politicians and causeheads who are using science as 'proof' of their worldview, implying that only worldviews based purely on science are valid.

Evolution, Global Warming, etc. are all cases where politicans and other 'causeheads' are using science as the basis from which to argue public policy. A leftist worldview is generally atheistic and relativist, so leftist politicians/causeheads hold up science as the highest marker or judge. Science becomes their god. The fallacy is that science is 'all we have' or 'all that we should use' to shape our public policy.

317 posted on 10/15/2006 5:14:36 PM PDT by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
erratum est...

Also, modern man emerged in the cradle of civilization - Europe, Ethiopia.

318 posted on 10/15/2006 5:15:08 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
There you go again with Africa.

If you love the continent so much, why don't you go there and stay there?

Try the following link for some information on human migrations: Mankind's Journey.

You will find Africa is the source of modern humans whether you like it or not.

319 posted on 10/15/2006 5:21:23 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
There has never been any civilization in Ethiopia

Try reading your Bible. Never heard of the Queen of Sheba? (The Bible also sometimes refers to Ethiopia as "Cush".) And she was only one of the later Ethiopian rulers. Ethiopian civilization dates back to about 3000 B.C. Ethiopia was also Christianized long before Europe: The Ethiopian court around 40 or 50 A.D., and Christianity becoming the official state religion in 320 A.D. (Again your Bible touches on this, e.g. the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, and high official, by Philip.)

320 posted on 10/15/2006 5:23:06 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
Also, modern man emerged in the cradle of civilization - Europe

Europe's was a late civilization. It there a point to denying the existence for numerous others from Ur and the Sumerians on?

Anatomically modern humans first appear in Africa, and appear in the Middle East before they begin to show up in Europe.

Is there some reason this troubles you?

321 posted on 10/15/2006 5:27:25 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

"The skulls are designed to demonstrate evidence of evolution. They are data points. There are millions of other data points. The theory of evolution explains that data.

There are no data points that prove how human organs such as the eye, heart, brain evolved from a single cell, nor are there data points that prove that apes evolved into humans. The apes are still here, hence they did not evolve into humans.

Also, data point don't prove anything. All they show is a skull at an erroneously estimated time. They don't show a continuous change of something evolving into another.


322 posted on 10/15/2006 5:29:41 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

You're not worth my time, frankly. Sorry for being so crass. Trying to shed light into your darkened mind is just beyond me. You're on your own.


323 posted on 10/15/2006 5:31:17 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd

Yeah, I wish to b a creationist. Because God is a creationist.

You've got a a dead man on your side. I've got a living God on my side. You've chosen foolishly.

But that's entirely your choice.

As for me and my family, we choose the Lord and the evidence that slime to human is a fairy tale, and that "kinds" were created according to Scripture and the evidence, and the diversity we see is a result of subtle and gradual disarray of genetic information. Perfectly logica, compatible with the evidence, and compatible with Scripture.

FWIW, I used to believe Darwin and his flock. But after examining the evidence, had to conclude that Scripture is in fact right in how it describes creation.

How sad for you Darwinists to look at a sunset and not have anyone to thank for it.


324 posted on 10/15/2006 5:35:05 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
There are no data points that prove how human organs such as the eye, heart, brain evolved from a single cell,...

I do bones, not biology. Check with some of the other folks on this point.


...nor are there data points that prove that apes evolved into humans.

There is evidence that apes and humans share a common ancestor. It comes from fossils as well as genetics. You can ignore, but that won't make it go away.


The apes are still here, hence they did not evolve into humans.

This is an absolutely idiotic statement. Look at all the dog breeds; your argument would say that because there are collies there can't be huskies! With the common ancestors of ape and human, there was a split, with one group staying in the forests and another group heading for the grasslands. We evolved from the latter group. Why should the other group have disappeared? They had it good, fat and happy in the forests with little need to evolve.


Also, data point don't prove anything. All they show is a skull at an erroneously estimated time. They don't show a continuous change of something evolving into another.

OK, here are some additional skulls which do show continuous change. Anything else I can do to help?

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)


325 posted on 10/15/2006 5:40:42 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Theo

What does you religous beliefs or mine for that matter, have to do with a scientific theory?

Why do you continue with the nonsense that if you understand the theory of evolution, a scientific theory, that you cannot be religious, or believe in God?

Where does such ignorance on your part come from?

Believe what you wish, but do not claim that science is wrong, because it hurts your faith in your religion.

That's your problem, not sciences.


326 posted on 10/15/2006 5:41:49 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The skulls are designed to demonstrate evidence of evolution

See -- even YOU know that the body was designed. But yet you stubbornly refuse to credit the Designer, instead giving credit to a random process proposed by a dead guy.

Yes, they are indeed designed, to demonstrate evidence of design.

Now go back and cover your ears and eyes and shout me down. But you know the truth, and the Creator will hold you accountable -- that "all this" was designed.

327 posted on 10/15/2006 5:41:59 PM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Knock it off or you'll face another in a long line of suspensions.


328 posted on 10/15/2006 5:48:53 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; Fester Chugabrew
Why? Do you believe the Constitution guarantees your version of science and history an exclusive hearing in public schools?

I believe the Constitution guarantees the State shall not establish a religion and attempting to do so, in the guise of ID, is against it.

I'd just add that, were Intelligent Design (or some other creationistic theory) to achieve genuine standing, on merit, and a successful scientific theory, there would be no constitutional prohibition against teaching it in public schools, even if it also was perceived to have religious implications.

The principle here is that the advancement (or inhibition) of religion by law or state policy is only prohibited where that is the primary or principle motivation and effect of the law or policy. To the extent that advancement or inhibition of religion is entirely incidental and secondary to some "valid secular purpose," there is no prohibition.

If ID really were science, there would obviously be a "valid secular purpose" to teaching it in a science classroom. The fact that ID has no standing as a theory actually utilized in scientific research is the reason that teaching it (in public schools) is unconstitutional. Ironically advocates of ID have only highlighted and exacerbated the fatality of this flaw by devoting virtually all their energies to popular and political controversialism, and few if any to scientific research.

329 posted on 10/15/2006 5:52:19 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

What is your proof that evolution (a new species coming from a separate species) exists? I have seen sites promoted by the believers in 'evolution', but they always are proof of only intelligent design; that is, it's only seen in labs, but the scientist there is the intelligent designer.

Now, 'reading' the fossil record is nothing more than seeing what you want to see.

So my question: in the wild, has there ever been a proven example of a species being born that cannot mate with the generation right before it? No lab work allowed.


330 posted on 10/15/2006 6:01:15 PM PDT by sobieski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Yeah! No exposing the fundmentalists for the clowns they really are! /sarc


331 posted on 10/15/2006 6:01:26 PM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

One sees what one wants to...


332 posted on 10/15/2006 6:02:28 PM PDT by sobieski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Theo
The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470, a glimpse  into some mens fancy, or rather 'the transitional'. The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470

In late 1972, an enigmatic fossilized skull was unearthed near Lake Turkana, Kenya. The skull, which was subsequently accessioned as East Rudolf specimen 1470 (or KNM–ER 1470 in abbreviated form), was unearthed by Bernard Ngeneo — a field worker for renowned paleoanthropologist, Richard E. Leakey.

original reconstruction of Skull KNM–ER 1470original reconstruction of Skull KNM–ER 1470

The discovery was greeted with much enthusiasm by evolutionists the world over because it appeared to bridge the gap between the putative hominid line of ancestors (including the australopithecines and Homo habilis) and the decidedly more humanlike fossils designated Homo erectus


Leakey himself ended up back pedaling on this one..,

profile of 1470 Based on new bone-scanning techniques, typical australopithecine prognathicity is evident in this 1992 drawing

There is precious little evidence to show otherwise. For the present it should be quietly packed away and added to the long list of abandoned or downgraded hominid specimens, which once adorned our natural history textbooks.


The history is full of incidents like this, all cloistered away.

W.
333 posted on 10/15/2006 6:06:34 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: stultorum; ninenot; sittnick; steve50; Hegemony Cricket; Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; FITZ; ...
There has never been any civilization in Ethiopia that I know of until us Europeans went there, colonized them, fed them, civilized, educated, and tamed them.

You mean when Mussolini invaded Ethiopia? Or earlier when Italians got beaten by Ethiopians. (See Battle of Adowa)

Ethiopia is an old Christian country with cultural roots deriving from southern Egypt and sharing faith with Coptic Christians.

334 posted on 10/15/2006 6:07:49 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 312 | View Replies]

To: Theo
That skull might be a transitional in their flow chart with all its 'best guess dotted lines' but that is where it ends.

That skull is nothing but a composite (that they assert is 1.75 mya) 1.75 million years old, and is made up of a few hundred pieces that don't fit together all to well.

composite skull image

Just one place to start is that rear head area, another is the profile. But don't take my word for it, take the images they bring here as evidence, enlarge the images, and start taking a look. Put that in context to what they are suggesting. Then apply the most accurate dating methods to the pieces, and notice the margin of error applied to each piece.

W.

335 posted on 10/15/2006 6:10:19 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Placemarker Ping List

A courtesy 'ping' service for everytime I might contemplate making a post so all affected evos can get their 'placemarkers' in
You have been added to this courtesy ping list by way of demonstrating an interest in my posts by use of the 'Message in a Placemarker' and/or having numerous sidebar conversations about me.

To assist beginners: But it's "just a placemarker" Evos are Troll's Toolkit
and how to marginalize science with religious fanaticism toward the monkey god of darwinist ideology.

336 posted on 10/15/2006 6:13:12 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
Also, modern man emerged in the cradle of civilization - Europe

Cradle of civilization was in the Middle (Near) East. Same place where Christian religion was born. The oldest part was Mesopotamia/Sumer (todays Iraq)

337 posted on 10/15/2006 6:14:47 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 318 | View Replies]

To: sobieski
So my question: in the wild, has there ever been a proven example of a species being born that cannot mate with the generation right before it? No lab work allowed.

That would be pretty unusual, but probably happens sometimes. I would guess that the more typical situation, if you're talking about "sympatric" speciation (where the populations involved remain in contact) is that reduced fertility arises between populations within a species. IOW, if I as, say, a female, mate with a male from the other population, there is a lesser chance that I will have viable offspring than if I mate with a member of my own population. Under those circumstances there can arise a selective pressure to avoid and discourage such matings. This will further separate the populations genetically and greater of full infertility can emerge over time. Of course this can also happen if the populations are physically separated.

For some examples of observed, or recent and readily inferred, speciation, look here and here.

338 posted on 10/15/2006 6:15:26 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: Theo

I am amazed at how well creationist can quote mine, even from a post that can be looked back at to see the original.

Completely amazing is how you can ignore the science, because your religious faith is so weak.

Science has nothing to do with your religion, nor your religious faith, or in your case, lack thereof.

If you faith was indeed strong, as you so claim, you would not be threatened by a scientific theory.

It's science, and it has nothing to say about your religious beliefs or faith.


339 posted on 10/15/2006 6:16:58 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; stultorum
Ethiopia is an old Christian country with cultural roots deriving from southern Egypt and sharing faith with Coptic Christians.

I guess you could also mention Acts Chapter 8 in the Bible, Philip talking to the Ethiopian court official who had come up to Jerusalem to worship.

340 posted on 10/15/2006 6:22:31 PM PDT by siunevada (If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
"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."

Why? Both Einstein's and Darwin's original theories have been modified and/or added to by modern science. Einstein's work was an addition and correction to some of Newton's work.

Theories aren't static, treating them like they are or should be is a mistake.

Although many of Darwin's ideas have survived the years, much has been added since the publication of Origin of Species. No one uses a strictly Darwinian view of Evolution any more.

The following is a rather old (relatively speaking) version of the current theory:

Major Tenets of the Evolutionary Synthesis

The principal claims of the Evolutionary Synthesis are the foundations of modern evolutionary biology. They are known collectively as the Synthetic Theory, and serve as a synopsis of much of contemporary evolutionary theory. Many of these points have been extended,exemplified, clarified, or modified since the 1940s. Although some authors have challenged or even rejected some of these principles, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists today accept them as valid and use them as a foundation for evolutionary research. Subsequent chapters of this book will present evidence bearing on these points.

1. The phenotype (observed physical characteristics) is different from the genotype (the set of genes carried by an individual), and the phenotypic differences among individual organisms can be due partly to genetic differences and partly to direct effects of the evironment.

2. Environmental effects on an individual's phenotype do not affect the genes passed on to its offspring. That is, acquired characteristics are not inherited. However, the environment may affect the expression of an organism's genes.

3. Hereditary variations are based on particles--genes--that retain their identity as they pass through the generations; genes do not blend with other genes. This is true not only of those genes that have discrete effects on the phenotype (e.g., brown vs. blue eyes), but also of those that contribute to continuously varying traits (e.g., body size, intensity of pigmentation). Variation in continuously varying traits is largely based on several or many discrete genes, each of which affects the trait slightly (polygenic inheritance).

4. Genes mutate, usually at a fairly low rate, to alternative forms (alleles). The phenotypic effects of such mutations can range all the way from undetectable to very great. The variation that arises by mutation is amplified by recombination among alleles at different loci.

5. Environmental factors (e.g., chemicals, radiation) may affect the rate of mutation, but they do not preferentially direct the production of mutations that would be favorable in the organism's specific environment.

Points 1-5 were important early contributions to the Synthetic Theory from laboratory genetics.

6. Evolutionary change is a populational process: it entails, in its most basic form, a change in the relative abundances (proportions) of individual organisms with different genotypes (and hence, often, with different phenotypes) within a population (see Figure 2.2). Over the course of generations, the proportion of one genotype may gradually increase, and it may eventually entirely replace the other type. This process may occur within only certain populations, or in all the populations that make up a species (see point 11).

7. The rate of mutation is too low for mutation by itself to shift an entire population from one genotype to another. Instead, the change in genotype proportions within a population can occur by either of two principal processes: random fluctuations in proportions (random genetic drift) or nonrandom changes due to the superior survival and/or reproduction of some genotypes compared to others (natural selection). Natural selection and random genetic drift can operate simultaneously.

8. Even a slight intensity of natural selection can (under certain circumstances) bring about substantial evolutionary change in a relatively short time. Very slight differences between organisms can confer slight differences in survival or reproduction; hence natural selection can account for slight differences among species, and for the earliest stages of evolution of new traits.

Points 6-8 were among the major contributions of the mathematical theory of population genetics.

9. Selection can alter populations beyond the original range of variation by increasing the proportion of alleles that, by recombination with other genes that affect the same trait, give rise to new phenotypes. (This point is a contribution from genetic studies of agriculturally based plant and animal breeding.)

10. Natural populations are genetically variable: the individuals within populations differ genetically and include natural genetic variants of the kind that arise by mutation in laboratory stocks.

11. Populations of a species in different geographic regions differ in characteristics that have a genetic basis. The genetic differences among populations are often of the same kind that distinguish individuals within populations. A genotype that is rare in one population may be predominant in another.

12. Experimental crosses between different species, and between different populations of the same species, show that most of the differences between them have a genetic basis. The difference in each trait is often based on differences in several or many genes (i.e., it is polygenic), each of which has a small phenotypic effect. This finding provides evidence that the differences between species evolve by small steps rather than by single mutations with large phenotypic effects.

13. Natural selection occurs in natural populations at the present time, often with considerable intensity.

Points 9-13 were contributions from those geneticists, most of whom had a background in natural history, who studied natural populations.

14. Differences among geographic populations of a species are often adaptive (hence, are the consequence of natural selection), because they are frequently correlated with relevant environmental factors.

15. Organisms are not necessarily different species just because they differ in one or more phenotypic characteristics; phenotypically different genotypes often are members of a single interbreeding population. Rather, different species represent distinct gene pools, which are groups of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals that do not exchange genes with other such groups. This reproductive isolation of species is based on certain genetically determined differences between them. (This is one version of the biological species concept.) Hence, even a mutation that causes substantial change in some phenotypic feature does not necessarily represent the origin of a new species.

16. Nevertheless, there is a continuum in degree of differentiation of populations, with respect to both phenotypic difference and degree of reproductive isolation, from barely differentiated populations to fully distinct species. This observation provides evidence that an ancestral species differentiates into two or more different species by the gradual accumulation of small differences rather than by a single mutational step.

17. Speciation--the origin of two or more species from a single common ancestor--usually occurs through the genetic differentiation of geographically segregated populations. Geographic segregation is required so that interbreeding does not prevent incipient genetic differences from developing.

18. Among living organisms, there are many gradations in phenotypic characteristics among species assigned to the same genus, to different genera, and to different families or other higher taxa. This observation is interpreted as evidence that higher taxa arise through the prolonged, sequential accumulation of small differences, rather than through the sudden mutational origin of drastically new "types."

Points 14-18 were contributed chiefly by systematists and naturalists who studied particular taxonomic groups.

19. The fossil record includes many gaps among quite different kinds of organisms, as well as gaps between possible ancestors and descendants. Such gaps can be explained by the incompleteness of the fossil record. But the fossil record also includes examples of gradations from apparently ancestral organisms to quite different descendants. Together with point 18, this leads to the conclusion that the evolution of large differences proceeds by many small steps (such as those that lead to the differentiation of geographic populations and closely related species). Hence we can extrapolate from the genesis of small differences to the evolution of large differences among higher taxa, and can explain the latter by the same principles that explain the evolution of populations and species.

20. Consequently, all observations of the fossil record are consistent with the foregoing principles of evolutionary change (although they do not prove that these mechanisms provide a necessary and sufficient explanation). There is no need to invoke, and in some instances there is evidence against, non-Darwinian hypotheses such as Lamarckian mechanisms, orthogenetic evolution, vitalism ("inner drives"), or abrupt origins by major mutations.

Points 19 and 20 were among the contributions of paleontologists.

D.J. Futuyma. 1997. Evolutionary biology 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachussetts.


341 posted on 10/15/2006 6:24:31 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
I guess you could also mention Acts Chapter 8 in the Bible, Philip talking to the Ethiopian court official who had come up to Jerusalem to worship.

These biblical references are fine, but we were talking about fossils from Ethiopia dating to some 160,000 years ago.

342 posted on 10/15/2006 6:26:35 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
These biblical references are fine, but we were talking about fossils from Ethiopia dating to some 160,000 years ago.

The other bad kids in the back of the class started it, teacher.

343 posted on 10/15/2006 6:30:27 PM PDT by siunevada (If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
thus making the conclusion fairly evident, but not to the extent of "proof."

That's the problem debating creationists -- lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is.

If you want proof, get into math. Otherwise, you're not going to find it in a scientific theory.

but all of a sudden, when proponents of intelligent design infer intelligent design from organized matter (circumstantial evidence)

ID doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory. All you have are untested hypotheses and a series of usually unscientific attacks against an established theory.

There are rules to science, and they are vicious. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. Don't feel bad if your "theory" gets thrown out and relegated to the quack fringe, because it'll have a lot of company that isn't even religious-based.

344 posted on 10/15/2006 6:31:36 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
The other bad kids in the back of the class started it, teacher.

LOL! You're right.

345 posted on 10/15/2006 6:32:09 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp; StevieJ; stultorum
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?

Not me. I think science is wonderful. People just shouldn't deceive themselves into believing that science is synonymous with the doctrines of self-blinding Materialism.

346 posted on 10/15/2006 7:00:39 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
"My understanding of what science does is "observe" before they form hypothesis.

Yes this is a part of science but by no means the only or most important part of science. Much of science is based on not direct observation but on indirect observation which is frequently the preferred method. Quantum physics is the prime example of this.

Science also takes a larger problem and breaks it into smaller more easily controlled parts and runs tests on those parts. This kind of experimentation has been done many times for Evolution. The number of mutations, the type of mutations and the ability for mutations to produce significant changes to morphology has been tested in the lab. The ability for selection to increase the frequency of a specific allele within a population has also been successfully tested many times.

"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?"

Evolution, despite the protestations of creationists who really don't have any input into the science, is the change in allele frequency within a population due to differential reproductive success. This has been observed many times in the wild.

Evolution is also about speciation (I use here the scientific definition, not the creationist definition) which has also been observed numerous times, both in the lab and in the wild.

These observations are indeed fact. How those observations relate to each other and what processes are behind them is the theory. A scientific theory.

Why would you expect an intermediary species to still be alive? The SToE predicts that, given the same geological space, where there are two similar (similar needs and constraints, not necessarily morphology) and competing species, one will 'out compete' the other unless some evolutionary stable strategy (a strategy where the payoffs are higher than any other strategy) develops which benefits both populations. Humans have pretty much dominated every relationship with other species they've had for 30,000 years or more. There are no intermediate species because we have simply out competed them.

347 posted on 10/15/2006 7:10:40 PM PDT by b_sharp (evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimiser, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
"Cover those ears NMH, cover those eyes NMH, and most of all cover the mouths of those Evil scientists that actually understand evolution, because you don't wish to."

LOL! Id don't have to do that! It is YOU who needs to do THAT!

"It does not fit into your world view, and therefore, it must be wrong."

No, the EVIDENCE is OBVIOUS that your fairy tale just isn't so. Sorry to burst your world view bubble! It is YOU who is all upset. You have absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE. If I were you, I wouldn't advertise it.

"Sorry, science does not work that way, then again, you probably already know that, which is why you do your best to pervert it into something that it is not."

You are correct. Objective science doesn't endorse evolution. Science doesn't endorse ANY of your wild hypothesis. It doesn't matter how many millions or billions of years you want to make it so ... LONGEVITY does NOT make the impossible - possible. Evolution, origins ... it's all a farce. Anyone with half a brain can figure that out!

"Enjoy yourself, but you are not going to make evolution wrong, by holding your breath until you turn blue, or having little hissy fits and claiming that it is impossible."

Your childish replies tell me a lot about YOU! You are precisely the kind of person, evolution and origins appeals to. Like an immature child you defy science and dutifully believe anything you are told WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE to VADLIDATE it.

"Your personal feelings have nothing to do with the scientific evidence."

It seems to me, YOUR post was all about FEELINGS TO ME!

You need to GROW UP!
Learn to be OBJECTIVE.
Examine how the EVIDENCE does NOT back your scifi world view.

I also notice your reply has absolutely NO MEAT to it. Your post to ME is merely an unsophisticated "hissy fit". I find it rather amusing however not amusing enough for me to waste more time on YOU.

You can't tell me how a heart started beating or even how it arbitrarily formed. You can't tell me how a brain formed out of innate material and how it functions - even doctors TODAY can't fully explain it. You can't explain to me how the human body, so sophisticated "evolved" into existence form an "ape" no less. And you expect ME to believe all this "EVOLVED"? LOL!!!It's all positively preposterous - what YOU DO COME UP WITH. It's down right pathetic.
348 posted on 10/15/2006 7:11:34 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
You suspend freedumb2003 for attempting to keep at least some semblance of rationality in the conservative party, and yet you leave crap like this alone.

"how to marginalize science with religious fanaticism toward the monkey god of darwinist ideology"

Interesting.

349 posted on 10/15/2006 7:14:44 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: stultorum

Tamed them?...


350 posted on 10/15/2006 7:20:18 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 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