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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,051-1,070 next last
To: lizol
Evolution has a legitimate place in the science curriculum.

Darwinism needs to be moved to the study of religion and philosophy or perhaps to the soft science of Anthropology inasmuch as it is really a Victorian era myth.

51 posted on 10/14/2006 2:46:09 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Well, courts make use of "expert testimony" all the time, and so are used to deciding such matters. The ID testimony showed that ID is not science--it was even admitted on the stand by Behe, where he admitted that astrology would fit his definition of science.

So who is to decide what is scientific or not? Do you trust priests or pastors or mullahs or wiccams to decide that? Do you trust psychics and purveyors of magnetic anklets to decide that? Or do you think the properties of atoms and DNA should be decided by majority vote?

52 posted on 10/14/2006 2:46:23 PM PDT by thomaswest (Thank god for evolution! Without it, we wouldn't be here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Da_Shrimp

There are many scientific disciplines that may be used to support the philosophy of history known as "the theory of evolution." As a whole however, the theory of evolution is not science. It isn't even useful as a so-called science. If one wants usefulness and progress out of science, then he should take up intelligent design, without which the universe would be neither useful nor intelligible.


53 posted on 10/14/2006 2:49:28 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
The ID testimony showed that ID is not science . . .

It did no such thing. The evolutionist faithful are simply indulging in further wishful thinking by asserting as much. A single court decision does not have the capacity to determine what is or is not science. Even by common use of language it does not make sense to call a tangible, directly observable process (intelligent design) "unscientific", let along "religious" or "supernatural." Science itself cannot objectively determine what is or is not supernatural. Do you really think "expert testimony" will sort it out for us all?

54 posted on 10/14/2006 2:55:12 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
poisoning the minds and spirits of our children with un-Godly thought.

Ah, most posts are mere rehashes of old phrases, so I always enjoy some new phrases.

But could you give an example of the kinds of unGodly thoughts you are concerned about? You didn't mean sex, did you?

55 posted on 10/14/2006 2:55:13 PM PDT by thomaswest (Thank god for evolution! Without it, we wouldn't be here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: lizol
God bless Poland and don't take our atheists here too seriously. They are a very small but very vocal minority.

"You might be interested in this.

56 posted on 10/14/2006 2:55:43 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV
They will go far, these Poles.

Yes, dumbing down a whole country is certainly the path to riches.

57 posted on 10/14/2006 2:56:07 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
You might be interested in this too.
58 posted on 10/14/2006 2:56:14 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
But they're more than lies as they are intent on poisoning the minds and spirits of our children with un-Godly thought.

There's always the madrassa option!

59 posted on 10/14/2006 2:56:23 PM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

You in?


60 posted on 10/14/2006 2:56:31 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
There are many scientific disciplines that may be used to support the philosophy of history known as "the theory of evolution." As a whole however, the theory of evolution is not science. It isn't even useful as a so-called science. If one wants usefulness and progress out of science, then he should take up intelligent design, without which the universe would be neither useful nor intelligible.

Young earth creationist lecturing us on science ===> Placemarker <===

61 posted on 10/14/2006 2:57:07 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman
Oh come on, you could drive a truck through evolution's holes.

Feel free to produce said truck here. I am all eyes.

They teach it like the gospel truth, rather than scientific theory. Thats my only objection.

Yes, like they teach that silly "Gravity" thing -- the Theory not the experience. Do you also object to chemistry and physics?

62 posted on 10/14/2006 2:58:20 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Calling the theory of evolution a "science" - calling something a thing which it is not - what do we call that? I'll be charitable and call it a "misnomer."

I see you have gone from sophomoric drunken philosophy to flat-out dis- and mis-information.

Well, we all have to evolve, I suppose.

63 posted on 10/14/2006 2:59:53 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
As a whole however, the theory of evolution is not science. It isn't even useful as a so-called science

How so? The theory is supported by the evidence.

nayway, as I said, I'm quite willing to entertain the idea of a Divine input, but that doesn't mean that it's the Hebrew God as the source of that input. Could be Brahmah, or Isis for that matter. It worries me that ID can be a mask for Biblical fundmentalism.

64 posted on 10/14/2006 2:59:59 PM PDT by Da_Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: stultorum
But they're more than lies as they are intent on poisoning the minds and spirits of our children with un-Godly thought.

Good thing they now will know that angels hold airplanes aloft and that using this "science" thing is evil EVIL, I tell you.

"Nehemiah Scudder, call on Line One."

65 posted on 10/14/2006 3:02:07 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Da_Shrimp
It worries me that ID can be a mask for Biblical fundmentalism.

A transparent mask. It is like a glass Trojan Horse.

66 posted on 10/14/2006 3:03:00 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
In most cases, science strictly speaking confines itself to experimentation and observation (both directly and indirectly) on a small scale with the aid of reason as it is applied in particular ways. When matters of ultimate history and causation are induced or deduced, and expressions made regarding the same (i.e. when the bigger picture is presented as with evolution in the wide sense) we are entering the realm of philosophy and exiting the realm of science.

In view of the text of our Constitution it is an abomination to expect the theory of evolution to enjoy an exclusive hearing by law in public schools, regardless of any further implications.

67 posted on 10/14/2006 3:04:54 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
God bless Poland and don't take our atheists here too seriously. They are a very small but very vocal minority.

But the majority of us who UNDERSTAND science and are Christian call on the Poles to reject anti-scientism as a path to destruction. The USA can withstand a generation of willful ignorance and purposeful dumbing-down -- Poland cannot.

68 posted on 10/14/2006 3:05:11 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Da_Shrimp
I like your post.

The quibble I have about "Divine input" is that in order for it to be seen as a valid part of how nature behaves and scientific, there must be some understanding of how and where it happened. Eventually, it has to be measureable.

It is insufficient to wave hands and say God did it. One must be able to say, "ah it happened here at this time, and all the evidence points to it."

The burden for the creationists/IDists is that "God did it" can be used by the uneducated any time they like to "explain" anything they don't understand. Since GDI explains everything, it explains nothing.

69 posted on 10/14/2006 3:05:16 PM PDT by thomaswest (Thank god for evolution! Without it, we wouldn't be here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Yes, dumbing down a whole country is certainly the path to riches.

Don't read too much into this statement. It's an outburst by a member of a fringe fundamentalist party that the ruling party stupidly allowed into the governing coalition in order to get a majority. They're paying the price now.

70 posted on 10/14/2006 3:05:45 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
When matters of ultimate history and causation are induced or deduced, and expressions made regarding the same (i.e. when the bigger picture is presented as with evolution in the wide sense) we are entering the realm of philosophy and exiting the realm of science.

Oh, I see you ARE still espousing drunken sophomoric philosophy.

*whew* You have me worried.

71 posted on 10/14/2006 3:06:20 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Good to know.

And I hope you see your words in my tag :)


72 posted on 10/14/2006 3:06:48 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
But the majority of us who UNDERSTAND science

So you believe all life came from single cell via undirected means and that this has been established beyond all argument?

73 posted on 10/14/2006 3:10:41 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
we may reasonably infer as much....of man evolving from another species.

What is your objection to inferring in this context?

It seems to me that you would object to historians believing anything. For instance, there is not a human alive with "direct observation" of Julius Caesar. Do you therefore argue that the prior existence of Caesar is a lie?

74 posted on 10/14/2006 3:10:44 PM PDT by thomaswest (Thank god for evolution! Without it, we wouldn't be here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: lizol; gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; ..


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debates and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective.
Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list:
Add me / Remove me



Hey y'all! I need you to ping me to these kinds of stories when you see them! Seems like we just had a story about the Swiss not accepting evolution so readily...
75 posted on 10/14/2006 3:11:59 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Although many may label me as a "young earth creationist" I am at heart a "big earth creationist."


76 posted on 10/14/2006 3:13:10 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: lizol
"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." "

This gentleman speaks the truth. Evolution is a big lie and others are seeing it. No need to taint the minds of children with such nonsense.
77 posted on 10/14/2006 3:13:48 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
You espouse a well-known logical fallacy. Namely, that the validity of an idea is to be determined by its utility or usefulness.

One variation of this flawed thinking is the argument that the validity of a proposition is to be judged by its effect on society. Interestingly, this was a favorite argument of communist theoreticians.

78 posted on 10/14/2006 3:16:52 PM PDT by thomaswest (The truth will make you free. But it may tick you off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Axlrose
"Darwinism is in retreat. The secularists are running."

Very true!

Watch how nasty evolutionists get on this thread. For THEM, evolution is THEIR RELIGION. Never mind that there is NO, absolutely NO evidence to support their HYPOTHESIS. Yes, hypothesis. It's not even a theory by their OWN definition of a theory. Yet that doesn't stop them from touting it now as a "fact". It only goes to show just how far they are removed from reality. Evolutionists live in a fanatical dream world supported by JUNK science.
79 posted on 10/14/2006 3:17:02 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

"They are a very small but very vocal minority.

Thank God they are few in numbers.

I will admit, though, that they're very fanatical in that they redouble their efforts and give solidity to their "theory" when they see it falling apart with each passing day.


80 posted on 10/14/2006 3:18:22 PM PDT by stultorum (dont hire illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
What is your objection to inferring in this context?

I have more than one objection, the first two being similar. Such inferences are often presented with a unjustified certitude. They are labeled as hard science when in fact they are nothing of the kind. There is ample room for misinterpretation of the evidence when it is assumed from that start that common forms are the result of common history (it's called intellectual laziness). Those who draw them not only think their ideas are entitled to an exclusive hearing by law in public schools but also proceed to use the courts to enforce them. Other than these I am aware of no further objections, your Honor.

81 posted on 10/14/2006 3:23:41 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Amusing. Did you "conveniently forget" or deliberately ignore that there are a dozen or more court decisions on the subject of creationism and ID in schools. For example, the SCOTUS decision Aquillard vs. Edwards. The Dover case was simply the latest in a long string over 40 years where courts in GA, AL, LA, VA, SC addressed these issues. In EVERY case, the creationist/ID side lost.

In fact, Judge Jones in Dover wrote that whatever his personal biases might be, he had no choice under the rule of deference to previous decisons and to the SC.

You are pursuing a losing line of argument here.

82 posted on 10/14/2006 3:25:36 PM PDT by thomaswest (The truth will make you free. But it may tick you off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Nice webpage.

It's refreshing to read your thoughts.


83 posted on 10/14/2006 3:26:05 PM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
It is insufficient to wave hands and say God did it. One must be able to say, "ah it happened here at this time, and all the evidence points to it.

As I said, I'm willing to entertain the idea that a Divinity had some input into evolution. However, at this time it is not measureable. What is clear is that the evidence from geology precludes the theory of a 6-day creation and a global flood etc. This means that the Bible is simply a book of allegories and stories.

84 posted on 10/14/2006 3:26:10 PM PDT by Da_Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Da_Shrimp
What is clear is that the evidence from geology precludes the theory of a 6-day creation and a global flood etc. This means that the Bible is simply a book of allegories and stories.

Don't forget the tower of Babel story.

(How high can you build using dried mud?)

85 posted on 10/14/2006 3:29:31 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
experimentation and observation (both directly and indirectly) on a small scale

Well, measurements that show the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe about 14 billion years old do not seem to me "small-scale".

One of the many beauties of evolution is that it incoporates a vast age that is fully supported by physics and astronomy and geology in many converging lines of evidence.

But can you prove via your criteria (direct experimentation/observation) that Caesar or Jesus actually existed?

86 posted on 10/14/2006 3:32:15 PM PDT by thomaswest (The truth will make you free. But it may tick you off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

What makes you think pitching Darwin out the window depreciates their science education?


87 posted on 10/14/2006 3:37:17 PM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
. . . the validity of an idea is to be determined by its utility or usefulness.

I don't doubt idea of homosexuality is so fervently believed that it is put into practice (and is even believed to be beneficial by some people) even though myself and the greater part of the population do not practice it. Is the idea of homosexuality "invalid." No. I did not use the quality of "usefulness" as a means of discrediting evolution in any other regard than the value of its usefulness on the face of it, not its validity as one philosophy of history among many.

I am grown up enough to understand that not everyone has the same philosophy of history I do. I am also smart enopugh to know the difference between science and philosophy, a point that seems to be lost on Judge Jones et al.

88 posted on 10/14/2006 3:37:55 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Hey, I just noticed your tag. It sounds familiar, for some reason...;) I like it!
89 posted on 10/14/2006 3:43:19 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
intellectual laziness

What greater "intellectual laziness" exists than that of ID?

The IDists hyave reported no laboratory results, have never gone on a field expedition, and the Discovery Institute has never discovered a single thing.

How lazy is it to simple take a text written 2000 years ago by people in a trbal society who had not notion of an atom, no coherent notion of the Earth, no notion of cause and effect as presently unde4rstood, and then claim this represents "scientific and spiritual truth" for all time?

That is surely lazy thinking.

90 posted on 10/14/2006 3:43:48 PM PDT by thomaswest (The truth will make you free. But it may tick you off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
What's amazing to me is that the evos insist that anyone not agreeing with them is dumb, stupid, illiterate etc, incapable of understanding physics, calculus and higher math, chemistry etc.

God gave us brains for a reason.

91 posted on 10/14/2006 3:45:01 PM PDT by 4CJ (Annoy a liberal, honour Christians and our gallant Confederate dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Watch how nasty evolutionists get on this thread.

We're tarred and feathered before the battle is even begun. That's not very nice.

For THEM, evolution is THEIR RELIGION.

Actually, no. Evolution is a theory, one of many in science. I can prove its not a RELIGION: I did six years of grad school, with many courses in evolution and related subjects. Not once did they pass the collection plate!

Never mind that there is NO, absolutely NO evidence to support their HYPOTHESIS. Yes, hypothesis.

There are entire floors in libraries devoted to the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. As one tiny example, check out the articles in the latest issue of American Journal of Physical Anthropology. And that is only one of many journals. Your statement about no evidence is clearly incorrect. As for the theory of evolution being a hypothesis, don't you think scientists who actually study the field are more qualified to judge this than rank amateurs who read creationist websites and Jack Chick comics?

It's not even a theory by their OWN definition of a theory. Yet that doesn't stop them from touting it now as a "fact".

The theory of evolution meets all the criteria for a theory. It is also a fact that critters change from generation to generation. That fact is called evolution (as opposed to the theory of evolution, which explains the facts).

It only goes to show just how far they are removed from reality.

Sorry, no. (Its amusing to hear those who follow ancient mythical stories criticize scientists who deal in the verifiable facts of the natural sciences.)

Evolutionists live in a fanatical dream world supported by JUNK science.

Sorry, no again. Perhaps you should let scientists judge what is and is not science. They have the training and education for it.

92 posted on 10/14/2006 3:46:36 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: nmh; Axlrose
Never mind that there is NO, absolutely NO evidence to support their HYPOTHESIS. Yes, hypothesis.

Don't you get tired of just outright lying all the time? You have been shown huge amounts of this evidence you claim doesn't exist, by many people many times, including for example by myself here, here, here, and here, to name just a few.

And yet you keep coming back falsely claiming that there is "NO, absolutely NO evidence" to support evolutionary biology, pretending that you've never before been presented with huge amounts of that very evidence. Don't you know that there's a Commandment against bearing false witness?

Can someone explain to me why the anti-evolutionist kooks are such shameless liars? I just don't get it.

93 posted on 10/14/2006 3:46:38 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: thomaswest
I don't throw the words "inference" and "proof" around so lightly. It is observations on a small scale that lead some scientists to make inferences on a wider scale regarding the age of the earth. I do not count the proposition of a 4.5 billion year old earth as unreasonable or preposterous. It cannot be from direct observation and experience that this figure is proposed. I certainly see no reason to accept this figure as the only one allowed by law in public schools, and would posit that most people accept this figure, like they accept a heliocentric solar system, not by experience but on the basis of testimony from others.

My faith in the historic existence of Caesar (whichever one you might suggest) and Jesus depends upon the testimony of others outside myself and not by direct observation and experience.

Must run off to a gig. Thanks for the correspondence.

94 posted on 10/14/2006 3:47:12 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ; DaveLoneRanger
What's amazing to me is that the evos insist that anyone not agreeing with them is dumb, stupid, illiterate etc, incapable of understanding physics, calculus and higher math, chemistry etc.

Actually, what's amazing is how often the anti-evolutionists make up false slanders like this in order to accuse "the evos" of things they've never said.

If you had any honor, you'd retract that false accusation and apologize. Are you mature enough to do so?

I repeat my question from an earlier post: Why are anti-evolutionists such shameless liars?

95 posted on 10/14/2006 3:49:46 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Darwin was never a vegetarian. ...

Although there's no definitive evidence that he was himself a vegetarian, Darwin believed that man evolved with a frugivorous diet similar to the apes.
The true amount of meat that's consumed by chimpanzees wasn't discovered until a century later.

96 posted on 10/14/2006 3:51:12 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Science itself cannot objectively determine what is or is not supernatural.

You have a big time logical inconsistency here. Let's say for the moment that via experiment and observation and inference (your terms) that there comes about a scientific finding of a supernatural event. This would be very powerful. There would be an experiment or observation that was repeatable, that via objective reality, all who looked at the evidence could agree on it.

The job of science is to describe how the natural world actually works. The unnatural is not part of science. By definition, this "supernatural effect" becomes a description of the natural.

The result is that God is dethroned. Any mystery is now reduced to being an effect that can be examined in a laboratory, measured, and known. So evidence for a "supernatural" influence actually destroys the supernatural by making it part of the natural, verifiable, measureable part of existence.

97 posted on 10/14/2006 4:00:17 PM PDT by thomaswest (The truth will make you free. But it may tick you off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Your point being about fruits and nuts on the ID side?


98 posted on 10/14/2006 4:02:15 PM PDT by thomaswest (Thank God for evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Can someone explain to me why the anti-evolutionist kooks are such shameless liars?

Thats an easy one. Its because there is nothing in the real world which supports their position. Their only options are to deliberately misrepresent evidence and to outright lie.

99 posted on 10/14/2006 4:03:14 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Swipe.


100 posted on 10/14/2006 4:04:50 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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