Well d'uh!
What good is a conspiracy if you can't conspire?
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.
Well d'uh!
What good is a conspiracy if you can't conspire?
I said court or legislature. In case of gay "marriage" it was a court, the number PI was a legislature. Google and you will find it. Either way, my point was that the law is not the best method of scientific inquiry.
Be my guest. Take your best shot. Your Nobel Prize awaits."
Well, hardly. The Nobel Committee has only evolutionists on board. It would be like submitting your essay on "Why There is No God" to the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association for publication. Ain't gonna happen.
This is the response we have grown to expect from anti-evolutionists.
But that's OK. If you admit that it is your religious belief which causes you to doubt evolution, you will get no argument from me.
What I will respond to, however, is science perverted by religion, and we see a lot of that on these threads. Mostly the folks arguing against evolution do not know much about science because they see much of science as producing results counter to their religious beliefs. In particular they have not studied evolution (or evilution as some have called it on these threads), and so they have to resort to the creationist websites for ammunition to support their religious beliefs.
The problem is that the creationist websites have distorted science in an attempt to reach a particular goal--matching the scriptures--and that is not science at all. You can find all manner of distortions, fabrications, misrepresentations, omissions, and outright lies on those websites. That is what they have to do to make the "science" come out they way the scriptures require.
On the other hand, science relies only on evidence. Produce the evidence and you will be listened to. That is why I suggested you "take your best shot." If you can produce evidence that the theory of evolution is not correct they will figure out how to get you a Nobel Prize. But, don't expect it to be easy, and do expect to bring a lot of evidence to the table. Scientific evidence.
Are you up to the challenge?
Wrong. You must not have kids in school. You're obviously not in touch with the primary biology textbooks in use. It is taught as absolute FACT. When the Georgia Board of Education attempted to add an insert to the flyleafs of these colorful screeds suggesting that Evolution was a theory, the Evo community rose up with their allies at the ACLU and declared "theory my patootie, it is uncontrovertible fact!"
You can't have it both ways.
LOL. I asked you a question so answer it.
The real question is: can science be perverted by atheism? Can or not?
Wrong. You must not have kids in school. You're obviously not in touch with the primary biology textbooks in use. It is taught as absolute FACT. When the Georgia Board of Education attempted to add an insert to the flyleafs of these colorful screeds suggesting that Evolution was a theory, the Evo community rose up with their allies at the ACLU and declared "theory my patootie, it is uncontrovertible fact!"
I have taught evolution, not in high school but in college. I do have some understanding of the subject.
The attempt in Georgia to place stickers on textbooks was absolutely dishonest. It was designed solely to cast doubt on the theory of evolution. It came about because the fundamentalists could not get evolution out of the textbooks.
Now, we all know that all theories in science are, well, theories. But that is not what the folks in Georgia cared about--they hated evolution and wanted to select it out of all scientific theories for "special" treatment. That's dishonest, much like ID.
If you want to do religion, fine, but don't try to pretend you are doing science!
Related issue, does anyone seriously argue that Darwin's the agnosticism is not related to embracing a closed naturalistic system to explain all phenomena?
It always amuses me how some insist that it is possible to believe that God "used" evolution to bring about the biological world, When asked how that is possible, they cite, "well so-snd-so belives it." When pressed for the actual argument of how this works, however, there isn't any argument there, just some more feel-good ad hominems.
No problem. The answer is that Abiogenesis has nothing to do with TToE.
Yes lets keep darwin lies out of schools.
For example the untrue claim that darwin "recanted" on his death bed. Lets keep that particular "darwin lie" out of schools.
The untrue claim that there are no transitional fossils. Lets keep that "darwin lie" out of schools too.
The untrue claim that the knee bone of the fossil known as lucy was found a mile away from the rest of the body. Lets keep that lie out of schools too.
I can think of many more. The claim that human tracks were found alongside dinosaur tracks. Another lie to keep out of schools.
So many darwin lies. So little time.
Actually, I'm on your side. My comment was to which side of the human anatomy these threads usually show others. The backside.
LOLOLOL
OK, first not to point out too hard that that evos usually manage to work in abiogenesis somewhere in their worldview , my question had nada to do with abiogenesis.
I asked if you believe all life came from a single cell via undirect means NOT if that cell came into existence via random chemical reactions.
No!
If an atheistic scientist was to pervert the data, the model or the theory the theistic scientists, which outnumber the atheistic scientists would call him on his foolishness.
Science is very competitive and adversarial. Methodological naturalism requires that the data any scientist gathers, the calculations he makes (Biology makes heavy use of probability and statistics) and the logic behind conclusions made be available to other scientists in the same field. This means that any scientist who believes his pet project is more accurate than any other's, or is just skeptical, can critically analyze the other's work and find errors in methodology, data collection, calculations and conclusions which he/she is quite willing to publicly announce.
Even when papers are presented at symposia, questions following the presentation can be devastating to unprepared scientists.
A case in point is the claim made by NASA some years ago that a meteorite from Mars contained possible traces of life which was quite forcefully and publicly refuted by another group of scientists who had examined the same meteorite.
In the case of atheistic scientists trying to get one past other scientists, the chance of success given the number of theistic scientists, of all faiths, is just about nil.
Contrary to what most anti-evolutionists would like you to believe, there is no possible way for a conspiracy among the divergent belief systems of scientists to occur. Competition alone would prevent it.
You do realize that ID accepts Evolution, ID states that evolution did indeed happen, but that some small microscopic creatures cannot be explained because of irreducible complexity.
You do realize this, do you not?
If not, perhaps you should unhitch your little creationist wagon from it.
Yeah, those stupid Christians. People who believe the Bible are science illiterates. Even the scientists who formulated the scientific process -- Bible thumping idiots.
Some may, but not all. Some IDers believe God not only designed "all this," but also brought it about as described in Scripture and as supported by the evidence.
"I disagree that we nasty "evilutionists" get on these threads merely to give you heartburn.
It's the other way around, pal.
Evolutionists start the threads looking for an audience to brainwash, and when the audience comes the evolutionists lambast them with their fanatical dogma.
Non-evolutionists are not the ones looking for an audience; it's the evilutionists that do.
You make it sound as if non-evolutionists start these threads and then you come in, which is NOT true and you know it.
Thank God there are so few evilutionists.
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.