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.
God is scientifically illiterate, I see.
Ah, the cult of Darwinism. Lots of othewise decent people sucked into its fable of frog to prince....
Here we see a basic, and very revealing, problem. The subject is whether the ToE and/or ID should be in science classes. When the response to the defense of ToE is scripture, it shows that the opposition is there for religious, not scientific, reasons.
Therefore, your side of the discussion by default loses, since you are not talking science anymore.
Because that conclusion doesn't logically follow.
Leave FR, then, if you have such a distain for the Word of God. Go back to DU; you'll feel right at home.
Really? So there were no atheistic or agnostic or Muslim or Hindu or other religion's contributions to the current state of science?
All those Christians based their scientific work on their religious belief system?
"Other religions gave some, but only because they fed on the benevolence of Christianity.
So even if scientists have different beliefs than Christianity it is really Christianity which drives their contributions.
Instead of blindly believing your revisionist version of history perhaps you should investigate it a bit further.
Isn't it though?
On another thread there is a poster who is complaining that Science and its supporters are arrogant. I wonder what he would make of this?
Why that particular condition?
You are aware I hope that the 'Darwinism' presented by your local creationist is a strawman which does not resemble the current state of Evolutionary science.
FR is not a Religious site -- it is a Conservative site. Scripture is fine on f-religion, but here where we are discussing issues of science it is inappropriate (and irrelevant).
Willful ignorancre is NOT a Conservative Value.
Or do you speak for JR?
No, people are.
Ah, the cult of Darwinism. Lots of othewise decent people sucked into its fable of frog to prince....
So you won't even try to mount a decent reasonable argument supporting your position.
Willful Ignorance AND Logical Fallacies: The CR/IDers' stovck in trade.
Indeed. God has graced us with people who don't even pretend to understand science and who look like the Righty Moonbats.
If it wasn't going to make scientific illiterates out of the next generation and splash over to those of who DO understand science, it would be quite laughable.
I have to assume that Fundamentalism dabbling in science is proof God has a sense of humor.
Of course not. All the evidence related to the big picture is circumstantial. Even in a judicial context circumstantial evidence is not exactly held in high regard. Why do evolutionists have to elevate circumstantial evidence to the level of certitude not warranted, and then go on to insist their version of history is worthy of an exclusive hearing in public schools? Again, evolution has only been directly observed within limits. Extrapolations from there qualify better as philosophies of history than as science.
ID is not a scientific theory.
Spoken frequently and fervently, to be sure. Yet there are ample examples of directly observed intelligent design, which makes the process far from necessarily "supernatural" and beyond the purview of science.
Then we might agree. But I would like you to explain why and how exactly you reject this view( "that the universe is a dead purposeless machine ruled by chance")
I'd also add that it has absolutely nothing to do with the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
Perhaps. The problem is that this suuposed theory is not really defined. When you deal with a scientific theory like the one of Newton or Darwin or Einstein you need the name of the author, the title, date and place of original publication. And first of all, the explicit claims of the theory. Otherwise it is impossible to debate it.
Can you provide these details?
Freedumb2003...you stated,
"FR is not a Religious site -- it is a Conservative site"
Well, I am glad that is cleared up...
Thanks -- every now and then we have to remind ourselves.
Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't make a process ID -- it just means you don't understand it.
Or for a better quote: "What does god need with a starship?"
No, I see the Darwin's theory same way as Lamarck theory. They were XIX century attempts at explaining life in evolutionary and natural terms.
"I mean 'Darwinism' as it is being propagated today."
Where is this "Darwinism" of yours being propagated?
In media in debate and from mouths of atheists who peddle the idea of random mutation.
Surely this "Darwinism" you speak of cannot be the same thing as the modern neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution as it is commonly taught in modern biology courses.
When you study REAL scientific data, you see concrete amazing discoveries like DNA, retroviruses etc ... You do not see any unifying theory yet.
I have looked at many textbooks on evolutionary biology, and I have yet to see one that claims the universe is a "dead purposeless machine."
Of course not. It would be a give away, don't you think? :)
What a shame that a Catholic would reject the teachings of the Catholic Church that accept evolution.
Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't make a process ID supernatural, religious, or unscientific -- it just means you don't understand it.
My understanding of what science does is "observe" before they form hypothesis. Since evolution of man has never been "observed", nor has there ever been any intermediate species still alive, ever shown, I'm wondering how science concludes evolution is "fact?"
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.