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.
I bet that's Fred Phelp's favorite scripture. He must be doing something right! (/sarc)
Isn't it rather bass-ackwards to suggest it is more difficult to create a functioning universe over billions of years as opposed to six literal days?
So you're not an IDer, but a young-earth creationist?
It would be better if your temerity extended to confessing your god openly rather than hiding behind semantics and federal law.
In case you didn't notice, I said I have no stake in the ToE, that I would actually welcome its demise at the hands of a better scientific theory. I don't care about the ToE, but I do care about the advancement of science in general, and by definition the demise of the ToE (or Relativity or any other scientific theory) is an advancement of science.
The miasma theory of disease explained everything people saw, and led to useful measures to prevent disease, but it was wrong. It would have been interesting to be there when the germ theory of disease (yes, it's still a "theory") was accepted.
This is not a Christian site.
Countless times when I had to do scientific bibliography search. Even researchers who do not get Noble price are very jealous about authorship of their works. Your scientific career can end up very abruptly if you do not respect "date stamps and labels".
No. There are only five Joe Schmoes listed openly and nationally, none of whom reside in my state, let alone down the street.
Supernatural is outside the realm of the natural sciences, otherwise it would (if you just look at the word) be natural.
Now that is what I call a tautology of the crassest sort: scientifically and semantically meaningless. I would like you to demonstrate precisely what aspect of intelligent design is supernatural, and then tell me why it must be considered as such.
I linked to the Wedge Document earlier.
Your link didn't work so I sought it out. My assertion stands. The Wedge Document is not sectarian and does not espouse evangelism in the strict sense. Even if it did, there is no Constitutional mandate to prohibit teaching or discussing intelligent design in a public school science class. As I said, ID is in accord with many religions, including the Christian Faith. But that does not make the concept of intelligent design inherently religious or unscientific. Meanwhile, if anything, the Wedge Document is a welcome effort at breaking the philosophical logjams of Darwinism and materialistic naturalism foisted upon education in the name of science.
Why does the continent of Africa bother you so much?
Eventually and overall it is best to approach what we do not understand from the perspective of intelligent design. That's how science and medicine work best. I would wager Darwinism and/or materialistic naturalism take little if any credit in dispersing misnomers attributed to the miasma theory of disease.
Another bizarre utterance from FesterWorld.
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster created Mighty Mouse" placemark
Your designer, God.
The Wedge Document is not sectarian and does not espouse evangelism in the strict sense.
So you redefine evangelism to get out of it? How about Johnson's comments? Face it, ID was meant as an evangelical tool, a religious-based movement to counter the perceived growing influence of materialism (and that IS in that document).
Even if it did, there is no Constitutional mandate to prohibit teaching or discussing intelligent design in a public school science class.
The possibilities, depending on how you'd like to define:
1. ID is evangelism. Evangelism is not and should not be allowed in public schools, unless you'd like to see the Mad Mullah come to your school and preach the wonders of radical Islam to your kids.
2. ID is is religion, and IMHO religion has a place in public schools -- just not in the science class.
But that does not make the concept of intelligent design inherently religious or unscientific.
I don't see how you can read that document, and the statements of Phillip Johnson, and come to that conclusion.
"God did it. Okay, we can pack up and go home now, nothing to learn here."
I've heard of theories using the god of the gaps to fill in the holes, but you want to replace an entire theory with one big gap.
Was that another combination warning and suspension?
*BANG!*
"I'm warning you, don't do that again."
Sorry. I don't agree. What's unAmerican about simple intellectual honesty, i.e. telling students that an idea that is, quite objectively, part of science is part of science, and one that, equally objectively, isn't part of science isn't? What's unAmerican about saying, IF AND WHEN "Intelligent Design" achieves scientific standing on merit, it can and will be taught as science, and until then, TOUGH LUCK. (And btw, should ID, or something else, succeed, as science, to the point of supplanting evolutionary theory, then it would be TOUGH LUCK for evolution too. It should be excluded under those circumstances.)
I think hard-nosed academic standards are the American Way. I think a meritocracy of ideas is the American Way. I think a meaningful competition of ideas (where ideas can succeed and fail) is the American Way.
If they insist on teaching it, they should also be teaching ID and letting people have their own opinions and choices on which is which. They can decide if they are 'theory' or 'fact.'
Yeah, I know. It's "only fair" to teach "both sides". Baloney. It's not fair at all if one "side" represents a successful scientific theory -- one actually utilized by working scientists in the conduct of ongoing, productive and original research -- and the other "side" has no such standing.
That's just a wishy-washy intellectual relativism, where ideas that can't cut the mustard in the marketplace are included in curricula just to be "fair," or to appease and appeal to the "self esteem" of "identity groups" (whether racial or religious). I do NOT think that is the American Way.
Do you agree with the racist who was banned?
Where is the evidence for ID?
Neither should it be an anti-Christian site.
In truth, FR *is* a pro-God site, as explained by its founder: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
Joe is my half-brother, and I can tell you this: he couldn't design a spitwad.
;?)
According to Moses He wrote them.
So you want Moses' view of God taught I take it.
Never mind...(pokes stultorum)... it's dead.
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.