Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution => Topic started by: Gaia on 15/10/2006 19:52:57
-
I was going to post it up under That CAN'T be true but I don't think it's On the Lighter Side.
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.
from:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/14102006/323/keep-darwin-s-lies-polish-schools-education-official.html
Gaia xxx
-
Wow! Is there any chance that Orzechowski is from Kansas? Sorry, that was a poor effort at a joke. For those who are unaware of it, the state of Kansas in the USA has been arguing for several years about removing the theory of evolution from school textbooks, or "balancing" it with discussion of Creation theory. At this time, the school board is made up of more moderate persons who desire that evolution be taught.
It is not a joke that after 150 years, some elements of the Christian religion are still resisting the concept of evolution, as they fear that it may deligitimize their beliefs in the eyes of some. Yet the current Pope is not among them- Benedict strongly states that evolution is a fact not a theory.
chris wiegard
-
ugh. you mean to tell me that when things get too bad to bear here i can't just up and move to europe like i had planned. common, you guys on that side of the atlantic are supposed to be so much more enlightened than us over here. Can't you just like, send this guy to the gulatine or something?
(another poor attempt at a joke)
Are YOUR mice nude? [;)]
-
I've heard that the 'creative design' bigots are now targetting all UK secondary (ie high) schools!
-
I've heard that the 'creative design' bigots are now targetting all UK secondary (ie high) schools!
Not sure that the term 'bigot' is any more pertinent to those who advocate 'creative design' than those who oppose it. Being right does not stop you from being a bigot – what stops you being a bigot is seeing the other persons perspective, even if you do not share it. There are many on both sides of the divide who refuse to see the other sides perspective.
-
For those who are unaware of it, the state of Kansas in the USA has been arguing for several years about removing the theory of evolution from school textbooks, or "balancing" it with discussion of Creation theory. At this time, the school board is made up of more moderate persons who desire that evolution be taught.
It is not a joke that after 150 years, some elements of the Christian religion are still resisting the concept of evolution, as they fear that it may deligitimize their beliefs in the eyes of some. Yet the current Pope is not among them- Benedict strongly states that evolution is a fact not a theory.
chris wiegard
I think that balancing with the creation theory is a very good idea. It allows a child to choose for themselves what they believe is true, because neither model is proven or entirely testable. I myself believe that the creationist theory is correct, but that might also be a biased view. I also see the point that the scientists on the other side are making. I know some people who believe that God created the universe with as little miraculous intervention as possible, therefore creating a path of evolution for the animals to follow. That is also a valid thought.
-
Yes but I believe that all the creatures were made out of the crumbs from a giant baguette eaten by the giant spagetti monster. I demand that your creation theory should be balanced with mine. Seeing as there is no evidence either way scientifically there is nothing to choose between them in a science lesson.
Slightly more seriously, why the christian creation myth? What about the various native american ones, buddist, shinto, aboriginal Australian....
There is a huge difference between balancing a scientific theory with another theory with lots of evidence behind it, and balancing it with a myth. There definitely isn't any evidence for the christian creation myth, at the most conceivably there are a couple of holes in the present theory (but if you look, hugely fewer than a creationist website would have you believe) but that is not the same thing!! If you are not dealing with evidence, then it isn't science and should be in a Religion lesson.
-
Yes but I believe that all the creatures were made out of the crumbs from a giant baguette eaten by the giant spagetti monster. I demand that your creation theory should be balanced with mine. Seeing as there is no evidence either way scientifically there is nothing to choose between them in a science lesson.
this may be a serious discussion, but I find this very funny [:)]
Slightly more seriously, why the christian creation myth? What about the various native american ones, buddist, shinto, aboriginal Australian....
Of all the holy books, the Bible is the one with the most creation accounts, has the most realistic view of the current theory of the creation of the universe, the Big Bang. It also has the most predictions to of come true up to date and is the most accurate religous book to date. The liklyhood of all of these predictions that the Bible makes are true is 1080 to one. This means that the Bible is more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics!
-
Of all the holy books, the Bible is the one with the most creation accounts, has the most realistic view of the current theory of the creation of the universe, the Big Bang. It also has the most predictions to of come true up to date and is the most accurate religous book to date. The liklyhood of all of these predictions that the Bible makes are true is 1080 to one. This means that the Bible is more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics!
Not sure what you mean by the most creation accounts - there are many creation accounts, and the bible has in fact inherited from many middle eastern traditional stories.
As for the veracity of the accounts - the bible suggests the Earth predated the Sun - clearly a major contradiction to modern cosmological theories (although it is a perfectly natural assumption to make if you start from a geocentric view of the universe - which is very different from the viewpoint modern cosmologists take).
That the bible in general suggests that the simpler life forms predated the more complex life forms is not a major feet of imagination.
-
As for the veracity of the accounts - the bible suggests the Earth predated the Sun - clearly a major contradiction to modern cosmological theories (although it is a perfectly natural assumption to make if you start from a geocentric view of the universe - which is very different from the viewpoint modern cosmologists take).
The Bible never actually says that the Earth came before the Sun did. It only says when came light. This can be told as extremely dense clouds covered the earth before they parted and let the light in. It is entirely possible that when the planet formed, there was a dense cloud of gases or soot. My creationist view shows that the Bible does not, in fact, contradict any EVIDENCE that mankind has gathered so far.
-
The Bible never actually says that the Earth came before the Sun did. It only says when came light. This can be told as extremely dense clouds covered the earth before they parted and let the light in. It is entirely possible that when the planet formed, there was a dense cloud of gases or soot. My creationist view shows that the Bible does not, in fact, contradict any EVIDENCE that mankind has gathered so far.
I've heard this one before, and it did not impress me much at the time. I do not like to discuss religion or holy scriptures (of whatever source) in a science forum, but I give you the reply I gave on that occasion : when does the day start or end according to the bible ? According to Genesis 1 (the creation) the new day starts in the morning, but when it comes to the laws on sabbath, the new day starts in the evening. So I would not rely on the bible for anything related to time !
I do not mind to discuss creationism as an alternative to Darwin's evolution theory, but I do mind using the bible as a textbook, even if you state that so many of the predictions came true : these texts were only considered predictions after the facts they are supposed to have predicted.
-
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/HEBREWS/GENCREAT.HTM
Chapter 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the deep, and God's spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4 And God saw that light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And evening was and morning was: the first day.
So far, despite the fact that as soon as the Earth was formed, one part would be in shadow (in night- time) and the other in light (daytime), God has create the Earth, and created light, and only after this point does he separate day from night.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters separating the waters from the waters."
7 And so God made the expanse, and he separated the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so.
8 God called the expanse "heaven." And evening was and morning was: the second day.
So, the heavens are themselves composed of water (I accept that the sky has clouds within it, but to say that the entire heavens, in all its vastness, is just an extension of the primordial ocean, seems somewhat contrary to current thinking).
9 And God said, "Let the waters beneath heaven be gathered into one place, and let dry ground appear." And so it was.
10 And God called the dry ground "land" 1 and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees bearing fruit with their proper seed inside, on the land." And so it was.
12 And the land produced vegetation: plants bearing the seed of their kind, and trees bearing fruit with their proper seed inside. And God saw that it was good.
13 And evening was and morning was: the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heaven to separate the day from the night, and let them be as signs for the seasons and the days and the years.
15 And let there be lights in the expanse of heaven to give light to the earth." And so it was.
16 And God made the two great lights: the great light for governing the day, the lesser light for governing the night; [God made] the stars also.
Only now, long after the creation of light, and the creation of the Earth itself, and after the creation of day and night, do we have the creation of the Sun and the stars.
While it is true that one might say that there was lots of energy, and maybe even light, soon after the Big Bang, but there was no Earth in existence then, nor did (according to modern scientific cosmology) an Earth in existence until long after the creation of the stars, and later yet the creation of the Sun.
Furthermore, it is not at all clear how we come by day and night in the time before a Sun existed.
It is also not clear how, with the creation of seed bearing plants, these plants could be propagating, without the existence of any pollinators yet. Plants without seeds (algae, mosses, etc.) are fine, but we would have problems here with seed bearing plants, especially fruit bearing trees, since the fruit is there to be eaten by animals that will spread the seeds of the fruit.
17 And God set them in the expanse of the heaven to give light to the earth,
18 and to govern the day and the night and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And evening was and morning was: the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the waters teem with the breath of living creatures, and let birds fly above the land across the face of the expanse of heaven." And so it was.
21 And so God created the great sea-creatures and every breath of living, moving creature with which the waters teem, according to their proper kind, and every winged bird, according to their proper kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and increase, and fill the waters in the seas; and the birds let increase upon the earth."
23 And evening was and morning was: the fifth day.
We have fish – this is fine; but we also have birds, and this is before the creation of land animals – this despite that most scientists now believe that birds are the descendents of dinosaurs (in fact, many regard birds as really being dinosaurs in modern form).
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their proper kind: cattle, creatures that crawl on the ground, and wild animals, according to their proper kind." And so it was.
25 And God made the wild animals according the their proper kinds, and the cattle according to its proper kind, and every creature that crawls on the ground according to their proper kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness, and let them reign over the fish of the sea, and the birds of air, and the cattle, and all the land, 2 and all the creatures that crawl upon the earth."
Only now do we have things that crawl (I assume that this refers to insects, and maybe even reptiles and amphibians), despite that both insects and reptiles are commonly believed to be older than birds.
27 So God created man in the image of himself,
in the image of God he created him,
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them, and he said to them, "Be fruitful, and increase, and fill the earth and conquer it. And reign over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the earth."
29 Then God said, "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the earth, and every tree that has fruit with seed inside it; for you they will be food.
30 And to every animal of the land and every bird of the air and every creature which crawls on the ground, every thing with the breath of life, [I give] every green plant for food." And so it was.
31 And God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. Evening was and morning was: the sixth day.
-
Interestingly, isn't it correct that evolution of plants and animals, is still going on, at this time? How is this "explained" away?
DocN [::)]
-
I admit that Evolution on a small scale does exist, but it has never been recorded in Large scales. Of all the Mutations in any genome, even is bacteria, none of them have been beneficial, but, in fact, have been often harmful. What is really happening today with what some people call evolution, is the genome being changed slightly because of the changes in the environment. It has been proven that polar bears got their white coats because they survived better in the arctic climate that they moved into. Do you have an example of a major change in any genome?
-
I admit that Evolution on a small scale does exist, but it has never been recorded in Large scales. Of all the Mutations in any genome, even is bacteria, none of them have been beneficial, but, in fact, have been often harmful. What is really happening today with what some people call evolution, is the genome being changed slightly because of the changes in the environment. It has been proven that polar bears got their white coats because they survived better in the arctic climate that they moved into. Do you have an example of a major change in any genome?
What do you mean by 'recorded on a large scale' – there are many records in the fossils.
If you mean that no-one has lived to see it, there is probably good reason for that.
If you take the old notion of gradual evolution, you would not expect to see major changes over a short period of time (although the HIV virus evolved only fairly recently, but even that probably took many decades, maybe a century, to get to where it is today).
If one takes the view of punctuated equilibrium, it supposes that you will see very little evolutionary change until some major catastrophe happens – and we have not had that kind of global catastrophe recently – and when it does happen, you will see evolution in action.
As for whether evolution is beneficial – beneficial to what? Evolution is beneficial to the new, and deleterious to the old; so depending upon whether you are one of the new species, or one of the old species, your view on whether it is beneficial might be different. Evolution is change, and change must always imply some death of the past, and birth of the future.
When evolution does have a major impact on humanity (and it certainly has had a noticeable, but not dramatic, impact upon humanity already), then we will inevitably see that as a bad thing, because all the humanity we see today will be replaced by something new (whether it be the replacement of the human species with a newer and more successful species, or even just a replacement of a human race with a more successful race – and that has happened many times in human history, and will continue to happen – although in the case of racial substitution, there remains the ambiguity created by hybridisation, so what you actually find is a hybrid race replaces the previous inbred races).
-
I admit that Evolution on a small scale does exist, but it has never been recorded in Large scales. Of all the Mutations in any genome, even is bacteria, none of them have been beneficial, but, in fact, have been often harmful. What is really happening today with what some people call evolution, is the genome being changed slightly because of the changes in the environment. It has been proven that polar bears got their white coats because they survived better in the arctic climate that they moved into. Do you have an example of a major change in any genome?
This statement is just plain wrong.
-
Whenever I'm down and need something to raise my spirits i visit some of them creationists websites and after just a few minutes of reading i can guarantee if I'm not laughing my face will be wearing the biggest grin possible. Their ideas are just so plain funny.
-
Yes they are so ridiculous that you think you should just point and laugh. When they build 27 million dollar Churches(not a museum) then it is more scary than funny. They have a lot of cash and use it to spread ignorance.