Darwins theory of Evolution in Polish schools

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."

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."

Here's the link for the full article: uk.news.yahoo.com/14102006/323/keep-darwin-s-lies-polish-schools-educa tion-official.html

So, ontop of the current protests in Warsaw to remove the Pis party, there's also protests for this? Warsaw must be busy nowadays. Anyone been there recently?

How do you all think about this? I think it should be taught. It's only a theory and these kids can make their own conclusions. Hasn't done anyone else harm.

I think this theory doesn't contradict the existence of God at all. It should be taught in schools.

O God no!!!!!!! Such a shame for my country

I tend to agree with Poland's deputy minister's view point - Darwin's theory not being taught as part of the polish education corriculum. The theory seems not to stand up to scrutiny even if one should have the minimum of senior education - debate for the academics over a bottle of fine polish wine maybe.
I personally advocate teaching subjects that are going to benefit students directly in their chosen career paths; rather than, encumber them in whimsical laws, phylosophy and theories that may be deemed to belong to the realms of scientific history. I feel It is for the graduates to decide later should they wish to take on a broader knowledge base involving themselves in what they will. Cheers Mike

jawaboy,

The only reason some people are against Darwin's theory is that it contradicts the Bible. The theory is no longer a theory but fact. You evolved from the apes so get used to it.

This isn't taught to adults. These are children that have no idea about their career. Science need to be taught for future survival of our race. In school they learn about the data, how it was achieved, what has been discovered, these are the backbone of science. I personally don't mind if creation is not taught. I do think that challenges to the evolution interpretation should be discussed and the idea of options to that interpretation be discussed. How else would you like to explain these 6-7 million yr old bones and dinosaurs.

The argument between 'creationists' and 'evolutionists' is one that is often raised on quite a regular basis here in the UK--often with no agreement or consensus one way or the other. Darwin's theories also form a major part of the curriculum in many universities, and on a personal note, I think that the arts and humanities in general have benefitted greatly from some of the interpretations put forward surrounding identity and race in literature and the way we look at the past. My biggest worry, though, is that the debate--whether religious or political--is now being hijacked by the far-right, and that this group is now using this to impose authoritarian measures which effectively stifle any further discussion or comment. It would be a pity if this was to happen in Polish education. A much broader outlook is perhaps needed all round, rather than an education that is founded on orthodoxy, and no choice at all.

Dave

I'm afraid that this will happen, since the old government coalition has been restored, with the same Minister of Education.

It is theory that fits with the facts, it is not a fact itself. We actually have very few facts about the world because as human beings our senses and views are always limited.

Maxxx Payne,

Help me to understand.

If all parts of the theory are facts then the theory is fact.

Please, show me where I am wrong.

To have the perfect theory, meaning a theory that's true, one must know all the facts concerning the theory. And all those facts can never known.

In future we might find facts that contradict our theory so we need to revise our theory but then it is not the same theory but a new one.

Principle of evolution is closest to facts, that we know of, but we can never still know if evolution actually is a fact.

Maxxx Payne,

Thanks for you reply.

Am I right in thinking you are against Darwinism ? Or were you just arguing my use of the word 'fact' ?

Not necessairly. To have a perfect theory one must prove it. It's sufficient.
I'll give you an example.
Gravity is a theory and it's a fact, right? I believe you agree with me on that.
It's been proven to exist and we know for a fact that gravity on smaller planets (or moons) is lower due to the planets size. So we even know one of its characteristics. True? True and proven.
However, scientists until now can't explain it's mechanism. We don't know how to generate or influence gravity. There are facts about it unknown to man, yet the theory is true

Darvin's theory is even stronger, because it happens to be proven and, in addition, supported by a vast number of facts.
Hey, some people still look like chimps!

I am an English Native Teacher in Poland, and I trained as a teacher in the UK. Moreover, one of my professors at University said something that I will always remember, that, “you must guide children’s learning by using objectiveness and openness and never preach”. It seems to me that too many people in history have tried to preach and got it wrong. What is wrong with teaching Darwin’s theories of Evolution, what is wrong with teaching that god created all living things. Let us hope that Roman Giertych is a short-lived phenomenon, because otherwise this country will go back 20 years, and all the work that has been done will be wasted on a personal ego and stereotypes of his family. God help us! Or, should that be Dawin help us?

Actually I am not against Darwinism, it is more plausible than Adam & Eve story. It is just that it is very complex to understand, also to scientists I think.

Yeah I went a little nitpicking there, sorry for that....

Well, Newtonian gravity was considered to be an universal fact, but when Quantum Mechanics and Relativity came around, the whole view of world changed. Maybe Darwinism is also part of a bigger thing.



Not to mention the behavior

Maxxx, I think that the Adam and Eve story is a good deal less than being remotely plausible!!

But I suspect it was a way of "innocently" explaining the very complex rational behind...how we all got here, it was a story of its day....but now we know differently.

A famous Archbishop of his day here in Ireland, calculated, by reading the bible, the exact time that the earth began and he came up with a date somewhere around 3600BC ( not sure if its this date but you know what I mean!)

So the bible, patently is wrong in its assertations. Darwinism, seems a good deal more likely, until the next theory comes along!

well, one of outcomes of the whole Darwin thing is the Darwin Awards initiative:

darwinawards.com

Things do change! If you are thinking that apes ---- human is correct you are wrong!, Write many articles on internet, Darvin Theory about evolution (animals etc.) OK! But there is no evidence that human grew up from ape! if human was a monkey, why monkey isn't today a human, and many monkeys live today in ZOO, im telling that i'm not a radical catholic, but normally thinkin man

For those who don't know and nott courious enough to go look for it :

The earliest fossil hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus, is a recent discovery dating 4.4 million years ago. He was 4 feet tall and bipedal (having two feet). It is thought this species lived as forest dwellers. Australopithecus anamensis, a new species, was named in 1995 and was found in Kenya. This species lived between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago, and its body showed advanced bipedal features, but the skull closely resembled the ancient apes.

Australopithecus afarensis lived between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. He retained the apelike face with a sloping forehead, a ridge over the eyes, flat nose, and a chinless lower jaw, and height, 3’6” and 5’ tall. He was fully bipedal, and the thickness of his bones showed he was quite strong. His build was similar to a human, but the head and face were proportionately much larger.
The Australopithecus africanus was similar to the afarensis, but lived between three and two million years ago. He was also bipedal and slightly larger in body size. His brain was not advanced for speech. The hominid was an herbivore and ate tough, hard to chew, plants. The shape of the jaw was human-like.
The Australopithecus robustus lived between two and 1.5 million years ago. His body was similar to that of the africanus, but had a larger and more massive skull and teeth. His huge face was flat and had no forehead. He had no indication of speech capabilities.
The Australopithecus boisei lived between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. He was smaller than the robustus, but with a more massive face. He had huge molars, for which the largest measured 0.9 inches across. Some authorities believe the robustus and boisei are of the same species.
Next is the Homo habilis, or also called The Handy Man because tools were found with his fossil remains. He existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. The brain shape shows evidence some speech had developed. He was 5’ tall and weighed about 100 pounds.
Homo erectus lived between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Toward the end, his brain was that of the size of modern man, and definitely could speak.
Erectus developed tools, weapons, fire, and learned to cook his own food. He traveled out of Africa into China and the Southeast Asia developing clothing for northern climates. He turned to hunting for his food, and only his head and face differed from modern man. Homo sapiens (archaic) lived during the period 200,000 to 500,000 years ago. He had speech capabilities; his skull was rounded with smaller features. The skeleton shows a stronger build than modern human, but well proportioned.
Homo sapiens neandertalensis lived in Europe and the Mideast between 150,000 and 35,000 years ago. Brain size averaged larger than modern man, but the head was shaped differently, longer and lower. His nose was large and extremely different from modern man in structure. He was a massive man, about 5’6” tall with a heavy skeleton that showed attachments for massive muscles. He was far stronger than modern man, and his jaw was massive with a receding forehead like erectus.

Homo sapiens sapiens first appeared about 120,000 years ago, which is our own species.

Are you serious ? The monkeys today are not our "ancestors" but merely cousins. They are just a different path in evolution.

I was brought up by parents who were happy for us to have our own oppinions and Darwins Theory was agrued at home between myself and my siblings on many occassions-.Each generation of a family evolves - each generation is generally taller than the last, I suppose its all down to genetics all part of the evolution process...it doesnt stop....

We evolved from ameba

I agree with Markos. The funny part about this whole situation is that even Polish church is of the opinion that this theory doesn't contradict the existence of God.

Yep. The Catholic Church in general is not against evolution. It is the Prostestant Evagelists in USA that are.

Evolution has many more proven elements than any religion.

Religion is a faith....as in it requires blind faith in something that cannot be proven.

Evolution is factual....as in it is made up of factual information researched and proven by science.

A long time ago, due to religion, we though that the earth was flat. To argue against evolution is like claiming the earth is flat.

I have proof of evolution: Dogs.

Originally, the only kinds of dogs were wild, naturally evolved ones. Over time they were domesticated and bred into different breeds. As longer the animals were oput of the wild, the more they changed. EVOLUTION!!!!

Also, evolution is going on all aroung us. Look at bacteria. We have new strains of bacteria which evolve on an almost daily basis. Now surely you do not belive that your so called god is "creating" these new bacteria, do you?

Another question: Why do the worlds most educated and intelligent people like scientists, doctors and academics all believe that evolution is true. The onl;y people who don't believe in evolution are either stupid or religious.....and often the two go hand in hand.

The belief that the universe was created is just as preposterous and outdated as the notion that the earth is the centre of this universe.

Religion: Stop holding back science and the advancement of the human race, you have done so long enough.

Kasperek.

Well, if it could be proven than we wouldn’t call it faith, now would we?



And what is wrong with a belief that he triggered it, and that evolution is also his work?




There’s obviously a trend to slag off church and religion in the western part of Europe. Actually it's quite understandable since church has a lot of bad things on it's conscience, but there are few things that need to be clarified here. First of all, after the fall of the Imperium Romanum it was the church that carried the torch of science and civilization forth. The only people that actually could read and write at that time were only priests and monks, etc…Funny that you mention the theory about earth being the center of universe, because as you probably already know, the scientist that abolished it, Nicolaus Copernicus, was in fact a catholic clerk.


Back to the main topic , I was always taught at my religion classes that the whole history about Adam and Eve was just a metaphor and shouldn’t be taken literally, thus I always thought that both thesis don't contradict each other.

Do you think it is excusable that the catholic church forbids their priests from having wives, which results in masses of young boys being sexually abused by those priests?

Do you think it is excusable that the catholic church incites homophobic sentiment around the world?

Do you think that it is excusable that the catholic church has helped to further the spread of aids by forbidding their followers from wearing condoms?

Do you think it excusable that the catholic church prohibits people from engaging in sexual intercourse unless it is for the purpose of having children, thus forcing their followers to supress their instincts? unnatural isn't it.

What makes religious people that their religion is more true than the others? Why is catholicism more real than islam, or judaism or taoism? It's not.

I think that religion is one of the causes of a lot of the horrible things that have happened, and are currently happening in the world. I do not think that a communist approach of state atheism is the answer, i believe that the key is to make religion a taboo which people do not speak about or act upon. To have your own beliefs is fine, providing they do not impede another person's ability to live their life the way they wish.

kasperek

Do you think it is excusable that the catholic church forbids their priests from having wives, which results in masses of young boys being sexually abused by those priests?

It's not the catholic church that "forbids" priests to have wives. Priests are not soldiers and the majority of them should not be reminded to "forbid" something as they know what is right or wrong and they are happy with that. Regarding "masses of abused boys", this is just an opinion of certain groups (who own mass media) and fight against the catholic church. There are for sure some priests who abuse children, but these are the exceptions. You don't try to say you would start abusing "young boys" just because you don't have sex? If anything, you would start "abusing" women, not "young boys".

Do you think it is excusable that the catholic church incites homophobic sentiment around the world?

For catholics there is one religion and one God so it's difficult to claim othewise.

Do you think that it is excusable that the catholic church has helped to further the spread of aids by forbidding their followers from wearing condoms?

This is what the mass media want people like you who are easily maniuplated to know. First you mock the catholic church ideas (so you obviously don't follow them) and then you try to say you carefully follow them to make your point against the catholic church?

Do you think it excusable that the catholic church prohibits people from engaging in sexual intercourse unless it is for the purpose of having children, thus forcing their followers to supress their instincts? unnatural isn't it.

Where did you come these nonsense from? Catholic church prohibits couples who are not married to have sexual intercourse; once they are married, they can have sex as many times as they want.

Plus, you think surpressing instincts is limiting you, right? What if a criminal who hasn't had sex for 10 years was released from prison and met your wife in a parking lot and raped her? I assume in court you would tell the judge and your wife -- "Come on, release him, he is innocent! I don't want to put him in jail just because he didn't supress his sexual instintcs."

What makes religious people that their religion is more true than the others? Why is catholicism more real than islam, or judaism or taoism? It's not.

If you still hear the voices of religious people it means you have dillemas and can still be a good man.

what makes you think i get this information from mass media? I make my own decisions and do not blindly follow what i am told.....unlike some.



No, that is ridiculous and does not make sense. What i was trying to say is that if two consenting adults want to have sex, why shouldn't they be able to?

And tell me, what causes most of the world's conflict? Correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems to be religion.

I do not need to be told what is right and wrong, as i can use my own philosophy to determine this. What I believe is wrong, is the killing of somebody else because you think that your imaginary friend is better than their imaginary friend, i don't kill people in the name of atheism.....in fact nobody does (other than people like stalin)

Also, christianity in general has stolen so much culture from peoples around the world through the aggressive use of missionaries. It disgusts me that missionaries take advantage of the poverty of developing nations by brainwashing indigenous people into ditching their own beliefs and taking up christianity with the promise of food and shelter. This is soooooooooooooooo unethical and immoral. But hey, that's just my opinion.

What makes you think i get this information from mass media? I make my own decisions and do not blindly follow what i am told.....unlike some.

You can hear in popular mass media about different kinds of "statistics."

No, that is ridiculous and does not make sense. What i was trying to say is that if two consenting adults want to have sex, why shouldn't they be able to?

If you are a catholic and have sex even if you are not married, you won't get stoned for that. Catholics are certainly able to do it. But the real catholics believe that this is wrong and they have enough will to actually give it up for their spiritual values. This is what makes them stronger and not on the mercy on their instincts. I'm sure you regard soldiers as fine men who can give up many things to achieve their goals. And most of them are proud of that. Same with the real catholics - they are actually proud they can be better than animals that rely on their instincts only.

If you falled in love with a woman of your dreams and she would tell you she loves you more than anything in the world and will marry you, but you cannot have sex with her until marriage, would you give her up?

And tell me, what causes most of the world's conflict? Correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems to be religion.

I would say: 1. Money, 2. Religion. But if you tell me the catholic religion is the aggressor here, I would say you are totally wrong.

Also, christianity in general has stolen so much culture from peoples around the world through the aggressive use of missionaries. It disgusts me that missionaries take advantage of the poverty of developing nations by brainwashing indigenous people into ditching their own beliefs and taking up christianity with the promise of food and shelter. This is soooooooooooooooo unethical and immoral. But hey, that's just my opinion.

"Aggressive use of missionaries"? If you think Mother Theresa and her followers were aggressors, I think you are wrong. There are absolutely no unethical and immoral values the catholic religion would teach. The problem is, nowadays people are too lazy and it's too hard for them to give up the "pleasures" of this world so they don't see the whole picture.