Council of Europe to vote on creationism next week

[Achilles]

Link

PARIS (Reuters) - Europe's main human rights body will vote next week on a resolution opposing the teaching of creationist and intelligent design views in school science classes.

 

The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly will debate a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.

One of my favorite parts:

"The message we wanted to send was to avoid creationism passing itself off as science and being taught as science. That's where the danger lies."

Also a correction:

Creationism says God made the world in six days as depicted in the Bible. Intelligent design argues some life forms are too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory and needed an unnamed higher intelligence to develop as they have.

To the best of my knowledge only Young Earth Creationists (YECs) believe in a literal interpretation of genesis. Old Earth Creationists (OECs) generally accept the scientific evidence that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, but still attribute its creation to a supernatural god.

[Alkonium]

Well, quite frankly I hope they vote to ban creationism and intelligent design from science classes. Creationism has no roots in any scientific theory, and should be kept to religion classes, if they even have those in Europe.

[SilentScope001]

Wait, WHAT?!

 

So, apperantly, it is a Human Right violation to entertain a motion I believe to be stupid.

 

You know what? This policy is moronic. So, a person believes in Creationism. You don't like him, fine. You don't go and claim that he is voilating human rights and then decide that the way to save human rights is to go and supress his free speech. I thought free speech is a human right, but apperantly, you must believe in the "correct" way...or else.

 

Freedom of Thought means Freedom to Disagree. Declare that "disagreeing" with a idea is, well, immoral and...and uh...Let just say that I'm going to become the religious Voilatre and defend that person's right to disagree to the death. And if I'm going to be accused of 'violating basic human rights according to whatever some european agency tells me is basic human rights', well so be it.

 

Sure, don't have to be taught in the schools, for whatever reason. But why in the world do you want to turn this into a human rights issue when you are claiming that merely believing in an idea that I dislike is something that is horrible, a crime on par with genocide, tortue, bombing, racism, etc.

 

What next? Am I going to pass a human right violating declaring l33t to be condoning hacking and being an offense onto the English language, therefore, speaking in 133t is a human right violation?

[mimartin]

This is my favorite line:

She said the resolution also shortened references in the resolution to "evolution by natural selection" to "evolution" because some members had misunderstood the reference to natural selection to be an attack on their religious beliefs.[/Quote]

But the most intelligent thing that come to mind from it is: Huh?

 

Shouldn’t this debate have been settled 200 years ago?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So, apperantly, it is a Human Right violation to entertain a motion I believe to be stupid.

No. However, pushing lies on children in schools can very easily be considered one. Every kid has the right to an education. Lying to them by saying evolution is unproven and/or impossible goes against that right. Schools are for facts. In their own words:

"The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief," Brasseur wrote in a memorandum added to the new resolution. "It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science."

They'd react the same way if there was a movement to teach that Soviet Russia was in reality a fantastic place to live. To oppose such teaching would not be an attack on Communism, but preservation of truth.

 

You know what? This policy is moronic. So, a person believes in Creationism. You don't like him, fine. You don't go and claim that he is voilating human rights and then decide that the way to save human rights is to go and supress his free speech. I thought free speech is a human right, but apperantly, you must believe in the "correct" way...or else.

Teachers, as far as I know, don't have a right to tell students lies. Would it be covered by freedom of speech for a teacher to tell a kid that 2+2=6?

[Web Rider]

Wait, WHAT?!

 

quote....

 

No, they're passing a ban on creationisim/intelligent design being taught in/as science.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Sure, don't have to be taught in the schools, for whatever reason. But why in the world do you want to turn this into a human rights issue when you are claiming that merely believing in an idea that I dislike is something that is horrible, a crime on par with genocide, torture, bombing, racism, etc.

They never said anything like that. There are different degrees of violations to every rule. Going 1 km/h over the speed limit on a highway is speeding. Driving at 110 km/h in a school area where the speed limit is 50 km/h is also speeding. The two are not on the same level and are not punished equally.

 

As a side note, Norwegian religion classes also got slammed recently for being mandatory to all students and simultaneously biased in favor of the Christian religion.

[Totenkopf]

The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly will debate a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.

 

:roflmao: that last part is just too rich. What's next, ban cigarettes as an assault on human rights? The french would really love that one. Maybe they can ban headscarves as another assault on human rights. Is science sooo weak that it can be overthrown by "creationism"? If so, it's already lost. And "dangerous" puts the claim in hyperbole territory. Ya gotta wonder what cretin came up with this resolution.

[SilentScope001]

No. However, pushing lies on children in schools can very easily be considered one.

 

People who believe in creationism are not lying when they claim it to be correct. Lying is only when you believe one thing is true and say differently (believing that Paris is the capital of France and then stating that it is actually Brussels). I thought people presume that the creationists are insane lunatics, not plain-out and out liars. Such insults and accusations only serve to polarize.

 

I consider them neither. I think of them having different beliefs than I do, and that they should have a right to speak their view without being said to be breaking 'human rights'. I don't think they should teach their scientific views in a classrom, but I do think they should promote their theories that they believe they are in fact scientific, in whatever format they feel is necessary. We cannot limit free speech.

 

They never said anything like that. There are different degrees of violations to every rule.

 

But by passing this rule, they are attempting to violate the Free Speech rule of human rights. The most important part of Human Rights, IMHO. If I cannot have the ability to hold ideas and to promote those ideas, then I am not truly free. It's akin to breaking a major aspect of the law in order to enforce a misdemenor.

 

No, they're passing a ban on creationisim/intelligent design being taught in/as science.

 

No, they aren't. All they are doing is stating, "This is against human rights." The governments doesn't have to follow this, but for the most part, they will. Not because of "human rights", but because teaching creationism in schools is not that good an idea.

 

Is science sooo weak that it can be overthrown by "creationism"? If so, it's already lost.

 

Huh. Never thought of it that way. But then that means all ideas are weak, since all ideas are fearful of being overthrown. Hm...

[Jae Onasi]

How is the teaching of ID an assault on human rights? And a 'dangerous' one at that (as if any assaults aren't dangerous?). This policy, if I lived in Europe, would be an assault on my religious freedom and freedom of speech, particularly if they plan on imposing this regulation on private schools, and yes, I can understand not teaching it in public schools. Europe needs to take a step back and think about the ramifications of this policy and how they're characterizing religion. If you start censoring religion, where do you stop?

 

On the continuum of evolution/creationism--it's a little more complex than YEC/OEC/evolutionists. It's more like this:

atheistic evolution (no deity, random natural selection)

deistic evolution (a higher power set the universe in motion and let it go on its own from there)

theistic evolution (God created the initial life and oversaw it as species evolved, accepts macro- and microevolution)

progressive creation (God used scientific laws and created each species independently along what is commonly viewed as the evolutionary tree, accepts microevolution)

flat creationism/young earth creationism/6-day literalist creationism {God created the world about 6000 years ago literally according to Genesis in 6 days, does not accept macro- or microevolution.)

[Achilles]

How is the teaching of ID an assault on human rights?

It's a lie and lying is immoral. A systematic lie propagated by the educational infrastructure of a government would seem to be an infraction on human rights. That's my guess. For their exact rationale, I imagine that you'd have to ask them.

 

This policy, if I lived in Europe, would be an assault on my religious freedom and freedom of speech

Not at all. They're just saying that you can't have it in science class. Since it doesn't belong there in the first place, then I can't imagine how anyone could see this as any sort of infringement.

 

Europe needs to take a step back and think about the ramifications of this policy and how they're characterizing religion.

Err...that only science will be taught in science class? Not sure I follow on this one, Jae.

 

If you start censoring religion, where do you stop?

I think you need to go back and re-read the article, beginning the with first sentence.

 

On the continuum of evolution/creationism--it's a little more complex than YEC/OEC/evolutionists.

Not at all. There are creationists and evolutionists and people that believe a little bit of both. All of the examples that you made up below will fit quite nicely in one of these three categories.

 

atheistic evolution (no deity, random natural selection)

No random mutation?

 

deistic evolution (a higher power set the universe in motion and let it go on its own from there)

Separate category for those that don't believe that the higher power was god? Couldn't we just call the whole thing "theistic evolution" (since you have to be a theist in order to be a deist) and cut out an unnecessary step?

 

theistic evolution (God created the initial life and oversaw it as species evolved, accepts macro- and microevolution)

aka "guided evolution".

 

progressive creation (God used scientific laws and created each species independently along what is commonly viewed as the evolutionary tree, accepts microevolution)

How is this (as you have explained it) different from guided/theistic evolution?

 

flat creationism/young earth creationism/6-day literalist creationism {God created the world about 6000 years ago literally according to Genesis in 6 days, does not accept macro- or microevolution.)

So we have evolution, guided evolution, and creationism. Ok.

[Samuel Dravis]

Jae, from what I read in the article it's not quite as bad as you might think. They seem to only want to restrict these topics (creationism/ID) to religion classes, not ban them entirely. I think it's reasonable to prohibit the teaching of things that aren't science in a science classroom.

 

About this human rights violation caused by teaching: A great deal of the things in the world are described by science, and it's involved in virtually everything. Knowledge of how science works is becoming increasingly necessary as time goes on. So yes, I would consider it a serious problem if someone was purposefully undermining science education. I would consider it serious enough to say that, even if the perpetrators had the best intentions, they should be removed immediately. If you really felt like it, you could even characterize it as a national security problem.

 

A human rights problem, I'm not sure. Are people obligated to provide a truthful and comprehensive education to their children? I would argue that to the best of their ability, they are... and that the curriculum of a public school should reflect that.

[Achilles]

Are people obligated to provide a truthful and comprehensive education to their children? I would argue that to the best of their ability, they are... and that the curriculum of a public school should reflect that.

Especially if the people in question are elected officials entrusted with the stewardship of young, impressionable minds via a standardized public school curriculum.

[mimartin]

This policy, if I lived in Europe, would be an assault on my religious freedom and freedom of speech,

So in the U.S. we have no such infringement on our freedom or speech and/or religion? Did not the writers of the First Amendment assault your freedom of religion and speech when they created the separation of church and state as a “wall of separation between religion and the government”?

 

Personally, I see this as a protection of my freedom of religion. This allows parents to control and supervise the information given to their child and not put in the hands of someone with a different belief system. The government is not saying you cannot teach or believe in creationism or intelligent design, it is just saying that it should not be taught in the classroom. If the parent desires the child to be taught creationism or intelligent design then the child is taught this information by the parent and/or church, but if the parent wants their child only pure scientific study then that is what they are taught in school.

 

Edit add on: Let say you had someone of Achilles intelligence teaching your child science. Let us say the school district is forcing Achilles, as a teacher, to teach your child creationism or intelligent design. Would you still want Achilles teaching your child about either? I'd rather he stick to science.

[Web Rider]

So in the U.S. we have no such infringement on our freedom or speech and/or religion? Did not the writers of the First Amendment assault your freedom of religion and speech when they created the separation of church and state as a “wall of separation between religion and the government”?

 

Much as I would LOVE that line to be in the First Amendment, it is unfortunately, not there. To my knowledge, it's only mentioned in the Federalist Papers and other non-law defining documents treated roughly as "guidelines" for how the system would ideally be set up.

 

There is no more separation of church and state than we make of it. The First Amendment only explicitly states the government will make no laws for, or against a religion(unless a particular part of it violates the freedom/rights of others, like if a religion said it was OK to kill polticians, we can legislate against that).

 

Creationism and Intelligent Design are theological concepts. They have no foundation in science, and any part they may claim to have is so ill defined that it is not legitimate science. If schools wish to mandate all students take a "philosophy" class, or a "creation theories" class, great, we'll have all around better children. As long as of course, other ideas get time, and the children are taught ABOUT the idea, not taught the idea as truth.

 

And this is generally where the problem occurs when "religious right" activists want their way taught as aboslute truth.

 

I also have to agree with a previous statement that it is a sad time for science that it can be overpowered in it's own domain, the science class, by that which is obviously NOT science.

[Rogue Warrior]

Contrary to popular belief there is no such thing as freedom of speech or religion in America. Following the wrong religion, or no religion, seems to be as condemned as racial slurs.

[Totenkopf]

Contrary to popular belief there is no such thing as freedom of speech or religion in America. Following the wrong religion, or no religion, seems to be as condemned as racial slurs.

 

 

You seem to have a rather odd interpretation of freedom of speech/religion. There are no laws in the US that mandate you have to belong to a particular faith, nor are there that many proscriptions on freedom of speech (now often expanded to include "expression"). Perhaps you could explain yourself.

[mimartin]

Much as I would LOVE that line to be in the First Amendment, it is unfortunately, not there.

True the exact wording is not, as are a whole lot of other rights that we actually hold as truths. “Right to fair trail,” “right to privacy,” and “right to private gun ownership.” However, these legal concepts have been interrupted from the document by the courts and thus are part of our laws and rights. You can argue that if the courts were right or wrong, but there is no argument that every American now believe these are their constitutional rights.

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [/Quote]

So by teaching Christian doctrine in a classroom would we not be establishing the religion? The next question should be which Christian denomination should be the doctrine we teach our students and thus becomes the official religion of the US? Our governments can not even decide on English as our official language, so how are they supposed to decide on this?

 

So yes, I over simplified my argument and I apologize for that. However, I still see it as valid.

[Jae Onasi]

particularly if they plan on imposing this regulation on private schools, and yes, I can understand not teaching it in public schools

You all ignored this part of my post.

 

In Europe, gov'ts can regulate what's said in private schools as well as public, and could ban this being taught at private schools. France has banned kids from wearing clothing and items that are considered religious--yarmulkes, Muslim headscarves for girls, and so forth, something that we'd consider a violation of personal religious freedoms here. It would not be out of character for them to ban any discussion of ID in private schools, if they haven't already.

 

@mimartin--in the US at this time, the gov't would never impose this kind of restriction on private schools. I can deal with the restriction in public schools, as I said before, as long as teachers don't say 'there is no God' in the process of teaching it, which I would consider a violation of my kids' religious rights.

All of the examples that you made up

Are you saying I 'made them up' as in fabricated out of thin air, or did you mean it in the sense of 'all this stuff you've written below'?

 

I simply was sharing something that I'd learned a few years back that the group here apparently had not encountered before. Certainly these sub-categories can fit within the 3 categories you listed above. I just think the additional nuances add some depth to understanding the different groups.

 

Random mutation--I didn't mention that because I assumed it was a given with 'random', and I was giving a very brief description in any case. You'll have to forgive me for not mentioning that explicitly, then.

Deistic/Theistic evolution differences-with deistic evolution, God (or whatever someone wants to call a higher power) stops handling things after the Big Bang. I view it essentially as evolution, except God set off the Big Bang that got us all going versus we-don't-know-what.

In guided/theistic evolution, God is a little more 'hands-on', and directed not just the Big Bang, but also the whole process of evolution using natural law.

Progressive creationism believes that each species is independent without transitions, but follows the development seen in the fossile record.

[mimartin]

@mimartin--in the US at this time, the gov't would never impose this kind of restriction on private schools. I can deal with the restriction in public schools, as I said before, as long as teachers don't say 'there is no God' in the process of teaching it, which I would consider a violation of my kids' religious rights.

I agree and I too would be up in arms if the government tried to stop this in private schools. In public schools, I would be upset if the teacher said "there is no God" or "there is a God." Either way the teacher is giving opinion and not fact. I would consider either statement a violation of the students religious rights.

[Darth InSidious]

It's seems some people on this board who shall remain nameless are transforming science into dogma.

 

Again.

 

There is no truth or lie in science. There is evidence, there are theories. That is all.

[PoiuyWired]

I agree and I too would be up in arms if the government tried to stop this in private schools. In public schools, I would be upset if the teacher said "there is no God" or "there is a God." Either way the teacher is giving opinion and not fact. I would consider either statement a violation of the students religious rights.

 

QFE.

 

But for private schools, its good eitherway as long as the parents know beforehand what they are up to.

[Achilles]

You all ignored this part of my post.

particularly if they plan on imposing this regulation on private schools, and yes, I can understand not teaching it in public schools

*shrugs* I think it should be applied to private schools as well. Science standards should be science standards. If private schools want to teach a separate non-science class that espouses creationism, then they should certainly have the right to do that.

 

It would not be out of character for them to ban any discussion of ID in private schools, if they haven't already.

I'll wait to become outraged until I hear about an actual ID-discussion ban. I'm not quite ready for a tumble down the slippery slope.

 

Are you saying I 'made them up' as in fabricated out of thin air, or did you mean it in the sense of 'all this stuff you've written below'?

The latter. I know that someone else made them up in the sense of the former.

 

I just think the additional nuances add some depth to understanding the different groups.

I would have to disagree on the basis that I don't see much nuance and each new flavor doesn't seem to really contribute anything new. But since we're talking about perception, there's nothing objective saying that either one of us is right at the expense of the other being wrong.

 

Random mutation--I didn't mention that because I assumed it was a given with 'random', and I was giving a very brief description in any case. You'll have to forgive me for not mentioning that explicitly, then.

It's no problem. I was a little surprised actually because when most people mischaracterize evolution, they portray it as random mutation and frequently forget about natural selection (which coincidentally is the reason why they fail to grasp evolution in the first place).

 

Deistic/Theistic evolution differences-with deistic evolution, God (or whatever someone wants to call a higher power) stops handling things after the Big Bang. I view it essentially as evolution, except God set off the Big Bang that got us all going versus we-don't-know-what.

I stand corrected. You're correct that it should be categorized as evolution rather than theistic evolution. I still maintain that deism has nothing to do with it, since the question is whether or not evolution is a natural process rather than a life origins question (a completely separate issue).

 

In guided/theistic evolution, God is a little more 'hands-on', and directed not just the Big Bang, but also the whole process of evolution using natural law.

Right, so we have the "guided" part where god tweaks and the "evolution" part where the natural process occurs. I really don't see much benefit in trying to create a separate name for each degree of variation possible (1% evolution, 99% creation vs. 99% evolution, 1% creation, etc). "Guided evolution" seems like a sufficiently robust catch-all to me.

 

Progressive creationism believes that each species is independent without transitions, but follows the development seen in the fossile record.

I'm still struggling to understand why this wouldn't fit under the umbrella of creationism. god is still creating each species, therefore it's still creation. I find it somewhat humorous that as science closes gaps, religion rushes around trying to create more gaps for god to hide within. Since "progressive creationism" isn't anymore scientific than intelligent design, I can't imagine that it has any better chance of making it into the science classroom. The only possible utility it could serve would be to decieve those that might begin to question after seeing the evidence for evolution.

 

I agree and I too would be up in arms if the government tried to stop this in private schools.

So if you paid money to send your child to a private school so that they could get the best education possible, it wouldn't bother you if they came out the other side with no reliable science training? I don't know how one could undermine the theory of evolution in a science class without completely undermining the entire scientific process.

 

In public schools, I would be upset if the teacher said "there is no God" or "there is a God."

As would I, in the context of a science class. If we were discussing a religious philosophy course or a survey of religion course, then I think that all view points should be allowed equal time, don't you?

 

It's seems some people on this board who shall remain nameless are transforming science into dogma.

I hope someone points out to them that true science isn't dogmatic before they embarrass themselves.

 

There is no truth or lie in science.

Well, there are facts. Some people might tend to equate that with "truth".

 

There is evidence, there are theories.

Indeed.

 

That is all.

Not so much. There are hypothesis. There are experiments. There are observations. Predictions. All kinds of stuff.

[mimartin]

So if you paid money to send your child to a private school so that they could get the best education possible, it wouldn't bother you if they came out the other side with no reliable science training? I don't know how one could undermine the theory of evolution in a science class without completely undermining the entire scientific process.[/Quote] No, I wouldn’t send a child of mine to a school that undermined the scientific studies with data that I myself consider unscientific. Still I am not going to put my belief system onto anyone else. So I would fight for the right of parents to send their child to a private school that does teach to their belief system. If they believe in creationism and they want that taught to their child, and are willing to spend their money, then by all means that is their right.

 

While I agree with you that I would want the “best education possible” for my child (and everyone else child too) who are any of us to decide what is “best” or “right” for someone else’s child. I would hope parents are looking out for what is best for their own child and not their own self righteous self interest. (getting down from my high horse).

 

As would I, in the context of a science class. If we were discussing a religious philosophy course or a survey of religion course, then I think that all view points should be allowed equal time, don't you?[/Quote]I don’t like the idea of religious courses being offered at all in lower level public school (below college level). If they are offering one religious class then I agree they need to show all points of view in public schools. The question then becomes when the student would have time to study anything besides different religions and atheism.

[Achilles]

No, I wouldn’t send a child of mine to a school that undermined the scientific studies with data that I myself consider unscientific. Still I am not going to put my belief system onto anyone else. So I would fight for the right of parents to send their child to a private school that does teach to their belief system. If they believe in creationism and they want that taught to their child, and are willing to spend their money, then by all means that is their right.

 

While I agree with you that I would want the “best education possible” for my child (and everyone else child too) who are any of us to decide what is “best” or “right” for someone else’s child. I would hope parents are looking out for what is best for their own child and not their own self righteous self interest. (getting down from my high horse).

I would tend to agree with everything you've said here, with the caveat that I'm not sure how this absolves educators of their duty to educate. I still maintain that teaching non-science in a science class is immoral.

 

I don’t like the idea of religious courses being offered at all in lower level public school (below college level). If they are offering one religious class then I agree they need to show all points of view in public schools. The question then becomes when the student would have time to study anything besides different religions and atheism.

I like the sentiment but I disagree with the details. I think junior high (6th, 7th, 8th grade) would be the perfect time to introduce such a curriculum. The learners are old enough that they're probably starting to think on their own and are probably going to start needing some sort of diversity training, if they haven't received any before.

 

I agree that a few hours per year would be insufficient to provide a detailed survey of every belief system unimaginable, but I think it would be more than enough to provide introductory level materials. Of course this is coming from the guy that studied this stuff as a hobby on his own time since the age of 12 (nerd alert )