Council of Europe votes against creationist teaching

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Council's resolution is another shining example that politics and science do not mix any more than religion and science mix. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious theory. As such, there should be no problem teaching this subject in any religious theory class. Totally banning Creationism from the classroom (if that is the real intent) is a ham handed approach by the political thought police. Alternatively, if the intent of the resolution is to merely exclude Creationism from science classrooms but to allow it elsewhere in schools, then freedom of thought and freedom of expression are not violated. In contrast, Evolution is an actual scientific theory albeit an increasingly weak theory as applied to human origins. The two most recent ** Habilis discoveries in East Africa have totally shredded the so-called "evolutionary progression" from ** Habilis to ** Erectus to ** Sapiens. The old classroom charts showing the progression from ape to primative man to modern man are now totally in error. In short, evolutionary theory as applied to human beings is now increasingly bad science. Pushing human evolutionary theory in schools now has more to do with politics than it has to do it with actual science.

I'm not sure that's really the case - evolution is itself an evolving theory. Does anyone seriously pretend otherwise?

Evolution is certainly an evolving theory....... strongest when applied to certain animal groups but weakest when applied to human origins based on the most recent geological and anthropoligical evidence. If future discoveries strengthen the human evolutionary theory from ape to man then so be it. You follow the best evidence wherever it leads. But for now, the best evidence is pointing away from these old Darwinian classroom assumptions.

Well these days its about genetics as much as geology and anthropology. But again - if we're talking high-school education, I'm wondering why this is honestly such a big deal. Your average biology class doesn't go into that much detail - and shared assumptions at different levels of education are pretty common. That and your average science classroom teaches subjects in such a general way, that they can hardly be described as on the cutting edge of the field. Learning about Einstein and rudimentary theoretical physics doesn't give a kid much insight into the work of say, Stephen Hawking. Nor is it supposed to. You're given a grounding on which to build on by further study.

There has been a concerted campaign to get creationism slotted into science classrooms, certainly in the US; and increasingly in Europe too. The whole "Intelligent Design" angle is merely about putting a decoration of scientific legitimacy on the same old chaff.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Council's resolution is another shining example that politics and science do not mix any more than religion and science mix. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious theory. As such, there should be no problem teaching this subject in any religious theory class. Totally banning Creationism from the classroom (if that is the real intent) is a ham handed approach by the political thought police. Alternatively, if the intent of the resolution is to merely exclude Creationism from science classrooms but to allow it elsewhere in schools, then freedom of thought and freedom of expression are not violated. In contrast, Evolution is an actual scientific theory albeit an increasingly weak theory as applied to human origins. The two most recent ** Habilis discoveries in East Africa have totally shredded the so-called "evolutionary progression" from ** Habilis to ** Erectus to ** Sapiens. The old classroom charts showing the progression from ape to primative man to modern man are now totally in error. In short, evolutionary theory as applied to human beings is now increasingly bad science. Pushing human evolutionary theory in schools now has more to do with politics than it has to do it with actual science.

I'm not sure that's really the case - evolution is itself an evolving theory. Does anyone seriously pretend otherwise?

Evolution is certainly an evolving theory....... strongest when applied to certain animal groups but weakest when applied to human origins based on the most recent geological and anthropoligical evidence. If future discoveries strengthen the human evolutionary theory from ape to man then so be it. You follow the best evidence wherever it leads. But for now, the best evidence is pointing away from these old Darwinian classroom assumptions.

Right, but that doesn't mean that humans didn't evolve from more primitive animals. We just don't know exactly the path or steps evolution went through. And our evidence on that is limited to fossilized skeletons that we occasionally find. As we find more, we get a clearer understanding of what happened.

In this field I don't think the lack of certain evidence really invalidates the theory. New discoveries are being made all the time - and in the absence of anthropoligical and geological data we do have genetics.

[Peikko 1,575]

Creationism is not a scientific theory but creationists want it taught as fact. This kind of nonsense needs to be kept far away from any class room. Evolution, while it may not be conclusive, is at least a theory and it's by no means been scrapped by the scientific community.

How creationists explain human remains that are a couple of million years old, I have no idea. Essentially that's the problem though, creationism denies that these things exist

[Buck and Natalia 0]

The Council's resolution is another shining example that politics and science do not mix any more than religion and science mix. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious theory. As such, there should be no problem teaching this subject in any religious theory class. Totally banning Creationism from the classroom (if that is the real intent) is a ham handed approach by the political thought police. Alternatively, if the intent of the resolution is to merely exclude Creationism from science classrooms but to allow it elsewhere in schools, then freedom of thought and freedom of expression are not violated. In contrast, Evolution is an actual scientific theory albeit an increasingly weak theory as applied to human origins. The two most recent ** Habilis discoveries in East Africa have totally shredded the so-called "evolutionary progression" from ** Habilis to ** Erectus to ** Sapiens. The old classroom charts showing the progression from ape to primative man to modern man are now totally in error. In short, evolutionary theory as applied to human beings is now increasingly bad science. Pushing human evolutionary theory in schools now has more to do with politics than it has to do it with actual science.

I'm not sure that's really the case - evolution is itself an evolving theory. Does anyone seriously pretend otherwise?

Evolution is certainly an evolving theory....... strongest when applied to certain animal groups but weakest when applied to human origins based on the most recent geological and anthropoligical evidence. If future discoveries strengthen the human evolutionary theory from ape to man then so be it. You follow the best evidence wherever it leads. But for now, the best evidence is pointing away from these old Darwinian classroom assumptions.

Well these days its about genetics as much as geology and anthropology. But again - if we're talking high-school education, I'm wondering why this is honestly such a big deal. Your average biology class doesn't go into that much detail - and shared assumptions at different levels of education are pretty common. That and your average science classroom teaches subjects in such a general way, that they can hardly be described as on the cutting edge of the field. Learning about Einstein and rudimentary theoretical physics doesn't give a kid much insight into the work of say, Stephen Hawking. Nor is it supposed to. You're given a grounding on which to build on by further study.

There has been a concerted campaign to get creationism slotted into science classrooms, certainly in the US; and increasingly in Europe too. The whole "Intelligent Design" angle is merely about putting a decoration of scientific legitimacy on the same old chaff.

Yes, I agree with you. Genetic evidence is very important. Interestingly, the hard science genetic evidence based on world-wide DNA blood sampling (searching for genetic markers) clearly shows that modern man did originate from a very small group of individuals..... less than 20 persons. They can even use the genetic marker evidence to trace the paths that the original group took out of Africa and the various geographic paths taken by their descendents. Oddly, this hard DNA evidence actually tends to support the Creationism theory but under the Council's resolution this hard, utterly reliable, DNA evidence probably would be banned from the classroom.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's a somewhat tenuous conclusion, at best. Creationism to my understanding, doesn't begin to accept any evidence that life existed more than a few thousand years ago. Having a small group of individuals as the genetic stock of modern humans hardly supports creationism.

[Buck and Natalia 0]

That's a somewhat tenuous conclusion, at best. Creationism to my understanding, doesn't begin to accept any evidence that life existed more than a few thousand years ago. Having a small group of individuals as the genetic stock of modern humans hardly supports creationism.

To the contrary, most Creationists believe that the Earth and the origins of human life can be extremely ancient. The belief that you are alluding to (that the Earth is only a few thousand years old) is widely discredited and not accepted by most Creationists. It arises from a book published in 1654 by Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh, Ireland, wherein he stated that the Earth could only be a few thousand years old based on his linear calculations of the genealogies in the Book of Genesis (plus some obscure references to astrology and numerology). Most Creationists do not accept the strange beliefs of Archbishop Ussher and believe instead that the genealogies in Genesis are non-linear meaning that the Earth and the origins of human life can be very ancient indeed.

[Buck and Natalia 0]

That's a somewhat tenuous conclusion, at best. Creationism to my understanding, doesn't begin to accept any evidence that life existed more than a few thousand years ago. Having a small group of individuals as the genetic stock of modern humans hardly supports creationism.

These learned folks can explain the true relationship between Creationism and Evolution better than me:

Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God." Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" (the 2001 PBS special "Evolution").

Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick

R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London

evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003)

biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999)

biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science

biologist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

biologist Joan Roughgarden, teaches at Stanford University; author of various books including Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist.

paleontologist Robert T. Bakker

microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator

paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, I agree with you. Genetic evidence is very important. Interestingly, the hard science genetic evidence based on world-wide DNA blood sampling (searching for genetic markers) clearly shows that modern man did originate from a very small group of individuals..... less than 20 persons. They can even use the genetic marker evidence to trace the paths that the original group took out of Africa and the various geographic paths taken by their descendents. Oddly, this hard DNA evidence actually tends to support the Creationism theory but under the Council's resolution this hard, utterly reliable, DNA evidence probably would be banned from the classroom.

I don't agree with that. Again if we're talking high-school level biology, its unlikely the subject of evolution would be taught in anything like that sort of detail. While you do learn a lot of general theory, most science classes at that level only teach the basics. General observations that can be tested experimentally. Evolution might be glossed over - but on such a superficial level that I'm honestly not sure why there is so much focus on such a minor area of the curriculum.

[Dan J 277]

There is a place for god, but its not in evolution. Science can explain everything back to the big bang, but it cannot explain how or why it started. Or how the point of energy which is the source of the big bang came into existence. (Although string theory has suggested that it may be a collision of inter dimensional ribbons that started the big bang. But the question still remains.)

Instead of trying to literally reconcile what the bible says about the beginning of time. You can consider it an early attempt at understanding how we came into being or if you believe that the bible is the word of God. Then maybe God decided at the time the bible was written, that we would not be able to understand the processes through which God created the earth and all the universe. So God came up with a story that would be better understood by the people at the time.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. But don't try to pass belief off as science unless you can show that it stands up to the scientific method.

[Buck and Natalia 0]

Yes, I agree with you. Genetic evidence is very important. Interestingly, the hard science genetic evidence based on world-wide DNA blood sampling (searching for genetic markers) clearly shows that modern man did originate from a very small group of individuals..... less than 20 persons. They can even use the genetic marker evidence to trace the paths that the original group took out of Africa and the various geographic paths taken by their descendents. Oddly, this hard DNA evidence actually tends to support the Creationism theory but under the Council's resolution this hard, utterly reliable, DNA evidence probably would be banned from the classroom.

I don't agree with that. Again if we're talking high-school level biology, its unlikely the subject of evolution would be taught in anything like that sort of detail. While you do learn a lot of general theory, most science classes at that level only teach the basics. General observations that can be tested experimentally. Evolution might be glossed over - but on such a superficial level that I'm honestly not sure why there is so much focus on such a minor area of the curriculum.

True enough. The stuff I have been talking about is mostly university level knowledge. However, my kids are Junior High age and seem to be able to grasp quite a lot about both competing theories. Ideally, in High School, students would get a balanced age-appropriate presentation of all the various human origin theories and then be left free to make their own conclusions. For example, the schools could present the issue the following way: "There are various theories on human origin. One theory is Evolution that holds that man has evolved over time from a more primitive form possibly even apes. There is some geological and fossil evidence that supports this theory. Another theory is Creationism that holds that God created man in his image and that all people are descended from a single man and woman that God created. There is some genetic and DNA evidence that supports this theory. Here are the arguments pro and con for both theories. You are free to make your own conclusions."

[jundp 191]

How is creationism a threat to human rights?

Article 18 of Universal declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

i can see a lot of reasons for which teaching 'creationism' would infringe human rights.

not binding, a worthless feel good resolution.

I came late to this conversation, but are you saying the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a worthless, feel good resolution? I would disagree, because the UDHR has been used as a springboard for many great human rights victories, including the release of Nelson Mandela and urging countries to step in a stop genocide in Darfur. Now granted, much more needs to happen to stop what's occuring in Darfur (and other countries), but since the UDHR came out of the world's repugnance of Hitler's actions during WWII, I wouldn't say it's worthless or "feel good" (assuming you mean that in a deragatory manner) (of course, you know what happens when we "assume").

already covered why - it has no enforcement/bite to it. it's just a piece of paper.

Do you then disagree with me that the UDHR has been instrumental in starting many human rights campaigns that have been successful and have saved lives? It may not have enforcement, but I would disagree that it doesn't have bite.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, I agree with you. Genetic evidence is very important. Interestingly, the hard science genetic evidence based on world-wide DNA blood sampling (searching for genetic markers) clearly shows that modern man did originate from a very small group of individuals..... less than 20 persons. They can even use the genetic marker evidence to trace the paths that the original group took out of Africa and the various geographic paths taken by their descendents. Oddly, this hard DNA evidence actually tends to support the Creationism theory but under the Council's resolution this hard, utterly reliable, DNA evidence probably would be banned from the classroom.

I don't agree with that. Again if we're talking high-school level biology, its unlikely the subject of evolution would be taught in anything like that sort of detail. While you do learn a lot of general theory, most science classes at that level only teach the basics. General observations that can be tested experimentally. Evolution might be glossed over - but on such a superficial level that I'm honestly not sure why there is so much focus on such a minor area of the curriculum.

True enough. The stuff I have been talking about is mostly university level knowledge. However, my kids are Junior High age and seem to be able to grasp quite a lot about both competing theories. Ideally, in High School, students would get a balanced age-appropriate presentation of all the various human origin theories and then be left free to make their own conclusions. For example, the schools could present the issue the following way: "There are various theories on human origin. One theory is Evolution that holds that man has evolved over time from a more primitive form possibly even apes. There is some geological and fossil evidence that supports this theory. Another theory is Creationism that holds that God created man in his image and that all people are descended from a single man and woman that God created. There is some genetic and DNA evidence that supports this theory. Here are the arguments pro and con for both theories. You are free to make your own conclusions."

Sure - but it what class should this distinction be taught? The whole problem with this issue is that the Creationist argument makes an implicit assumption that there are always two equally valid sides of the argument. I'm not sure that's really the case. Regardless, I honestly don't believe that providing some context between science and religion (basically the wider Creationism/Intelligent Design Vs Evolution debate) is particularly necessary and certainly not relevant to high-school level education of specific subjects.

Let religious ed teachers teach theology, let science teachers teach the sciences. It should be kept entirely separate and distinct. IMO there's no need, or indeed justification, for muddying the waters in any way whatsoever.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

How is creationism a threat to human rights?

Article 18 of Universal declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

i can see a lot of reasons for which teaching 'creationism' would infringe human rights.

not binding, a worthless feel good resolution.

I came late to this conversation, but are you saying the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a worthless, feel good resolution? I would disagree, because the UDHR has been used as a springboard for many great human rights victories, including the release of Nelson Mandela and urging countries to step in a stop genocide in Darfur. Now granted, much more needs to happen to stop what's occuring in Darfur (and other countries), but since the UDHR came out of the world's repugnance of Hitler's actions during WWII, I wouldn't say it's worthless or "feel good" (assuming you mean that in a deragatory manner) (of course, you know what happens when we "assume").

already covered why - it has no enforcement/bite to it. it's just a piece of paper.

Do you then disagree with me that the UDHR has been instrumental in starting many human rights campaigns that have been successful and have saved lives? It may not have enforcement, but I would disagree that it doesn't have bite.

i'll agree it's been instrumental et al, yes, but it - the udhr - specifically still has no bite.

[jundp 191]

How is creationism a threat to human rights?

Article 18 of Universal declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

i can see a lot of reasons for which teaching 'creationism' would infringe human rights.

not binding, a worthless feel good resolution.

I came late to this conversation, but are you saying the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a worthless, feel good resolution? I would disagree, because the UDHR has been used as a springboard for many great human rights victories, including the release of Nelson Mandela and urging countries to step in a stop genocide in Darfur. Now granted, much more needs to happen to stop what's occuring in Darfur (and other countries), but since the UDHR came out of the world's repugnance of Hitler's actions during WWII, I wouldn't say it's worthless or "feel good" (assuming you mean that in a deragatory manner) (of course, you know what happens when we "assume").

already covered why - it has no enforcement/bite to it. it's just a piece of paper.

Do you then disagree with me that the UDHR has been instrumental in starting many human rights campaigns that have been successful and have saved lives? It may not have enforcement, but I would disagree that it doesn't have bite.

i'll agree it's been instrumental et al, yes, but it - the udhr - specifically still has no bite.

Yes, I'll concede on that It has been, I think I good moral compass for many nations' leaders to use, and a standard to be held to, in many cases. It's easier to bring public personal opinion against a nation's government for its part in certain atrocities when human rights organizations can say "Interestingly enough, you did sign the UDHR in 1948 (or whenever that country adopted it)."

[Buck and Natalia 0]

Sure - but it what class should this distinction be taught? The whole problem with this issue is that the Creationist argument makes an implicit assumption that there are always two equally valid sides of the argument. I'm not sure that's really the case. Regardless, I honestly don't believe that providing some context between science and religion (basically the wider Creationism/Intelligent Design Vs Evolution debate) is particularly necessary and certainly not relevant to high-school level education of specific subjects.

Let religious ed teachers teach theology, let science teachers teach the sciences. It should be kept entirely separate and distinct. IMO there's no need, or indeed justification, for muddying the waters in any way whatsoever.

I agree with you that the Creationist theory is probably best kept out of the science room and reserved for theology or religion classes. However, I do not think that "ape-to-man" evolution theory should be taught in the science room as dogma - i.e. without also teaching that it is still heavily debated in the serious scientific community. It would also be nice if they taught that Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.... which is what most people think. Evolution could very well be part of God's grand design. However, this would probably be too much to hope for. Is a general introductory approach to this topic appropriate for High School students? That depends. If my Junior High school age children are at all representative of their age group (and I suspect they are being pretty average kids - but always special in my heart), most USA kids are already exposed to this issue long before they get to high school.