Council of Europe votes against creationist teaching

[FVA 0]

post 5 is entirely about the un resolution. has that sunk in yet with you? you brought up the un resolution, i made a comment to it, and you've danced around and tried to obscure that fact ever since. i did not post prior to your post (#5 in this thread) so i really have no clue what is running thru your mind about right now other than perhaps a bit of guilt for having your hand slapped while in the cookie jar.

to spell it out for you - your post #5 contains the entire language of that section of the un resolution.......got that?

don't try to play like you're referencing something else with that post.

here you go again with your condescendent attitude.

whatever, dude.

[pedroh 21]

in the USA yea.. or else we'll have the 'OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE CHRISTIANS, AND WE SHOULD TEACH EVERYTHING THE CHRISTIAN WAY' wackos.. (and yea they also talk in CAPS!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

no.. but they want to shove their christian lifestyle into everything, incluiding school, when there's a clear separation of church and state, but people use the 'our founding fathers blablabla' to try to say we shouldn't teach evolution in schools and whatnot

Can you show me where exactly in the constitution it mentions a separation of church and state? I have never been able to find it..

All I found is "The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."

the 1st amendment is enough.. having christian beliefs or teachings in a public school would be supporting a specific religion.. plus there have been several jurisprudences supporting a separation of church and state... like:

"When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and evolution equal time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.[26] (See also: Creation and evolution in public education)"

----

are you ok with a state religion btw?

Edited October 17, 2007 by pedroh

[Ban Hammer 13,990]

in the USA yea.. or else we'll have the 'OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE CHRISTIANS, AND WE SHOULD TEACH EVERYTHING THE CHRISTIAN WAY' wackos.. (and yea they also talk in CAPS!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

no.. but they want to shove their christian lifestyle into everything, incluiding school, when there's a clear separation of church and state, but people use the 'our founding fathers blablabla' to try to say we shouldn't teach evolution in schools and whatnot

and I NEVER FUKINC SAID all christians are nutjobs.. ok, so don't put fukcin words in my mouth yall

so what did you mean by the "wackos" in your above post?

thanks!! a non-smartass question..

just helping a brother out

[pedroh 21]

in the USA yea.. or else we'll have the 'OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE CHRISTIANS, AND WE SHOULD TEACH EVERYTHING THE CHRISTIAN WAY' wackos.. (and yea they also talk in CAPS!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

no.. but they want to shove their christian lifestyle into everything, incluiding school, when there's a clear separation of church and state, but people use the 'our founding fathers blablabla' to try to say we shouldn't teach evolution in schools and whatnot

and I NEVER FUKINC SAID all christians are nutjobs.. ok, so don't put fukcin words in my mouth yall

so what did you mean by the "wackos" in your above post?

thanks!! a non-smartass question..

just helping a brother out

WORD

[Fandango 1,440]

in the USA yea.. or else we'll have the 'OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE CHRISTIANS, AND WE SHOULD TEACH EVERYTHING THE CHRISTIAN WAY' wackos.. (and yea they also talk in CAPS!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

no.. but they want to shove their christian lifestyle into everything, incluiding school, when there's a clear separation of church and state, but people use the 'our founding fathers blablabla' to try to say we shouldn't teach evolution in schools and whatnot

and I NEVER FUKINC SAID all christians are nutjobs.. ok, so don't put fukcin words in my mouth yall

I never said you did....what you DID say was people who believe in teaching 'the Christian way' are whackos?

What's that mean then?

[Kevin and 10]

The decision of what to teach should be left to the parents. If they want to teach evolution then they can or creationism they can. It shouldn't be the State that decides. Saying, "Some people believe that a Being created the world" is not in establishing a religion.

Side note: The High School I went to had the Satanic Bible and a bunch of Wica books but not the Holy Bible.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The decision of what to teach should be left to the parents. If they want to teach evolution then they can or creationism they can. It shouldn't be the State that decides. Saying, "Some people believe that a Being created the world" is not in establishing a religion.

Side note: The High School I went to had the Satanic Bible and a bunch of Wica books but not the Holy Bible.

Well its Biblical creation theory we're really talking about - not some general malaise of comparative religions. That whole intelligent design thing is rather explicit as to what it pertains to.

And I'm not really sure that parents can 'teach' evolution. Honestly I think we're getting rather carried away here as far as what "Teaching Evolution" means in a high-school context. I'm rather curious as to exactly what depth a high-school curriculum goes into that theory. Probably not very - but removing it would make teaching biology rather difficult.

[pedroh 21]

The decision of what to teach should be left to the parents. If they want to teach evolution then they can or creationism they can. It shouldn't be the State that decides. Saying, "Some people believe that a Being created the world" is not in establishing a religion.

Side note: The High School I went to had the Satanic Bible and a bunch of Wica books but not the Holy Bible.

Well its Biblical creation theory we're really talking about - not some general malaise of comparative religions. That whole intelligent design thing is rather explicit as to what it pertains to.

And I'm not really sure that parents can 'teach' evolution. Honestly I think we're getting rather carried away here as far as what "Teaching Evolution" means in a high-school context. I'm rather curious as to exactly what depth a high-school curriculum goes into that theory. Probably not very - but removing it would make teaching biology rather difficult.

agree, teaching evolution is a theory! u can't just go, well son, there was this thing called the big bang, and bam! the planets just appeared.. there's a bunch of stuff to teach, ain't just a tale.. for example..the plank time and lengt etc

Edited October 17, 2007 by pedroh

[Kevin and 10]

The decision of what to teach should be left to the parents. If they want to teach evolution then they can or creationism they can. It shouldn't be the State that decides. Saying, "Some people believe that a Being created the world" is not in establishing a religion.

Side note: The High School I went to had the Satanic Bible and a bunch of Wica books but not the Holy Bible.

Well its Biblical creation theory we're really talking about - not some general malaise of comparative religions. That whole intelligent design thing is rather explicit as to what it pertains to.

And I'm not really sure that parents can 'teach' evolution. Honestly I think we're getting rather carried away here as far as what "Teaching Evolution" means in a high-school context. I'm rather curious as to exactly what depth a high-school curriculum goes into that theory. Probably not very - but removing it would make teaching biology rather difficult.

Let me clarify- A parent wouldn't teach . Its they choice of what to instill in their child. They can send their kids to a private school, public school, or they can home school.

Yes I agree a "Public" school should not teach Biblical creationism, but I still see no reason why they could not make the blanket statment about creationism and leave it that.

[Amby 490]

in 8th grade I had a teacher fired for telling people that they were stupid to believe in creation which was strictly forbidden to be taught about and then didn't try to teach us both sides

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Let me clarify- A parent wouldn't teach . Its they choice of what to instill in their child. They can send their kids to a private school, public school, or they can home school.

Yes I agree a "Public" school should not teach Biblical creationism, but I still see no reason why they could not make the blanket statment about creationism and leave it that.

Well who decides the public school curriculum? I doubt that its the parents - in fact I'd contend that for the most part parents aren't all that familiar with the school curriculum.

Sex-ed is one thing, and really the only thing I remember my school tip-toeing around the parents about, but picking apart the curriculum because people don't like specific parts on certain subjects seems rather ridiculous.

Next we'll have certain parents demanding that their child only learn about the parts of WW2 that don't include the Holocaust, for instance; or that The Color Purple shouldn't shouldn't be a set text on an English Literature course because someone objects to the rape at the beginning. As usual with these things it ends up snowballing into increasingly lurid and outrageous examples.

IMO - with few exceptions I think parents should leave the job of teaching to teachers, certainly where teaching a public curriculum is concerned.

Still to be honest - I don't think this is much about parents at all - but rather religious lobby groups whose influence is felt to a much greater degree in the US than in Europe, where this kind of religious reactionism is a relatively new phenomenon.

[Buck and Natalia 0]

Creationism is a potential threat to human rights and any attempt to incorporate it into science must be resisted, says the Council of Europe. The council is an intergovernmental body that is responsible for, among other things, the European Convention on Human Rights.

On October 4, the council's Parliamentary Body voted in favour of its members states promoting evolution as "a fundamental scientific theory" and to "firmly oppose the teaching the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution". The resolution is not binding on the council's 47 members states.

Concerns have been increasing about the promotion of creationism in Europe. The council a number of campaigns in countries such as Britain, Turkey, France and Russia (see Nature 444: 406-407, 2006).

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.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Creationism is a potential threat to human rights and any attempt to incorporate it into science must be resisted, says the Council of Europe. The council is an intergovernmental body that is responsible for, among other things, the European Convention on Human Rights.

On October 4, the council's Parliamentary Body voted in favour of its members states promoting evolution as "a fundamental scientific theory" and to "firmly oppose the teaching the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution". The resolution is not binding on the council's 47 members states.

Concerns have been increasing about the promotion of creationism in Europe. The council a number of campaigns in countries such as Britain, Turkey, France and Russia (see Nature 444: 406-407, 2006).

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?

[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.

[Dan J 277]

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.