Creationism growing in European schools

[Matrix]

I translated this from my newspaper: NRC Next. As an exercise, but also because I know some of you might find this interesting.

Creationism growing in European schools
Politician resists against American creed stating that the world is created in a short period of time

The Luxembourg politician Anne Brasseur is concerned about teachings in creationism.
Soon students won't know the difference between science and religion, according to her.

By JEROEN VAN DER KRIS
BRUSSELS. Creationism, the idea tat the world is ceated in a short period of time, is no longer an American phenomenon. It's also in Europe on the rise. And here it's primarily a threat for education.

That's the intent of that resolution subject to debate today in the European Council, the organization of 47 countries in Strassbourg. "If we're too careless creationism can form a threat to the human rights", says Anne Brasseur, a Luxembourg liberal, in the resolution. Brasseur is member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council. The Council is the oldest pan-European institute, mainly focussing on human rights. The Parliamentary Assembly is made up out of representatives of national parliaments.

The handling of the resolution was initially planned for June. A close majority in the Assembly obstructed this. "The resistance came primarily from the christian democrats", says Brasseur. "They saw the resolution as an attack against religion." That was not her intent. The resolution says that creationists - christian as well as islamic - are mainly trying to obtain a place for their ideas in the curriculums. To do so they argue that the evolution theory is only an "interpretation". Next to that they present their ideas as science.

In the Netherlands former minister of Education Maria van der Hoeven caused a fuss by stating that the evolution theory is "incomplete".

The risk lies in the fact that children are unable to separate religion from science, according to Brasseur. "This may lead to an 'everything-is-equal'-attitude which might look appealing and tolerant, but is actually disasterous". Next to her resolution Brasseur wrote a report in which she points to attempts of the Turkish creationist Harun Yahya to spread books in France, Switzerland and Belgium. "In one of his works", she writes, "Darwinism is described as a 'source of terrorism'."

The Luxembourger is also concerned about expressions of certain European politicians. "The minister of education of the German confederation Hessen for example said that creationism had to be a part in biology lessons."

In Poland some politicians went even further. There Miroslaw Orzechowski, secretary of education up till recently, said the evolution theory is "a lie". And he added: "We shouldn't teach in lies."

Brasseur didn't change much of the text that was held up in June. She did add a few lines to emphasize that it was not her intent to "start a discussion about faith or to fight against it".

In the resolution the countries joined in the European Council are called upon to oppose against the presentation of creationism as a theory that is equal to the evolution theory. The Luxembourg politician thinks that accepting this resolution won't have direct consequences. "I hope to achieve that people become aware of the danger", said Brasseur.


Creationism and Intelligent Design

Creationism, a christian movement trying to make the Creation compatible with modern science. The movement came up halfway through the last century, when because of Darwin's theories theology was no longer considered relevant when reflecting on the creation of life on earth.

Creationists state that the theory of evolution of Darwin does not satisfy to explain the creation of life on earth. It is a 'purely materialistic theory' that assumes that all life came into being out of one single organism without providing any evidence. Creationists argue that the 'creation' can only be explained by assuming that God created the earth.

A modern variant of creationism is Intelligent Design (ID). An intelligent designer would have a part the realization of life. In the US the ID-movement is large and well organized in the conservative christian Discovery Institute.

In the American state of Kansas and Pennsylvania school councils have tried to get IDinto the curriculum. The judge put the enterprise in the bud.

[Tubby Rower]

When did creationism become an American creed?

[mauer]

quote:Originally posted by Tubby Rower

When did creationism become an American creed?

Not only that, but since when (and how) is the teaching of creationism "a threat to the human rights"!? And what in the world is the "Danger" Brasseur is referring to? Crazy Europeans.

[Matrix]

Ooo, I love this. Remember: this is a Dutch newspaper. And in this country 51% is christian, 41% of the population is atheist, 5.5% muslim and 3.5% other. And the christians here are mostly quite liberal, so it is a common opinion here that creationism is...well...rubbish.

I consider myself a liberal catholic (certainly compared to the global average catholic), and I too think the story in Genesis is not meant to be taken literally.

[sz_matyas]

History of Science is an area I have been studying for the past year or so (independant of my research, I started attending some classes and discussions on the subject since I have to have a "minor" away from my field). By actually having some knowledge of the subject, it makes me cringe at the gross errors in the press release.

What Kansas and Pennsylvania (and if I recall correctly a few districts in Florida and Georgia) did was to try and declare evolution an unproven and highly debated theory (true on both counts). Because it was called a debated theory, individuals felt it was necessary to present opposing viewpoints instead of saying, "This is a highly controversial subject, but you can only hear one side". (Granted in my opinion this is better than what was occuring before and there are even a number of evolutionists who feel shut out of the debate because their theories, such as punctuated equilibrium etc. didn't make it into the accepted curriculum and school boards weren't allowing anything else in because of it tends to bring massive amounts of controversy in).

Since teachers were filling in their own choices as the competing ideas against evolution, administrators felt the need to step in and avoid a lawsuit on 1st Ammendment Grounds. The result was saying that a limited form of Intelligent Design (ID) would be allowed, as it had gained some support in scientific journals as a potential alternative. The problem arose in that many groups called their theory ID including a number of fundamentalists for both Christianity and Islam, but only a relatively Deistic version had been officially sanctioned. The media, not doing its homework, treated all of these as approved to be taught causing a public relations nightmare.

Creationism as such was never specifically sanctioned (though not actually barred), but ID was. The conservative christian Discovery Institute represents ID, but not in the form that was sanctioned. One of the major pieces of fallout is that ID researchers have been essentially banned from publishing in American scientific journals as this was seen to open the door for allowing creationism into schools (definately overreacting and causing feuds in the scientific community in the US). The fight inside the school curriculum is now fierest among different branches of evolutionists as states switch back to evolution only teaching and must present a united front.

On a side note: Regarding the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, the ruling was that evolution could not be taught in schools as it promoted a state religion of atheism. Things certainly have changed.

[mauer]

My main argument here would be that (w/o declaring a "winner") kids are smart. With the goal of the education system being to teach, why not teach them both sides? Or at the very least, teach them opposing viewpoints and let them decide based on the evidence. Seriously, isn't the educational system supposed to nurture thought rather than censor information?

EDIT by Killer: I misclicked and accidently 'edited' this post - sorry!

[Matrix]

When you are talking about "both sides", one side is religion, the other is science. The problem is that the Discovery Institute wants to put them together, or against each other, as two sciences, or rather two possible truths, as though they are equal. They are not equal! And they are not necessarily incompatible.

One is the scientific truth (for as far as we know), the other is the religious context. Whether you think or believe God created life on earth is a matter of your religion. How God created life on earth is a question Darwin answers. And if you do not believe in God, Darwin still explains how life on earth was spawned.

[mauer]

See, this is the problem with you guys. I'm on the side that would allow leeway and looks at things through the lens of reality. One is not scientific truth, but theory. The other is also a theory. If it is indeed a theory based on limited evidence in the larger view of things, why teach it as THE TRUTH? I just don't understand. It's like taking a cup full of water out of the ocean and saying that there's no other life forms in the water based off of studies of that one cup. However, I digress. I'm not gonna get in a peeing contest with you cause your mind is already made up unfortunately. By "your mind" I mean lack of one nyuck nyuck Can I get a rimshot!?

[Matrix]

Ok, that's a matter of philosophy. It's not the truth, but it's the best science can come up with. But that's the case for [u]every</u> scientific theory that exists.

Take the theory of quantum mechanics. There is not a single scientist on earth that will say that quantum theory tells us the truth. Fact is that classical mechanics (Newton & co) did not suffice on the atomic level. The most simple example is hydrogen: one proton (+) with one electron (-) circling around it. If it really circles that would mean there's a force present. That force needs energy coming from somewhere, in other words, it consumes energy. If it consumes energy the electron's radius would decrease until it hits the proton and diminishes. To summarize: the classical theory says that even a hydrogen atomic is unstable. So they (Einstein, Schrödinger) had to come up with something else which eventually became the quantum theory, which says the electron isn't circling, but is present all around the proton. If you hypothetically could take a instantaneous picture, it's a matter of chance where that electron is at that point. Einstein already said this can't be true ("God does not play dice."), however, it's the best thing they could come up with. Until a few years ago when recent scientists (Hawkins, a.o.) came up with the string theory in which we live in an eight-dimensional space. (The quantum theory already brought in time as a full fourth dimension.)

Another typical example in philosophy is the fake theory "All swans are white." How do you know all swans are white? You only know for sure all swans are white once you've seen all swans in the past, the present and the future and observe they are indeed all white, every single one of them. Only then the theory is 'verified'. That's of course impossible. You can only 'confirm' it ("That swan is white, so all swans are white." or "That car is red, so all swans are white." (Since that object is not white, it should not be a swan.)) or you can 'falsify' it ("That swan is black, so not all swans are white.")

When something is falsified, the theory ends in the trash can. The more often it is confirmed, the more firm the theory is.

The theory of evolution is not confirmed as much as the theory of gravity, therefore it's completely legit to question it. But if you want to pose a counter theory, you have to bring more confirmation (e.g. proof) than the older theory. What proof does the theory of Intelligent Design have? It's based on a book written nineteen centuries ago! Or better: it only exists to justify what is written nineteen centuries ago.

There rests my defense for the theory of evolution.

[Socrates]

A theory can never been displayed as THE TRUTH, for it's just a theory. Consequence : a theory can't be proven. Exception : mathematics, which still requires some initial theories (stuff you learn in superior classes, oooh hurting memories ).

Nevertheless, what I'll claim is that Darwin is a respectable man in his works, that the Theory of Evolution is a pretty fucking good idea, that it stands the test of time, that it still requires some polishing and more evidence... while creationism and whatnot is for scared dummies. Basically it stands in one sentence :

WE DON'T NEED CREATIONISM.

It's just a nice story invented by the human mind to feel comfortable, and to match other stories also written by the human mind (namely : Torah, Bible and Quran). Trust me, we really don't need this to be happy. One quick way to know that creationism is rubbish is when you consider it was invented out of the blue by some people. Darwin didn't really invent his theory to match his beliefs, but rather based it on personal observations. So there is a total schism between both stuff as for their natures.

Creationists all have a church, and thus wouldn't be unhappy if their beliefs could spread. Darwin didn't have a church, as far as I know. In the end, there is absolutely no reason to believe in creationism, while the Theory of Evolution seems like a nice explanation of what could have happened. And it doesn't brag about how (White) Man is the ultimate creature of the Universe.