Thinking to Believe

October 9, 2007

4 Responses to “Council of Europe Condemns Creationism and Intelligent Design as Dangerous”

1. Chad A. Moore Says:

   
   October 11, 2007 at 6:41 am

   That document is pretty thorough. I suppose that it shows us several things. First, from a purely secular perspective the Creationist viewpoint would sound preposterous and absurd. You know the sort of response, “Doesn’t everybody believe in evolution?” Hello! Second, this perhaps shows that creationism / ID is on the rise (in Europe!), at least enough to concern the secularists.

   LikeLike
2. Jason Dulle Says:

   
   October 11, 2007 at 10:49 am

   Chad,

   Yeah, a lot of Europeons believe in evolution, but relatively few could tell you why other than “scientists say”. And that doesn’t take into account that many of them would be theistic evolutionists, which the scientific community would disown as well.

   You’re right. ID and creationist theories are on the rise in Europe. That’s why these people felt the need to condemn them.

   Jason

   LikeLike
3. David P Says:

   
   March 15, 2013 at 7:43 am

   The link to the document no longer works, but I dug up the final adopted text in their “Resolution 1580”, found here: http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefATDetails_E.asp?FileID=17592

   I looked it over and, while much of it I found agreeable, I thought I’d comment on a couple points I found problematic (numbered as in the resolution):

   #6. “We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.”
   – I found this to be a curious statement. One could have said the same about other (and scientifically accepted) “modes of thought” in history. The purpose of this seems simply to set an ominous tone.

   #8. “Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The ‘intelligent design’ idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.”
   – This of course betrays the authors lack of understanding (or acknowledgement) of the theory of intelligent design. It is the only mention of intelligent design in the whole resolution, and he obviously wanted to make sure that got lumped in with any condemnation of creationism.

   #9. “…The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.”
   – As is the theory of intelligent design.

   #11. “Denying [evolution] could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research, aiming at combating infectious diseases such as Aids, are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.”
   – This is largely a fallacy propagated by some impassioned evolutionists. For example, how were advances in medical research made before the theory of evolution came to light? The Evolution News blog has two good articles discussing the overstated and actual significance of evolution in modern science in general, and biomedical research specifically.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/selling_evoluti068171.html
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/post_11002195.html

   #12. “…The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human and civic rights.”
   – Except that creationism is not a “total rejection of science” by any means and, even if it was, it is still unclear how a total rejection of science is one of the most serious threats to human and civic rights, which have largely been social and philosophical issues.

   #13. “…The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.”
   – Blatant fear-mongering and frankly irrelevant as it amounts to the genetic fallacy (or “guilt by association”). Might as well jump from teaching evolution in schools to the promotion of eugenicis.

   #15. “…Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.”
   – These are, of course, both examples of observable and very practical microevolution. Here we get into the word games of fluidly and subtly shifting one’s specific meaning of “evolution” to suit one’s purpose. The folks at Evolution News have discussed this problem on many occasions.

   Points I didn’t address I generally agree with or don’t take issue with. Overall, it could have been worded better to appeal less to fear-mongering (exaggerating and misrepresenting creationism’s proponents and influences) and to remove the irrelevant and misleading inclusion and representation of intelligent design. Unfortunately, seeing that the original author of the motion behind the resolution was a noted member of secular and humanist groups, I am not terribly surprised at the problems with its formulation.

   LikeLike
4. David P Says:

   
   March 15, 2013 at 8:05 am

   I’m surprised I forgot to add that, when it comes to human and civic rights, it could very much be argued that the theory of evolution has far worse implications. But then, we are dealing with an author who conflates creationism with theocracy, and brings to light only the possibly beneficial aspects of adopting evolutionism…

   LikeLike