Posted on 6/30/2007, 11:09:33 AM by Ethan Clive Osgoode
The dangers of creationism in education
Report
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group
Summary
The theory of evolution is being attacked by religious fundamentalists who call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of it. From a scientific view point there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of the Universe and of life on Earth.
...
Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.
1. The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist theories within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.
7. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” theory, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution but claims that this is the work of a superior intelligence and not natural selection. Though more subtle in its presentation, the doctrine of intelligent design is no less dangerous.
11. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.
12. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.
18. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities, to:
18.4. firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution by natural selection and in general resist presentation of creationist theories in any discipline other than religion;
18.5. promote the teaching of evolution by natural selection as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.
19. The Assembly welcomes the fact that, in June 2006, 27 Academies of Science of Council of Europe member states signed a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.
When I was in school a brief statement was made that stated many people believe the world was created by a creator. That’s about all that was said and that’s about all that was necessary. We also had a “moment of silence” after the pledge of allegiance. Again, that’s all that was done and I believe all that is necessary in the Gov’t schools.
Baloney. The reason for Intelligent Design, is to counter those who want a world without morals. Without a morally based population our secular form of government will cease to function as we know it.
When I read the headline, my first thought was what could possibly be dangerous, but later discovered the author was able to make that nexus. I didn’t even know there was a war against evolution. The article is humorous once you get past the fact that whomever wrote it was likely delusional enough to believe every word written, lol.
There is no theory of evolution...only a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to survive...
I agree. After that each morning, bus them to a private school for learning.
Sounds good but they have to pay for their own busses too.
Finally, an ID proponent admits that the purpose of ID is to introduce moral education into science classes. Would that they were all so honest.
It is not so much as to introduce it, but rather as a response to having it wiped out. When there is no morals in the government schools, society is weakened. ID is a response to the mocking of religion, by those whose motives are merely masked by claiming to be scientific. It is a battle in the culture wars.
LOL...when the imams take over the Council of Europe, they won’t have a problem with creationism.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees....
Europe is toast, and I dare any US President in the future to call on Bible-believing Christians to go fight for these secularist snobs.
"advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy"
This is laughable. Who gets credit by our forefathers for the basis of forming our nation. Is it a.)a rock that mysteriously sprouts a moss leaf b.)a drop of moisture that developes into a fish c.) Al Gore or d.)The CREATOR?
And if that's all that the IDers were asking for, the conversation would be over. Most science classes have a couple-sentence disclaimer like that, and if they don't, a single student question can elicit one.
We also had a “moment of silence” after the pledge of allegiance.
I don't see the point, but I also don't see the outrage. Of course, I stopped saying the Pledge every day in the 8th grade, so I would have had a longer moment of silence.
Let me clarify. I had no objection to the sentiments in the Pledge. I never stopped reciting it on patriotic occasions. I objected to the force of daily habit. I objected to the rote recitation of words 90% of us had never given serious thought and maybe half could define if asked. I didn't make a fuss; I just rose and placed my right hand over my heart, along with my classmates, but stood mute.
If I were a public school teacher, on my first -- and quite possibly only -- day on the job, my first act after the Pledge would be to ask the class, "okay, what you just finished saying, what does it mean?" I would not expect many hands to go up.
It’s a matter of Physics...
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy
Which means there was a starting place, and in the end, given enough time, total randomization - not more organization of matter.
Get a physics book. Read it. And then you will understand why evolution is a theory.
Surely the current doctrines which are encouraged can be considered an explicit teaching of immorality (or even madness). Man is but a machine, a product of mindless interactions. Monkeys accidentally change into people. People are just a kind of ape. Living things are lifeless machines that look "alive". Design and purpose are illusions. Do any of these doctrines belong in a science classroom? Is it a good thing to teach kids that they are a sort of technological monkey that accidentally "happened" by when mindless processes selected ever-better banana-picking skills? Or that they are genetically predetermined machines? Hey little billy, you iz but a bag of metabolizing protoplasm that exists merely to propagate your selfish genes. Billy my boy, you are an organic being, "striving to the utmost to increase in numbers", and you better believe it, because Darwin said that.
I just came across this thread "N.H. Repeals Parental Notice of Abortion"
I see a connection. No morals, the baby is just some chemical compounds evolved from some slime. Whats the big deal in keeping the parents of the girl having an abortion in the loop?
I see those who are against ID, as also being for a world without morals, using evolution as their touchstone.
What do you think the word theory means?
I agree. We need more robust citizenship, civics and ethics education. It doesn't belong in biology class.
One of the second-tier talk show hosts -- Michael Reagan, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, they all blur together for me -- posed the question of what moral code is taught by evolution. I cursed myself for leaving my cell phone at home, because I had an immediate retort. What moral code is taught by calculus? Or by chemistry, physics or astronomy?
Answer: None That is not what they do. Is it immoral for a cheetah to kill a gazelle? A cheetah is a predator, the harshest epithet we can apply to a human criminal. Yet nature cannot function long without predators. That's biology. How does that translate into human society? That's ethics.
ID is a response to the mocking of religion, by those whose motives are merely masked by claiming to be scientific. It is a battle in the culture wars.
My position is that the "culture wars" are largely fiction. They're the hysterical overreaction of some Christians to the fact that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Animists and even (gasp!) atheists no longer "know their place." Being denied a privileged position, even if it's a traditional one, is not a form of oppression.
How does randomly orginized water form ordered snowflakes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.