And who created the EU?

Polls say half of all Americans believe in creationism - seven days, no evolution, dinosaurs and humans contemporaneous, etc. In Europe most people don't.  But concern  about it being taught in schools leads next week to the Council of Europe attempting to pass a resolution banning  both the Christian and Muslim version  in all member states.  Whether this is really any of the EU's business is a moot point. Scientists, at least these scientists, are over the moon about the resolution.

But if you see a card like this falling out of your child's satchel, you'll know it hasn't worked...

Many thanks to Monty Propps, for this picture, his profile is here (but it's not for the faint hearted) and he's also selling t-shirts with it on!

Comments

[Emily]

Whether it is or not, just one point. The Council of Europe is not the same organisation as the EU.

[Recusant]

Some analysis has been done on these findings - and similar ones in the past - and it seems that people really don't understand the question. They will happily affirm a statement that directly contradicts a statement they have previously affirmed.

We are constantly being informed that the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution in any form. This is ascribed to their religious fundamentalism. Poppycock. The vast majority of American Christians belong to churches that don't ascribe to creationism: Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists and even a goodly chunk of Baptists.

Still, it is all grist to the Louis Theroux view of Americans we seem happiest adopting.

Dose of salt required, methinks.

[Andrew Brown]

This really is quite incredible! Schools are supposed to be places of learning and enquiry, not places where one particular dogma (in this case Darwinian Evolution) gets rammed down pupil's throats. Are we trying to teach our children to become people who use their minds to weigh arguments and then make decisions or are we going to use schools as a place for secular propoganda?

Contrary to the myth perpetuated by some atheists, not all intelligent people swallow the unproven Darwinian explanation for life's origins. I know many intelligent Christians who are scientists, lawyers, engineers, accountants and mathematicians, etc who believe that God created the world (thouigh not necessarily in a literal six days). They do not believe this simply because it is part of their faith, but because it makes sense of what they know, see and experience.

[Mikey]

Fantastic pic ! :)

[Derek Smith]

Creationism should be taught, at least as soon as a paper justifying it is published in a scientific journal where its methods and conclusions will be open to criticism by the authors' peers.

A story, written by some bloke thousands or billions (depending on whom you believe) of years after the events described, translated many times, is unlikely to be accepted by any sensible scientist as proof.

Further, Darwin said nothing about life's origins, just the origin of species, a difference that is not subtle.

[John]

Can only agree with Emily (reason I'm commenting) the EU and the Council of Europe are completely seperate bodies!!!

[Maggie]

Who created God ?

[MCD of USA]

Polls say half of Americans don't believe in dinosaurs? It never ceases to amaze me the baloney the European press prints about Americans. Either this "poll" had some skewed questioning or you are spinning the story to create the usual hysteria about Americans/America. And yes, I am a dinosaur believing Christian.

[Rene C. Moya]

In response to Andrew Brown: by all means, we can reasonably discuss creationism...in philosophy courses. In university I had plenty of opportunities to debate/skewer creationist talking points in philosophy classes, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Philosophy, though, isn't biology; nor is it meant to be. Let's not pretend--not for one bloody moment--that creationism is 'science' in the slightest. At best it is a fool-hardy leap of faith concerning some inconsistencies in Darwinian theory.

At its insidious worst, it is a blatant obfuscation of scientific truth and practice.

(Here's my moment of truth: I'm one of those 50% of Americans who think creationism is hogwash.)

[Alexander Chapman]

It may well be the case that half of all Americans adhere to a creationist viewpoint. However, it is the law of the land that church and state are separate, hence religion is not taught in state schools (known as public schools in the US). Darwinian evolution is not 'one particular' dogma as Andrew Brown wrote. Whilst the finer details of evolution are open to debate, evolution by natural selection is as much a fact as the Earth revolving around the Sun. Are we still living in the days of Copernicus?

[Stephen Smith]

This is ridiculous. It is not "neutral" to ban creationism. This is the imposition of the religious ideal of secularism. Secularism is a quasi religious viewpoint, imposed in a more aggressive way than proponents of the Christian view of creation would ever seek to justify.

Significant here is the supression of religion, not least the fact "Freedom of Religion" under the ECHR seems to mean "Freedom from Relgion".

Christian doctrines should be allowed to be taught. The secular alternative, Darwinism, still requires "faith judgments" to be made, and is theory, not fact. Why prefer one theory over another? Because creationism is religious, and the EU doesn't like religion. That's why.

[Chris]

Andrew Brown:

"I know many intelligent Christians who are scientists, lawyers, engineers, accountants and mathematicians, etc who believe that God created the world (though not necessarily in a literal six days). They do not believe this simply because it is part of their faith, but because it makes sense of what they know, see and experience."

No Andrew, they believe this because they choose to ignore evidence that clashes with their cherished religious delusions. No one who ignores the wealth of evidence that supports evolution can call themselves an honest scientist.

[Malcolm McLean]

I cannot believe that someone has got through university and still thinks that "philosophy is not biology". What does he think goes on in philosophy departments?

Holocaust denial is already banned in schools. A ban on creationism isn't anything new. However I would also insist on a ban on behavioural creationism - the notion that evolution cannot explain human behaviour.

[Peter]

The EU not content with trying to rebuild Babel (see their Parliament building) or resurrecting the old Roman Empire, increasingly shrills its Spirit of Antichrist message from trying to eliminate any mention of God and now they want to control people's freedom of thought. How like the old Soviet Union (from where I am writing) the EU is. With Barosso lecturing the UK about Parliamentary demcracy one can only smile as these control freaks demand more and more obedience from us. I wonder when the wholesale persecution of Christians will start. As an engineer working in the chemical industry I think anyone who doesn't see a designer's mind in creation is a fool, whether or not the Bible confirms this. And evolution does not answer any serious questions regarding origins. Well after hubris comes nemesis so the EU had better watch out.

[Geoffrey Smith]

No, the EU should not ban creationism. There are much more important things to proscribe at the present time, such as abortion. The continent is ageing rapidly due to the slumping birth-rate, and Britain is no exception to this. You cannot kill 6M of your future citizens in the short space of 40 years and expect to emerge unscathed from this holocaust.

[Upali Jayasuriya]

The E.U may ban creationism. The scientists, secularists, will welcome their decision. It would not matter an iota to the CREATOR because of HIS creative power that is very much in evidence in HIS creation and in the face of JESUS. Praise the LORD.

[Robin Bather]

Of course this Creationist poppeycock should be banned from schools. Schools are for liberating the mind not emprisioning it in ancient absurd fantasies.
Unfortunately many people still seem to need an imaginary friend in the sky, but let them practice these thoughts in their place of worship, not in schools.

[JL]

This writer, like many European writers, takes liberty with the truth.

Creationism does not necessarily deny the existence of dinosaurs. Further, the writer ignorantly lumps rejection of evolution with dinosaurs. Most Christians have no issue with dinosaurs. We just don't swallow the fiction of the chicken being a descendant of T-Rex, or the "monkey business".

If you're going to have this "Faith Central" please ensure that the writer involved at least grasps issues of faith...

[Ross Wildgoose]

Science in my view should not be constrained by political or any other dogma. Science needs to keep its mind open to a wider ranging possibility that the truth may not lie in what is or isn't consensually believed at a given time in history. (Otherwise the world would still be flat.) What should an evolutionist / creationist / believer in intelligent design fear from free debate on both sides of the argument? I fear the day when politicians or any large group in society insist that only one version of events can be listened to. Where would science be today with that attitude? Yes you guessed it, the dark ages. It is good for children to understand there may be more to this thing than we first thought. They should be shown how to question and not readily believe what they are told as everyone may be affected by agendas even eminent scientists. They should be encouraged to explore the possibilities then decide what they believe. By the very nature of these opposing arguments both sides are almost inextricably linked to a belief in one form or another. Surely science can stand on its own two feet and surely schools should develop true scientific minds not afraid to inspect and understand an opposing view. In a true democracy we can have different views and we can air them. Oh and by the way I have looked at both sides and yes I have a firm view on which I believe and I still have room to learn.

[jason]

Yes, Please ban creationism and religion in general to save us from thousands of years of bloodshed believing utter fables, ridiculous legends and nonsensical propaganda.

[William Jarrell]

Like it or not, the popularity of creationism in the states is the result of a free market place of ideas. The fact that it's not taught in most US schools hasn't deterred people from believing it. Creationism is often promoted as the truth they don't want you to know. This resolution is likely this plays to the creationist martyr complex.

[Bridget]

Here, Here, Upali. When we read from the Book of Daniel, for example, we find that the plans had been formed of olde, though the minds of man imagine their unique initiation, but are really implanted and imposed to bring about the divine trials and result.

[Kevin]

If you think that picture of a Christ-like figure holding Gadzooki is nutty, how about the one with a line-up of ape-like figures, including a monkey at one end and a man at the other, with "Q.E.D" usually implied at the bottom? For all the "wealth of evidence" that evolutionism is supposed to have, why, for example, is the Origin of Species exhibition in the British Museum of Natural History so small and, frankly, embarrassing? The moths and the finches remained exactly that - moths and finches. Show me a moth that evolved into a finch and I'll be impressed.

Can anyone name a single practical scientific application of Darwinism that purports to validate the hypothesis? I know this computer I am writing from has no need of it.

[Bob Finbow]

Upali, I very much doubt that any evolutionist would claim "the chicken being a descendant of T-Rex". What they would claim is that, at some point in its ancestry, the chicken shared an ancestor with T Rex, a very different situation. The same is true of all extant species, including monkeys and ourselves. Only the distance you need to travel back through ancestors differs, and theories of species connection through common descent are now receiving direct confirmation through DNA studies of existing populations. You appear to confuse "sharing an ancestor" with "direct descent", a not uncommon, but entirely fallacious misunderstanding.

[HM102]

I like the idea of not "shoving secularist dogma down childrens' throats" at school - as one of your excellent Christian posters suggests. To this end I suggest we also teach them that gravity could also just be magic pixies that hold things up and sometimes let them drop, that rain is actually God's tears, that Ox-Bow lakes are caused when giants come along and dig up the riverbed, and that Shakespeare was written by an infinite number of mystical pink chimps housed in a dungeon below Buckingham Palace - then they at least have a chance to make their own mind up, instead of being force fed all this nonsense like reason, rationalism, science and intellectual analysis - none of which has any evidence behind it. We should also, of course, teach them that the vast majority of the world's population who don't follow the Christian iteration of the Abrahamic faiths are stupid, misguided idiots who will burn in hell.