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.

[Robin Bather]

Kevin, you seem not to grasp one of the fundamental ideas of Evolution, which is that evolution should be likened to a tree and not a ladder.
Your "computer arguement" is just the ancient "if I found a watch, would I believe it just evolved" fallacy, which has been shot down in flames by people much brighter than I.
It's about time we heard the old chant "after all, it's (The Theory of Evolution) just a theory" so we can go over all this once again and prove The Theory of Evolution for what it appears to be---the best Theory yet, to explain our being here .

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Unfortunately many people still seem to need an imaginary friend in the sky..."
- Robin Bather, 23 June 2007, 15:12

Include me out, Mr Bather, and I'm a Christian. I am both a chemist and a believer in some aspects of evolution with
creationist overtones. The one big problem with evolution is that there has been no satisfactory explanation for the 'Big Bang', which is supposed to have started off the whole process. This requires unimaginable energy which must
have a source. This is where creationism comes in - identifying the source.

[Ben]

There is a fine line between teaching about other beliefs but making it clear it contradicts most evidence and indoctrination either way.

[Kevin]

Robin,

So what you are saying is, "No, I don't have any evidence. Not one bit."

If evolutionist descent with modification is "tree-like", I would expect the Origin of Species exhibition to be vastly bigger than it is. (Especially the moth-finch-made-up-common-ancestor genealogy!)

But it ain't.

So - some "wealth"!

(Evolutionism sounds faith-based to me.)

By the way, my reference to the computer was to the fact that its invention neither depended on nor validated Darwinism, contrary to the claim that so much of the modern world does, which is merely an attempt at suggestion by association. My original question still stands.

[hpotter]

How about putting a stop to the constant assumption that evolution is an established fact, such as we always must listen to in nature programs or at museums?

[John]

I'm with MCD. I don't believe that nearly 50% of Americans believe in Creationism. In my experience in the UK, Creationism is a complete non-issue for Christians. I've never heard Creationism preached or promoted in any church. It's usually seems to be anti-Christians who make a fuss.

The EU should not tell or even recommend what people should believe, however bizarre those beliefs might appear. Just leave it to time and reason to resolve, not legislation or fascist diktat.

[Paul Medhurst]

Darwin has been proved wrong - by scientists....

Two world wars and communism, based on Darwins's theories of 'survival of the fittest', Atheism, and 'favoured races' ('master races'..) have cost the lives of up to 250 million people in the 20th century.

A lot of people who are writing to newspapers are behind the times - or have never done their own homework in the first place.

[Andrew Brown]

John Blanchard in his book "Does God believe in atheists?" helpfully pointed out that while the idea of natural selection and the survival of the fittest provides a useful model for variation within species, it does not explain how one species turns into another. This is where Darwinian Evolution falls flat on its face. The evidence is not there to allow anyone to suggest that such 'macro evolution' is anything but an unproven theory. So why do scientists believe it? Because the alternative (some form of special creation) is unacceptable! It would be nice if the scientific establishment at least had the decency to admit that Darwinian Evolution is a theory, rather than continue to proclaim it as a fact!

[Alec Depledge]

There is nothing imaginary about my 'friend in the sky' - His name is JESUS - maker of heaven & earth, & soon coming King - atheistic evolutionists will one day bow to Him & confess Him as Lord of the universe which He made & sustains

[Bob Finbow]

Andrew Brown. If you want to see examples of how a species can evolve into another, I suggest you look at ring species (surf for it, there's plant of data on the web as well as in text book)

[Robin Bather]

Kevin, I live the other side of the world and haven't seen the exhibition you mention so cannot give any reason for it being embarrasingly small; however I think that using this as a support of your Creationist ideas is rather flimsy.
When it comes down to it, you either believe in Creationism or Darwin. Creationism inherently involves faith in a God like figure whilst the believers in Darwin's Theory of Evolution believe there are more logical explanations even though we still are unaware of everything involved.
At least the Theory proposes an idea which has been widely published, criticised and modified whilst the former still cling onto so called proofs of their ideas such as "look around you and see the birds and the beautiful trees---that is proof of God".
Charles Darwin still remains my hero (in fact, by cooincidence I visited his lovely birthplace two years ago--Shrewsbury).
Kevin, I am an engineer ans so your question must remain for someone more involved in the subject.

[Paul A]

Creationism should continue to be taught but kept strictly within RE classes alongside a variety of other creation myths. It is not science and should not be brought up in science classes as some kind of alternative to evolution through natural selection, the same goes for its alter ego, Intelligent Design. If the religious groups promoting this drivel wish to be represented in the scientific curriculum then let them devise their own scientific theory and see how well it stands up to scrutiny. Otherwise keep it in church, at home or in RE alongside the other fables.

[perfectbod]

I am interested in the US posting. It has often spooked me to read about statistics for US citizens who apparently in very large numbers often believe in things that here are very marginal, such as the rapture, the imminent second coming, creationism, dont own a passport, etc. We get a cumulative picture of people who just refuse to engage with rational debate at all and whose theology is stuck at the student stage of selective quotation. The whole thing is summed up in the famous joke about the US senator who was asked why he didnt learn any Spanish to represent his voters: "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me". But did anyone ever really say that? Are these things true? I cant believe its true of the whole nation. Does anyone have any real data about what the US believes?

[Joe Martin]

Bob Finbow, with respect, I suggest you find out what Andrew Brown means by "macro evolution" before seizing on his (admittedly inadequate) use of the word "species" to suggest that "ring species" provide a contradiction of his main point.
I am agnostic about macro-evolution, but I would be more inclined to respect the intellectual integrity of those who are convinced – and therefore more ready to listen to their arguments – if they showed some evidence of having understood what opponents are questioning, and why, rather than simply assuming (& accusing) that their motivation must be religious rather than honestly being unconvinced by the evidence offered.

[Robert H. Olley]

I would say the Creationism-Evolution situation in the USA was not helped either by Darrow deliberately scoring an own goal in the Scopes trial to the greater glory of Darrow, or the movie "Inherit the Wind", actually a self-pitying Hollywood whinge against McCarthyism (not totally justified - Ronald Reagan went into politics after seeing the way the Commies were infiltrating the acting profession).

But while I disagree with Peter 23 Jun 2007 11:28:41 over evolution, he is right on the nail about the EU.

[Ian Thorpe]

Teaching creationism should be banned.

Christians feart one thing more than the Islam, Paganism, Hinduism, Humanism and nihilism: - The Truth.

Why?

Well Jesus was not Jewish, was not born in a stable, his Dad was not a carpenter, his mother was not a virgin and he very probably did not die on the cross. The story is that he was handed back to the Jews because he had committed no crime against Rome.
And the Jews stoned people rather than crucifying them.

Have these people never watched The Life Of Brian?

[Brad R]

American here. We are for the most part nonreligious. We don't believe the rapture is coming. And we don't believe that 12,000 years ago god created the earth and all life.

That might seem odd considering most polls say that Americas are religious but when you live here you realize it is more social than anything else. "Do you believe in god" equates to "do you believe in living morally", it's like a handshake of sorts. Now there is a small portion of people who honestly believe in religion. It's much smaller than the polls would have you believe.

You may ask an American "do you believe in evolution" and they may say no. That just means that they don't have evidence. Ask an American and European, do you believe that time slows down as you accelerate towards the speed of light. Whereas in Europe they may say that they didn't know, in America we'd flat out say no.

And our country is not being run by the religious despite what Richard Dawkins says. To be elected in America you do have to say you're religious. Look at it this way, claiming to be an Atheist would lose a candidate 10% of the vote off the bat. In a country where elections are generally decided by less than 5% that would be political suicide. So politicians roll their eyes and say they believe in god.

[andrew brown]

Paul says that "Creationism should continue to be taught but kept strictly within RE classes alongside a variety of other creation myths. It is not science and should not be brought up in science classes..."

My understanding of Intelligent Design theory is that it derives from the scientific study of the natural world in all its amazing complexity. The result of the scientific study is to conclude that such complexity is impossible to explain using the theory of evolution and so must be as a result of the activity of a creator. I fail to see how this could be described as unscientific. Given the billions upon billions of favourable mutations that would be required for such diveristy to develop, the odds against evolution are insummountable; especially as most mutations are unhelpful and destructive!

The theory of evolution seems far more ludicrous to me... that the vast array of complex life we see on the planet has derived by a process of random chance over many millions of years. Especially as the evidence for this view is so scant. Once you get past all the pictures of evolutionary trees with their branches you are left with little more than theory and speculation!

[Bob Finbow]

Joe Martin. Macroevolution is reasonably accepted as referring to evolution at or above species level (as opposed to microevolution - changes of allele frequency within a species). This makes it, effectively, the cumulative effect of numerous microevolutionary events. (True, there are still some proponents of Saltation, but they are far from dominant voices.) The thrust of Andrew’s posting was that, when speaking of the Darwinian viewpoint, “…it does not explain how one species turns into another”. Well, I feel that ring species do just that, assuming that you will accept as different species, groups that cannot interbreed, which is what occurs when the two opposite ends of the chain meet to form the ‘ring’.
I’m also struggling to find in my posting, any mention of religion, let alone assuming it to be Andrew’s motivation. I merely pointed out what I see as a process that contradicts his claim that no evidence exists for Darwinian evolution. I think that the tone of his posting does suggest a defence of the religious viewpoint, but that is irrelevant to my response. If you wish to berate me for not understanding his posting, I suggest you look to your own such failure to understand mine.

[Bob Finbow]

In response to Andrew Brown’s posting 25th June 2007 20:18:23 – Whilst it is true that that the mutations that result in difference are chance events, natural selection, which is what Darwin proposed as the process by which favourable mutations were retained and spread within the population, is very far from a chance event. The reason favourable mutations are retained is that they give a survival advantage and, since survival to reproductive age is essential to pass on the effects of these chance events, it is those individuals that have the beneficial mutations that produce the most offspring, and so beneficial genetic mutations tend to spread in the population via those offspring. The very fact that most mutations are detrimental means that such detrimental mutations give survival disadvantage (or are “selected against”) and so tend not to persist in the gene pool. As far as you claim that “…the odds against evolution are insurmountable”, this would indeed be true were it not for the filtering process of natural selection and the staggering extent of geological time over which it takes place. That is the insight that Darwin brought to the world (not evolution per se) and, for the scientific world, it represents one of the greatest insights of all time, particularly since he achieved it without the knowledge of genetics that now shows precisely how genetic 'characters' are passed from parent to offspring.

[Andy Ruffhead]

A response to Bob Finbow:
Natural Selection selects; it does not create anything new. Many people say "we have to give natural selection millions of years to work". Well by saying that you now have an unfalsifiable theory, and this is simply not science. Any definition of a scientific theory will tell you that it must be falsifiable.

How would you explain something like a feather? This is a structure so complex and unique, how could it ever have 'evolved' from scales? The very notion is absolutely ludicrous!

And something that I have asked many people who believe in evolution is that how have all the complex organs that we have come about? You cannot live without your heart; you cannot live without your stomach. It is what is called 'irreducable complexity', and evolution seems to just skip right over this obvious fact.

[Andrew Milner]

Next time you visit the Grand Canyon, ask the guide (in front of everyone) how old it is.

[Perfectbod]

Thank you Brad, that's good to hear.

[Ryan]

To the person who thinks that Lutherans don't believe in Creationism... think again. I went to a Lutheran school in Australia and we were taught it in BIOLOGY class. And only 3 people in a class of 30 believed in Evolution.

I was and still am very annoyed that Creationism was taught to me as a Scientific theory. It isn't. When will some Chritians learn that you can believe in God and listen to scientific FACT. This kind of debate has always raged... So many scientific explanations that we accept today were called herecy or some bolony by Christians. Facts are Facts. Faith is faith.

i love you jesus, haha this really happend ha! he helped raise the dinos!