Council of Europe Takes a Selective Stand
by MikeGeneShould it be a surprise to anyone that it took European bureaucrats to come up with an 11,700-word document to say that science is good, creationism is bad, and thus creationism should be kept out of the science classroom?
Not surprisingly, the bureaucrats think ID = creationism (yet complain creationism is contradictory because ID accepts evolution) and represents a threat to democracy:
the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas 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.
Borrowing a page from George Bush's war strategy, the champions for human rights declare a preemptive strike:
Investigation of the creationists' growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council's parliamentarians to react before it is too late.
Thank goodness they acted before it was "too late," as that ever growing Creationist Threat(iness) is always on the constant march.
But this made me wonder if the Champions for Science and Civilization had written at least 10% the number of words warning about the threat from extreme animal rights groups. After all, it is in a European country where construction workers must hide their identity because they dare build a science lab. So I did some Googling and couldn't find where the Council of Europe has defended science against the animal rights extremists.
But hey, I did find this.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:49 am
As far as I understand, this is a revised version of an earlier, failed resolution, which I blogged about here.
Comment by Krauze — September 24, 2007 @ 3:49 am
September 24th, 2007 at 7:39 am
The thing about animal rights extremists is they are already generally accepted as a threat, and therefore action is being taken against them by the police (at least in several European countries) rather than by politicians (with some success, see here). The European Council does not need a policy document for something that is already well in hand (maybe they should have done it ten years ago though).
Here is the summary:
To call ID a "form" of creationism is not right, I will agree. Some of ID (but perhaps a rather small part) is certainly not creationism. Perhaps they should have described ID as a "weapon" of creationism, rather than a "form". For the sad fact is that some creationists are promoting the teaching of ID in schools (for instance, the ironically called "Truth in Science" dedicated to that in the UK), and personally I have no doubt that they see ID as the thin end of the Wedge. Dembski once said "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration" (quoted from here), neatly linking religion, ID and the threat to science.
That aside, I assume that you, the Euroean Council and I all agree that neither creationism nor ID should be taught as though they were science.
Comment by The Pixie — September 24, 2007 @ 7:39 am
September 24th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I know I have not been around for a while, but as this links with the topic which brought me here in the first place - The British Centre for Science Education. (Previously mentioned here, here, here, and here.)
I guess few of you have read the full text of the EU document (I have managed most of it) and much of the claims that creationist (like me) are anti-democratic, seem to be almost direct quotes from the BCSE web site. In fact they actually get a mention in paragraph 69, The Royal Society and the Archbishop of Canterbury have spoken out against the teaching of creationism at British schools and various organisations, such as the British Centre for Science Education, have condemned attempts to introduce this.
The broad brush sensational claims that all creationists (including ID supporters) are anti-democratic is of course part of a tactic acknowledge by BCSE's Ian Lowe to give the media misleading 'sound bites' so as to undermine all opposition to militant Darwinism. This was reported by David Anderson of BSCE Revealed and is referred to on this page quoted above.
I suppose that members of the European Parliament have been taken in by an ad hoc group of militant atheists, and one or two of their non-atheist sympathisers, all goes to illustrate that you don't need any intelligence to design some politicians.
Comment by Randall — September 24, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
The document is a reminder that bigotry is not dead. Targets change with the times but the nature of bigots does not. David Anderson has done a good job of detailing how unsavory the BSCE is and Nathan Munson has documented how cowardly and hypocrytical western nations can be. If the targeted creationists were Muslim fundamentalists the European bureaucrats would be seeking ways to accomodate them.
Comment by Bradford — September 24, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Hi Pixie,
So the bureaucrats pass the buck when it comes to real threats and follow Bush's doctrine of preemption when it comes to imaginary threats. Police or no police, I'll bet the scientists at Oxford University would sure appreciate some support from the Council of Europe, especially since the Council of Europe is trying to stir up concern for animal rights.
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
All I have to say, Mike, is that you had better watch yourself. Your strong statements against the rights of bunnies might end up having rather severe consequences.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — September 24, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Ouch!
Thanks for the warning (the last thing I need is for Mr. Ears to find out). So yes, I do firmly and absolutely oppose all experiments on rabbits! Why experiment on a bunny when a kitten will do?
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
September 25th, 2007 at 5:06 am
Randall
I agree that the "anti-democratic" sound-bite is ridiculous.
That is one strange group, militant atheists AND non-atheist sympathisers. Hmm, one could almost imagine that atheist vs theism was not the issue for them. But then perhaps"militant atheists" is as good a sound-bite as "anti-democratic".
Mike
And I think they would prefer more police activity to a European policy document.
Ah, and there is that emotive "stir up" sound bite. How do you know what their motives were for the document on animal welfare Mike? Maybe it was concern for animal welfare?
Comment by The Pixie — September 25, 2007 @ 5:06 am
September 25th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Pixie,
I am tempted to concede the point provided you are able to put forward a concise, accurate description of the core contributors of the BCSE which does justice to their over-the-top approach, their deceptive presentation of themselves as a properly constituted body of scientific and educational experts, and their false claims to have a non-'religious' agenda. Perhaps you should also include a mention of their absolute hatred of anyone who denies that Darwinian naturalism is the only basis for science and the understanding of life.
However, there is one other distinction which needs to be acknowledge. "Anti-democratic" is being applied by the BCSE (and now by some members of the European Parliament) to all who are not wooed into a blind love for evolution. By contrast my use of "militant atheists" was limited to a specific group of people and did not even extend to every one who associates themselves with the BCSE. The evidence that this group are all atheists and have a militant approach to promoting their religious views has been well documented by David Anderson and so it is by no means a misrepresentation of the majority by over emphasising the views of a minority.
As I say alternative suggestions for an accurate description of the BCSE are welcome.
Comment by Randall — September 25, 2007 @ 6:23 am
September 25th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Randall
Hmm, looks like I touched a raw nerve. A quick look at the BCSE does not support your claims of "their absolute hatred of anyone who denies that Darwinian naturalism is the only basis for science and the understanding of life" (though you do claim they employ deception). I was originally pointing out the contradiction in the phrase "an ad hoc group of militant atheists, and one or two of their non-atheist sympathisers". Why should non-atheists sympathise with militant atheists? But you have intrigued me; where have you encountered this hatred of which you speak.
Comment by The Pixie — September 25, 2007 @ 8:07 am
September 25th, 2007 at 10:47 am
The second paragraph of the summary says:
"However, some people call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of the theory of evolution."
It would be interesting to know who these people calling for this are. (Maybe I should read the whole document!). I don't know of anyone in that category. All the creationists I know of in the UK, correctly I believe, believe that it would be a disaster to have state schools teaching creationism. As a minister of religion, I believe that the teaching of Christianity by people who don't understand it or sympathise with it in the last decades in UK schools has been a very bad thing. The teaching of creationism by people who don't understand it or sympathise with it wouldn't be likely to be much better I wouldn't have thought.
David
Comment by DavidAnderson — September 25, 2007 @ 10:47 am
September 25th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Pixie,
You didn't even get close to a nerve - never mind a raw one.
Obviously, you haven't read much of their site in the 1½ hours between our postings and you certainly haven't read any of what they say about me. All you really need to do is take a look at Roger Stanyard's latest tirade against me and what I do, which is here, to see the type of hype they have in their heads. Yes the office was closed for a few weeks, but it was nothing to do with a bust up, we were simply moving house and office. BCSE were up in arms when David Anderson reported that Stanyard was unsettled with its internal politics here but no one cautioned Stanyard against about his idle speculation about me. That however is typical of the level of research Stanyard has undertaken on BCSE's behalf. Research on which the European Parliament is being encouraged to denounce all non-Darwinists.
If you want to defend the BCSE then at least do them the courtesy of reading a good amount (50%+) of what they have posted on their site and then balance it out with an equal amount of Anderson's research. We could then perhaps have an informed discussion.
In answer to your question:
Perhaps it is something to do with all of them being insecure in their own beliefs and needing to put down those who are confident in their convictions. However, others might have a better understanding of why this should be - not being either I cannot speak from an informed position.
Comment by Randall — September 25, 2007 @ 11:43 am
September 25th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Going along with an advocated postion seems a more apt description than sympathize. As to a motive for that, there is a commonplace one readily available- the herd instinct. Most follow the path of least resistence. That's why they will take on Christian creationists and run away as fast as they can from their Muslim counterparts.
Comment by Bradford — September 25, 2007 @ 11:52 am
September 25th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Randall
Obviously, as I said "a quick look."
I see only anti-creationist comments there, nothing to make me suppose the posters were anti-religion, or even atheists.
No, I do not know enough about them to be able to decide whether I agree with them or not. It is a sad fact that in this "culture war" there is much mud-slinging on both sides.
And perhaps it is because they all oppose creationism.
Comment by The Pixie — September 25, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
September 25th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Pixie:
They're not smart enough to know what it is they are opposing. Quoting Mike:
So what is it they are opposed to evolution or evolution with a design inference? If the latter are they even aware of concepts like front loaded evolution? Could they explain the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Could they even provide correct definitions of basic cellular biochemicals let alone explain their functions?
The European bureaucrats share more in common with Archie Bunker than with any of those giants of whom Newton spoke and on whose shoulders he figuratively stood. They also have real problems about which they need to be concerned. It's easier to flog Christian creationists than it is to address real issues.
Comment by Bradford — September 25, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Bradford
I have been commenting on Randall's ""the European Parliament have been taken in by an ad hoc group of militant atheists, and one or two of their non-atheist sympathisers". Assuming I understood him, that ad hoc group is BCSE, and I am saying that as far as I can see BCSE are opposed to creationism, rather than religion. Unfortunately, as we get down the thread, it does get confusing who pronouns refer to, and I think you are talking instead about the European Council commitee.
I suspect both the European Council commitee and BCSE are opposed to teaching stuff in science classes that is not science. Evolution is science, the design inference is not, front loaded evolution is not.
And you do not?
This may surprise you, Bradford, but a lot of people think the question of creation/design vs evolution is very important. There are blog sites set up specifically about this one issue. Sure, there are many other issue and problems, but I would imagine the European Council has the ability to look at more than one of them.
Comment by The Pixie — September 26, 2007 @ 8:07 am
September 26th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Pixie:
Looking at them is about all the EC is doing. If the natural history questions are important then that is all the more reason to refrain from stupid threatiness like linking creationists to threats to human rights. Better to react though before it's too late right? React to a non-existent threat to teach religion in schools? The EC is engaged in unartful propaganda. The descendents of Athenian democracy and its values deserve better than this petty display of bigotry.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Bradford
Do you think they are doing more to stop creationism than they are with other important issues? Can you support that?
Well there we disagree. I think the threat exists. See for example Truth in Science, a UK based company that describes itself as "an organisation promoting good science education in the UK. Our initial focus is on the origin of life and its diversity." These people are creationists trying to push intelligent design into science education. And yes, better to stop that before it happens.
Religion is already taught in schools (in the UK anyway), and I have no problem with religion being taught in religious education.
By the way, when I said "And you do not?" last time around, I was not suggesting you are as bright as Archie Bunker (whose name I had to look up on Wikipedia by the way), but that most of us are nearer to Archie Bunker than the intellectual giants who dwarfed Newton.
Comment by The Pixie — September 26, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Pixie, the problem with the EC bureaucrats is not opposition to teaching ID in schools. As an IDist I do not advocate that. The problem is the use of threaty rhetoric to make it appear that creationists could become a threat to human rights. That's way beyond acceptability and I doubt they would have the guts to say the same about Muslim groups.
Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
September 28th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Bradford, looks like we end the thread on a note of agreement then. As I said in my second post: "I agree that the "anti-democratic" sound-bite is ridiculous."
Comment by The Pixie — September 28, 2007 @ 7:29 am