|
Doc. 11297
8 June 2007
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.
The Assembly calls on education
authorities in
member States to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of
evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as
a scientific discipline.
A.
Draft resolution
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.
2.
Creationism, born of the denial of the
evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an
almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist theories are
tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting
quite a few Council of Europe member states.
3.
The prime target of present-day
creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education.
Creationists are bent on ensuring that their theories are included in
the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to
being a scientific discipline.
4.
Creationists question the scientific
character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of
evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse
scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of
evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their
own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective
analysis.
5. We are
witnessing a growth of modes of
thought which, the better to impose religious dogma, are attacking the
very core of the knowledge that we have patiently built up on nature,
evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.
6. There is a real
risk of a serious confusion
being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with
convictions, beliefs and ideals and what has to do with science, and of
the advent of an “all things are equal” attitude, which may seem
appealing and tolerant but is actually disastrous.
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.
8. The Assembly
has constantly insisted that
science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible
considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a not
insignificant factor in economic, technological and social development.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is
built on facts.
9. Creationism
claims to be based on
scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists
are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of
scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent
photographs; and backing from well-known scientists, most of whom are
not biologists. By these means creationists seek to appeal to
non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.
10. Evolution is not simply
a matter of the
evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious
consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical
research with the aim of effectively 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.
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.
13. All leading
representatives of the main
monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope
Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today
praises the role of the sciences in the evolution of humanity and
recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.
14. The teaching
of all phenomena concerning
evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to
the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it
must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the
science syllabus. 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.
15. The Council
of Europe has highlighted the
importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of
freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist theories, as
any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an
addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim
scientific respectability.
16. Science
provides irreplaceable training in
intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to
understand how they work.
17.
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.
18.
The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and
especially their education authorities, to:
18.1.
defend and promote scientific knowledge;
18.2. strengthen the
teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology
and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific
knowledge;
18.3.
make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the
realities of the contemporary world;
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.
B.
Explanatory memorandum by Mr Guy Lengagne, rapporteur
1.Mr McIntosh and eighteen of our
colleagues have signed a motion for a recommendation entitled “The
dangers of creationism in education”. In order to examine the merits of
this recommendation, the Assembly decided to ask the Culture Committee
to produce a report on this important and
difficult issue.
2.As creationism is first of all a
reaction to the theory of evolution, it appeared important to describe
this theory. Moreover, the most orthodox form of creationism denies the
scientific character of the theory of evolution while claiming to be a
science itself. This question cannot be
considered without employing some basic definitions.
3.This compelled the rapporteur to
discuss in the first part of his report a number of technical matters.
These may seem somewhat dry in nature but without taking a brief look
at the biological questions involved it is not possible seriously to
show that evolution is a real science and that creationism, which falls
under religion, cannot lay claim to the status
of science – and therefore cannot be taught as such.
Evolution: a genuine scientific theory
4. As far as the origins of the
universe, the Earth
and species are concerned, several theories clash with one another and
a number of questions remain unanswered. In all periods of history,
people have wondered about their origins and the origin of the Earth. Where
have we come from?
Religions claim to provide them with answers, including the idea that
there is a supreme being, one God that is at the origin of everything –
the universe, the Earth and the human race. This belief in an
omnipotent “God Creator” is one of the main tenets of the three
principal monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
5. In 1802, William Paley (1743-1805),
an Anglican archdeacon, developed the theory of natural theology.
He wrote that a person who found a watch on a beach could not deny the
existence of a superior intelligence that had designed, made and lost
the object. God was no other than the watchmaker of the world and human
beings discovered the results of his work in the treasures of nature.
Various discussions opposing Paley’s theory of natural theology and the
Bilblical story of Genesis were to arise in the 19th century.
6. The first major upheaval came about
as a result
of the work of John Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), a French biologist.
At the beginning of the 19th century, Lamarck presented his basic
theory of “transformism” in a work entitled Philosophie Zoologique.
A few years later, on 29 November 1859, Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
published a work entitled “On the Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
Struggle for Life”,
in which he also put forward the idea that species evolve. Today, it is
considered the founding work of the theory of evolution. According to
this theory, which contrasts sharply with the knowledge and fears of
the time, the biological characteristics of living beings evolve in the
course of time and genuine natural selection operates for the survival
of species. Through his activities and this work, Darwin proposed to
the people of his time a new hypothesis concerning the evolution of
species and human beings. His works mark the end of the agreement
between natural history and the Christian tradition, as well as the
birth of anti-evolutionist movements1.
7. From then on, there were two camps
that faced one
another: those who were convinced that Darwin had to be opposed in
order to defend Christian theology and those who thought that the
theory of natural selection would enable humankind to put an end once
and for all to the theoretical foundations of “religious obscurantism”.
8. Creationism thus came about in
opposition to
Darwin’s theory of evolution. Since we are dealing with science here,
we must be precise about the subject we are discussing: What is
evolution?
Evolution
9. It should be pointed out that our
genes, from
which the word “genetic” derives, carry information about the
characteristics of a living organism, whether it be a simple bacterium
or a human being. A gene is a “piece” of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).
DNA carries the genetic information of every living being. Moreover,
the study of DNA is being used more and more outside the area of
scientific research, for example to disprove or verify parenthood or to
clear up certain criminal offences. DNA, as will be seen, is very
widely used in the science of evolution.
10. Populations evolve when individuals
with certain
characteristics (such as tallness) have more descendants than other
individuals. The characteristics inherited from the individuals with
many descendants become more frequent in the following generations:
- Biological evolution is defined as a
modification
of the genetic characteristics in the course of time within a group of
living beings or a population.
- Adaptation refers to the
characteristics of an
organism that improve its ability to survive and reproduce in total
harmony with its natural environment. Adaptations are the result of
natural selection.
- Biodiversity results from the repeated
separation
of one species into two or more new species (which specialists call
“speciation”). When a single species separates into two, the two
resulting species share numerous characteristics as they derive from a
common ancestor.
11. Evolution thus explains how
organisms adapt to
their environment (by natural selection), how the diversity of life was
formed (by speciation) and why different organisms share
characteristics (through a common ancestor). In this connection, it is
important to stress that it is wrong to claim that human beings descend
from monkeys. They are closely related to monkeys and have a common
ancestor but there is no direct line of descent between the two.
12. There is a considerable body of
scientific
evidence concerning evolution. Scientists have shown that evolution is
a fact because of
- the evidence provided by
palaeontological data,
- the numerous cases of characteristics
shared by organisms with a common ancestor,
- the reality of continental drift,
- direct observations of genetic changes
in populations.
13. It should be pointed out that the
human being is just one of the links in the long chain of evolution.
14. Scientific advances and discoveries
in the field
of genetics have made it possible to demonstrate the existence of
genetic mutations that come about at random and are not oriented
towards a particular goal. It is the modification of genes in the
descendence of living beings that defines biological evolution. Among
the organisms that reproduce by sexual means, genetic variability
increases through crossing over, the independent assortment of
chromosomes and fertilisation. These various mutations and any other
processes that rearrange the genetic information combine to bring about
the evolution of species and populations and tend to reinforce the
variability of individuals and species on the planet. Genetic
modifications trigger morphological, biochemical and behavioural
differences. Natural selection and/or genetic drift have an effect on
the differences between individuals or species in order to produce
evolutionary changes.
15. Apart from demonstrating the process
of
evolution, scientists have been able to show the consequences of this
process for life on Earth. Three main characteristics define the
latter: the adaptation of organisms to their environment, speciation
(the repeated separation of one species into two or more new species),
which contributes to the diversity of life on Earth, and the existence
of common ancestors. Evolution involves these different
characteristics of that life.
16. Palaeontological data, such as the
fossil
record, provide clear proof of the evolution of species and individuals
in the course of time. Fossils are the preserved remains of organisms
that lived a long time ago. They enable biologists to reconstruct the
history of life on earth and, even though a number of uncertainties
remain, provide evidence to give weight to the idea that species have
evolved in the course of time. Palaeontology also confirms the
existence of new groups of organisms on the basis of organisms that
existed previously.
17. The fact that these organisms share
common
characteristics is consistent with the biological blueprints of the
evolutionary relations. One of the main propositions of the theory of
evolution is that organisms should carry in themselves the evidence of
their evolutionary past, and this is indeed the case. The similarities
in the models of development can be explained by their descent from a
common ancestor. The proteins and DNA of organisms that share a common
ancestor are closer than the proteins and DNA of those that do not
share a recent common ancestor.
18. Continental drift, which is
the result of
the splitting up of the Pangea (the old supercontinent comprising
almost all the land that emerged from the Carboniferous period at the
beginning of the Jurassic) at least 200 million years ago, also enables
proof of evolution to be furnished. The fossils of organisms that
evolved when the continents were connected have a wider geographical
distribution than those of organisms that have evolved more recently.
The effect of continental drift was to separate families of living
organisms and thus bring about their development, independently of
their descent, as well as the appearance of new species and the
extinction of others.
19. Finally, scientists have been able
to observe, whether in the laboratory or in nature, genetic changes
in the course of time in the populations or species studied. They have
also been able to trigger genetic modifications themselves by crossing
species. This is called artificial selection. Natural and artificial
selection make it possible to provide evidence of evolution.
20. In order to illustrate this point,
let us mention a few examples that show the process of evolution:
Research on the fight against AIDS has
brought to
light new aspects that confirm that evolution has taken place. After
developing new treatments for HIV that appeared very promising,
researchers discovered that this virus was rapidly evolving in order to
keep adapting to its environment. HIV has a particularly elevated
mutation rate but that in itself does not make it possible to explain
the fact that this virus evolves by considerably increasing its ability
to resist clinical therapies. There is often an interval of about ten
years between the moment when an individual is afflicted by the virus
and when the first AIDS symptoms are triggered. During this period, no
appreciable increase in the HIV concentration in the blood is
established. However, scientists have shown that the virus has produced
millions of viral descendants during this period, which implies that
enormous quantities of virus are destroyed very quickly after they have
been produced. The body therefore hosts many different strains of HIV
that compete with one another and fight to survive against the various
clinical therapies. More generally, the recent changes in the AIDS
virus are evidence of the ability of any organism to evolve.
21. The resistance of many insects to
new pesticides
shows they are similarly able to adapt to a new environment in which
only those that are most resistant will survive. Resistance to
antibiotics also tells us a great deal. Today, many species of bacteria
are resistant to all kinds of antibiotics because, as a result of
natural selection, only the few bacteria that have resisted have been
able to multiply.
22. It is important to note that the
number of means
of verifying the hypotheses put forward has increased since Darwin.
From the form of the fossils discovered to the study of their DNA, the
cross-checking of information makes it possible to achieve considerable
objectivity.
23. There can be no doubt that evolution
is a genuine science.
24. As Guillaume Lecointre, a professor
at the National Natural History Museum in Paris, points out, science
is the totality of operations that produce objective knowledge. A
statement on the world can only be described as objective if it has
been verified by an independent observer. This verification depends on
three factors: scepticism, rationality and logic and, finally,
methodological materialism. These three pillars ensure the objectivity
of a scientific result.
25. Scientific research on the subject
of evolution has been no exception.
26. At present, scientists from all
nations, races
and religions agree on the existence of evolution and accordingly no
longer try to find out whether it has actually taken place but “how”
this has happened. A number of questions remain within the scientific
community with regard to understanding all the processes that lead to
evolution. In particular this work consists in revealing the
mechanisms that have governed the present structuring of biodiversity2.
However, no science is ever complete and new discoveries regularly
enable progress to be made on understanding “how” things are as they
are.
27. In addition, as Hervé
LeGuyader emphasises, evolutionist
thinking now pervades all areas of biology and, through the historical
dimension of the process of evolution, also affects the sciences of the
Earth and the universe. The advances in evolution research have in
fact resulted in broadening the basis of this theory, so that today the
evolution of populations, including human populations, is only part of
evolution as a whole. Research being done on evolution is still
providing more evidence for the truth of the theory of evolution.
28. One of the discoveries that has been
made in the
study of our planet and has been confirmed many times, is the dating of
the major events that have marked its development:
- the solar system, which includes the
Earth, was formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago;
- life appeared on Earth at least 2.5
billion years ago (in the form of unicellular bacteria);
- about 200 million years ago Pangea
began to split up to form the continents we know today;
- homo sapiens, ie human beings, emerged
between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.
It
is thus not hard to understand why these
discoveries have presented a challenge to those who apply a strict
interpretation to the first part of the Bible, ie Genesis.
Creationism
29. These various discoveries and
scientific
advances concerning evolution led to strong opposition from various
so-called “creationist” movements (the word derives from “creation” in
the biblical sense of the term).
30. The most intransigent of the
supporters of
Creationism claim that the world was created by God in six days and
maintain that the transformist or evolutionist theories that conflict
with the Bible, according to which God created each plant or
animal species individually, can only be lies. They say that science is
wrong because, in the strictest possible sense, the Bible says
something else – which reminds us, incidentally, of the trial of a man
called Galileo.
31. This strict Creationism is
subdivided into two
branches, one that categorically rejects the scientific discourse and
another, also called “scientific creationism” or “science of creation”,
that thinks that the science versus religion conflict is only an
illusion.
32. According to “scientific
Creationism”, the
author of creation, as described in the Bible, is always present and
intervenes in the various processes that bring about evolution. Within
scientific creationism, the debate on the Earth’s age divides the
so-called “young-earth creationists” (YECs) from the “old-earth
creationists” (OECs). The first apply a literal interpretation of the
first eleven chapters of Genesis, while the second group admit that
creation may have taken place over a long period and seek to reconcile
the scientific data with the story of Genesis.
33. Alongside these different movements
that come together under the heading of strict creationism, we also
find so-called progressive creationism, which does not totally
reject evolution but argues that creation necessarily involved
successive divine interventions.
34. Confrontations between creationists
and
Darwinists took place throughout the 19th and 20th centuries,
especially in the United States. In 1925, at the so-called “Monkey
Trial”, John Scopes, a teacher in Dayton, Ohio, was convicted for
teaching his pupils the theory of evolution. However, as a result of
scientific discoveries and advances, especially in the filed of
biology, the theory of evolution gradually gained acceptance. In 1968,
the United States Supreme Court declared the anti-evolutionist laws in
force in several states unconstitutional.
35. The last quarter of the 20th century
was marked
by an appreciable resurgence of creationist theories. In the light of
the setbacks they had sustained against the supporters of the theory of
evolution, the creationists tried to adapt, and did so to such an
extent that in the current statements of the “neocreationists”
references to God and the Bible are, or at least it would appear,
totally absent. There is no longer any
question of divine creation. The neocreationist movement, which mainly
consists of the advocates of “intelligent design”, defends the
hypothesis of the intervention of a so-called superior intelligence.
Describing the theory as scientific, the supporters of the intelligent
design theory demand that their ideas be taught in biology classes
alongside the theory of evolution.
36. However, in 2005 the intelligent
design
creationists also suffered a setback when the Pennsylvania judge John
Jones declared that the teaching of intelligent design in schools
violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
37. Nevertheless, creationism (or
neocreationism) is
still well-developed in the English-speaking countries, especially the
United States and Australia. While most curricula in Europe today
unashamedly teach evolution as a recognised scientific theory, the same
does not apply to the United States. In July 2005, the Pew Research
Center conducted a poll that showed that 64% of Americans favoured the
teaching of intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution and
that 38% would support the total abandonment of the teaching of
evolution in publicly owned schools. The American President George W.
Bush supports the principle of teaching both intelligent design and the
theory of evolution. At the moment, 20 of the 50 American states are
facing potential adjustments of their school curricula in favour of
intelligent design.
Creationism in Europe
38. Many people think that this
phenomenon only
affects the United States and that, even if it is not possible to be
indifferent to what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, it
is not the Council of Europe’s role to deal with this issue. That,
however, is not the case. On the contrary, it would seem
crucial for us to take the appropriate precautions in our 47 member
states.
39. Alongside Christian creationism
there is now
Muslim creationism: the creationist arguments of Christian origin
became popular among the Muslims with the rise of the Islamist
movements at the beginning of the 1980s.
40. Today, creationists of all faiths
are trying to
get their ideas accepted in Europe. As a result, we have seen several
initiatives from these various movements on the Eurasian continent in
the last few years, with schools apparently the main target. The
beginning of 2007 saw an offensive by the Turkish creationist Harun
Yahya, who sent his last and very lavish work, entitled “The Atlas of
Creation”, which claims to denounce the deception of the theory of
evolution, to a large number of French, Belgian, Spanish and Swiss
schools. In France, the Ministry of Education, after consulting
specialists, immediately reacted by expressly calling for this work to
be removed from the resource centres of the schools concerned as the
book met none of the quality requirements laid down for classroom
teaching.
41. The creationists are attacking on
two fronts:
they either deny the scientific nature of evolution or try to put the
lack of certainty at the centre of the debate that pits them against
the supporters of the theory of evolution. To this end, they rely on
the fact that the science of evolution, like any science, is not
“closed”, ie it casts doubt on certain elements or describes others in
greater detail (without this calling into question the foundations on
which it is based).
42. For the creationists of all
persuasions, the
element of uncertainty that surrounds scientific work on the subject of
creation and evolution is much too large to give this theory sufficient
credence. Do they need to be reminded that this applies to all science?
It is only necessary to cite the example of the atom, which was
considered indivisible and was then split into its nucleus and
electrons, after which quarks were discovered. However, these
scientific discoveries have never challenged the basis of atomic
theory! A scientific theory produces new knowledge that it tries to
interpret according to the prevailing paradigms, which forces the
theory to evolve in order to take account of these new data.3
However, reviewing and evolving a theory does not mean calling into
question its basic principle, and the same applies to the theory of
evolution.
43. While the most radical creationists
adhere to a
crude denialism by completely denying the scientific advances and
discoveries concerning the evolution of species, other creationist
movements proclaim themselves scientific, a claim that is completely
contradictory. So-called scientific creationism is in fact the desire
to place the narrative of the holy books on a scientific basis.
However, as Guillaume Lecointre emphasises, just as the
construction of a myth has nothing in common with the construction of a
scientific assertion, the statements made in the context of the two
theories have very little chance of tying up with one another.
Other movements promote the idea that evolution has indeed taken place
but is the result of the act of a transcendent will, an “intelligent
design”.
44. In the light of these assertions and
other
claims of scientific legitimacy emanating from various creationist
movements, it is justified to ask: How can the creationists claim
to be able to provide scientific proof for what they are saying? The
scientific nature of an assertion depends to a large extent on the
ability to verify its objectivity by reproducing experiments or
observations. As we shall show, the scientific character of the
alternative ideas put forward by the creationists can be seriously
called into question, indeed totally refuted.
45. While the evolution sciences
have evolved
considerably since Darwin, the creationists have not gone beyond their
pitiful level of quibbling4. Evolution
has not stopped “evolving” since Darwin theorised it. Science is a body
of knowledge constantly being built and rebuilt. The scientific
approach consists in continually questioning models, which remain true
unless and until they have been refuted. The creationist arguments have
never evolved and are not based on any scientific proof. Facts are
presented without theory, or theoretical arguments are put forward
without any facts to confirm or refute them. Creationism appears more
dogmatic than scientific.
46. Guillaume Lecointre has shown that
they have
been somewhat cavalier with regard to elementary rules of science. The
first breach of these rules is their lack of scepticism. In every
creationist experiment, faith imposes a preconceived idea of the
expected result.
Faith does not permit them objectively to accept the result of a
scientific experiment if it does not correspond to their beliefs, so it
would seem impossible to reconcile faith and science. The second breach
noted concerns the fact that even if the creationists seem to comply
with the principles of logic, that logic is based on false premises,
indeed on a tendentious selection of facts. Finally, mention
may be made of a large number of breaches of the principles of
methodological materialism and experimentation. As G. Lecointre
emphasises, scientific creationism is by definition the very
opposite of science because it denies the need for recourse […] to
material realities […] in order to establish truths. However, let
us repeat: it is not possible to establish knowledge without scientific
evidence and without verifying its objectivity and scientific character
by the reproduction of experiments and/or observations. The
creationists make a number of claims that cannot be scientifically
tested and are thus not provable. It is therefore easy to see through
the deception of the creationists who claim to follow scientific
principles. This deception is all the greater as, being aware that it
is impossible for them to prove scientifically what their dogma
advocates, some creationists even go so far as to fabricate facts and
evidence. Thus, apart from the absurd interpretations put forward by
some creationists, it would seem that others do not hesitate to
fabricate “pseudo” evidence to try to prove the scientific nature of
their statements.
47. Thus the Turkish preacher Harun
Yahya seems to
employ both these methods. In his numerous anti-Darwinist works, he
tries to prove the absurdity and unscientific nature of the theory of
evolution, which is for him only one of Satan’s greatest deceptions.
However, the pseudo-scientific method he uses in his work The Atlas
of Creation
cannot in any way be considered scientific. The author tries to prove
the non-scientific nature of the theory of evolution by taking and
challenging the evidence of evolution. He does not mention any prior
questioning. Moreover, as he only compares photographs of fossils to
photographs of current species he provides no scientific proof for
these statements. Even better, as Pascal Picq mentions by way of
example, on page 60 of this work we see a superb photograph of a fossil
of a perch with a claim in the caption that this fish has not evolved
over millions of years. That, however, is wrong: a detailed study of
the fossil and perches living today shows that, on the contrary, they
have evolved a great deal. Unfortunately, Yahya’s book is full of this
type of falsehood. None of the arguments in this work are based on any
scientific evidence, and the book appears more like a primitive
theological treatise that the scientific refutation of the theory of
evolution. It may be noted that Yahya says he has the support of major
scientists. They would also have to be specialists in the biology of
evolution!
48. Similar criticism can be made about
the
“pseudo”-scientific character of the intelligent design theory. Its
supporters present the Darwinian theory of evolution not as a
scientific theory but as an ideology or a “natural philosophy” and
therefore think it either cannot be taught in schools as a “science” or
that the intelligent design theory must be taught at the same time.
There is consequently a tendency to justify the inclusion of the
intelligent design ideas, which are presented as scientific because of
the total lack of any reference to the Bible and God, in the school
curricula. However, as G. Lecointre has shown, the intelligent design
theory is anti-science: any activity involving blatant scientific
fraud, intellectual deception or communication that blurs the nature,
objectives and limits of science may be called anti-science. The
intelligent design movement would seem to be anti-science for several
reasons. Firstly, the nature of the science is distorted. Secondly,
the
objectives of the science are distorted. The writings of the leaders of
this movement show that their motivations and objectives are not
scientific but religious.
49. The intelligent design theory
annihilates any
research process. It identifies difficulties and immediately jumps to
the conclusion that the only way to resolve them is to resort to an
intelligent cause without looking for other explanations. It is thus
unacceptable to want to teach it in science courses. It is not enough
to present it as an alternative theory in order to have it included in
the science syllabus. In order to claim to be scientific, it is only
necessary to refer to natural causes in one’s explanations. The
intelligent design theory, however, only refers to supernatural causes.
50. In addition, the failure to publish
the work
done by the various creationist movements is merely a reflection of
their non-acceptance by the scientific community. Harun Yahya has his
own publishing house, which enables him to publish his works in large
quantities. Without this, it would never have been possible to
disseminate them to the same extent. Moreover, there is no consensus on
one creationist theory in particular. Each of the numerous creationist
movements is convinced it possesses the truth. The fact is that the
theory of evolution is accepted virtually throughout the scientific
world, and the international scientific community’s lack of recognition
of the alternative ideas proves that the creationist movements,
whatever they may say, remain marginal and can accordingly not be given
sufficient weight for them to be included in the school curricula.
51. It therefore cannot be acceptable to
teach
alternative theories as science. That would constitute a danger in
itself and involve the risk of witnessing the development of many
different theories, each as absurd as the next. Moreover, it would only
sow discord among pupils and students.
52. In this connection, in accordance
with the
principle of an open attitude to the alternative theories advocated by
the scientific creationists, and in order to show the illogicality of
teaching the creationist theories alongside the theory of evolution, a
movement has, ironically, developed in the United States. The so-called
Pastafarian movement supports the theory of the Flying
Spaghetti Monster. Pastafarianism
is a parody on religion created in response to the decision of the
Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of intelligent
design in science courses on an equal footing with the theory of
evolution. According to Pastafarianism, an invisible and omniscient
being called the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe in one
day. The supporters of Pastafarianism are demanding the same place in
the school curricula as intelligent design. Full of irony, this
pseudo-religion is setting a trend and the cult is spreading.
Creationism and Education: The main
creationist
initiatives in Europe, overviews and reactions of the scientific and
religious communities
In Turkey:
53. Turkey, which has been one of the
few officially
secular Muslim countries since the republic was established by Mustafa
Kemal Atatürk in 1923, seems to be one of the main cradles of
Islamic
scientific creationism. As Jacques Arnoult5 has emphasised, “Turkey
appears to be one of the most active and most highly structured centres
of this fundamentalist school of thought”.
54. The Turkish Islamist preacher Harun
Yahya, whose
real name is Adnan Oktar, is one of the most symbolic figures of this
movement. He is around fifty years old and has been publishing works on
creation or religion for about twenty years. He also has his own
publishing house, Global, the head office of which is in
Istanbul. In 1991, Oktar set up the science and research foundation
Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (BAV). Since its establishment, BAV has been very
active in trying to have any reference to evolution removed from
Turkish education. It also organises many conferences on creationism in
the principal Turkish towns and cities. It would seem that BAV has
close links to the American Institute for Creation Research (ICR).
55. The latest work by Harun Yahya
appeared in December 2006 and is entitled “The Atlas of Creation”.
It is a large book and is the first volume of a series of seven. It
attempts to refute Darwinism and the theory of evolution in 772 richly
illustrated pages. Its conclusion is clear: “creation is a fact”
and “evolution is a deception”. Moreover, the author sharply
condemns “the secret links between Darwinism and the ideologies with
blood on their hands, such as fascism and communism”. At
the beginning of 2007 Yahya launched an offensive aimed at the mass
distribution of his work in Europe and throughout the world.
56. It should also be noted that the
creationist
ideas are already to be found in some Turkish school textbooks, and 75%
of Turkish secondary school students do not believe the theory of
evolution. However, protest movements have been set up in Turkey. A
commission was created in 1998 to respond to the criticism and the
creationist attacks on evolutionist ideas and to try to warn the
public. TÜBA, the Turkish Academy of Sciences, and TÜBITAK,
the Turkish
Scientific and Technological Research Council, have also taken up a
stance in favour of evolution.
In France:
57. The Harun Yahya offensive:
In early 2007, the Turkish creationist Harun Yahya sent his work
entitled “The Atlas of Creation” to a very large number of
French schools and resource centres. In response, the Minister
of Education, Gilles de Robien, called on chief education officers to
ensure that this book "which
does not correspond to the content of the curricula drawn up by the
Ministry, is not available at school resource centres”.
Hervé
LeGuyader, Professor of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Paris
VI, was tasked by the General National Education Inspectorate with
producing a detailed analysis of this atlas. He considers the book to
be “Much more dangerous than the previous creationist initiatives,
which were often of Anglo-Saxon origin”. He believes that the
lavishness of the work and the method employed by the author could “prove
highly effective in the case of an uninformed public. He also finds
that the scientific content of this book is “pathetically
inadequate”. “The Atlas of Creation” has also been sent to
many journalists.
58. The Interdisciplinary University
of Paris (UIP): The
UIP, an association set up under the Law of 1901, was established in
1995 to replace the European University of Paris, which was founded in
1989 to succeed the Popular University of Paris. Supported at the
beginning by a number of prestigious companies, it has gradually been
abandoned by its sponsors owing to the suspicions of neocreationism
raised against it. It is actively working on the introduction of
spirituality into the sciences and society and is also said to be very
closely allied to the American intelligent design movement. The
transmission on ARTE in October 2005 of the Thomas Johnson documentary Homo
sapiens, a new history of Man
was, incidentally, very controversial in France. It seems to have been
very largely inspired by the work of Anne Dambricourt-Malassé,
who is
responsible for research at the National Scientific Research Centre
CNRS, is attached to the Paris Natural History Museum and was at that
time a member of the UIP’s scientific council. The documentary was
accused of conveying a neocreationist message and helping the UIP’s
cause.
In Switzerland:
59. The activities of Harun Yahya in
French-speaking Switzerland: In March 2007, a very large number of
schools in French-speaking Switzerland also received Harun Yahya’s work
“The Atlas of Creation”.
Georges Schürch, Director General of the Orientation Cycles in the
Canton of Geneva, said that the company responsible for distributing
this work in French-speaking Switzerland had given him a thousand
copies to distribute. He pointed out on that occasion that no new work
could be authorised for use in schools without a prior examination.
60. Jacqueline Horneffer, Deputy Public
Education
Secretary in the Canton of Geneva, called on educational establishments
to refuse to take delivery of this work, which they did. According to
her, “the book does not correspond to current scientific theories
and does not comply with the principle of the separation of secular and
religious education”. In Switzerland, “The Atlas of Creation”
has also been sent to journalists and scientists.
61. The European Biblical Centre: The
creationists are also represented in Switzerland by the European
Biblical Centre and its facilitator Daniel Mathez. The Centre is a
creationist publisher that has already published around fifteen works.
62. The ProGenesis group: The
small Swiss
creationist group ProGenesis is working for the rehabilitation of the
Book of Genesis. Its aim is to assert creationism over evolutionism and
to do so by means of media or play. In this connection, it has set up a
project called Genesis-Land, which is a leisure park that might be
constructed in northern Switzerland and would aim “to disseminate
the Christian message as a counterweight to the Darwin’s omnipresent
theory of evolution”.
In Belgium:
63. Creationist attempt at
infiltration into Belgian schools: After France, and parallel to
the offensive conducted in Switzerland, Harun Yahya launched the
distribution of his Atlas of Creation
in Belgium in March 2007. In a circular letter dated 22 March 2007,
Marie Arena, the Minister in charge of compulsory education and social
development, warned “all education staff against the values
promoted by this document” and went on to say that she was “counting
on everyone being vigilant [...] to ensure that it (could) in no way
constitute an educational tool for the pupils’ use”
64. Mobilisation of the Brussels
university community: Since
early 2007, Belgian academics at the Free University of Brussels, have
held a series of lectures on “God or Darwin?”. Among the various works
there is a study by Laurence Perbal, a university lecturer, on “the
evaluation of the opinion of secondary and higher education students in
Brussels concerning the concepts of evolution”. This study shows in
particular “that
a large proportion of the individuals questioned seem to think that the
Darwinian theory of evolution only concerns the physical aspect of
human beings and not their soul or conscience”. At the same time, “a
large proportion of the students say they have never heard of the
Darwinian theory of evolution even though it is part of the biology
curriculum for the last year of secondary school”.
In Poland:
65. The theory of evolution and
Darwinism were
publicly called into question in the autumn of 2006 by the Polish
Deputy Minister of Education and Lodz MP, Mirosław Orzechowski, a
member of the League of Polish Families (LPR, an extreme right-wing,
ultra-Catholic party). He said that “the theory of evolution is a
lie, a mistake that has been legalised as a common truth, adding
that “We must not teach lies, just as we must not teach evil in the
place of good and ugliness in the place of beauty." Finally,
according to him the evolutionist theory is only “a story, a piece
of literature that could be used as a background for a science fiction
film”.
Just before that, in early October 2006, Maciej Giertych, an LPR member
of the European Parliament and father of the Polish Minister of
Education Roman Giertych, had called for the withdrawal of the
Darwinian theory from school curricula, arguing that it was not “supported
by evidence”.
In Russia:
66. In Russia in February 2007, a young
16-year-old
girl and her father brought an action against the Ministry of Education
and Science because they did not accept the fact that the school
biology textbooks only offer one theory, that of evolution, which, they
said, was incompatible with their beliefs. The plaintiffs were
supported by members of the Russian Orthodox Church. It would seem that
the teaching of the theory of evolution in Russia today is being
increasingly called into question by pupils and their parents, who want
access to teaching that is closer to their religious and personal
convictions. Father Vsevolod Chaplin, deputy head of the Department of
External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, deplores the ideological
character of the theory of evolution, which has been the only theory
taught in Russian schools since the Soviet era. He is appealing for the
right of pupils and their parents to education that does not run
counter to their faith, a right, he says, that is guaranteed by
international legislation.
In Italy:
67. Letizia Moratti, at the time Italian
Minister of
Education and Research in the Berlusconi government, proposed in
February 2004, in the context of educational reforms, and especially
changes to the school curricula, a decree aimed at abolishing the
teaching of the theory of evolution in primary and secondary schools.
There were no longer any courses on the theory of evolution in the
school curricula. The Italian scientific and journalistic communities
then took action. A commission was charged with considering this issue
in April 2004 and submitted its report in February 2005, in which it
pointed out that the study of evolution was crucial for an overall view
of life and noted the importance of the natural sciences in our modern
culture. At the same time, it emphasised that the teaching of the
Darwinian theories makes it possible to prevent racism and eugenics.
Since then, no new decree has been published. The reforms are said to
be still in progress but are not likely to permit the removal of the
Darwinian theories from the school curricula.
In Greece:
68. Without actually being banned from
the school
curriculum, the theory of evolution is often relegated to the final
part of the course, ie the end of the school year. As a result, it is
rarely studied at secondary school owing to a lack of time.
In the United Kingdom:
69. In the United Kingdom, creationists
hold
lectures at state schools and the universities. In the summer of 2006,
England hosted the largest international creationist symposium over a
period of three days. The UK’s biggest teaching union, the National
Union of Teachers (NUT) sounded the alarm bell and called for
legislation to combat the growing influence of religious groups in the
British education system, According to the NUT, giving more power to
the religious groups would probably damage social and intercultural
cohesion. 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 Council for Science
Education, have condemned attempts to introduce this.
In Serbia:
70. In 2004, the Minister of Education,
Liliana
Colić, was forced to resign after ordering schools to stop teaching the
Darwinian theory of evolution if the creationist ideas were not also
part of the school curricula. The Academy of Sciences and Arts and
around forty associations then condemned this danger, which they
described as a theocratic deviation.
In the Netherlands:
71. In 2005, the then Dutch Minister of
Education,
Maria Van der Hoeven, caused a stir by proposing the organisation of a
debate on the teaching of the theories of evolution in the country’s
schools. However, six years earlier a truce had been concluded between
the various political parties with the result that Darwinism is part of
the curriculum of all Dutch schools, including faith schools, which the
state funds without exercising any ideological control. In an
interview, Ms Van der Hoeven said that Charles Darwin’s theories were
incomplete and that new things had been discovered since, especially by
the proponents of the intelligent design theory. However, she announced
that she did not intend to introduce the creationist theories into the
school curricula but only wanted to confront their adherents with the
supporters of the theory of evolution. Ms Van der Hoeven’s initiative
only met with a weak response, including in her own party, the
Christian Democratic Alliance (CDA). D66, a centre-left party and an
ally of the CDA, is totally opposed to creationism and Darwinism being
placed on an equal footing. The VVD, a liberal right-wing party, is of
the same opinion.
In Sweden:
72. In Sweden, the first creationist
museum was opened in Umeå in 1996.
In Germany:
73. In a university town in the Land
of
Hesse, Germany, creationist ideas seem to have already been
disseminated at a number of schools. Teachers of life and earth
sciences at a state-approved private upper secondary school teach their
pupils that a creator is the origin of the various “main types” of
animals. After being alerted about this, some of the pupils’ parents
approached the Hesse Ministry of Education, which thought there had
been no direct infringement of the school curricula and said it was not
competent to deal with such issues. Some parents then removed their
children from this school.
In Spain:
74. One month after France, Mr Yahya’s Atlas
of Creation was received by some professors in the biology faculty
of the University of Barcelona and by the university library.
Positions adopted by the religious
authorities
The position of the Vatican and the
Christian religious movements
75. For a long time, the Catholic Church
was opposed
to transformism and then to evolutionism. However, this opposition has
to be understood in the context of the more general mistrust of science
prevailing at the time, given the international climate of socialism,
which it saw as a consequence of evolutionism. Thus, for a long time
there were clashes between the positivist revolutionaries and the
Catholics who supported the restoration of the monarchy. The Catholic
Church has clearly demonstrated for a very long time that it is
creationist. After the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church was
more discreet and almost remained aloof on this issue. This was until
1996, when, on 23 October, Pope John-Paul II recognised that Darwin’s
theories were “more than a hypothesis”. However, the debate on
evolution is still taking place within the Catholic Church today.
Several movements still defend creationism as a dogma. In July 2005,
Christoph von Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, published an
article
in the New York Times stating that the declarations made by
Pope John-Paul II could not be interpreted as recognising evolution. At
the same time, he repeated arguments put forward by the supporters of
the intelligent design theory. However, it is important to note that
the majority of contemporary Catholics now accept the neutrality of
science.
76. In the tradition of his predecessor,
Pope Benedict XVI now welcomes the role of the sciences in the
evolution of humanity: Science has opened up large dimensions of
reason that have been closed up to now and thus brought us new insights.
In early September 2006, he brought together a group of former students
and colleagues at Castel Gondolfo for a seminar on the evolutionism
versus creationism debate. He published the conclusions of this seminar
in mid-April 2007 in German under the title “Schöpfung und
Evolution” (Creation and Evolution). He does not support the
theory of creationism: the creationist position is based on an
interpretation of the Bible that the Catholic Church does not share. The
Pope rejects both a
creationism that categorically excludes science and the theory of
evolution, which hides its own weaknesses and does not want to see the
questions that arise beyond the methodological capacities of science. The
theory of evolution is considered too pervasive by
the Catholic Church, which seems above all to be worried about the
influence of social Darwinism and the evolutionist theories concerning
economic matters and medical ethics.
77. In Switzerland, the Council of
Christian
Churches in the canton of Vaud has declared that it does not see its
own views reflected in the statements and actions of the European
Biblical Centre movement run by Daniel Mathez.
Reactions of the Muslim organisations
78. As far as the Muslim organisations
are
concerned, they condemn the grotesque proselytising practised by Harun
Yahya. When questioned after the mass mailing to French schools of
Yahya’s book The Atlas of Creation, Dalil Boubakeur,
President of the French Council of Muslims replied that the theory of
evolution “does not conflict with the Koran”. He also considers
Yahya’s initiative “pernicious”: “He
tries to show that species have remained immutable, with photographs to
support his claim, but he fails to explain the disappearance of certain
species or the emergence of others”. Boubakeur says he is “convinced
that evolution is a scientific fact” adding that some verses of the
Koran explicitly mention “a cyclical evolution” of the human
race. In an interview with Le Monde in February 2007, the sociologist
Malek Chebel said that “Islam
has never been afraid of science … Islam does not need to be afraid of
Darwinism … Islam does not fear the story of evolutions and of the
mutations of the human race”. He points out that the Koran
addresses the question of the creation of human beings by God but not
that of the mutations of species. According to him, “The Atlas of
Creation is the product of a sectarian organisation close to the
Turkish extreme right, which disseminates “truths” on glossy paper that
have nothing to do with Islam”. Finally, he expects there to be “future
confrontations on this issue between fundamental Islam and the Islam of
the Enlightenment”. For the Swiss Association of Muslims for
Secularism, founded by Ali Benouari, “religion must not challenge
science”.
Stance adopted by the international
scientific community
79. On 21 June 2006, a declaration by
the
InterAcademy Panel (IAP) on the teaching of evolution was signed by the
academies of sciences of 67 states, 27 of them member states of the
Council of Europe. They called on “decision makers, teachers, and
parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of
science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature.
Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to
meet human needs and protect the planet“. The scientific community
recognises that “there are still many open questions about the
precise details of evolutionary change” but refuses to challenge
some of the results of its research.
Conclusion: the denial of evolution
is particularly harmful to children’s education
80. Prohibiting the teaching of key
theories, such
as evolution, is totally against children’s educational interests.
Education has a duty to be a means of enabling children, young people
and adults to become important players in the transformation of
societies, whereas adopting a denialist stance on scientifically proven
theories constitutes a brake on education and the intellectual and
personal development of thousands of children. Science is a
prominent player and plays a big and active role in this process of the
evolution and transformation of societies.
81. The knowledge it provides cannot be
arbitrarily
challenged. By denying proven facts, the creationist theories do not
contribute to the transformation of societies but to making them become
archaic. The creationists are in fact supporters of a radical
return to the past, which could prove particularly harmful in the long
term for all our societies. This is therefore a crucial issue.
82. As we have seen, evolution is not
simply a
matter of the evolution of humans and populations. It now pervades the
whole of science and is one of its fundamental principles, so it
appears legitimate to consider the consequences that denying evolution
could have on the development of our societies. How, for example, can
advances be made in medical research with the aim of effectively
combating diseases like AIDS if every principle of evolution is denied?
Basically, evolution pervades all medical research. How can we consider
living in a world without medicine? That appears absurd, but removing
the teaching of evolution from the curriculum, as advocated by the
creationists, could result in a considerable reduction in, if not the
end of, medical research.
83. In addition, the “scientific”
approach adopted
by the creationists to put forward and support their ideas is itself a
particularly dangerous instrument of mental manipulation: presenting a
thesis as a scientific theory without providing any evidence can be
compared to an attempt to manipulate minds for purposes that are,
moreover, scarcely virtuous. As Charles Otis Whitman, an American
zoologist (1842-1910) wrote, “Facts without theory is chaos, but
theory without facts is fantasy”. Accordingly, as G. Lecointre
notes, any clever manipulator relies on “facts” alone.
84. By only presenting facts without any
theory or
proof, Harun Yahya abuses the credulity of individuals who listen to
him or read his works. Moreover, as Jacques Arnoult emphasises6,
the BAV and Harun Yahya in Turkey, just like the American Institute for
Creation Research, resort to partial, indeed erroneous, references to
develop their creationist arguments. The
authors do not hesitate to quote magazine articles that defend
evolution but they succeed in turning the meaning round by shortening
the quotations. This is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty,
which is particularly harmful.
85. Harun Yahya refutes the theory of
evolution by
systematically referring to the Koran. However, as Malek Chebel has
stressed, the Koran does not mention evolution directly but only
creation.
86. The science of evolution, like any
science, does
not claim to answer the question “why things are” but simply seeks to
consider how they work.
87. Some creationist fundamentalists
attack Darwinism and materialism by accusing them of being the “real
ideological source of terrorism”. “Darwinism is the basis of several
violent ideologies that brought disaster to the human race in the 20th
century”. Is it necessary to point out that human beings did not
await the publication in 1859 of Darwin’s work The Origin of
Species to
indulge in a large number of massacres? How many people have died in
the name of religious wars? The use of religion, like the reference to
social Darwinism by some dictatorial regimes, is insufficient and
cannot in any way call into question the theory of evolution or
religion. Social Darwinism is an ideology that claims to have been
inspired by Darwin but it has nothing to do with the Darwinian theory
of evolution7. Moreover, it is impossible to ascribe all
the evils on Earth to Darwin and his theory of evolution. He is not
responsible for the deviations from his theory after his death.
It is absolutely scandalous to present Darwin as the father of
terrorism, and that may sow doubt and bewilderment in the minds of many
young and inexperienced individuals.
88. Finally, there are, especially in
the United
States, a number of aberrations inherent in the denialism practised
against evolution and in the accompanying proselytising. A documentary
film by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, entitled Jesus Camp and
released in the Uniter States in autumn 2006, provides evidence of
them. It shows a Pentecostal minister, Becky Fisher, who has opened in
a North Dakota forest a holiday camp overtly devoted to the
indoctrination of children. In front of the camera, she explains that
from the age of 7 to 9 a human being can be made to believe anything
and that that remains engraved in their brain for life. Fisher says she
found her model among the Muslim fundamentalists. This documentary
reveals all the violence and fanaticism of the most radical of the
creationist movements and the effectiveness with which they succeed in
manipulating human beings.
89. The creationists claim that
evolution is only
one interpretation of the world among others, but that is not the case.
The truth and scientific nature of evolution remain irrefutable today.
However, it must be repeated that the science of evolution cannot claim
to give an explanation as to “why things are” but tries to explain how
things are happening or have happened. The theory of evolution
constitutes a body of fundamental knowledge for the future of our
democracies and cannot be arbitrarily challenged.
90. It is important to point out that
the theory of
evolution has had a profound effect on science in general, philosophy,
religion and many other aspects of human society (for example,
agriculture). Evolution has also entered the field of psychology:
evolutionist psychology is a field of psychology that aims to explain
the mechanisms of human thought on the basis of the theory of
biological evolution. It is based on the fundamental hypothesis that
the brain, like all the other organs, is the result of evolution and
thus constitutes an adaptation to specific environmental constraints,
to which the ancestors of the Hominidae were forced to respond.
91. With creationism today, we are
witnessing a
growth of modes of thought which, the better to impose religious dogma,
are attacking the very core of the knowledge that we have built up
little by little concerning nature, evolution, our origins and our
place in the universe. There can be no doubt that this is a serious
attack on human rights.
92. There is a great risk of a serious
confusion
being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with
convictions, beliefs and ideals and what has to do with science, and of
the advent of an “all things are equal” attitude, which may seem
appealing and tolerant but is actually extremely harmful8.
93. Creationism has many contradictory
aspects. The
“intelligent design” theory, which is the latest, more refined version
of creationism, does not completely deny a degree of evolution.
However, this school of thought has hardly provided any fuel for the
scientific debate up to now9. Though more subtle in its
presentation, the doctrine of intelligent design is no less dangerous.
94. The teaching of evolution by natural
selection
as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future
of our societies and our democracies. For that reason evolution
must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the
science syllabus.
If we prevent our students from accessing scientific knowledge, we run
the risk of their being unable to compete effectively with other
students who are being educated in states where science has a key
status.
95. Evolution is not simply a matter of
the
evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious
consequences for the development of our societies. How can advances be
made in medical research with the aim of effectively combating diseases
like AIDS if every principle of evolution is denied? How can one be
fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in
biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not
understood? 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.
96. 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 rejection of all science is definitely
one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.
97. The teaching of alternative theories
can only be
considered if they provide sufficient guarantees as to the scientific
nature and truth of the ideas put forward.
98. The alternative ideas currently
presented by the
creationists cannot claim to offer these guarantees, so it is
inconceivable that they can be allowed to be taught within the
scientific disciplines, either alongside or instead of the theory of
evolution.
99. The creationist ideas could,
however, be presented in an educational context other than that of a
scientific discipline.
The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching
culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and
individual belief, creationist theories, like any other theological
position, could possibly be described in the context of giving more
space to cultural and religious education.
100. At the same time, it is necessary
to consider
the causes of such a challenge to the theory of evolution. This theory
leaves itself open to many attacks but that could perhaps be explained
by the poor way in which it is taught, especially from the
epistemological point of view.
101. These reflections lead us to
conclude that
better teaching or the more appropriate teaching of the sciences and
evolution might enable the dissemination of alternative pseudo-theories
such as those of the creationists to be combated effectively. It is
necessary to avoid doubt entering individuals minds with regard to
fundamental scientific knowledge. This importance of quality science
teaching that is better suited to the realities of daily life was
highlighted in the report on students’ declining interest in scientific
studies.
102. Science provides irreplaceable
training in
intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to
understand how they work.
103. Jacques Arnoult10,
a research scientist but also a Dominican monk wrote: “I confine belief
to religion, human relations, indeed intelligence, but not science.
Science is a matter of reason, observation and hypothesis, theory and
testing. It has its rules and its areas of application”.
104. A detailed study of the growing
influence of
the creationists shows that the discussions between creationism and
evolutionism go well beyond intellectual disputes. If we are not
careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe
will be in danger of being directly threatened by the creationist
fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council’s
parliamentarians to react before it is too late.
105. In order to produce this rapport,
we consulted
the various works by Jacques Arnoult, a researcher at the French
National Centre of Space Studies (CNES); Hervé LeGuyader,
Professor of
Evolutionary Biology at the University of Paris VI - Pierre and Marie
Curie; Pascal Picq, a palaeoanthropologist at the Collège de
France,
with all of whom the rapporteur had some very rewarding discussions;
and Guillaume Lecointre, a professor at the National Natural History
Museum in Paris. The rapporteur also consulted the collective work
entitled Découvrir la Biologie by Michael Cain, Hans
Damman, Robert Lue and Carol Kaesuk Yoon, published by DeBoeck (English
title: Discover Biology, Sunderland, Mass., Sinauer Associates,
2002) and Schöpfung und Evolution,
a report, published by Sankt Ulrich Verlag, of a seminar held at Castel
Gondolfo in September 2006 under the chairmanship of Pope Benedict XVI.
In addition to the book by Harun Yahya already mentioned, a number of
articles on creationism as seen by its supporters were found on the
internet.
* * *
Reporting Committee: Committee
on Culture, Science and Education
Reference to Committee: Doc.
11065, Reference No. 3287 of 22 January 2007
Draft Recommendation adopted by
the Committee on 31 May 2007 with one vote against and one abstention
Members of the Committee: Mr
Jacques Legendre (Chairman), Baroness Hooper, Mr Wolfgang
Wodarg, Mrs Anne Brasseur, (Vice-Chairpersons), Mr Hans Ager,
Mr Toomas Alatalu, Mr. Kornél Almássy, Mr Lars
Barfoed, Mr Rony Bargetze, Mr Lars Bartos, Mrs Marie-Louise
Bemelmans-Videc (Alternate: Mr Dees), Mr Radu Mircea
Berceanu, Mr Levan Berdzenishvili, Mrs Oksana Bilozir, Mrs Maria Luisia
Boccia (Alternate: Mr Stefano Morselli), Mrs Margherita
Boniver, Mr Ioannis Bougas, Mr Osman Coşkunoğlu, Mr Vlad Cubreacov, Mr
Ivica Dačić, Mrs Maria Damanaki, Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr
Stepan Demirchyan, Mr Ferdinand Devinski, Mrs Åse Gunhild
Woie Duesund, Mr Detlef Dzembritzki, Mrs Anke Eymer, Mr Relu
Fenechiu, Mrs Blanca Fernández-Capel, Mrs Maria Emelina Fernández-Soriano,
Mr Axel Fischer, Mr José Freire Antunes, Mr
Eamon Gilmore, Mr Stefan Glǎvan, Mr Luc Goutry, Mr Vladimir Grachev, Mr
Andreas Gross, Mr Jean-Pol Henry, Mr Rafael Huseynov,
Mr Fazail Ibrahimli, Mrs Halide İncekara, Mrs Evguenia Jivkova, Mr
Morgan Johansson, Mrs Dagny Jónsdóttir, Mr Ali Rashid
Khalil, Mr József Kozma, Mr Jean-Pierre Kucheida,
Mr Markku Laukkanen,
Mr Guy Lengagne, Mrs Jagoda Majska-Martinčević, Mr Tomasz Markowski,
Mr Andrew McIntosh, Mr Ivan Melnikov (Alternate; Mr Alexander Fomenko),
Mrs Maria Manuela Melo, Mrs Assunta Meloni, Mr Paskal Milo,
Mrs Christine Muttonen, Mrs Miroslava Nĕmcová,
Mr Edward O’Hara (Alternate: Mr Robert Walter), Mr Kent Olsson,
Mr Andrey Pantev, Mrs Antigoni Pericleous Papadopoulos, Mr Azis Pollozhani,
Mrs Majda Potrata, Mr Dušan Proroković, Mr Lluis Maria de Puig
(Alternate: Mrs María Josefa Porteiro), Mr Zbigniew Rau
(Alternate: Mr Zbigniew Girzynski),
Mrs Anta Rugāte, Mr André Schneider, Mr Urs Schweitzer, Mr
Vitaliy
Shybko, Mrs Geraldine Smith, Mrs Albertina Soliani, Mr Yury Solonin, Mr
Christophe Spiliotis-Saquet (Alternate: Mr Bernard Marquet), Mr
Valeriy Sudarenkov, Mr Petro Symonenko, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu,
Mr Ed van Thijn, Mr Piotr Wach, Mr Emanuelis Zingeris
N.B : The names of the members who
took part in the meeting are printed in bold
Head of the Secretariat: Mr
Grayson
Secretaries to the Committee: Mr
Ary, Mr Dossow
1 Jacques Arnoult, Dieu
Versus Darwin, Albin Michel, February 2007 p. 33.
2 Hervé LeGuyader,
biologist, Professor at the University of Paris VI - Pierre and Marie
Curie.
3 Pascal Picq, Lucy et
l’Obscurantisme, Odile Jacob, April 2007, p. 166
4 Pascal Picq, op. cit.,
p.98.
5 Jacques Arnoult, op.
cit., p. 135
6 Jacques Arnoult, op.
cit., p. 142.
7 Pascal Picq, op. cit.,
pp. 152-153.
8 Pascal Picq, op.
cit., pp.10-12.
9 Jacques Arnoult, op.
cit., p. 256.
10 Jacques Arnoult,op.
cit, pp.272-273.
|
