EU officially labels criticism of Darwinism an assault on human rights
STRASBOURG, France (Reuters)—Europe’s main human rights body voted on Thursday to urge schools across the continent to firmly oppose [sic] the teaching of creationist and “intelligent design” views in their science classes.
The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted “in forms of religious extremism” and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.
Ben W. writes:
Interesting, that a critique of a theory (just a theory, only a hypothesis!) is labelled an “attack” and an “assault” on HUMAN RIGHTS. Wow!
Reviewing and critiquing the liberal body of myths, theories and hypothesis is interpreted as dangerous to human rights.
VFR addressing issues of intelligence, race, culture and sexual roles would be crucified in Europe!
James P. writes:
What was most interesting about that story about the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly resolving that creationism was a “dangerous assault on science and human rights” was that the creationism in question was Islamic creationism:
“Pressure to teach creationism is weaker in Europe, but has been mounting. An Assembly committee took up the issue because Harun Yahya has been sending his lavish Islamic creationist book “Atlas of Creation” to schools in several countries.”
Why are they choosing this particular issue to grow a backbone?
How odd that “Islamic creationism” is considered a “dangerous assault on science and human rights” but not Islam itself. Instead of attacking the disease itself, they are attacking one of its most trivial symptoms.
LA replies:
Thanks for pointing this out. I had missed the reference to the Muslim creationist. But I wouldn’t say this means the EU is opposing only Muslim creationism. The article as a whole makes it clear they are principally concerned about Christianity and Intelligent Design, which, predictably, they ignorantly describe as Creationism.
Alan Roebuck writes:
The EU’s official condemnation of opposition to Darwinism highlights at least two important truths: that Darwinism is crucial to the secular religion of liberalism (supplying the creation account that any complete religion must have), and that intelligent design and even biblical creationism are becoming major threats to Darwinism, necessitating an official government response.
Why would opposition to Darwinism be “a dangerous assault on … human rights?” Because if Darwinism is discredited, theism becomes plausible, and man is no longer the supreme being. Darwinist apologists typically laugh off the assertion that Darwinism leads to atheism and therefore liberalism (although the more honest Darwinists insist on atheism), but the EU is providing strong empirical evidence of just such a connection: Since “human rights” is presumably a code phrase for the leftist agenda, they are openly admitting that anti-Darwinism is anti-liberalism.
Since Darwinism is supported mainly by the presupposition of naturalism (i.e., atheism), which science cannot validate, means other than the normal activities of science must be invoked to protect the authoritative status of Darwinism. Thus we have legislation aimed at silencing intelligent design and creationism, legislation which is really for the purpose of protecting liberalism.
This shows the importance for traditionalist apologetics of having a persuasive critique of Darwinism. Darwinism is a deeply-held belief of the left, and it will take much work to discredit it among America’s highly educated ruling classes.
LA replies:
If there is a divine creator who made life, then (1) there is a truth in the universe higher than the human self; (2) the human self is not the sovereign definer of its own concept of existence and of right and wrong; (3) human selves vary in moral worth in accordance with how much they follow or resist a truth that they did not create; and therefore (4) the belief in the universal moral equality of human beings and in non-discrimination as the controlling principle of human relations, as embodied in human-rights laws, is false. Thus to criticize Darwinism on the basis of divine creation or intelligent design is to attack human rights.
Ben W. writes:
So if an attack on Darwinism is an attack on human rights, then it is just a matter of time until the EU examines other philosophies (like Christianity) and deems them also an attack on human rights. Isn’t this decision about protecting Darwinism just a step on the way to exhaustively and comprehensively examining every other belief system. So does Europe, since WW2, move from military totalitarianism to intellectual totalitarianism? Isn’t this frightful when the state examines the content of belief systems and assigns some higher protection and priority?
Ted Jones writes:
James P. doesn’t understand why VFR brings out EU’s decision to protect Darwinism. Darwinism is a part of the liberal body of beliefs that has rendered Europe vulnerable to the Islamic “surge” (how ironic to use that term). Liberalism is an aggregation of beliefs, concepts and theories (as Alan Roebuck points out). Any one of its components acts as a destructive cell that kills the body’s immune system.
___________
Here is the article:
Council of Europe firmly opposes creationism in school
Oct 4, 2007
By Gilbert Reilhac
STRASBOURG, France (Reuters)—Europe’s main human rights body voted on Thursday to urge schools across the continent to firmly oppose the teaching of creationist and “intelligent design” views in their science classes.
The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted “in forms of religious extremism” and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.
The text said European schools should “resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion”. It said the “intelligent design” view defended by some United States conservatives was an updated version of creationism.
Creationism says God made the world in six days as depicted in the Bible. Intelligent design argues some life forms are too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin’s theory and needed an unnamed higher intelligence to develop as they have.
Anne Brasseur, an Assembly member from Luxembourg who updated an earlier draft resolution, said the report showed how creationists—most recently a shadowy Turkish Muslim writer Harun Yahya—were trying to infiltrate European schools.
“The purpose of this report is to warn against the attempt to pass off a belief—creationism—as a science and to teach the theses of this belief in science classes,” she said. “Its purpose is not to fight any belief.”
The vote was due in June but was postponed because some members felt the original text amounted to an attack on religious belief. A few changes were made to spell out that it was not directed against religion.
The Council, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, oversees human rights standards in member states and enforces decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
The resolution, which passed 48 votes to 25 with 3 abstentions, is not binding on the Council’s 47 member states but reflects widespread opposition among politicians to teaching creationism in science class.
Some conservatives in the United States, both religious and secular, have long opposed the teaching of evolution in public schools but U.S. courts have regularly barred them from teaching what they describe as religious views of creation.
Pressure to teach creationism is weaker in Europe, but has been mounting. An Assembly committee took up the issue because Harun Yahya has been sending his lavish Islamic creationist book “Atlas of Creation” to schools in several countries.
Supporters of intelligent design want it taught in science class alongside evolution. A U.S. court ruled this out in a landmark decision in 2005, dismissing it as “neo-creationism.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 05, 2007 06:15 PM | Send