|
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.
|
