Europa ed evoluzione
Domani, venerdì 29 giugno, al
parlamento europeo si discuterà del “dibattito sul dialogo interculturale e
interreligioso”. Originariamente la discussione e il voto erano previsti per
martedì scorso e, tra i tre rapporti previsti ve ne era uno dal titolo “I
pericoli del creazionismo nell'istruzione” (Guy Lengagne, Francia, partito
socialista) che, poi, però è stato rinviato alla commissione e, almeno in
questa occasione, non sarà dibattuto. Lo scopo della risoluzione è quella di
impedire che possa accadere che in una qualunque scuola europea vi sia chi
oltre, o in alternativa, alla teoria evoluzionistica presenti una qualunque
teoria che si rifaccia alla tradizione giudeocristiana della creazione. Non
sappiamo quanto tempo questo documento rimarrà in commissione né come sarà
modificato prima di essere ripresentato al parlamento,tuttavia è certo che il
progressivo montare di critiche nei confronti del Darwinismo, l’ascesa e la
diffusione di una rinnovata chiave di lettura dei fatti della scienza che ricolloca
all’origine del cosmo e della vita un “Essere razionale”, ha allarmato fino a
farli innervosire una folta schiera di intellettuali, di scienziati e di
politici che, se da una parte si sono trincerati in un dogmatismo antiteistico
(più che ateistico), dall’altra non hanno tardato di passare ai fatti.
Il documento1 è lungo, complesso e
merita di essere esaminato nei dettagli.
Tuttavia, rimando tale critica al
momento in cui sarà presentato in forma definitiva.
Adesso mi accontento di segnalarvi
alcuni passi come:
«L’assemblea parlamentare è
preoccupata per i possibili effetti deleteri della diffusione delle teorie
creazioniste nell’ambito del nostro sistema d’istruzione e intorno alle
conseguenze che potrebbero avere per le nostre democrazie. Se non stiamo
attenti, il creazionismo potrebbe divenire una minaccia per i diritti umani,
che per il Consiglio d’Europa costituiscono una questione chiave» (Doc. 11297,
A.1).
Ed ancora:
«Vi è il rischio concreto che si
introduca nella mente dei nostri bambini una seria confusione tra
ciò che ha a che fare con le
convinzioni, credenze e ideali, e ciò che riguarda la scienza, e con il farsi
strada di una certa attitudine del “tutte le cose sono uguali” che, seppure può
sembrare attraente e tollerante, è in effetti disastrosa» (Ibidem, A.6).
Così, credere che all’origine del
cosmo e della vita in tutte le sue forme vi sia un Creatore razionale, un
Essere intelligente, costituisce una minaccia per i diritti umani, mentre
attribuire l’esistenza della vita umana al lungo e violento processo che ha consacrato
il trionfo dei forti (“i più adatti”) sui deboli dovrebbe garantire la tutela
dei medesimi diritti. Mah... Chissà cosa ne direbbero Hitler, Himmler,
Mussolini e compagni.
Così siamo condannati a vivere in
un mondo irrimediabilmente diviso tra ciò che è “razionale e scientifico” e ciò
che è “irrazionale e religioso” senza nessuna speranza di poter trovare un
senso, un significato alla vita stessa e che fuggire l’angoscia di un’esistenza
senza significato dobbiamo necessariamente proiettarci in una dimensione che
neghi la nostra prerogativa umana, che ci faccia rinunciare alla nostra razionalità.
Nubi minacciose vengono da Nord.
Evangelici (o dovrei dire “evangelicali”?) Per amore di Dio, della Verità e
delle generazioni future: VIGILATE E NON TACETE!
1 Reperibile all’indirizzo: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm
Diamo di seguito il testo reperibile all’indirizzo di cui sopra:
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 Center 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.