Creationism as a Human RIghts Problem.

[busterdog]

European human rights body fights creationism
TOM HENEGHAN
Reuters
June 20, 2007 at 8:29 AM EDT
PARIS — Europe's main human-rights body will vote on a proposal next week to defend the teaching of evolution and to keep creationist and "intelligent design" out of science class in state schools in its 47 member countries.

The unusual move shows that a U.S. trend for religiously based attacks on the theory of evolution is also worrying European politicians, who now see such arguments put forward in their countries by Christian and Islamic groups.

A report for the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly says the campaign against evolution has its roots "in forms of religious extremism" and is a dangerous attack on scientific knowledge.

"Today, creationists of all faiths are trying to get their ideas accepted in Europe," it said. "If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights."

The Council, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, oversees human-rights standards in member states and enforces decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

Somehow I feel validated by this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ional/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070620.wcreate0620

Ah, Strasbourg!

 

[Assyrian]

Oh Good.

 

[arunma]

I'm not personally a creationist. But if I may ask: how does creationism constitute a human rights violation? Though I obviously don't believe that creationism should be taught in school, I can't help but see this as a veiled attempt to perpetuate atheism in Europe.

 

[mark kennedy]

Apparently Harun Yahya's two volume set, The Atlas of Creation is being distributed to classrooms across Europe. The disingenuous color of the report is simply too blatant to pass up. From the report:

"The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies,"​

What do I perceive as phony baloney you may well be wondering? Only that this was written by a socialist:

The report, drawn up by French Socialist Guy Lengagne for the Assembly's Committee on Culture, Science and Education, says creationist ideas could be discussed in non-scientific contexts, such as classes on culture or religious studies.​

Last time I checked the United States was one of the oldest and most successful democracies on the face of the planet. Our first 'Human Right' as Americans is a protection of our religious freedom. Far from being a protection of basic human rights this is a slanderous mischaracterization. Creationists are not trying to usurp anyone's basic human rights because we reject this pagan myth.

By the way, natural selection was not a major factor in human evolution. Evolution as defined in science (the change of allele frequencies in populations over time) is not threatened as long as alleles continue to change. Democracy is not threatened by religious conviction and certainly does not need this guys socialist agenda to protect it. And finally this is yet another example of the Evolutionist duplicity.

A socialist defending democracy from religion? That is the funniest thing I have heard in a while.

In case anyone is interested you can download the Atlas of Creation if you want to see what the great threat to human rights in Europe is:

Harun Yahya Downloads

 

[Assyrian]

The only human right issue I can see here is the right to education. If children are learning science they should be taught actual science in the science class, not something else pretending to be science.

 

[Dannager]

Because it speaks to the issue of creationist teaching as child abuse - negligence on the part of authorities (parents or teachers) resulting in a crippled development of the child's education.

A relatively mild human rights violation, of course.

 

[mark kennedy]

Child abuse? Nothing except blatant slander supporting that assertion but that's what I mean by duplicity. On the one hand, undermining one of the most basic of human rights, the right to the free exercise of religion. On the other making Christians who embrace the traditional theology of the church being a threat to democracy. I'm sure glad they found a socialist to protect them from that.

With all of this energy being put into rejecting anything remotely theistic it's a wonder that the life sciences ever get taught at all.

 

[Dannager]

Child abuse? Nothing except blatant slander supporting that assertion but that's what I mean by duplicity. On the one hand they are only trying to protect human rights and on the other mischaracterizing what Creationism really is.

I explained why I consider creationist teaching child abuse. Would you care to address my reasoning rather than get offended?

 

[mark kennedy]

I explained why I consider creationist teaching child abuse. Would you care to address my reasoning rather than get offended?

I provided a link to the subversive literature they are going to such lengths to censor. Would you care to address the actual issues or talk in circles about how theistic inferences are child abuse?

By the way, I'm not offended. I am actually amused by all of this. I am actually encouraged when Darwinians go into this kind of hyperbole rather then the actual science. It speaks volumes for the lack of confidence they demonstrate with clockwork precision.

 

[Dannager]

I provided a link to the subversive literature they are going to such lengths to censor. Would you care to address the actual issues or talk in circles about how theistic inferences are child abuse?

By the way, I'm not offended. I am actually amused by all of this. I am actually encouraged when Darwinians go into this kind of hyperbole rather then the actual science. It speaks volumes for the lack of confidence they demonstrate with clockwork precision.

Uhh...if we were to go into the science here it would be off-topic. This thread is to discuss creationism as a human-rights problem, right?

 

[shernren]

I think it's utterly ludicrous, but for a completely different reason.

Imagine going to a Muslim doctor - only to have him pray the Al-Fatihah over you, charge you full consultation fees, and send you home.

Then imagine further that for some idiotic reason, this is fully legal and permissible under medical malpractice law, and that the only thing you can charge him with is religious discrimination since his methods assume that Allah is god!

The case at hand says as much about educational legislature as it does about the agenda of some atheist groups (which I won't deny). A law that mandates science teachers to teach science and nothing else in science classes should be as common-sense and common-place as laws that mandate doctors to do medicine, car mechanics to repair cars, and lawyers to lie - umm, defend their clients. That such educational laws don't exist, and that concerned citizens have to force pseudo-science out of classes by calling it a human rights issue - instead of being able to legally call it "science teachers not doing their job", pure and simple - is simply ridiculous.

 

[mark kennedy]

By the way, mark, you have been saying this: By the way, natural selection was not a major factor in human evolution without any proof you understand for months now. Have you finally found an alternative hypothesis for the distribution of lactose intolerance genes in Europe, sickle cell trait in Africa, and the GULOP pseudogene over all primates ... or are you still misquoting the Chimp Genome Project paper?

Of course you mean this:

There is tentative evidence from in-depth analysis of divergence and diversity that natural selection is not the major contributor to the large-scale patterns of genetic variability in humans​

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

They cite three other in depth research projects supporting this statement:

(Hellmann, I., Ebersberger, I., Ptak, S. E., Paabo, S. & Przeworski, M. A neutral explanation for the correlation of diversity with recombination rates in humans. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 1527–1535)

(Lercher, M. J. & Hurst, L. D. Human SNP variability and mutation rate are higher in regions of high recombination. Trends Genet. 18, 337–340)

(Hellmann, I. et al. Why do human diversity levels vary at a megabase scale? Genome Res. 15, 1222–1231)​

Then finally conclude:

For these reasons, we suggest that the large-scale variation in the human–chimpanzee divergence rate primarily reflects regional variation in mutation rate.​

I'm still waiting for you to show up in the formal debate forum but I won't hold my breath.

 

[shernren]

Of course you mean this:

There is tentative evidence from in-depth analysis of divergence and diversity that natural selection is not the major contributor to the large-scale patterns of genetic variability in humans​

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

They cite three other in depth research projects supporting this statement:

(Hellmann, I., Ebersberger, I., Ptak, S. E., Paabo, S. & Przeworski, M. A neutral explanation for the correlation of diversity with recombination rates in humans. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 1527–1535)

(Lercher, M. J. & Hurst, L. D. Human SNP variability and mutation rate are higher in regions of high recombination. Trends Genet. 18, 337–340)

(Hellmann, I. et al. Why do human diversity levels vary at a megabase scale? Genome Res. 15, 1222–1231)​

Then finally conclude:

For these reasons, we suggest that the large-scale variation in the human–chimpanzee divergence rate primarily reflects regional variation in mutation rate.​

I'm still waiting for you to show up in the formal debate forum but I won't hold my breath.

And of course, I've already said why I'm not holding on to the debate proposal I started: creationists are far worse than the geocentrists I was going to compare them to, and I'm not going to sully the memory of the geocentrists, who at least did the best with the data they had and were readily convinced of the rightness of heliocentrism.

As for the misquote from the CGP paper, it's fairly obvious: natural selection doesn't explain the large-scale variation in divergence rates, i.e. it doesn't explain why there is lots of variation at some sites and very little at others. It does explain the many other facets of the human genome, to such an extent that even baraminologists who would have a vested interest in showing that humans and other primates are biochemically distinct can't show that they are. Regional variation in mutation rate does explain the large-scale variation, which makes sense because regions with high mutation rates would naturally have more variation than regions without. This is not the argument against evolution you think it is; it just showcases how badly you're mishandling evidence.

But as Deamiter said, let's not derail this thread. (As you can see, I deleted that part of the post within minutes of posting it - not even a "post edited at XX:xx" sign - with precisely that intention.)

 

[On the Narrow Road]

I don't see how this is anywhere near a human rights violation.

I also don't know why everyone is so worked up over the issue. Isn't the purpose of education to teach kids to think critically? Why not allow them to discuss both evolution and creationism in the classroom and ask the kids why or why not each is/is not science?

The only reason I can see to keep either out of the discussion is to silence opposition to your views.

If we want to limit what is taught in the classroom, there are a number of things being taught that are far worse than discussing whether or not creationism (or evolution for that matter) is actually science.

 

[Mallon]

I also don't know why everyone is so worked up over the issue. Isn't the purpose of education to teach kids to think critically? Why not allow them to discuss both evolution and creationism in the classroom and ask the kids why or why not each is/is not science?

Because there is no debate within the scientific community as to whether or not creationism is valid science. It is not. Allowing for the discussion of creationism in the science classroom gives the false impression that the issue is still unsettled. It would be like allowing history students to discuss whether or not the holocaust actually happened. If such a debate were to occur, I hope the concluding remarks would set the record straight so as to leave no doubt in a child's mind.

 

[Dannager]

I don't see how this is anywhere near a human rights violation.

I also don't know why everyone is so worked up over the issue. Isn't the purpose of education to teach kids to think critically? Why not allow them to discuss both evolution and creationism in the classroom and ask the kids why or why not each is/is not science?

Yes, also we should teach children the various Native American creation myths, the Chinese myths (all of them), the Indian myths, African tribal myths, and all the other not-science beliefs - because if we didn't it would be silencing opposing viewpoints!

So let's have it your way and spend your children's precious science classroom hours studying the validity of hundreds of creation myths. I'm sure they'll grow up with a wonderful understanding of how the world works. Or, y'know, they won't, because they didn't get to study any science in science class.

 

[Mallon]

So let's have it your way and spend your children's precious science classroom hours studying the validity of hundreds of creation myths. I'm sure they'll grow up with a wonderful understanding of how the world works. Or, y'know, they won't, because they didn't get to study any science in science class.

We could always balance it out by teaching evolution in Sunday school.

 

[Dannager]

We could always balance it out by teaching evolution in Sunday school.

That would almost be the best of both worlds. Evolution gets taught in churches and creationism gets criticism in the classroom. Sign me up.

 

[arunma]

Because it speaks to the issue of creationist teaching as child abuse - negligence on the part of authorities (parents or teachers) resulting in a crippled development of the child's education.

A relatively mild human rights violation, of course.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is a human rights violation of any kind. The teaching of creationism constitutes neither child abuse nor negilgence. Contrary to popular atheist caricatures, teaching children creationism does not preclude them from being productive members of society, even in scientific or technical roles. There are plenty of creationist engineers in industry (in fact, a lot of creationist apologists are engineers). One of my fellow physics graduate students also rejects evolution, and it doesn't prevent him from being a productive scientist.

Seems ot me that teaching a child creationism most certainly does not cripple his educational development. In fact, children who learn creationism (however incorrect it may be) will likely also be exposed to the Gospel, which is infinitely more important than any other education they could receive. Again, I don't personally favor teaching children creationism, and I wish that Christian educational institutions would give it up, but it seems to me that on an eternal scale, there are more important issues at stake here. All the evolutionary biology in the world won't help the atheist when he is suffering in the eternal fire of hell because he rejected the Lord Jesus Christ. The Christian who happened to believe in the faulty doctrine of creationism, however, will likely not care when he enjoys the glory of the Lord for eternity.

My point is this: evolution isn't that great. Atheists like to portray science as some sort of exceedingly noble endeavor which is of the greatest importance to humanity. And they also like to portray evolution as the cornerstone of all science. Obviously I'm not anti-science; I get my paycheck from doing scientific research, after all. But believing in evolution won't save your soul, Jesus will. If anything, we should say that parents who raise their children in non-Christian religions (or in atheism) are abusing their children, because unlike creationism, non-Christian religions will condemn their children to hell. Creationists certainly are doing their children a disservice by teaching their them creationism, but they are likely doing enough other things correctly that it doesn't matter in the long run.

Yes, also we should teach children the various Native American creation myths, the Chinese myths (all of them), the Indian myths, African tribal myths, and all the other not-science beliefs - because if we didn't it would be silencing opposing viewpoints!

So let's have it your way and spend your children's precious science classroom hours studying the validity of hundreds of creation myths. I'm sure they'll grow up with a wonderful understanding of how the world works. Or, y'know, they won't, because they didn't get to study any science in science class.

How about not teaching these creation accounts because they come from false religions? Whether you are a creationist or a theistic evolutionist, you can't believe in Jesus and believe that other religions are valid means of salvation (even the Catholic Church rejects this). We're all Christians here, and I can't see how any of us should be entertaining the study of false religion.

 

[gluadys]

I also don't know why everyone is so worked up over the issue. Isn't the purpose of education to teach kids to think critically? Why not allow them to discuss both evolution and creationism in the classroom and ask the kids why or why not each is/is not science?

In the first place, science does teach kids to think critically without needing to introduce pseudo-science into the classroom.

So do several other subjects, and it has already been noted that creationism need not be kept out of the school. There is place for it to be discussed in classes on religion and on sociology. It could also be discussed in a topic for debate when one is learning debating skills in English class.

But there is no place for creationism in science class because it is not science. Furthermore it takes more than a high school level of science (as well as some rather sophisticated theology) to even understand some creationist arguments, never mind debate them with any competence.

So leave the debates on the "scientific" merits of creationism to tertiary education levels where students have better grounding in what the scientific issues are. Best of all, leave the debates to the philosophy/theology departments, because that is the real heart of the issues.