Council of Europe to vote on creationism Council of Europe to vote on creationism
Europe's main human rights body will today vote on a resolution opposing the teaching of creationist and intelligent design views in school science classes.
The Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly will debate a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.
The resolution, on the agenda for the plenary in Strasbourg, says European schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion." It describes the "intelligent design" argument as an updated version of creationism.
The vote was due in June but was postponed because some members felt the original text amounted to an attack on religious belief.
Only minor changes have been made to the initial draft.
Anne Brasseur, an assembly member from Luxembourg who drafted the resolution, said, "There are different views of the creation of the world and we respect that.
The message we wanted to send was to avoid creationism passing itself off as science and being taught as science. That's where the danger lies."
Finnish centre-right MEP Piia-Noora Kauppi said she supports the resolution, adding, ”The story of creation is, of course, important but it should be kept totally separate from science teaching because it is not a science.”
The council oversees human rights standards in member states and enforces decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
If passed, the resolution would not be binding on its 47 member states but would reflect widespread opposition among politicians to teaching creationism in science class.
======================================
BTW it just passed the resolution...
Creationism=God=Religion what is the difference?
No matter how many word games you play it is evident that this is purely against religion... You can get an elective class of something which is not a positive science - why? What about ethics class... We don't need that either...
Why is so vital to support the theory of evolution? I don't understand.
What did theory of evolution brought into your life that you feel obliged to defend it so blindly and vigorously.
I know what: racism, fascism, communism... We got rid of them all already, then why inisist on darwinism.
Just teach both and let people decide what is right or wrong... Edited by: Yahac at: 10/4/07 7:30 pm
This is a great move and a step forward. There is not need to teach defunct and myth-based theories: Evolution has enough scientific backing.
Religion is losing ground to reason and intelligence. It has held the common man down for too long. We no longer have to throw away out precious wealth on their useless structures; nor be tied down by their literary fiction.
Religion has hindered man in the past and will hinder him in the future if its not stopped.
On a side note: Its why I consider what Enver Hoxha did in 1967 to be a form of liberation. He freed our country from the dogma and nonsensical superstition of faith. It too bad it was not to last.
Quote:
I know what: racism, fascism, communism... We got rid of them all already, then why inisist on darwinism.
Darwinism is considered to be a science that we cannot fight against; contrary to that, Fascism, Communism and racism(although the last one can be argued) are created by man.
Edited by: AlbComiscortes711 at: 10/4/07 8:39 pm
Quote:Darwinism is considered to be a science that we cannot fight against; contrary to that, Fascism, Communism and racism(although the last one can be argued) are created by man.
First of all, the rule of science is that it should be refutable. Not a dogma. You should have the suspicion about it all the time. Your approach to Darwinism is more like religion, not science. And it carries the name of its creator- Darwin. You know Darwin was human, or you consider him alien? How are you excluding his theory from the list of human made theories. I guess you are joking, not funny. Just silly!
Science is human made, too. You are kind of lost my friend, I guess...
Quote:On a side note: Its why I consider what Enver Hoxha did in 1967 to be a form of liberation. He freed our country from the dogma and nonsensical superstition of faith. It too bad it was not to last.
The greatest thing Enver hoxa did was to make you the most ridiculous nation in the world. The fools and insane people the only free people. If that is the kind of liberation you are talking I agree. He was very successful...
Great step I agree. In enslavement of human being to material way of thinking. Once materialism becomes your only reference you praize only the power of man- in this case his money and rough power. Kindness, sharing and solidarity is an anomaly unexplained and unjustified by Darwinism... Enjoy your Europe we will opt out... Thanks
Quote:
First of all, the rule of science is that it should be refutable. Not a dogma. You should have the suspicion about it all the time.
The problems of this theory are often cited;however, it doesnt change the fact that the Creationist theory is pure BS. Nothing faith-based is rational. The Old and New Testament, along with the Kuran, are all to be considered fictional literature of a particular period, and are to be read under the circumstance of that period and civilization. No better the the Odyssey or Iliad. Its foolish to base any kind of science on these works. Its like thinking that Achilles actually existed.
Quote:
The greatest thing Enver hoxa did was to make you the most ridiculous nation in the world.
That was my opinion: it didnt require a reply, and less so an insulting one.
Quote:
Great step I agree. In enslavement of human being to material way of thinking. Once materialism becomes your only reference you praize only the power of man- in this case his money and rough power. Kindness, sharing and solidarity is an anomaly unexplained and unjustified by Darwinism... Enjoy your Europe we will opt out... Thanks
This has nothing to do with materialism; nor do I consider it to be my source of praise. This has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Nothing.
And as for the last statement: I dont think that your being given a choice.
Edited by: AlbComiscortes711 at: 10/5/07 4:52 am
Quote:The Old and New Testament, along with the Kuran, are all to be considered fictional literature of a particular period, and are to be read under the circumstance of that period and civilization.
Who says that? The minority of atheists?
Quote:No better the the Odyssey or Iliad.
Even Greeks don't read those two more often than any Turk. But fortunatelly, the things you want to be are simply your own limited wishes. The real world is different... Don't deceive yourself! Look at your Enver hoxa and compare him to any prophet. The time and history gives you the answer. No pitty for the bullies and spiritualy disabled... They simply fade away...
But never mind, if a blind can't see why accuse the blind. He was simply was born like that. Only blessed can see the blessing... Thus, your belief( or non-belief) to you my belief to me! We will get the right answer once we die. So, stay with peace!
Quote:Look at your Enver hoxa and compare him to any prophet. The time and history gives you the answer. No pitty for the bullies and spiritualy disabled... They simply fade away...
You cant, because the only prophets that have come down to us are the ones that are colored down in ludicrous narratives written 100 years later.
Do you truly believe that the Mohammed of the Kuran is the historical Muhammed? Or that anyone really knows what Jesus was actually like?
It wouldnt surprise you if I said that the Zorothrustra of Zoroastrianism is very different from the actual one, would it? Its because this faith you find fault in, but in yours you believe.
How many "Gods" have we disproven? The only reason these survive is that they are so vague that whenever an answer is attain, you quickly revert to notions of religion, or dubious textural quotes purposely written so. Then, when that fails, you call on faith.
Quote:Who says that? The minority of atheists?
The only people who view these texts as "holy" are the ones who simply read them without any background on their particular period. The people who study them carefully rarely see them as special.
Quote:Do you truly believe that the Mohammed of the Kuran is the historical Muhammed? Or that anyone really knows what Jesus was actually like?
I believe. But I don't care how they looked. It is not about appearance but message.
Quote:How many "Gods" have we disproven? The only reason these survive is that they are so vague that whenever an answer is attain, you quickly revert to notions of religion, or dubious textural quotes purposely written so. Then, when that fails, you call on faith.
I didn't count. But many idols or ancient Greek "gods" we agreed upon that were man made. But regarding the real one and only God we can't agree with you. Do we have to? If you think you are right, so be it. You can assume you superior and be happy. So you on your way we on ours. It is faith based issue anyway. You don't have it we have it. Is there any problem? Luckily each human being can think different way. That is freedom. Don't limit my freedom and I won't yours. Peace? Ok!
Quote:The only people who view these texts as "holy" are the ones who simply read them without any background on their particular period. The people who study them carefully rarely see them as special.
We refer to that kind of argument as "geyik" in Turkish. I can't realy explain it in English but basically not credible statement. Are you trying to say you and your atheist friends are Islamic history freaks. And just beacuse you know everything regarding that period you can dispute the existence of Mohammed? My eyes are full with tears of appreciation. And based on your history knowledge now you ceased to believe? Well, do you really believe yourself and your own statements? If you do it is still OK. That is freedom. Peace!
Quote:Are you trying to say you and your atheist friends are Islamic history freaks.
I have an an interest in Islamic history. A big one actually. Specifically the Ottoman period, but Im not limited to it. In fact I once considered making it a major before I changed my mind. In fact, I find it more entertaining then most periods of European history.
Quote:And just beacuse you know everything regarding that period you can dispute the existence of Mohammed?
Im not questioning Mohammeds existance, Im questioning the Mohammed we read in the Kuran, and the Jesus of the Bible. We have yet to find the walls of Jericho, the migration of the Jews out of Egypt seems largely debunct and the Adam and Eve story is just a joke.
Quote:I have an an interest in Islamic history. A big one actually. Specifically the Ottoman period
Oh I understand. You couldn't find any evidence that Mohammed was an Ottoman, thus he doesn't exist. Good boy!
Quote:Im questioning the Mohammed we read in the Kuran, and the Jesus of the Bible.
I wonder what you read about Mohammed in Kur'an? That he simple human being? That his mission was only delivering the message? I see, you needed some evidence like miracles from him? I don't understand what you mean by that? What about Jesus? I agree that in some parts of the Bible there is repetedly the claim that he was the son of God! Well, I agree on that claim is far fetched. Simply twisting of the message. And "St." Paul has a lot to do with it. We agree on that one. Well, one of the reasons Islam came is to clarify this issue, too. There is no God but God!
Edited by: 
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies