Pop Quiz: Quick. No cheating. Who issued an official statement this year that ID could become a threat to human rights? How about I send a Naseeb ?flower? if you get this one right? Yeah, right! ;-) I think that those flowers signify something else, but I still haven?t figured out what the various colored flowers mean.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, comprising 47 member nations, issued the resolution below denouncing ?religious fundamentalists who call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools.? The report declares that ?creationism could become a threat to human rights? and that intelligent design is ?anti-science? and ?scientific fraud.? Unsurprisingly, the Council?s statement is replete with all-too-familiar rants that ID ?only refers to supernatural causes? and that just cannot seem to give up guilt-by-association by shoving intelligent design into the creationist pigeonhole: ?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.?

Creationism and intelligent design are distinct. Committed to defending the accounts of creation in religious scriptures such as the Bible and the Quran, creationism unequivocally identifies God as the supernatural creator. Belief in God as the designer requires a great deal of background philosophical knowledge from divine revelations about the nature of material existence, of godhood, and of the supernatural. ID is not obligated to identify the designer. The nature of metaphysical origin of the material world is not within the purview of scientific inquiry. ID proponents strive to confine the theory strictly to the limits of what science can show; that?s not being disingenuous. Indeed, ID proponents strive hard to let the theory stand alone on its own merit. Unlike Darwinism, which is prejudiced by materialism, intelligent design examines nature with an agnostic perspective, immune from both materialistic and theistic preconceptions. ID simply asks, ?Was this produced by undirected material forces of blind chance and natural law, or was this purposefully crafted by intelligent agency?? Now, if the findings of ID do turn out to be consistent with creationist beliefs (or if the set of all ID proponents overlaps a certain fraction of the set of all creationists), then it does not mean that ID must be creationism. Apparently, it is too hard for the Council of Europe, as much as it is for NCSE (National Center for Science Education; a.k.a. National Center for Selling Evolution) on the other side of the Atlantic, to understand this crucial distinction.

The Turkish Muslim Harun Yahya (real name - Adnan Oktar) has written extensively on Islam and evolution (harunyahya.com). Oktar, in my opinion, has done a commendable service in disseminating for the Muslim communities the predicaments of Darwinism. He does not appear to identify himself as a bona fide ID proponent, however. Since he relies on background knowledge from Quran to identify God as the supernatural creator and makes no distinction between ?mere scientific evidence of design? and ?inference to God,? he may be labeled a creationist. Still, I value Oktar?s cause for the Quran?s view of creation.

The Council of Europe has made contemptuous remarks against Oktar, especially against his Atlas of Creation (harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/newyorktimes_070717.php), copies of which were publicly distributed in Europe earlier this year. Even Kenneth Miller and his colleagues at Brown University and faculty at University of Colorado, University of Chicago, Brigham Young University, University of Connecticut, and University of Georgia also reportedly received copies of the book. The following remarks of the Council are particularly outlandish:

?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? ? 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.?

So if some stuff doesn?t work, get the chief cleric of the religious circle to swear on the scripture that the stuff works. And proclaim, ?Even your religious cleric believes that evolution works. We told you so!?

Oktar has issued a statement on the Council of Europe?s report (harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/councilofeurope_0706.php).

The Algerian-born Boubakeur, the head of the clergy at the main mosque in Paris, leads the French Council of Muslims. The leader of a ?Muslim? organization and the official face of ?Islam? in France believes that evolution does not conflict with the Quran and that evolution is a fact. That?s what France?s 6 million Muslims are advised to believe.

Boubakeur either does not understand the Quran or he does not understand evolutionary theory and the nature of scientific inquiry. First, evolution conflicts with the Quran because (1) since the Darwinist account of life prohibits divine intervention, the marvelous adaptations of organisms to their environment, in the broader sense that takes account of macroevolution, cannot be attributed to the purposeful providential care and interventionist design of a Creator, and (2) the materialistic backdrop of evolutionary biology contradicts the Quranic message to examine the universe to see in it the evidence or the ?signs? (aayaat) of God, the Creator.

Darwinism leaves no room for divine intervention. Fancisco Ayala, a renowned evolutionary biologist, recently wrote the following in a prominent, peer-reviewed scientific journal:

?It was Darwin?s greatest accomplishment to show that the complex organization and functionality of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process?natural selection?without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent.? (Francisco Ayala, "Darwin?s Greatest Discovery: Design without Designer," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 104, 8567?8573 (May 15, 2007) www.pnas.org.)

Ayala further wrote that ?evolution conveys chance and necessity jointly enmeshed in the stuff of life; randomness and determinism interlocked in a natural process ?? Theistic evolutionists try to force theism to be compatible with Darwinism by claiming that God guides Darwinian mutations, but Ayala clarified further, "In evolution, there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations.?

Further, Kenneth Miller, a well-known author of biology textbooks and a biology professor at Brown University, wrote the following:

?Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless ... Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.? (Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, Biology: Discovering Life. (D.C. Heath, 1994) 161.)

Young minds, Muslim or otherwise, in schools have been exposed to such materialistic bigotry that is in opposition to Judeo-Christian and Islamic theology.

Second, an assortment of claims make up evolutionary theory; some claims are well supported by empirical data and some refuted by data. It is misleading to state in unconditional terms that ?evolution is a fact,? as Boubakeur claims. That 2 times 3 equals 6 is a fact (assuming integers). That humans and chimps share 99%, 98%, 95%, or 90% of their DNA sequence shows that humans naturally evolved from primates is not a fact. The word ?evolution? has at least three connotations: (1) change in organisms over time, (2) universal common descent, or (3) non-telic (unguided/undirected) processes that produce macroevolutionary change. Other than ?change over time,? insofar as the expression signifies small-scale heritable change, the other two connotations are not equally well substantiated with evidence, to the same extent as the first connotation. The claim, ?evolution is a fact,? therefore denotes a meaningless slogan until it is clearly specified which connotation is associated with the word ?evolution.? Only (1) is closest to what could be considered fact.

If Boubakeur does not understand the distinction between theory and fact, then it is questionable whether he understands evolution. If by ?a cyclical evolution? of the human race, Boubakeur has implied that humans evolved from primates or other ancestors by blind chance and natural law, how did he make that fantastic interpretation from the Quran? If, as it seems more likely, he instead means ?some level of variation,? then his idea is acceptable, albeit hackneyed because species do undergo some genetic and phenotypic variation, constrained by the inability of undirected natural forces in producing large-scale biological change characteristic of macroevolution.

The Council, much like a blindfolded clergy preaching dogmatic atheism, has made no attempt to address the scientific claims of ID. Those well-versed in intelligent design can see that the report is founded largely on guilt-by-association rhetoric and distortion of the ID argument, and fails to evenly tackle the scientific stance of intelligent design. However, the Council has offered, as if in a panic outcry, a fine recap of the latest sociocultural quakes shaking the Darwinist Wonderland in Europe; so the report might have qualified for a Reuters news feed in offering just that fine recap.

P.S.: On June 20, 2007, the European Center for Law and Justice, in affiliation with the American Center for Law and Justice, released a memorandum www.aclj.org) exposing the Council of Europe?s false allegation that the theory of intelligent design violates human rights, showing how the resolution itself violates the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and showing how banning academic discussion on the theory of intelligent design and the theory of evolution disrespects the ?freedom of expression of teachers, researchers, and students, as manifest in academic freedom, because it seeks to eradicate an alternative to the Darwinian model of the origin of life, thereby elevating the theory of evolution to scientific dogma.? Scheduled voting on the resolution that was supposed to take place on June 25, 2007 was cancelled uk.reuters.com).

Nadeem

-----------------
Doc. 11297
8 June 2007

The dangers of creationism in education assembly.coe.int)

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.



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.



Creationism



35. ? 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.



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.



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 Atat?rk 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. T?BA, the Turkish Academy of Sciences, and T?BITAK, 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?. Herv? 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-Malass?, 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 Sch?rch, Director General of the Orientation Cycles in the Canton of Geneva, said that the company responsible for distributing this work in French-speaking Switzerland had given him a thousand copies to distribute. He pointed out on that occasion that no new work could be authorised for use in schools without a prior examination.

60. Jacqueline Horneffer, Deputy Public Education Secretary in the Canton of Geneva, called on educational establishments to refuse to take delivery of this work, which they did. According to her, ?the book does not correspond to current scientific theories and does not comply with the principle of the separation of secular and religious education?. In Switzerland, ?The Atlas of Creation? has also been sent to journalists and scientists.

61. The European Biblical Centre: The creationists are also represented in Switzerland by the European Biblical Centre and its facilitator Daniel Mathez. The Centre is a creationist publisher that has already published around fifteen works.

62. The ProGenesis group: The small Swiss creationist group ProGenesis is working for the rehabilitation of the Book of Genesis. Its aim is to assert creationism over evolutionism and to do so by means of media or play. In this connection, it has set up a project called Genesis-Land, which is a leisure park that might be constructed in northern Switzerland and would aim ?to disseminate the Christian message as a counterweight to the Darwin?s omnipresent theory of evolution?.

In Belgium:

63. Creationist attempt at infiltration into Belgian schools: After France, and parallel to the offensive conducted in Switzerland, Harun Yahya launched the distribution of his Atlas of Creation in Belgium in March 2007. In a circular letter dated 22 March 2007, Marie Arena, the Minister in charge of compulsory education and social development, warned ?all education staff against the values promoted by this document? and went on to say that she was ?counting on everyone being vigilant to ensure that it (could) in no way constitute an educational tool for the pupils? use?

64. Mobilisation of the Brussels university community: Since early 2007, Belgian academics at the Free University of Brussels, have held a series of lectures on ?God or Darwin??. Among the various works there is a study by Laurence Perbal, a university lecturer, on ?the evaluation of the opinion of secondary and higher education students in Brussels concerning the concepts of evolution?. This study shows in particular ?that a large proportion of the individuals questioned seem to think that the Darwinian theory of evolution only concerns the physical aspect of human beings and not their soul or conscience?. At the same time, ?a large proportion of the students say they have never heard of the Darwinian theory of evolution even though it is part of the biology curriculum for the last year of secondary school?.

In Poland:

65. The theory of evolution and Darwinism were publicly called into question in the autumn of 2006 by the Polish Deputy Minister of Education and Lodz MP, Mirosław Orzechowski, a member of the League of Polish Families (LPR, an extreme right-wing, ultra-Catholic party). He said that ?the theory of evolution is a lie, a mistake that has been legalised as a common truth, adding that ?We must not teach lies, just as we must not teach evil in the place of good and ugliness in the place of beauty. " Finally, according to him the evolutionist theory is only ?a story, a piece of literature that could be used as a background for a science fiction film?. Just before that, in early October 2006, Maciej Giertych, an LPR member of the European Parliament and father of the Polish Minister of Education Roman Giertych, had called for the withdrawal of the Darwinian theory from school curricula, arguing that it was not ?supported by evidence?.

In Russia:

66. In Russia in February 2007, a young 16-year-old girl and her father brought an action against the Ministry of Education and Science because they did not accept the fact that the school biology textbooks only offer one theory, that of evolution, which, they said, was incompatible with their beliefs. The plaintiffs were supported by members of the Russian Orthodox Church. It would seem that the teaching of the theory of evolution in Russia today is being increasingly called into question by pupils and their parents, who want access to teaching that is closer to their religious and personal convictions. Father Vsevolod Chaplin, deputy head of the Department of External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, deplores the ideological character of the theory of evolution, which has been the only theory taught in Russian schools since the Soviet era. He is appealing for the right of pupils and their parents to education that does not run counter to their faith, a right, he says, that is guaranteed by international legislation.

In Italy:

67. Letizia Moratti, at the time Italian Minister of Education and Research in the Berlusconi government, proposed in February 2004, in the context of educational reforms, and especially changes to the school curricula, a decree aimed at abolishing the teaching of the theory of evolution in primary and secondary schools. There were no longer any courses on the theory of evolution in the school curricula. The Italian scientific and journalistic communities then took action. A commission was charged with considering this issue in April 2004 and submitted its report in February 2005, in which it pointed out that the study of evolution was crucial for an overall view of life and noted the importance of the natural sciences in our modern culture. At the same time, it emphasised that the teaching of the Darwinian theories makes it possible to prevent racism and eugenics. Since then, no new decree has been published. The reforms are said to be still in progress but are not likely to permit the removal of the Darwinian theories from the school curricula.

In Greece:

68. Without actually being banned from the school curriculum, the theory of evolution is often relegated to the final part of the course, ie the end of the school year. As a result, it is rarely studied at secondary school owing to a lack of time.

In the United Kingdom:

69. In the United Kingdom, creationists hold lectures at state schools and the universities. In the summer of 2006, England hosted the largest international creationist symposium over a period of three days. The UK?s biggest teaching union, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) sounded the alarm bell and called for legislation to combat the growing influence of religious groups in the British education system, According to the NUT, giving more power to the religious groups would probably damage social and intercultural cohesion. The Royal Society and the Archbishop of Canterbury have spoken out against the teaching of creationism at British schools and various organisations, such as the British Council for Science Education, have condemned attempts to introduce this.

In Serbia:

70. In 2004, the Minister of Education, Liliana Colić, was forced to resign after ordering schools to stop teaching the Darwinian theory of evolution if the creationist ideas were not also part of the school curricula. The Academy of Sciences and Arts and around forty associations then condemned this danger, which they described as a theocratic deviation.

In the Netherlands:

71. In 2005, the then Dutch Minister of Education, Maria Van der Hoeven, caused a stir by proposing the organisation of a debate on the teaching of the theories of evolution in the country?s schools. However, six years earlier a truce had been concluded between the various political parties with the result that Darwinism is part of the curriculum of all Dutch schools, including faith schools, which the state funds without exercising any ideological control. In an interview, Ms Van der Hoeven said that Charles Darwin?s theories were incomplete and that new things had been discovered since, especially by the proponents of the intelligent design theory. However, she announced that she did not intend to introduce the creationist theories into the school curricula but only wanted to confront their adherents with the supporters of the theory of evolution. Ms Van der Hoeven?s initiative only met with a weak response, including in her own party, the Christian Democratic Alliance (CDA). D66, a centre-left party and an ally of the CDA, is totally opposed to creationism and Darwinism being placed on an equal footing. The VVD, a liberal right-wing party, is of the same opinion.

In Sweden:

72. In Sweden, the first creationist museum was opened in Ume? 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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



* * *