European and American Politicians Attack Creationism
Actions of political bodies on both sides of the Atlantic have revived questions about the roles of science, politics and religion in public discourse and policy.
The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly voted 48 to 25 to accept a resolution denouncing creationism and intelligent design, according to European Observer and Reuters. The non-binding resolution strongly warned member states against perceived creationist attempts to “infiltrate” schools. The strongly worded resolution warned that creationism could be a danger not only to science, but to human rights. Some of the outrage was prompted by a Turkish Islamic group under the name Harun Yahya that had sent creationist materials to many schools throughout Europe (06/22/2007, 11/27/2006). Last year also, a UK group called Truth in Science had distributed “information packs” with materials promoting intelligent design (see 01/11/2007 bullet 6, 12/08/2006 bullet 2, 10/27/2006, bullet 4, and 10/04/2006, bullet 11). A spokesperson for the vote said the purpose was not to fight any belief, but “to warn against the attempt to pass off a belief — creationism — as a science and to teach the theses of this belief in science classes.” She dubbed intelligent design, which tries to avoid religious questions, as “neo-creationism.” See the responses to this resolution by Albert Mohler and by Denyse O’Leary.
In America, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sounded off about the issue of evolution. After a speech about her science policy, she responded to questions from the New York Times in a phone interview. Knowing that some Republican candidates had endorsed intelligent design, Clinton said the following, according to Patrick Healy and Cornelia Dean:
“I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying,” Mrs. Clinton said in the interview. “I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason.”
“I am grateful that I have the ability to look at dinosaur bones and draw my own conclusions,” she added, saying, too, that antibiotic-resistant bacteria is evidence that “evolution is going on as we speak.”
Clinton characterized the Bush science policy as conducting a “war on science” and vowed to support research on embryonic stem cells and global warming. She also previously said, “We have to be steered by values and morals.”
Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for shooting materialism in the foot, and evolutionism with it. If the ability to reason is a gift from God, then it did not evolve. It means that truth, values and morals also did not evolve. Materialism, therefore is dead. Now the issue becomes using our God-given reason. Come now, and let us reason together.
Ms. Clinton, have you ever studied philosophy of science? Are you aware of the difficulties involved in using empirical observations as evidence for a theory? Do you really think that antibiotic resistance in bacteria constitutes evidence that presidential candidates evolved from bacteria? (see response by Dr. Kevin Anderson in TrueOrigin). Are you aware of the role of presuppositions in science? Do you realize that creationists see the very same dinosaur bones you are looking at, and draw their own, very different, conclusions? On what basis are you defending your right to say the evidence supports evolution instead of creation? On what basis are you saying that creationists do not have the right to use their reason to come to their conclusions? If creationists also use their God-given reason to examine the evidence and draw conclusions, on what basis do you call your conclusions scientific and their conclusions unscientific? What is science? Is it merely what those in power say it is? You must be consistent, Ms. Clinton. You already said reason is God-given. This means it did not evolve. You either have to agree with the creationists, then, or else display to the watching world that your reasoning powers are deficient or are driven by political ideology.
As for the Council of Europe, these people are a lost cause. They are the same ones that give honors to the likes of Yasser Arafat while engaging in policies that will bring down Western civilization. Europe is heading for a perfect storm, in which its citizens cannot and will not give up their creature comforts, and are too selfish to have children and raise families, so they import cheap labor from Islamic nations who will be more than happy to tip the population dynamics toward the East. Muslim immigrants will be keen to “infiltrate” the political and social institutions till, through threats of terror and sheer force of numbers, they will make the “Council” of Europe an arm of Sharia Law. Having already seen the terror their new neighbors can inflict, the dying Europeans are quick to denounce the one democracy in the middle east (Israel), but are scared spitless about offending Muslims. So they gag with their cottonmouths against “creationists” who offend the priests of their idol, Charles Darwin. It’s hard to respect anything these irresponsible heirs of Churchill have to say about anything while their heads are still attached to their necks. They need medical care, not reason, because their feet are bleeding from self-inflicted bullet holes.
We’ve already unpacked some of the lies and distortions in their resolution (see 06/22/2007). Here they are again, creating arbitrary demarcation criteria that no philosopher of science would defend, making bogeymen out of the heirs of Francis Bacon while welcoming anti-Western elements into their failing democracies. So much for worrying about human rights. It’s not the Islam of Harun Yahya they fear (they are laying out the welcome mat for that); it’s the evidence that Charlie might be a false god they cannot allow indoctrinated student eyes to see. None of the creationist groups they worry are “infiltrating” schools were doing anything more than donating free material for consideration. Presumably, any teacher can simply deposit the material in the circular file, and teach their usual curriculum with complete freedom. That is not infiltration. We all receive materials in the mail every day that we have to sort through using our God-given reason, to decide what things merit attention and what should be tossed. That’s freedom of choice. Infiltration is what the Darwinists pulled off (read the quote at the top right of last month’s page).
The Council of Europe totalitarians claim they are not against any “beliefs.” OK, so let the Turks, the Hindus, the Mormons, and Truth in Science have their day in science court. Since Darwinism has already been falsified (e.g., 10/19/2004, 12/30/2004, and 10/26/2005 among many examples in these pages), it’s time to evaluate alternatives. Each group can restrict its theology to their church, temple or mosque, but should have the same right to employ their science, using their God-given reason, to evaluate the observations and draw conclusions. If Darwin’s theory had been so strong, it would certainly have succeeded in the open marketplace of ideas without the heavily armored shielding its defenders have erected around it. Now that it’s debunked, Europe had better choose which alternative is more preferable: dialogue with those who want to improve their heads vs dialog with those who want to remove their heads. If the latter continue to make gains, a reasoned defense may not be enough; Europeans may need the physical defense of Western creationist science that can put out terrorist fires and provide medical aid (see 10/02/2007).
A little use of God-given reason in the head by Clinton and the Council of Europe would save their necks, let alone their bleeding feet.