A resolution adopted by Europe's top human rights body last week declaring creationism as a potential ''threat to human rights'' is evidence of a secularized culture, said one of America’s pre-eminent evangelical theologians.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Ed Reinke, File)A man pauses to study old Bible manuscripts during a tour of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., Thursday, May 24, 2007.
On Oct. 4, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted 48 to 25 in support of the resolution entitled “The dangers of creationism in education,” in which the parliamentary body urged its governments to “firmly oppose” the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline.
The document stated that creationism is promoted by “forms of religious extremism” and criticized advocates of creationism for seeking to "to impose religious dogma" at the expense of children’s education.
“For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life,” stated the report. “Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas 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.”
After reading the report’s attacks on creationism, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, posted a response in his personal Web site on Monday, stating that the resolution is indicative of an increasingly secularizing society.
“When the official human rights institution of Europe has to explain that ‘some people’ believe that the divine creation of the universe ‘gives a meaning to life,’ this can only mean that Europe (at least as represented by the Council of Europe) has forgotten even its Christian memory,” wrote Mohler, who often appears on “Larry King Live” and other popular news shows representing the Christian voice.
The report, which had been reworked since it was first introduced a few months ago, also charged creationists with denying the scientific validity of the theory of evolution.
"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,” the text argued. “The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.
“The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights,” added the report.
But even evolutionary scientists wouldn’t agree that evolution is based on facts, Mohler pointed out, adding that the claim would make most evolutionary scientists blush.
Furthermore, the Baptist leader challenged the report to provide evidence of its claim that some advocates of creationism “are out to replace democracy by theocracy.”
“The group claims that such knowledge ‘has been exposed on several occasions’ but fails to mention even one such occasion,” stated Mohler.
While the resolution describes creationism as "an almost exclusively American phenomenon" but that some of its tenets were “tending to find their way into Europe,” Mohler noted a greater shift at work.
“The Council of Europe's resolution is clear evidence of the fact that a secularized society desperately needs naturalistic evolution as the metaphysical foundation of its worldview,” he stated.
“Any threat to evolution is seen as a threat to democracy and human rights — and democracy and human rights are understood in an entirely secular framework as well.”
The vote on the resolution is nonbinding but will provide direction to the assembly as it urges its 47 member states to consider its views.
RSS
A common misconception about evolution is that people equate it to the explanation of the origon of life... when in actuality, evolution has nothing to do with that... People think evoltuion says we randomly came about, nonliving matter became living matter, thats actually a study of abiogenesis, something Darwin never even touched on. Two different things entirely. Evolution is NOT random, the only RANDOM thing about evolution is mutation... Evolution HAS and STILL IS being proven in the lab and in nature. It IS observable, and it IS explainable... what is questionable is abiogenesis, and thats ok, the point of science is to figure it all out.. abiogenesis is one of the theories, and its actually not too bad for a theory.. But evolution is something that has been proven.
Jimmypost -- your tone is harsh, condescending and sarcastic which is only polarizing this tender debate. Please speak truth in love.
Merkin, your assumptions that evolution is complete fact is dangerous as expressed in your optimism that scientists will create a living cell. Your optimism itself isn't a bad thing, but I've found that many evolutionists have mixed up optimism with fact. Scientists have been optimistic for years that more evidence of natural origins of life, or more transitional fossils will give their argument more credibility.
For example, the large majority of arguments for natural origins of life are speculative (I refrain from saying all are speculative because there has been some respectable research done.)
jimmypost,
Your post is rather amusing. The more optimistic of scientists believe that we will be able to synthesize biogenesis in a lab within the next ten years or so. Whether or not it's accomplished in the next decade, it will happen sooner than you might be prepared for. I hope that when it happens you don't back down from your claim that "the argument is over."
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. 'Surely they have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
And after all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemical collisions, without an instruction manual, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists estimation. Without any intelligence at all available to help them these 'simple ' cells miraculously created themselves into a living entity. Surely then today's evolutionists scientists should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of the flood of evidence CONTRARY to evolution which is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and EUREKA, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Please don't swallow the lies they tell about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And, is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it, how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????
ReformedScience -
On the peppered moths: the whole concept of their "change" was that when the moths perched on the trees, their lighter color made them easier for the predators to see them, which is why they supposedly changed to a darker color. The problem is peppered moths don't perch on tree trunks in the wild - so the macroevolutionists gave them a helping hand. It's not slander at all as they admitted this fact and stated they glued the moths on the trees for the "truthful" documentary they were making. In any event, at best, you have microevolution again as the moths stayed moths.
Nothing has been done to improve on Haeckel's embryos - if anything we now see the radical differences of embryos at those stages. This is why they are still called "one of the most famous fakes in biology" (Science 277, 1997).
The truth is, the lies run deep in macroevolution. Anyone up for faking another supposed descendant of man from a pig's tooth?
Finally, you can't marry Christianity and macroevolution. Man's sin brought death, but macroevolution needs death to do its work, and since man didn't come until *much* later, you have a problem.
I would simply ask you or any other true macroevolutionist to articulate a one line answer to the question: "why do we have 'something' rather than nothing at all?" that stands up under the criteria of logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevancy.
As a Christian studying paleontology and evolutionary biology, I can confirm that antievolutionary claims are consistently scientifically untrue. That is why ID and creation science do not belong in schools, whether secular or religious. More importantly, ID and creation science are generally theologically unsound. By making belief in a particular method and timing of creation an essential, if not the essential, criterion for Christianity, they fall into a similar grave heresy to that of the Judaizers opposed by Paul in Galatians. E.g., Jonathan Wells claims that Rev. Moon is the true Messiah and Jesus failed, yet he claims to be a Christian; ICR assisting Islamic antievolutionism as if that rather than Christ was the most important. Another frequent error is denying that God is active in everyday processes. God is smart enough and powerful enough to use evolution as a way to create if He wants-evolution is not an alternative to creation but an alternative method of creation. Exegesis in support of young earth views is also routinely bad.
Examples of false science claims include
"The peppered moths in England: staged and faked"
Moths really changed. Photos were posed because it's very difficult to find two moths of the right kind, one well-camoflauged, perched adjacent to each other in a spot with good lighting for photography. Calling this faking is slander.
Haeckel's embryos: Haekel exaggerated similarities based on his ideas. Correcting his errors leads to better agreement with modern evolutionary ideas.
"DNA of humans more closely matches that of chickens than apes"
Wrong. Possibly one gene might be found this way, but human DNA most closely matches chimps, then gorillas, then orangutans...
Merkin, I respect your zeal for the evolutionary theory. However, to call it fact is deceiving since the mechanisms itself aren't "entirely, conclusively, understood." At the most basic level, evolutionists must provide scientific evidence that a change a change due to mutation in one protein gives the 'birth' of a newer protein (here's the important part) with a new and novel function.
I dispute common descent because of the numerous holes in evolution (I put my chips into something we, as humans, can understand, like how Jesus Christ came as God in the flesh and died for our sins so that we may have eternal life), but based on my education background, I am most able to discuss the evolutionary theroy at the molecular level.
Zenodaddy, thanks for what you had to say about R.C. Sproul and Lewis.They are two of my favorite authors.
Citizen, I am well aware that Jefferson was a Deist.However, the article is referring to Creationists, so my point still stands.
<<It's typical of creationists to spread lies about science.>>
Really? And the macro-evolutionists don't? Let's look at some of their prized trophies...
The Galapagos finches: case of micro not macro evolution; beaks returned to normal. No new species produced. No evidence of unlimited, directional change.
The peppered moths in England: staged and faked; admitted by scientists involved in study.
Haeckel's embryo's: Haeckel exaggerated and faked his sketches; accused of fraud.
The link between humans and apes: the DNA of humans more closely matches that of chickens than apes. Mark of common ancestor or common designer?
Regarding fossils and transitional forms, please post links to pictures of these as I've yet to see anything convincing. What I have seen is what paleontologists told biologists many years back at the big "Macroevolution" conference in Chicago: the fossil record does not and never will back the smooth, continuous progress of life forms. This is why Gould and others developed punctuated equilibrium - the "abrupt" rise of life.
Hey, I know another book that talks about life "abruptly" coming about...
At the very most, Darwinism might explain survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that there isn't a single creationist out there, reading this comment, who has spent any significant amount of time looking into research on heredity and genetics. If you refuse to even try to understand what it is that you reject, it should embarrass you to voice your opinion. I read Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer et el. I even have the Discovery Institute's website bookmarked on my browser. I know what I'm arguing against. Do you?
justaclaypot,
The fossil record alone has, rather conclusively, proved that evolution has taken place. Many, many transitional fossils have been discovered--and I’m not talking about small bone fragments. But every time this happens, instead of accepting the implications, creationists say, “Well now there are two gaps where there was one! Explain that, Mr. Paleontologist.”
Furthermore, it’s not as if fossils are the only evidence pointing to common descent. Every field, from microbiology and genetics to biogeography and physiology, describes a concordant picture of our biological ancestry. This fact is not so easy to explain away.
Scientific Theory requires that any hypothesis should be "observable, testable, measureable." Without this as the backbone, any theory developed from said hypothesis would be with minimal validity. So, when one considers any of the "theories" on evolution, be it macro or micro, where is the observation? No human was there, no evidence exists that in proven as 100% accurate. Yet, we are to bow down to almighty evolution? I think not.
However, the Bible says that there were witnesses present at the creation. God the Father, and The Word (a.k.a. Jesus Christ.) God created the world by The Word. The Word took on the mantle of flesh, and became human, to die as a sacrifice for the sins of His people. He displayed various miracles in front of masses of people, including His own resurrection from the dead after being dead for three days. Since that time, millions upon millions of people have attested to a personal, day-to-day relationship with the risen Lord Jesus. This constitutes a contiguous chain of evidence and witness. And yet, those who would follow the arrogance and egotism of evolutionary science would claim that WE have the weakest arguments?!? Again, I think not. Evolution: we can't prove it, but it just feels good, so you'd better agree with us or else.
Bologna!
BobC, I don't think it's fair to tar all Christians with the same brush. Moreover, you're not making any valid points with that kind of schoolyard name calling.
"But even evolutionary scientists wouldn’t agree that evolution is based on facts, Mohler pointed out, adding that the claim would make most evolutionary scientists blush."
Either Dr. R. Albert Mohler doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's a liar. Evolution is a proven fact and every educated person knows it's a fact. There is more than enough powerful evidence, especially genetic evidence, that proves beyond any doubt all life evolved.
It's typical of creationists to spread lies about science. They know the biggest threat to the stupidity of Christianity is science. The everything-is-magic creationists are too lazy to study the evidence for evolution and they are too dumb to understand it. So they lie about it. This constant lying from Christians is disgusting. Thanks to Christians, America, a country of 300 million people, has to import scientists, because our god-soaked population is afraid of science.