In Context: Editor’s comment on EPA’s 2007 Creationism Resolution

The twenty items of the European Parliamentary Assembly’s 2007 resolution on “the dangers of creationism in education” highlight several striking points of view.

Authors and signatories of the resolution insist there is “the right to freedom of belief”, but that there is also a huge chasm between belief and science, and that “it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science”. It is clearly stated in this document that “creationism cannot lay claim to being a scientific discipline”: that it does not “stand up to objective analysis”. Warnings are made against the “risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between…convictions, beliefs…and science”. The risk of “possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas…and about the consequences for our democracies” is outlined, with creationism even seen as a possible “threat to human rights” – “a key concern of the Council of Europe”. Rationalism still reigns in Europe; the Assembly “has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance”. Point 12 of this resolution states that, “the total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human and civic rights”.

American roots of this scourge are cited, necessarily twinning the ideas of cultural imperialism with the ‘foreignness’ of this ideological invasion. In fact, says the resolution, the denial of evolution “could have serious consequences for the development of our societies”, risking “significant decline” in our understanding of “biodiversity and climate change”.

Underlying the argument is a warning against the encouragement of “fundamentalism and extremism” – especially “forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements”, while also making mention of the creationists being mostly those “of the Christian or Muslim faith” elsewhere in the resolution. Though there is no blatant side-by-side description of “extremism” in the same phrase as “those of Christian and Muslim faith”, the meanings are inexorably merged on the reading of the whole document. In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church’s own stance sides with “recognizing that the theory of evolution is ‘more than a hypothesis’”.

Further on, the threat perceived by the Assembly goes beyond a confusion between belief and science by school children and on into the political realm, stating that “some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy”. This assertion certainly lays the groundwork for a fear that the teaching of, or believing in creationism would be, in fact, the beginning of a dissolution of our Western democratic society as we know it. Serious claims, indeed.

Concessions have been made, however, to allow for the “teaching about culture and religion” (naming “freedom of expression and individual belief” as fundamental rights), but again emphasizing that the creationist’s position “cannot claim scientific respectability”.

As the resolution draws to its final conclusions, it is interesting to note the use of the term “creationist fundamentalist”, and the warning that “the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat” from this camp.

There is, of course, nothing new here. But the very black-and-white statements signed by the European Parliament are testimony to the reality of the line drawn in Europe between religion/belief, and what is seen as its antithesis: science/truth.

In response (from a Muslim point of view – in an interview with Le Monde in February 2007), the sociologist Malek Chebel said that “Islam has never been afraid of science”, pointing out that “the Koran addresses the question of the creation of human beings by God but not that of the mutations of species”. As for the Swiss Association of Muslims for Secularism founded by Ali Benouari, they agree with the European Parliament in saying that “religion must not challenge science”.

From a scientific perspective, Richard Dawkins, “the leading light of the New Atheism movement” (Wired News, Oct. 2006), in his most recent book The God Delusion, aligns himself with the religious fundamentalists by asserting that “evolution must lead to atheism” and that “the big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism”. (The use of and definitions for ‘extremist’ and ‘fundamentalist’ are fuzzy at best in and through these various sources.)

We may dismiss Dawkins and others as ‘extremists’. But we cannot ignore the European Parliament’s 2007 Resolution. They claim, essentially, not to be taking an extremist line of reasoning. But the resolution agrees with extremists on the ‘fact’ that evolution and belief are mutually exclusive elements.

Though we can’t argue anyone into faith in the Creator God, these are important issues about which to be aware as we live and mix with those in Europe’s cities – all the while communicating the Creator’s eternal plan of redemption and hope.