1) EEA’s Involvement in the EU’s Creationism Statement

From IMPACT In the Public Arena, the European Evangelical Alliance’s Socio-Political Team, working together with EEA’s members, Issue 6 – December 2007

Often, it is wise to ignore extreme secularist provocation, but when a draft Council of Europe report said the “creationists” were a danger to democracy and human rights, EEA felt compelled to intervene. Views about “creationism” vary among Evangelicals but everyone deserves religious freedom and protection from excessive insult. Plus, the report was so badly worded that one could interpret it as saying that all believers in a Creator were dangerous.

Some lobbied the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly with arguments promoting “creationism”, but EEA decided that this prophetic act was unlikely to change any minds politically. Instead, we wrote a “brief”, pointing out the lack of evidence for the “creationist” threat and that children should not be indoctrinated with any dogma, religious or secular. Rather, free examination of all ideas that pose no threat to law and order must be actively encouraged. Any theory could be taught in science classes, as long as it was subject to scientific scrutiny. We asked for the report to be rejected.

Evangelical Alliances across Europe reacted swiftly to translate and pass this brief onto the national politicians who would be debating the resolution. Jean-Paul Zürcher of the Romande branch of the Swiss Evangelical Alliance then set us a challenge. Swiss MP, Mr. Schmied wanted to help but said that we had to propose amendments since asking for a rejection of the report was unrealistic. Christel Ngnambi and I [Julia Doxat-Purser] worked as a team, drawing up amendments, knowing we could not propose too many but not wanting to leave a bad report to pass. We were being faced with the realities of political compromise. An unhelpful report was definitely going to be agreed. Could we make it slightly less unhelpful?

Mr. Schmied then selected half our amendments and took them to Anne Brasseur the rapporteur of the resolution. She accepted all but two. In the actual debate, she thanked Mr. Schmied for being constructive.

Our lobbying [in the name of EEA] meant that the final resolution was slightly less insulting than the draft, plus it was accepted that evolution needed to be subject to scientific scrutiny like any other theory, though the resolution was still problematic.

Did we fail? In some ways, yes, we did. However, we won what was possible to win. In the debate, a British MP quoted EEA’s brief and others spoke in support of our arguments. Evangelicals were seen to be reasonable, constructive and professional. Ironically, this made the accusations in the report seem even more ridiculous.

Only 76 out of 636 parliamentarians were present to vote for the resolution. The Parliamentary Assembly’s decisions are picked up by the media but most politicians did not think it work bothering to attained this session. The resolution has no legal weight, but it will be used by some to justify keeping “creationist” ideas out of school science classes. However, when such arguments appear in your nation, you can use the criticism of the resolution in the debate to urge a fairer, more reasonable discussion. We stand ready to help as needed.

Thanks to all who helped on this campaign.               JDP