The idea of creationism is not what bothers me in this discussion. If something exists, it has been "created" by someone or something else. There is always a cause for the things we perceive. However, the discussion has become a battle for the universe, because two groups are convinced that the other group is wrong, and they are trying to prove it as a fact. So much the creationists trying to impose their world view as the evolutionsts are making the same mistake all the time, bringing the public to a total indifference on the subject. I have learned more fear from my fundamentalist friends and neighbors since these discussions are in the air, than I used to have before, when nobody warned me, that they were actually wrong and I was right.

Children are dying from hunger, natural disaster and war, women in poor countries are breast-feeding blood to their babies, misery and desperation are the daily bread of many; while the technologically privileged are sitting in front of sophisticated computers, communicating with others who are as sophisticated as they are, exchanging constructions of thought for winning in the vital discussion for whose God is right.

Please consider the following idea:

If the concept of "God" ought to be handled as an abstraction, then one could strip it of the cultural implications that have been given to that term. Let's imagine that "God" means "Principle."

Fine, if the Humanist/Agnostic/Atheist is capable of beholding a "Principle" for the respect of life and nature, then we have here an attribute that could be equitable to the Theist/Religious/Faith-based individual who follows a different path that leads him to the same goal: The respect of life and nature.

Then, the ultimate understanding ought to be, how are human beings similar to one another in quality as in substance, not in terms of what they believe or they don't around the topic of their individual faith and belief system based on either theology or science. Beliefs can and do change and are modified as people go through life. People go through different stages of cognition as they are alive, they grow old, change, understand, mature, produce, die. But, being a human being that handles life according to "Principle" is a quality of life that goes beyond the conceptions of the divine or the profane, because it allows us to work together as a species, for the benefit of mankind, no matter in what stage of belief their minds may be at that particular time. This is about survival as species, not about the primacy of some particular concepts over other concepts.

Finally, the origin of the words is fascinating. I recently figured out that the origin of the word, "Divinity" comes from the word "Divine", which leads to the concept of "Divination" in Latin (divinare), which reminds us that that the concepts of the divine nature (God / Divinity) have been more or less put together by human minds who more or less tried to explain things according to their understanding of life and creation at their particular moment and time in history. Those human beings of great perception range in definitions as wide as from Prophets to Charlatans to Lunatics, depending on who bears witness.

I keep telling my friends to go for some canvasses, paint and brushes and actually spend some time painting with colors, each time they feel compelled to fight someone else's understanding of creationism or evolutionism.

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.

Submited by : Caballos

[edited for length - admin]

One of the fundamental principles of applying the scientific method is creation and testing of the hypothesis to arrive at definitive conclusions. Considering that creationism puts forth that a deity had a hand in our creation can that basis be proved? Essentially, can we re-create in our scientific experiments what the proposed deity has created? I contend that we do not possess the ability to create the appropriate environment, let alone test it. Supposing that we were capable of creating such an environment then wouldn't that prove that we as humans have deity-like abilities. In that light, why bother phrasing the concept as creationism referring to a deity rather than terming the concept as social science or environmental science, or whatever particular science the content pertains to. It seems that even if creationism is authentic that its principles broaden the vaguery(scientific deficiency) of the content by blobbing many content areas into a singular explanation which doesn't provide contingency, reduction, or practical simplicity.

Does a creative deity exist?
Maybe.

If a creative deity exists then can we understand that creative deity scientifically?
Doubtful.

If a creative deity exists and we can understand that creative deity scientifically then can we justify scientifically differentiating between the human and the deity?
In my opinion, no because I am more competent in describing myself than foreign deity.

Schools in Europe and the U.S.(I exclude most of the world, because this would never be accepted) should have a class on anthropology that teaches how all of the major religions got started.

This is the only way secular humanism will ever defeat or marginalize religion.

Science, religion and humanism are three quite separate entities which must never be confused. Science - good science - has no religion, is blind to religion. Rather its mission - if I may borrow Captain Kirk's famous split infinitive - is to boldly go wherever the evidence leads it, to publish and be damned. In fact religion has a history of damning scientists for their findings. Too often the religious have been dragged kicking and screaming to an accommodation of the findings of science with divine revelation. Humanism on the other hand has tended to react positively to science. Humanists prefer to adopt a worldview that is informed by the growth of scientific knowledge. But neither humanism nor religion belongs in the science class. Their opposing reactions to science may form part of a class devoted to the study of different worldviews, but not to a science curriculum.

So where does creationism fit in? Creationism is not science. It is a reaction to science by some religious people who are still unable to accommodate the findings of science in the area of evolution. If creationists have a claim to be heard it is in the social studies class, or the religious studies class, or similar. So if one adopts an absolutist or naïvely simplistic position on freedom of expression, then banning the teaching of creationism is a violation of that freedom. However if one takes a more considered position, one can see that creationists themselves pose a threat to freedom of expression by seeking to cross the boundary between religion and science. Rather than pursuing absolutes, we should seek to maximise freedom of expression. The correct question to be asked by the European Council Committee on Culture, Science and Education is: does the encroachment of religious intolerance into the science class increase or decrease freedom of expression?