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?