Resolution 1580 (2007)/Introduction/en

From RilSource
Jump to navigationJump to search

Due to the many misunderstandings and distortions of facts and history in the "Resolution 1580 (2007)[1], The dangers of creationism in education" we would like to draw attention, point for point, to the low respect for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy and science presented in the present resolution text.

We want to point out that our analysis starts from a classical biblical Christian perspective. Jews and also some Muslims may possibly agree with parts of our analysis, but our object is primarily to promote open testing of what's true and what fits best with reality, and not to compare religions. We believe that the resolution text is of concern to all and especially to Christians with a classical biblical faith, since these matters are often discussed especially amongst Christians.

Summary -- In the resolution, which violently questions the right to criticize the evolution theory[a], the Council of Europe uses many nice words, but at the same time they consequently formulate a message which invokes horrid feelings and nasty associations. But they present no concrete reasons and arguments as a basis for the fears they entertain in the resolution. This leaves only the impression that the Council of Europe here is attempting to ban an open discussion and criticism of a certain theory, but which gets in direct collision with freedom of speech. The Council of Europe also attack the freedom of religion in that they urge vital public institutions of society to accept and allow for that only one outlook, an atheistic outlook, is to be regarded as describing reality. But this will lead to that everyone is forced to accept only one single outlook, one which stands in open conflict with most monotheistic religions. All this also means that the Council of Europe attacks democracy, since the resolution openly, with a lack of objectivity and with blackening intimidating tactics, encourages excluding certain persons from partaking in the society if they don't submit to only the allowed views.

Finally, it is of fundamental importance for the development of science that its theories remains being open for questioning and criticism. But the Council of Europe undermines the very science it poses to be defending by proposing that only one certain interpretation of facts should be allowed to be presented as science. The danger is that only this certain allowed interpretation of facts will be presented as a fact in all education in Europe. But a fact and an interpretation of facts are two entirely different things. In addition to this the Council of Europe is preventing this single interpretation from being subject to all kinds of serious criticism. Seemingly Europe is once again on its way to create totalitarian oppression of certain members of its society.

[a] evolution - see article in Rilpedia about the views which believers in Creation have about evolution, changes of the species and mechanisms for biological variation.

[b] interpretation - in this case based on naturalistic philosophy

  • Note. In order to make it as easy as possible for non-experts to read the text we have in our analysis comments strived for using regular words and expressions. Occasionally we have also replaced technical terms with explanatory descriptions.
  • The term creationist -- We draw attention to the fact that the word "creationism" in the resolution text is often used in a disparaging sense. The word actually stands for a classical belief in Creation (like in Genesis). In other languages the word can most often be directly translated more descriptively, such as "Biblical faith in Creation" or "belief in Creation", except for when the intent is to use it in a disparaging sense. The resolution contains also many other negative words which invokes negative feelings, and in order to not be at risk of hiding the intent of the authors of the resolution, we suggest that the word "creationism" is kept in translations of the resolution text. In the analysis comments we have used also other more descriptive terms.