Council of Europe Backs Evolution and Opposes Teaching of Creationism as Science

The Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Council of Europe warns that “Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.” They have issued a statement on The dangers of creationism in education which opposes the teaching of creationism by showing both the flaws in creationism (and intelligent design) and demonstrating that evolution is “genuine science.” The summary states:

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 definitely inappropriate for science classes.

However, some people call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of the theory of evolution. From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.

The Assembly calls on education authorities in member states to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.

The lengthy document looks at both creationism and evolution in depth. Their discussion of evolution is reprinted under the fold, but it is also worth reading their discussion of creationism and intelligent design.

Evolution

9. It should be pointed out that our genes, from which the word “genetic” derives, carry information about the characteristics of a living organism, whether it be a simple bacterium or a human being. A gene is a “piece” of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA carries the genetic information of every living being. Moreover, the study of DNA is being used more and more outside the area of scientific research, for example to disprove or verify parenthood or to clear up certain criminal offences. DNA, as will be seen, is very widely used in the science of evolution.

10. Populations evolve when individuals with certain characteristics (such as tallness) have more descendants than other individuals. The characteristics inherited from the individuals with many descendants become more frequent in the following generations:

– Biological evolution is defined as a modification of the genetic characteristics in the course of time within a group of living beings or a population.

– Adaptation refers to the characteristics of an organism that improve its ability to survive and reproduce in total harmony with its natural environment. Adaptations are the result of natural selection.

– Biodiversity results from the repeated separation of one species into two or more new species (which specialists call “speciation”). When a single species separates into two, the two resulting species share numerous characteristics as they derive from a common ancestor.

11. Evolution thus explains how organisms adapt to their environment (by natural selection), how the diversity of life was formed (by speciation) and why different organisms share characteristics (through a common ancestor). In this connection, it is important to stress that it is wrong to claim that human beings descend from monkeys. They are closely related to monkeys and have a common ancestor but there is no direct line of descent between the two.

12. There is a considerable body of scientific evidence concerning evolution. Scientists have shown that evolution is a fact because of

– the evidence provided by palaeontological data,

– the numerous cases of characteristics shared by organisms with a common ancestor,

– the reality of continental drift,

– direct observations of genetic changes in populations.

13. It should be pointed out that the human being is just one of the links in the long chain of evolution.

14. Scientific advances and discoveries in the field of genetics have made it possible to demonstrate the existence of genetic mutations that come about at random and are not oriented towards a particular goal. It is the modification of genes in the descendence of living beings that defines biological evolution. Among the organisms that reproduce by sexual means, genetic variability increases through crossing over, the independent assortment of chromosomes and fertilisation. These various mutations and any other processes that rearrange the genetic information combine to bring about the evolution of species and populations and tend to reinforce the variability of individuals and species on the planet. Genetic modifications trigger morphological, biochemical and behavioural differences. Natural selection and/or genetic drift have an effect on the differences between individuals or species in order to produce evolutionary changes.

15. Apart from demonstrating the process of evolution, scientists have been able to show the consequences of this process for life on Earth. Three main characteristics define the latter: the adaptation of organisms to their environment, speciation (the repeated separation of one species into two or more new species), which contributes to the diversity of life on Earth, and the existence of common ancestors. Evolution involves these different characteristics of that life.

16. Palaeontological data, such as the fossil record, provide clear proof of the evolution of species and individuals in the course of time. Fossils are the preserved remains of organisms that lived a long time ago. They enable biologists to reconstruct the history of life on earth and, even though a number of uncertainties remain, provide evidence to give weight to the idea that species have evolved in the course of time. Palaeontology also confirms the existence of new groups of organisms on the basis of organisms that existed previously.

17. The fact that these organisms share common characteristics is consistent with the biological blueprints of the evolutionary relations. One of the main propositions of the theory of evolution is that organisms should carry in themselves the evidence of their evolutionary past, and this is indeed the case. The similarities in the models of development can be explained by their descent from a common ancestor. The proteins and DNA of organisms that share a common ancestor are closer than the proteins and DNA of those that do not share a recent common ancestor.

18. Continental drift, which is the result of the splitting up of the Pangea (the old supercontinent comprising almost all the land that emerged from the Carboniferous period at the beginning of the Jurassic) at least 200 million years ago, also enables proof of evolution to be furnished. The fossils of organisms that evolved when the continents were connected have a wider geographical distribution than those of organisms that have evolved more recently. The effect of continental drift was to separate families of living organisms and thus bring about their development, independently of their descent, as well as the appearance of new species and the extinction of others.

19. Finally, scientists have been able to observe, whether in the laboratory or in nature, genetic changes in the course of time in the populations or species studied. They have also been able to trigger genetic modifications themselves by crossing species. This is called artificial selection. Natural and artificial selection make it possible to provide evidence of evolution.

20. In order to illustrate this point, let us mention a few examples that show the process of evolution:

Research on the fight against AIDS has brought to light new aspects that confirm that evolution has taken place. After developing new treatments for HIV that appeared very promising, researchers discovered that this virus was rapidly evolving in order to keep adapting to its environment. HIV has a particularly elevated mutation rate but that in itself does not make it possible to explain the fact that this virus evolves by considerably increasing its ability to resist clinical therapies. There is often an interval of about ten years between the moment when an individual is afflicted by the virus and when the first AIDS symptoms are triggered. During this period, no appreciable increase in the HIV concentration in the blood is established. However, scientists have shown that the virus has produced millions of viral descendants during this period, which implies that enormous quantities of virus are destroyed very quickly after they have been produced. The body therefore hosts many different strains of HIV that compete with one another and fight to survive against the various clinical therapies. More generally, the recent changes in the AIDS virus are evidence of the ability of any organism to evolve.

21. The resistance of many insects to new pesticides shows they are similarly able to adapt to a new environment in which only those that are most resistant will survive. Resistance to antibiotics also tells us a great deal. Today, many species of bacteria are resistant to all kinds of antibiotics because, as a result of natural selection, only the few bacteria that have resisted have been able to multiply.

22. It is important to note that the number of means of verifying the hypotheses put forward has increased since Darwin. From the form of the fossils discovered to the study of their DNA, the cross-checking of information makes it possible to achieve considerable objectivity.

23. There can be no doubt that evolution is a genuine science.

24. As Guillaume Lecointre, a professor of zoology at the National Natural History Museum in Paris, points out, science is the totality of operations that produce objective knowledge. A statement on the world can only be described as objective if it has been verified by an independent observer. This verification depends on three factors: scepticism, rationality and logic and, finally, methodological materialism. These three pillars ensure the objectivity of a scientific result.

25. Scientific research on the subject of evolution has been no exception.

26. At present, scientists from all nations, races and religions agree on the existence of evolution and accordingly no longer try to find out whether it has actually taken place but “how” this has happened. A number of questions remain within the scientific community with regard to understanding all the processes that lead to evolution. In particular this work consists in revealing the mechanisms that have governed the present structuring of biodiversity2. However, no science is ever complete and new discoveries regularly enable progress to be made on understanding “how” things are as they are.

27. In addition, as Hervé Le Guyader emphasises, evolutionist thinking now pervades all areas of biology and, through the historical dimension of the process of evolution, also affects the sciences of the Earth and the universe. The advances in evolution research have in fact resulted in broadening the basis of this theory, so that today the evolution of populations, including human populations, is only part of evolution as a whole. Research being done on evolution is still providing more evidence for the truth of the theory of evolution.

28. One of the discoveries that has been made in the study of our planet and has been confirmed many times, is the dating of the major events that have marked its development:

– the solar system, which includes the Earth, was formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago;

– life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago (in the form of unicellular bacteria);

– about 200 million years ago Pangea began to split up to form the continents we know today;

– homo sapiens, ie human beings, emerged between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.

It is thus not hard to understand why these discoveries have presented a challenge to those who apply a strict interpretation to the first part of the Bible, ie Genesis.

3 Comments

  1. 1
    James Collins says:

    Lots of jabber, but no truth. There is NO science in evolution. Is is nothing but surmisings and a few postulates. Show us ANY real evidence and we will convert to Darwinism.

    But, If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. This ‘should’ be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cell.

    After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell.

    If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

    Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.

    Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

    Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

    PS: Please don’t lie about the ‘first life’ problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    James,

    “There is NO science in evolution. Is is nothing but surmisings and a few postulates. Show us ANY real evidence and we will convert to Darwinism.”

    Evolution is the underlying principle upon which all of modern biology is based. The only way you could claim there is no science and and that you haven’t seen any real evidence is that you have intentionally closed your mind to reality and prefer to follow superstition.

    “After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals…”

    You give away your ignorance about evolution here. Evolution is not about chance as creationists ignorant of the topic commonly claim.

    As for the remainder of your question, here is an article on the topic a number of references. Of course, as with all creationists, I’m sure you’ll come up with a number of specious arguments to ignore the evidence and stick with superstition:

    Robinson, Richard. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks. PLoS Biology 3(11): e396. http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396

    1. Ball, Philip. 2001. Missing links made simple. Nature Science Update (15 Mar.). http://www.nature.com/nsu/010308/010308-5.html
    2. Cairn-Smith, A. G. 1985. Seven Clues to the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press.
    3. de Duve, Christian. 1995a. The beginnings of life on earth. American Scientist 83: 428-437. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438?fulltext=true
    4. Fox, S. W. 1960. How did life begin? Science 132: 200-208.
    5. Fox, S. W. 1984. Creationism and evolutionary protobiogenesis. In: Science and Creationism, ed. A. Montagu, Oxford University Press, pp. 194-239.
    6. Fox, S. W. and K. Dose. 1977. Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Revised ed. New York: Marcel Dekker.
    7. Fox, S. W. et al. 1995. Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell: It was also a protoneuron. In Ponnamperuma, C. and J. Chela-Flores, pp. 17-36.
    8. Huber, Claudia, Wolfgang Eisenreich, Stefan Hecht and Günter Wächtershäuser. 2003. A possible primordial peptide cycle. Science 301: 938-940.
    9. Lee, D. H. et al. 1996. A self-replicating peptide. Nature 382: 525-528.
    10. Martin, W. and M. J. Russell. 2003. (see below)
    11. Nelson, Kevin E., M. Levy and S. L. Miller. 2000. Peptide nucleic acids rather than RNA may have been the first genetic molecule. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97: 3868-3871.
    12. Ponnamperuma, C. and J. Chela-Flores (eds.). 1995. Chemical Evolution: Structure and Model of the First Cell. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    13. Pappelis, A. and S. W. Fox. 1995. Domain protolife: Protocells and metaprotocells within thermal protein matrices. In Ponnamperuma, C. and Chela-Flores, pp. 129-132.
    14. Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154: 377-402. http://www.gla.ac.uk/Project/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_articles.htm
    15. Smith, J. V., F. P. Arnold Jr., I. Parsons, and M. R. Lee. 1999. Biochemical evolution III: Polymerization on organophilic silica-rich surfaces, crystal-chemical modeling, formation of first cells, and geological clues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 96(7): 3479-3485. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3479
    16. Tamura, K. and P. Schimmel. 2001. Oligonucleotide-directed peptide synthesis in a ribosome- and ribozyme-free system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 1393-1397.
    17. Wächtershäuser, Günter. 2000. Life as we don’t know it. Science 289: 1307-1308.

  3. 3
    Bogard says:

    “It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org.”

    Bwahahhahahaha!
    Now there’s a good quality, unbiased “scientific” source..

    Meditate on the logic of god then you will understand why he is merely the creation of a man with the same prejudices & failings of a man..

    God is perfect yet he was pretty dumb to dream up the whole “lets put a couple of people in a garden with some really tasty fruit, BUT… they can’t eat it, because i will condemn generations after to eternal suffering”
    How loving..
    “Also Lets also create an evil snake to tempt them into eating the fruit..”
    Again pretty dumb, if you don’t want people to eat it don’t make it, & if you don’t want people to listen to the evil snake well… don’t make one!
    I could go on there’s loads of holes in this drivel..

    Yet Science doesn’t have holes it keeps only what can be proven through scientific method.. 
    So really i know who i’m going to side with..
    It is a good move to keep religion out of education a proper factual education is a necessity,for future generations & my sincerest hope is that the more we question & discover about the world around us the more these superstitious ideas will fall by the wayside..

1 Trackbacks

Leave a comment