Europe's Darwin Cult Opposes Creationism in Schools

Reuters has reported that a European Parlimentary Council plans to urge all its member nations to oppose the teaching of creationism and "intelligent design" in its schools. Here is the brief introductory descriptor:

"STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - Europe's main human rights body voted on Thursday to urge schools across the continent to firmly oppose the teaching of creationist and "intelligent design" views in their science classes.

The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights."

This is simply pure propaganda and just barely merits a response. Here are a few facts that easily dismantle the "parlimentary wisdom."

First, until about 1859 (when Darwin published the Origin of Species), the vast majority of scientists were creationists. This shows that there is nothing about "science" that requires evolutionary nonsense to be taught, as though "science" were somehow inherently an "evolutionary" enterprise.

Second, given the assumptions and implicates of evolutionary theories -- Neo-darwinian and Punctuated Equilibria versions included -- the sciences would simply be impossible. Evolutionary views logically undermine the necessary preconditions for doing science. I will not rehearse the details here since I have done this repeatedly elsewhere online, and in several articles.

Third, biblical Creationism (not "intelligent design" or "theism" more generally) alone provides the foundations of knowledge -- logic, the sciences and ethics (i.e. do not falsify research or mangle the human subjects) -- which remain NECESSARILY prequisite to the scientific enterprise.

Fourth, calling the only truly prelogical, prescriptive, and metascientific worldview "extremism" -- to forbid its teaching -- is like outlawing sugar before the marshmallow roasting contest. This is called "question-begging" (a notorious informal fallacy) of the self-refuting variety. How is overly zealous "Evolutionism" NOT extreme, since it would eliminate the sciences if maintained consistently?

Fifth, to assume that ALL attacks on evolution are 'rooted in extremism" is self-refuting since the best arguments against evolutionism come from evolutionism itself. This implies that evolutionism represents the kind of extremism the Parliament wishes to condemn. Well done. At least we agree on something.

Sixth, many of the criteriological values of the sciences - which form the basis for prefering one theory over another -- simpler is better (Ockham's razor by name), predictive power or explanatory scope -- assume that certain features of theory are more like to correspond to the real world. This implies metaphysical convictions consistent with views the sciences cannot themselves prove. Here, the sciences reveal their underlying faith commitments, showing that there is not fundamental difference in kind between what it calls "religion" and what it calls "science."

The Christian worldview (the one they would find even more extreme than intelligent design) can provide the basis for making just this distinction which they need to exclude their desired target, while their secularism hopelessly flounders just here. In other words, only by pretending that the Christian worldview is true for a moment to grab the distinctions they need to uphold their arbitrary distinction between faith and science can they then proceed to act as though their secularized philosophy of science has any merit.

This is VanTil's doctrine of "borrowed capital," which shows the absolute need even of false views to depend for some of their more critical components upon the biblical outlook. Dr. North calls this "STOLEN capital," a form of epistemological plagiarism which fails to properly credit the God of heaven for the revealed knowledge they need to make sense of their own claims (I kinda lean North on this one).

Plenty more criticisms could easily leverage themselves against such flimsy views, including the assumption built in to it that the theoretical sciences can yield provable (determinable) theories. See my book, Subduing Science: the Reformation of Natural Philosophy, for a thorough and extended refutation of this silly set of scientistic dogmata.

It would seem that "Europe's main human rights body" knows very little about the history and philosophy of the sciences. Yet, they wish to play "the Decider" on issues about which they are ill-informed at best. And their primary dogma (positivism) would -- like Lewis Carroll's Queen -- require us to believe 5 contradictory things before breakfast.

This is just one more reason to homeschool your children. We need a future generation that can actually "think" about the subjects in which we require them to engage intellectually. This kind of propaganda coup the Euros are attempting would have done Herr Goehring proud (As head of the Luftwaffe, he and they dropped quite a few leaflets urging surrender in would-be occupied lands). Sieg Heil, and keep up the good work fellas. You keep me employed.