Criminalizing Creationism

August 3rd, 2007 Jemmy Button Posted in News |

FORMER GEOLOGIST (NOW ATTORNEY) CASEY LUSKIN, a prolific blogger for the Discovery Institute (DI) of Seattle, has sounded another clarion call against the marching jack-boots of Totalitarian Scientists in a stirring new offering, European Darwinists Attempt to Criminalize Intelligent Design as a “Threat to Human Rights”.

Here’s the preamble to Attorney Luskin’s piece (my bolding):

A hallmark of tyranny is when leaders believe they are so correct that they have the right to criminalize dissent. The Council of Europe claims to be a leading “human rights” body in Europe, but last June its “Committee on Culture, Science and Education” issued a report (“Committee Report”) proposing a ban on intelligent design (ID) in science classrooms, suggesting ID may pose a “threat to human rights.”

Attorney Luskin usefully provides a link to the ‘tyrannical’ document seeking to “criminalize dissent”, The dangers of creationism in education (Report of the Council of Europe Committee on Culture, Science and Education – 8 June 2007), a draft resolution in 19 numbered articles.

Now, I’m not a great fan of the Council of Europe (COE) — it’s another layer of good ole fashioned gummint — but all the same it’s instructive to set side by side the DI’s selective quote mining and the original COE draft Resolution. For example, Attorney Luskin writes (my bolding):

Indeed, the Committee Report treats Darwinian evolution like a religious dogma, where “doubt” must be prevented through thought-control: The Committee Report asserts “there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of the Universe and of life on Earth”–

Alarming stuff — until one compares and contrasts with the original COE Resolution (bolding added to the phrase Attorney Luskin somehow omitted from the quote):

Summary
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.

And the COE Summary continues with some further context also missing from Attorney Luskin’s alarm (as ever, my bolding):

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.

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.

One struggles here to undestand Attorney Luskin’s palpable alarm at such a passage as above. After all, the Discovery Institute has repeatedly claimed that ID is not “Creationism”; perhaps Luskin, in his panic, has forgotten the official DI ‘line’ on this point?

In any event, scarcely daring to catch his breath, Attorney Luskin further alarms us with more dire warnings in his DI blog, stating the COE proposes that (my bolding):

– ID must be “combated” because “[i]t is necessary to avoid doubt entering individuals minds” regarding evolution.

In fact, the quoted words do not appear in the proposed Resolution, but have instead been taken out of context from the supplementary Explanatory memorandum, by Mr Guy Lengagne, who wrote the following in paragraphs 101-102 (available at the link above for the COE Resolution; my bolding of the key phrase Attorney Luskin omitted):

101. These reflections lead us to conclude that better teaching or the more appropriate teaching of the sciences and evolution might enable the dissemination of alternative pseudo-theories such as those of the creationists to be combated effectively. It is necessary to avoid doubt entering individuals minds with regard to fundamental scientific knowledge. This importance of quality science teaching that is better suited to the realities of daily life was highlighted in the report on students’ declining interest in scientific studies.

102. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.

So what, exactly, are the ‘tyrannical’ measures proposed by the COE Resolution to, in Attorney Luskin’s lurid headline, “Criminalize Intelligent Design”? Perhaps they may be found in Article 15?

15. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist theories, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.

Not exactly ‘criminalizing’ ID, though, is it? In fact, the sum total of the resolution’s proposals are contained in its two closing Articles (18 and 19; my boldings):

18. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities, to:

18.1. defend and promote scientific knowledge;

18.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

18.3. make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

18.4. firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution by natural selection and in general resist presentation of creationist theories in any discipline other than religion;

18.5. promote the teaching of evolution by natural selection as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

19. The Assembly welcomes the fact that, in June 2006, 27 Academies of Science of Council of Europe member states signed a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.

In the end, this draft resolution was canned and will not be presented for a vote; legally, it’s a dead letter — but a month after its demise, Attorney Luskin has chosen it for the topic of his blog piece on nefarious “European Darwinists” and their ‘tyrannical’ activities.

And it is these proposed activities – the promotion of sound teaching of science in science classes, and of religious matters such as Creationism in religion classes — which Attorney Luskin, on behalf of the Discovery Institute, characterises as an endeavour to “criminalize Intelligent Design”.

There is no legislation proposed, no amendment of any criminal codes of EU member states, no wholesale ‘banning’ of Creationism, nothing more than the promotion of good science in schools. But Attorney Luskin and the Discovery Institute label this attempted ‘criminalization’ of “dissent.”

One must ask, is this really “tyranny” by the Council of Europe–or is it yet another tantrum by the Discovery Institute? “Thought-control” by the Eurocrats–or more shameless quote-mining by the Seattle Think-Tankers?

And one must further wonder: where did the Discovery Institute acquire such poor standards of accuracy, or does the American term “criminalize” not only differ in orthography but also in meaning from British “criminalise”?