This is an excellent development for Europe. It's good to see rationals standing their ground. I love how science weakens religion, but at the same time creationism only serves to strengthen the scientific resolve and thus further weaken religion. It's quite the dilemma (or should we say "damned if you do" situation) for the cretins.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071010/full/449649c.html

This decision is completely stupid.

Hitler felt Jews were evolutionary closer to apes, if anything is a threat to human rights it's evolution. :rolleyes:

This decision is completely stupid.

Hitler felt Jews were evolutionary closer to apes, if anything is a threat to human rights it's evolution. :rolleyes:

If Hitler held such a belief, it only demonstrates that he was equally as ignorant of the ToE as the vast majority of theists.

I don't see how either are threats to to these 'human rights' you speak of. Would you like to expound on why evolution would be?

If Hitler held such a belief, it only demonstrates that he was equally as ignorant of the ToE as the vast majority of theists.

Oh really? Many top evolutionary biologists support eugenics, in fact eugenics was first proposed by Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin) as an expansion on Darwin's theory.

If evolution is true, there's no reason why we shouldn't speed up natural selection with artificial selection (eugenics). :p

I don't see how either are threats to to these 'human rights' you speak of. Would you like to expound on why evolution would be?

Evolution suggests that some life-forms are "better" than others, specifically that some humans are better than others.

It also suggests that through the death of the "inferior" life-forms, the species as a whole can be improved.

When this happens in nature, it's known as "natural selection", and is the driving force behind evolution.

However, there is also "artificial selection", when nature is superseded and a human decides to kill or sterilize "inferior" elements of the population in hopes of improving the species as a whole. This idea is also known as "eugenics" and was quite popular in the past; however, when Hitler decided to organize massive eugenics campaigns in Nazi Germany the world -- for the most part -- realized how horrendous and immoral the idea is.

According to your argument, that would make eugenics the threat, not evolution. Evolution is the scientific explanation for life, eugenics is about selective breeding. You might as well argue that physics and math are threats because of the invention of bombs. Hardly a coherent argument...

And just to correct the record...Evolution does not suggest any organisms are "better" in anyway other than their ability to survive and reproduce (this is termed "fitness"). It in no way suggests that the elimination of "inferior" members of a species improves the species. In fact, it suggests the exact opposite--that the strength of a species is dependent on that species' genetic diversity.

Evolution suggests that some life-forms are "better" than others, specifically that some humans are better than others.

As I said, most theists have a poor understanding of the ToE.

The theory of evolution does not make any claim that any life form is *better* than any other, except in the sense that it is better able to pass on it's genes to the next generation.

It also suggests that through the death of the "inferior" life-forms, the species as a whole can be improved.

*Improved* in that they are more able to reproduce and pass on their genes.

However, there is also "artificial selection", when nature is superseded and a human decides to kill or sterilize "inferior" elements of the population in hopes of improving the species as a whole. This idea is also known as "eugenics" and was quite popular in the past; however, when Hitler decided to organize massive eugenics campaigns in Nazi Germany the world -- for the most part -- realized how horrendous and immoral the idea is.

Given that humanity has known about "artificial selection" for hundreds of years before the scientific theory of evolution was brought forth, albeit by other names, you have no point. Not that you would have any point if this wasn't the case anyway, given what was stated above.

Wait...how does creationism threaten human rights?

Evolution suggests that some life-forms are "better" than others, specifically that some humans are better than others


It also suggests that through the death of the "inferior" life-forms, the species as a whole can be improved..
refer to previous two posts

When this happens in nature, it's known as "natural selection", and is the driving force behind evolution.
The driving force behind evolution is genetic change. Random mutations and reproduction.

However, there is also "artificial selection", when nature is superseded and a human decides to kill or sterilize "inferior" elements of the population in hopes of improving the species as a whole. This idea is also known as "eugenics" and was quite popular in the past; however, when Hitler decided to organize massive eugenics campaigns in Nazi Germany the world -- for the most part -- realized how horrendous and immoral the idea is.

Eugenics would be eliminating, stop caring for, or sterilizing people with genetic defects that can be passed on through reproduction. All which would happen naturally way back in the day, but not as much with the advantages of technology.

Social Eugenics would be claiming a particular race or group of people are inferior. And has absolutely no bases on biology or any science at all.

And referring to darwins cousins hypothesis, it didnt hold up. Theres no scientific basis that being smart, creative, etc. is hereditary

Wait...how does creationism threaten human rights?

The Council said it might become a threat to human rights; specifically they mention how it can foster extremist views, especially regarding Science.

The key point to remember is that is based on the Council's definition of human rights, which includes the right to an education. If they believe creationism is total nonsense, then teaching it instead of Science wouldn't really be an education - thus a threat to human rights according to their definition.

The Council said it might become a threat to human rights; specifically they mention how it can foster extremist views, especially regarding Science.

The key point to remember is that is based on the Council's definition of human rights, which includes the right to an education. If they believe creationism is total nonsense, then teaching it instead of Science wouldn't really be an education - thus a threat to human rights according to their definition.

Here's one of their reports on the dangers of creationism (in education). http://www.assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm

They cover some other reasons such as the blurring of the line between science and religion, the importance of evolution in modern scientific theory and the practical benefits of research dependent on evolution.

I think both arguments (creationism or evolution are going to lead to trampling on human rights) are bogus. Neither theory leads to such things, only perverted interpretations/applications of them. Still, I don't see how "teaching" creationism can lead to anything positive in the way of research/learning. You say, some magical orb said 'wazaam' and poof! mankind and all other lifeforms instantly were created and things haven't changed since (even though we know many, MANY lifeforms have since went extinct/changed). Teaching evolution atleast leads to better understandings of genes, DNA, mutation, etc etc.

Oh really? Many top evolutionary biologists support eugenics, in fact eugenics was first proposed by Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin) as an expansion on Darwin's theory.

If evolution is true, there's no reason why we shouldn't speed up natural selection with artificial selection (eugenics). :p

Have you ever seen a german shepherd? A dachsund? A pit bull? A golden retriever? Yeah, well... God didn't make those. Humans did with a little thing called EUGENICS, which is cross-breeding and back-crossing that's been around since the beginning of human civilization. Interestingly, cross pollinization was started by Gregor Mendel, a monk. He knew damn well that God didn't take the rib of F1 and breathe it into F2 and have 50% look like plant A, 25% like Plant B, and so on...

Also, just because evolution is irrefutably true and can be influenced by humans doesn't mean that it's ethical.

In short: STFU.

I think both arguments (creationism or evolution are going to lead to trampling on human rights) are bogus. Neither theory leads to such things, only perverted interpretations/applications of them. Still, I don't see how "teaching" creationism can lead to anything positive in the way of research/learning. You say, some magical orb said 'wazaam' and poof! mankind and all other lifeforms instantly were created and things haven't changed since (even though we know many, MANY lifeforms have since went extinct/changed). Teaching evolution atleast leads to better understandings of genes, DNA, mutation, etc etc.

Like was said, it rests on the definition of "human rights". The Council considers a proper education to be in line with what "human rights" mean, and thus if they feel people are trying to replace the Science curriculum with something nonsensical -as a religious/creationist extremist might want, then undoubtedly human rights, according to that definition, are being attacked.

Unless you're suggesting there is no possible way to give an improper education by replacing evolution with creationism in the class room...

Theres no scientific basis that being smart, creative, etc. is hereditary

O RLY?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060427161424.htm

This decision is completely stupid.

Hitler felt Jews were evolutionary closer to apes, if anything is a threat to human rights it's evolution. :rolleyes:

I doubt Hitler's antisemetic beliefs can be so easily summarised.

Oh really? Many top evolutionary biologists support eugenics, in fact eugenics was first proposed by Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin) as an expansion on Darwin's theory.

So what? Ad hominem.

If evolution is true, there's no reason why we shouldn't speed up natural selection with artificial selection (eugenics). :p

That's a pretty poor attempt at trying to associate evolution with immorality.

Evolution suggests that some life-forms are "better" than others, specifically that some humans are better than others.

It also suggests that through the death of the "inferior" life-forms, the species as a whole can be improved.

There is no better or inferior lifeforms, only those who are most suited to their niche. In an evolutionary sense, there aren't any humans 'better' than others. Humans aren't even 'better' than other organisms that currently flourish.




However, there is also "artificial selection", when nature is superseded and a human decides to kill or sterilize "inferior" elements of the population in hopes of improving the species as a whole. This idea is also known as "eugenics" and was quite popular in the past; however, when Hitler decided to organize massive eugenics campaigns in Nazi Germany the world -- for the most part -- realized how horrendous and immoral the idea is.


Just because survival of the fittest occurs in nature, doesn't mean that we have to carry it out in modern society.
Just because, by nature, we are unable to fly, doesn't mean we should not attempt to do so.

Besides, it is not up to us to decide who is the most 'fit.' Just because you believe in Evolution doesn't mean you automatically support Social Darwinism and Eugenics.
I bloody well don't.

The driving force behind evolution is genetic change. Random mutations and reproduction.

Without natural selection, mutation would be meaningless. :rolleyes:

Bleh. 'Natural selection' is just a superfluous tautology to speak of.
As for 'human rights' I think Bentham said it best when he stated "rights are nonsense upon stilts."

Bleh. 'Natural selection' is just a superfluous tautology to speak of.

In the layman's definition of "survival of the fittest"? Maybe. In the formal scientific definition biologists use? Absolutely not.

Without natural selection, mutation would be meaningless. :rolleyes:

Excellent response, Rolloffle! Does this mean you're finally coming around to accepting how evolution works?

This decision is completely stupid.

Hitler felt Jews were evolutionary closer to apes, if anything is a threat to human rights it's evolution. :rolleyes:

Amazing. You read the first point which talkes about the ideology of Nazi's and comment.

This has also been answered as Eugenics and not evolution. Your creationist ideals and bible are responible for far more deaths than evolution. Your religion has killed more women, children and babies than any other single cause on Earth if you believe in the bible. More have died in the name of Christ than any other single person or event Hitler included, acts of "god" excluded.

This is one of my more favorite points you would have read had you decide to go more than a couple posts deep before puking up your knee jerk meme complex response:

Way back when people believed the earth was flat, everybody had to farm and hunt to eat. They were deathly afraid of droughts, floods, locusts, plague, war, etc. -- powerful forces they could not control. They attributed these things to god(s), and thus made up a bunch of crap to explain why god(s) were angry or pleased with them, and all that crap became their religion. A religion spread when it conquered another, which is why the dominant religions come from the most vicious and hypocritical people -- all talking of peace and freedom while constantly crusading and jihading on one another. Now that we have modern irrigation, pesticides, and antibiotics, religion is only good for manipulating people into giving you money or dying for you.

Excellent response, Rolloffle! Does this mean you're finally coming around to accepting how evolution works?

He's a troll.

O RLY?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060427161424.htm

maybe you should have read it

"While our data suggests the dysbindin gene influences variation in human cognitive ability and intelligence, it only explained a small proportion of it -- about 3 percent. This supports a model involving multiple genetic and environmental influences on intelligence," said Anil Malhotra, MD, principal investigator of the study.

So genetics has a very small part in it. Not enough to warrant selective breeding for that extra 3%.
Still amazing how much we've found out after mapping (if thats the right term )the human genome.



Without natural selection, mutation would be meaningless. :rolleyes:

Without having to compete for resources, space and survival , life on another planet could evolve into something we cant even imagine. If the life was based on DNA it would still mutate, and evolve. Even if life cloned itself. Theres no stoping genetic change. So my previous post still stands.

maybe you should have read it

"While our data suggests the dysbindin gene influences variation in human cognitive ability and intelligence, it only explained a small proportion of it -- about 3 percent. This supports a model involving multiple genetic and environmental influences on intelligence," said Anil Malhotra, MD, principal investigator of the study.

So genetics has a very small part in it. Not enough to warrant selective breeding for that extra 3%.
Still amazing how much we've found out after mapping (if thats the right term )the human genome.

When you compound that with things like brain size and brain cell growth, it becomes clear that there is enough to select based on intelligence.

So genetics has a very small part in it. Not enough to warrant selective breeding for that extra 3%.

That's just one gene out of our entire genome (~25,000 genes). So 0.004% of our genes affects 3% of our intelligence. I would call that significant.

It's a fact that smarter people have smarter babies.