“The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.”Well, yes.

“The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism…”Admittedly that seems to be an overstatement (the word “most” could do with deleting, and “fundamentalism” ought to replace “extremism”), but even as it stands I don’t see that the CoE’s statement (“Most creationism originates from religious extremism”) is the same as Dembski’s interpretation (“To believe in a God who acts in the world constitutes religious extremism”).

I’d presume Bill gets that from statements like these:

If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism…

I would think that even Theistic Evolutionists would object to the 2nd above statement.

Could someone show me where it says that, please?

So why were the Nazi’s so enamored of Darwin’s theories and why was Marx so delighted with his book?

Intelligent design is mentioned about 25 times in the document and it would be easy enough to put an appropriate comment in the right hand column that reflects on the distortion and provides the correct interpretation for ID.

There may be other potential comments that distort the truth besides these 25 instances of mentioning intelligent design but that would be a start.

There is probably someone in the ID community who could send it to people on the committee. They many not accept it but it is worth a try. If they didn’t accept it, then it would be good publicity on how official organizations distort the issue.

A very good observation!

Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies.

In other words, if you don’t believe that random, unguided and undirected forces have creative powers, THEN we might have “serious consequences” in the “development of our socieites”.

Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied

Nonsense. One doesn’t need darwinian evolutionism in order to be a good medical doctor. Louis Pasteur was able to do very good science (which later helped medicine) with out believing that life forms were the result of an unguided process.

One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

That’s right. If we don’t believe in evolution, all the cows will die, and it will rain sulfur and acid!

Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part.

And now is the part where unguided evolutionists try to equate the rejection of darwinism with the rejection of science.

The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.

Listen, euro-dhimmis, 1) No one is rejecting science 2) Rejecting the nonsensical theory of darwinian evolution is not rejecting science.

ANd now comes the “fascist” bogeyman:

The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements.

Actually, there are many non-extreme right-wing religionist scientists who pose serious scientific problems to darwinism.

Secondly, why do they try to equate those who doubt Darwinism with “extreme right wing”, which in Europe almost always means “fascist”? Are they sugesting that only fascists are against Darwinian evolutionism?

I would correct that to, “seeing that all the evidence we currently have available points to the Scripture being true we now seek the evidence to support it’s claims regarding human origins” – that’s more precise.

“I guess it’s about time we figured that isn’t the case — at least for those leading the opposition.”

Indeed, you cannot count on the typical Darwinist for beginning from a position of either honesty or truth seeking.

They balways start from a “How dare you question Darwin, you fundamentalist fanatic you!” stance.

The only Darwinists I’ve met who were honestly seeking the truth of the matter are now IDists or full blown creationists.

Does anyone know anything about the book and what it says? or about Jacques Arnoult?
——
It’s basically a “God and Darwin” view point – similar to the view of many, both in ID and Darwinist camps. IOW, Arnoult is a theistic evolutionist.

A picture of its cover: HERE

It’s sub-title is “Les Créationnistes vont-ils triompher de la science ?” Which means, “Will creationists triumph over science?”

A very revealing sub-title indeed, just as the sub of “Origin” was; “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Funny, they don’t publish it with the sub-title anymore – not even in the copyright sections. Wonder why?

Arnoult’s sub reveals that, in his opinion, ID (which he considers as a form of creationism) is against science.

Same old rubbish.
————
As for the CoE, this looks to me like yet another materialist, ignorance-based, panic attack. Like as if all Europe were not majoritarily creationist in past!

Most of it is just ludicrous, anti-christ and paranoiac.

So what else would we expect from these poor ignorant Darwin worshipers!?

My guess is that the Eur. public doesn’t (or won’t) agree with them. Except the notorious atheism-based nations like Holland where you can get “mortified” in a hospital if the doc decides for you that your “quality of life” is too low and where pedos now have their own “judged legal” political party.