Creationism, the rejection of the scientific basis of evolutionary theory, is experiencing a resurgence among Europeans. The Department of Biology and Didactics of Biology at the TU Dortmund has organized an international conference addressing the issue, titled “Attitude and Knowledge concerning Evolution and Science in Europe (AKESE)”, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education.
On February 20th, researchers from different scientific backgrounds and seven European countries will meet at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Physiology in Dortmund to discuss the scientific significance of evolutionary theory, its lack of social acceptance and the negative attitude towards science that rejection of evolution entails.
Despite its great importance and enormous explanatory power, evolution and the theory of evolution are still poorly understood and actively by many in Europe. While the evolutionary theory is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence, it remains the most controversial scientific theory in the history of man.
Criticism of evolution not a newly emerging phenomenon of the early 21st century and it is not limited to highly religious people: ever since the time of Charles Darwin, critics of evolutionary theory have been found in all countries, at all educational levels and among all social classes.
According to current estimates, 20 % of the German population deny that evolution is occurring. Creationism – the notion that the story of creation told by the respective Holy Scriptures gives an exact account of the creation of life and is to be taken literally – offers many grounds for criticism, and not just to natural scientists, so along with speakers in natural sciences, the conference will also feature humanists and social scientists, who will share their opinion on the issues of creationism and evolution in Europe.
Program (in German) and registration.
Comments
The engineering and complexity of life certainly does not speak of a designer - why would a designer have 99% of his work go extinct? Of course no one can trace life in a fossil record - 80% of all life is soft bodied, it can't be preserved in rocks, and fossils are more luck than design.
Religion does not demand that all the answers be evident right this moment ( if so, who is God and where is Heaven? Oops, religion is invalid if you don't know) but you seem to be saying that all science is invalid unless it can explain everything right now, this moment. A hundred years ago religious people said the continents did not shift too - yet denying it today is silly.
Evolution can be considered an attack on religion when it is used by militant atheists with an ideological agenda but you won't do yourself any credibility favors saying evolution has not happened at all. It clearly has. Science is about understanding nature. If you choose to call nature 'God', go for it.
Hank Campbell | 02/01/09 | 16:16 PM
There is no known process by which any creature or plant can add new DNA, i.e. new information to itself.
It's easy to add DNA; in fact that can be observed in the lab. Nor is it information-less DNA; gene duplication is one way you gain functional genes. Don't just spout creationist talking points. Let's hear some specifics. Prove to us that you actually know anything about evolutionary biology.
Michael White | 02/01/09 | 17:49 PM
Gerhard Adam | 02/01/09 | 14:18 PM
You cannot explain how fossils suddenly appear in the fossil record fully formed, take the trilobite as an example with its hugely complex eyes. No antecedents whatsoever. Nowhere in the vast body of fossils we have can you point to one single example of one creature evolving into another, yet you say evolution is 'proved'. You also could not dispute this sttaement of mine: "There is no known process by which any creature or plant can add new DNA, i.e. new information to itself". Also, many soft-bodied creatures are found in the fossil record, jellyfish for example. I was taught evolution at school and university, but thought about it and realised it didn't make sense. The main reason people cling on to evolution despite the science is because they do not want to acknowledge their Creator. Simple as
Tony Bennett (not verified) | 02/01/09 | 17:40 PM
You cannot explain how fossils suddenly appear in the fossil record fully formed,
What are you talking about? You expect half-formed organisms to appear in the fossil record? You seem to have this bizarre idea that evolution predict incomplete organisms.
If you want to know about eyes, there are plenty of what you might call 'half-formed' eyes around in the living world. It's not hard to see what 'intermediate forms' would have looked like during the evolution of more complex eyes, because there are plenty around for us to observe today in living organisms.
I suppose your explanation for detailed fossil series like the one documenting the evolution of horses is that God or designing aliens made some two-dozen "fully formed" horse intermediates, and then let them go extinct before finally hitting on modern horses.
Michael White | 02/01/09 | 17:55 PM
TB: No, evolution predicts that species gradually change from one form to another wholly different form, becoming more complex through a biological mechanism which is impossible. Here's a few creatures: caterpillar/butterfly, frog, trilobite, stegosaurus, T Rex. In each case, give me the antecedents and show me in detail whereabouts I can find them in the fossil record.
M White: If you want to know about eyes, there are plenty of what you might call 'half-formed' eyes around in the living world. It's not hard to see what 'intermediate forms' would have looked like during the evolution of more complex eyes, because there are plenty around for us to observe today in living organisms.
TB: It is, with the greatest of respect your mind-set and belief system that allows you to describe eyes as 'half-formed'. The evidence is that there are all kinds of designs of eyes, and that each eye has been specifically designed for use by the creature concerned. Thus the trilobite eye can see in the dark, the eagel has an 'eagle eye' that can spot rabits moving about 2,000 feet below it, and so on. There is no such thing as a 'hal-formed' eye.
M White: I suppose your explanation for detailed fossil series like the one documenting the evolution of horses is that God or designing aliens made some two-dozen "fully formed" horse intermediates, and then let them go extinct before finally hitting on modern horses.
TB: Even evolutionist concede that the so-called 'evolution of the horse' series is fraught with problems, and it no longer appears in the best bopoks on palaeontology. Some of the fossils are certainly from other species e.g. conies. And remember this is the ONLY example of evolution form one species into another that is claimed. I repeat: nowhere can you give me even one example from the fossil record of how one species has gradually transformed into another.
Tony Bennett (not verified) | 02/02/09 | 04:13 AM
There is no known process by which non-life can become life.
There is no known process by which any creature or plant can add new DNA, i.e. new information to itself.
The incredible engineering and design complexity of all creatures speaks unerringly of a Designer.
The fossil creatures appear in the fossil record fully formed, with no trace of any antecendents.
Try to get an evolutionist to trace the history of the descent of man from the first living cell down to homo sapiens and he hasn't a clue, the fossil record gives him no idea of how it is supposed to happen.
Because it didn't happen.
The evidence speaks of a creation by a master engineer and designer; the record of sedimentary rocks and the trillions of buried fossils within them speaks of a world-wide flood.
People are beginning to reject evolution lock, stock and barrel and those who still advocate it are looking like they are out of touch and clinging on to a semi-religious belief with no foundation