The resolution is not binding on member nations of course. Getting a binding ruling through the EU requires agreement from member nations – which can be difficult to get. (I've gained some familiarity with EU law due to spending two years of my life trying to figure out how our company would follow directives 2002/95/EC and 2002/96/EC).
But it is easier for the Council to create non-binding (i.e. toothless) resolutions – like, for example, saying that Creationism is a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, it's often a good idea to point out a disastrously bad idea. I have no problem with this at all. Of course the resolution still didn't go far enough - they choked on the concept of "natural selection."
However, Reuters left me a bit... puzzled in its reporting effort.
Perhaps because they were attempting to put everything about Creationism into a nutshell explanation. They couldn't take the time to explain why a leading Creationist is in jail for lying about his taxes, or how Creationists have yet to create a scientific paper that proves their theory. They never mention how Creation scientists always tend to be engineers or how they usually gained their doctorate in disciplines other than Biology or Geology.
But I really don't think this is a case of Reuters scrambling the background of a story due to their efforts to summarize it.
No, I think Reuters took a cue from Fox News and created a “fair and balanced” type of article.
From the Reuters report:
Creationism says God made the world in six days as depicted in the Bible. Intelligent design argues some life forms are too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory and needed an unnamed higher intelligence to develop as they have.See? Fair, balanced, and wrong. “Some Conservatives ... both religious and secular,...” This reporting makes it sound as if Creationists have an equal number of secular and religious team members. To me, this also connotes that opponents to evolution have just as many secular members as the proponents of evolution, and this just isn't so!
Some conservatives in the United States, both religious and secular, have long opposed the teaching of evolution in public schools but U.S. courts have regularly barred them from teaching what they describe as religious views of creation.
I expect this sort of reporting from Fox News, the news source that constantly keeps O'Reilly's thumb on the scale in order to ensure balance. But Reuters?
But you know, perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe there is a whole raft of secular people who think that
Wow, the thought of Atheist Creationists seems very odd to me. They would be hated by everyone, wouldn't they?