Rejection of evolution by religious groups: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:08, 17 January 2008

The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe,^[1] between those who espouse the validity and superiority of a particular religiously-based origin belief (i.e., creationism), and the scientific consensus, particularly in the field of evolutionary biology, but also in the fields of geology, palaeontology, thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology.^[2]

This debate is most prevalent in certain, generally more conservative, regions of the United States, where it is often portrayed as part of the culture wars.^[3] While the controversy has a long history,^[4] today it is mainly over what constitutes good science,^[5]^[6] with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]

The debate also focuses on issues such as the definition of science (and of what constitutes scientific research and evidence), science education (and whether the teaching of the scientific consensus view should be 'balanced' by also teaching fringe theories), free speech, Separation of Church and State, and theology (particularly how different Christian denominations interpret the Book of Genesis).

Within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is overwhelming,^[12] while support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields.^[13]

History of the controversy

Ancient creation-evolution controversies

Lactantius (c.250 - c.330) in his Divine Institutes refutes rudimentary evolutionary thought by discrediting abiogenesis, specifically in regards to the origin of Man. "... [M]en were not born from the ground throughout the world...but one man (Adam) was formed by God and from that one man all the earth was filled with the human race, as again took place after the Deluge (Noah's Flood)."^[14]

Creation-evolution controversy in the age of Darwin

The creation-evolution controversy originated in Europe and North America in the late eighteenth century when discoveries in geology led to various theories of an ancient earth, and fossils showing past extinctions prompted early ideas of evolutionism, notably Lamarckism. In England these ideas of continuing change were seen as a threat to the fixed social order, and were harshly repressed.^[15] Conditions eased, and in 1844 the controversial Vestiges popularised transmutation of species. The scientific establishment dismissed it scornfully and the Church of England reacted with fury, but many Unitarians, Quakers and Baptists opposed to the privileges of the Established church favoured its ideas of God acting through laws. Publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859 brought scientific credibility to evolution, and made it more respectable.^[16]^[17]

There was intense interest in the religious implications of Darwin's book, but the Church of England attention was largely diverted by theological controversy over higher criticism set out in Essays and Reviews by liberal Christian authors, some of whom expressed support for Darwin, as did many nonconformists. The Reverend Charles Kingsley openly supported the idea of God working through evolution. However, many Christians were opposed to the idea and even some of Darwin's close friends and supporters including Charles Lyell and Asa Gray could not accept some of his ideas.^[18] Thomas Huxley, who strongly promoted Darwin's ideas while campaigning to end the dominance of science by the clergy, coined the term agnostic to describe his position that God’s existence is unknowable, and Darwin also took this position,^[18] but evolution was also taken up by prominent atheists including Edward Aveling and Ludwig Büchner and criticised, in the words of one reviewer, as "tantamount to atheism."^[19]^[20] By the end of the century Roman Catholics guided by Pope Leo XIII accepted human evolution from animal ancestors while affirming that the human soul was directly created by God.^[18]

Creationists during this period were largely premillennialists, whose belief in Christ's return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.^[21] However, they were not as concerned about geology, freely granting scientists any time they needed before the Garden of Eden to account for scientific observations, such as fossils and geological findings.^[22] In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth or the progressive nature of the fossil record.^[23] Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Biblical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.^[23] Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually willing either to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or to allow that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.^[24]

Creationism

In the United States of America there was no official resistance to evolution by mainline denominations,^[18] and when Wallace went there for a lecture tour in 1886–1887 his explanations of Darwinism were welcomed without any problems.^[25] Around the start of the 20th century some evangelical scholars had ideas accommodating evolution, such as B. B. Warfield who saw it as a natural law expressing God’s will. However, development of the eugenics movement led many Catholics to reject evolution.^[18]

Most high school and college biology classes taught scientific evolution, but various factors including the rise of fundamentalist Christianity and a rapid increase in the numbers of children attending public schools led to the controversy becoming political after the First World War in reaction to these schools teaching that man evolved from earlier forms of life per Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. The State of Tennessee passed a law (the Butler Act of 1925) prohibiting the teaching of any theory of the origins of humans that contradicted the teachings of the Bible. This law was tested in the highly publicized Scopes Trial of 1925 and in the ensuing appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, being upheld in both cases and remaining on the books until it was repealed in 1967, with most public schools having by then dropped the subject of evolution from their textbooks.^[18] However, the next year, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) that such bans contravened the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose was religious.

Daniel v. Waters

Daniel v. Waters was a 1975 legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school science classes because it violated the Establishment clause of the US Constitution. Following this ruling, creationism was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science, and several states passed Acts requiring that this be given equal time with teaching of evolution.

Creation Science

As biologists grew more and more confident in evolution as the central defining principle of biology,^[26] American membership in churches favoring increasingly literal interpretations of Scripture rose, with the Southern Baptist Convention and Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod outpacing all other denominations.^[27] With growth, these churches became better equipped to promulgate a creationist message, with their own colleges, schools, publishing houses, and broadcast media.^[28]

In 1961, the first major modern creationist book was published: Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr.'s The Genesis Flood. Morris and Whitcomb argued that creation was literally 6 days long, that humans lived concurrently with dinosaurs, and that God created each 'kind' of life individually.^[29] On the strength of this, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at fundamentalist churches, colleges, and conferences.^[30] Morris' Creation Science Research Center (CSRC) rushed publication of biology text books that promoted creationism, and also published other books such as Kelly Segrave's sensational Sons of God Return that dealt with UFOlogy, flood geology, and demonology against Morris' objections.^[31] Ultimately, the CSRC broke up over a divide between sensationalism and a more intellectual approach, and Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research, which was promised to be controlled and operated by scientists.^[32] During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the scientific sounding terms scientific creationism and creation science.^[33] The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views".^[34]

Court cases

Epperson v. Arkansas

In 1928, Arkansas adopted a law which prohibited any public school or university from teaching "the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals" and from using any textbook which taught the same, prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schools. During the forty years the Arkansas law was in effect, no one was ever prosecuted for violating it. In the mid-1960s the secretary of the Arkansas Education Association sought to challenge the law as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. In 1968 the United States Supreme Court invalidated the statute, ruling it unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Mandates that creation science be taught were not ruled unconstitutional by the Court until the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard.

McLean v. Arkansas

In 1982 another case in Arkansas ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" was unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. Much of the transcript of the case was lost, including evidence from Francisco Ayala.

Edwards v. Aguillard

In the early 1980s, the Louisiana legislature passed a law titled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act". The Act did not require teaching either creationism or evolution, but did require that when evolutionary science was taught, the "creation science" had to be taught as well. Creationists had lobbied aggressively for the law, arguing that the Act was about academic freedom for teachers, an argument adopted by the state in support of the Act. Lower courts ruled that the State's actual purpose was to promote the religious doctrine of "creation science," but the State appealed to the Supreme Court. The similar case in McLean v. Arkansas had also decided against creationism. Mclean v. Arkansas however was not appealed to the federal level, creationists instead thinking that they had better chances with Edwards v. Aguillard. In 1987 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Act was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction" leaving open the door for a handful of proponents of creation science to evolve their arguments into the iteration of creationism that came to be known as intelligent design.^[35]

Intelligent Design

In response to the in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Neo-Creationist movement was formed, whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community. The most prominent form of this movement is Intelligent design, the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It has been viewed as a "scientific" approach to creationism by the creationists. However it has widely been accused of not being scientific by the science community.

Controversy in recent times

The controversy continues to this day, with the mainstream scientific consensus on the origins and evolution of life challenged by creationist organizations and religious groups who desire to uphold some form of creationism (usually young earth creationism, creation science, old earth creationism or intelligent design) as an alternative. Most of these groups are explicitly Christian, and more than one sees the debate as part of the Christian mandate to evangelize.^[36] Some see science and religion as being diametrically opposed views which cannot be reconciled. More accommodating viewpoints, held by many mainstream churches and many scientists, consider science and religion to be separate categories of thought, which ask fundamentally different questions about reality and posit different avenues for investigating it.^[37] Public opinion in regards to the concepts of Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design is fluctuating.

More recently, the Intelligent Design movement has taken an anti-evolution position which avoids any direct appeal to religion. Scientists argue that Intelligent design does not represent any research program within the mainstream scientific community, and is essentially creationism.^[38] Its leading proponent, the Discovery Institute, made widely publicised claims that it was a new science, though the only paper arguing for it published in a scientific journal was accepted in questionable circumstances and quickly disavowed in the Sternberg peer review controversy. President Bush commented endorsing the teaching of Intelligent design alongside evolution "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about."^[39]

In recent times, the controversy which was previously centered mainly in the United States has become more prominent elsewhere such as in Islamic countries. ^[40] Currently, in Egypt evolution is taught in schools but Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.^[41]

The Dover Trial

Following the Edwards v. Aguillard trial in the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion, creationists renewed their efforts to introduce creationism into public school science classes. This effort resulted in intelligent design, which sought to avoid legal prohibitions by leaving the source of creation an unnamed and undefined intelligent designer, as opposed to God.^[42] This ultimately resulted in the "Dover Trial," Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which went to trial on September 26, 2005 and was decided on December 20, 2005 in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design be taught in public school science classrooms was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The 139 page opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research.

Kansas evolution hearings

In the push by intelligent design advocates to introduce intelligent design in public school science classrooms, the hub of the intelligent design movement, the Discovery Institute, arranged to conduct hearings to review the evidence for evolution in the light of its Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plans. The Kansas Evolution Hearings were a series of hearings held in Topeka, Kansas May 5 to May 12 2005. The Kansas State Board of Education eventually adopted the institute's Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plans over objections of the State Board Science Hearing Committee, and electioneering on behalf of conservative Republican candidates for the Board.^[43] On August 1, 2006, 4 of the 6 conservative Republicans who approved the Critical Analysis of Evolution classroom standards lost their seats in a primary election. The moderate Republican and Democrats gaining seats vowed to overturn the 2005 school science standards and adopt those recommended by a State Board Science Hearing Committee that were rejected by the previous board, ^[44] and on February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. The definition of science was once again limited to "the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe."^[45]

Viewpoints

Young Earth creationism

Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by God within the last 10,000 years, literally as described in Genesis, within the approximate timeframe of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Young Earth creationists often believe that the Universe has a similar age as the Earth. Creationist cosmologies are attempts by some creationist thinkers to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other Young-Earth timeframes. This belief generally has a basis in a literal and inerrant interpretation of the Bible.

Old Earth creationism

Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event of Genesis is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally believes that the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of the evolutionary theory are questionable. Old Earth creationists interpret the creation accounts of Genesis in a number of ways, that each differ from the six, consecutive, 24-hour day creation of the literalist Young Earth Creationist view.

Neo-Creationism

Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Their goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public. Neo-creationists may be either Young Earth or Old Earth Creationists, and hold a range of underlying theological viewpoints (e.g. on the interpretation of the Bible).

Theistic evolution

Theistic evolution, also known as "evolutionary creationism," is the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including specifically evolution. It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the first cause and immanent sustainer/upholder of the universe; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong theistic (as opposed to deistic) convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize with the day-age interpretation of the Genesis creation account; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a literary framework or allegory.

This position does not generally exclude the viewpoint of methodological naturalism, a long standing convention of the scientific method in science.

Naturalistic evolution

Naturalistic evolution is the position of acceptance of biological evolution and of metaphysical naturalism (and thus rejection of theism and theistic evolution).

Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science

Critiques such as those based on the distinction between theory and fact are often leveled against unifying concepts within scientific disciplines. Principles such as uniformitarianism, Occam's Razor or parsimony, and the Copernican principle are claimed to be the result of a bias within science toward philosophical naturalism, which is equated by many creationists with atheism.^[46] In countering this claim, philosophers of science use the term methodological naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method. The methodological assumption is that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and therefore supernatural explanations for such events are outside the realm of science.^[47] Creationists claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded and that scientific work is paradigmatically close-minded.^[48]

Because modern science tries to rely on the minimization of a priori assumptions, error, and subjectivity, as well as on avoidance of Baconian idols, it remains neutral on subjective subjects such as religion or morality.^[49] Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form of pseudoscience.^[50]

Definitions

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can
incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
— National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism^[51]

Limitations of the scientific endeavor

In science, explanations are limited to those based
on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based
on empirical evidence are not a part of science.
— National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism^[51]

Theory vs. fact

See also: Theory and Fact

The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution.^[52] The argument is related to a common misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" that is used by scientists. In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions. However, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."^[53]

Exploring this issue, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:^[54]

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Falsifiability

Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience: Testable theories are scientific, but those that are untestable are not.^[55]^[56] However, in Unended Quest, Popper declared "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme, a possible framework for testable scientific theories," while pointing out it had "scientific character".^[57]

In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping,"^[58] opponents of evolution seized upon Popper's definition to claim evolution was not a science, and claimed creationism was an equally valid metaphysical research program.^[59] For example, Duane Gish, a leading Creationist proponent, wrote in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981): "Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)."^[60]

Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that evolutionary theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."^[61] However, creationists claimed that a key evolutionary concept, that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor, was not mentioned as testable by Popper, and claimed it never would be.^[62]

In fact, Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.^[63] Only a few years later, Popper changed his mind, and later wrote, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation".^[64]^[65]

Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiability in science continues.^[66] However, simple falsifiability tests for common descent have been offered by some scientists: For instance, biologist and prominent critic of creationism Richard Dawkins and J.B.S. Haldane both pointed out that if fossil rabbits were found in the Precambrian era, a time before most similarly complex lifeforms had evolved, "that would completely blow evolution out of the water."^[67]^[68]

Falsifiability has also caused problems for creationists: In his 1982 decision McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Judge William R. Overton used falsifiability as one basis for his ruling against the teaching of creation science in the public schools, ultimately declaring it "simply not science."^[69]

Conflation of science and religion

Many of the most vocal creationists blur the boundaries between criticisms of modern science, philosophy, and culture. They often conjoin their arguments focused on the science of evolution with doctrinal statements or evangelistic attempts. This can be a central focus of apologetics. For example, in explanation for his "struggle" against evolution, prominent creationist Ken Ham has declared "the Lord has not just called us to knock down evolution, but to help in restoring the foundation of the gospel in our society. We believe that if the churches took up the tool of Creation Evangelism in society, not only would we see a stemming of the tide of humanistic philosophy, but we would also see the seeds of revival sown in a culture which is becoming increasingly more pagan each day."^[70] Ham teaches that a rejection of the biblical creation history undermines the relevancy of the Christian gospels and derivatively weakens the moral foundations of society.

Disputes relating to science

Many creationists vehemently oppose certain scientific theories in a number of ways, including opposition to specific applications of scientific processes, accusations of bias within the scientific community,^[71] and claims that discussions within the scientific community reveal or imply a crisis. In response to perceived crises in modern science, creationists claim to have an alternative, typically based on faith, creation science, and/or intelligent design. The scientific community has responded by pointing out that their conversations are frequently misrepresented (e.g. by quote mining) in order to create the impression of a deeper controversy or crisis, and that the creationists' alternatives are generally pseudoscientific.

Biology

Disputes relating to Evolutionary Biology are central to the controversy between Creationists and the Scientific community. The aspects of Evolutionary Biology disputed include Common Descent (and particularly Human evolution from common ancestors with other members of the Great Apes), Macroevolution, and the existence of Transitional Fossils.

Common descent

A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary principles was proposed by Charles Darwin and is now generally accepted by biologists. The last universal common ancestor, that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms, is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago.

With a few exceptions (e.g. Michael Behe), the vast majority of Creationists reject this theory.

Evidence of common descent includes evidence from fossil records, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution of species, comparative physiology and comparative biochemistry.

Human evolution

Human evolution is the part of biological evolution concerning the emergence of humans as a distinct species.

Molecular evidence indicates that the lineage of gibbons (family Hylobatidae) became distinct between 18 and 12 Ma, and that of orangutans (subfamily Ponginae) at about 12 Ma; we have no fossils that clearly document the ancestry of gibbons, which may have originated in a so far unknown South East Asian hominid population, but fossil proto-orangutans may be represented by Ramapithecus from India and Griphopithecus from Turkey, dated to around 10 Ma. Molecular evidence further suggests that between 8 and 4 mya, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzee (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees. We have no fossil record, however, of either group of African great apes, possibly because bones do not fossilize in rain forest environments.

Thereafter, paleoanthropology traces human evolution, via fossil hominid evidence through genus Homo to modern Humans.

Creationists have argued that these fossils are either of apes (e.g. that Java man was a gibbon^[72]) or humans, with no intermediates between the two. However Creationists frequently disagree on where this gap lies.^[73] Creation stories (such as the Book of Genesis) frequently posit a first man (Adam, in the case of Genesis) as an alternative viewpoint to the scientific account.

Macroevolution

Creationists have long argued against the possibility of Macroevolution. Macroevolution is defined by the scientific community to be evolution that occurs at or above the level of species. Under this definition, Macroevolution can be considered to be a fact, as evidenced by observed instances of speciation. Creationists however tend to apply a more restrictive, if vaguer, definition of Macroevolution, often relating to the emergence of new body forms or organs. The scientific community considers that there is strong evidence for even such more restrictive definitions, but the evidence for this is more complex.

Recent arguments against (such restrictive definitions of) macroevolution include the Intelligent Design arguments of Irreducible complexity and Specified complexity. However, neither argument has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and both arguments have been rejected by the scientific community as pseudoscience.

Transitional fossils

It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils.^[74]^[75] This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.

Geology

Many believers in Young Earth Creationism – a position held by the majority of proponents of Flood Geology – accept biblical chronogenealogies (such as the Ussher chronology which in turn is based on the Masoretic version of the Genealogies of Genesis).^[76]^[77] They believe that God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, in the space of six days. Much of creation geology is devoted to debunking the dating methods used in anthropology, geology, and planetary science that give ages in conflict with the young Earth theories. In particular, creationists dispute the reliability of radiometric dating and isochron analysis, both of which are central to mainstream geological theories of the age of the Earth. They usually dispute these methods based on uncertainties concerning initial concentrations of individually considered species and the associated measurement uncertainties caused by diffusion of the parent and daughter isotopes. However, a full critique of the entire parameter-fitting analysis, which relies on dozens of radionuclei parent and daughter pairs, has not been done by creationists hoping to cast doubt on the technique.

The consensus of professional scientific organisations worldwide is that no scientific evidence contradicts the age of approximately 4.5 billion years.^[78] Young Earth creationists reject these ages on the grounds of what they regard as being tenuous and untestable assumptions in the methodology. Apparently inconsistent radiometric dates are often quoted to cast doubt on the utility and accuracy of the method. Mainstream proponents who get involved in this debate point out that dating methods only rely on the assumptions that the physical laws governing radioactive decay have not been violated since the sample was formed (harking back to Lyell's doctrine of uniformitarianism). They also point out that the "problems" that creationists publicly mentioned can be shown to either not be problems at all, are issues with known contamination, or simply the result of incorrectly evaluating legitimate data.

Creationists do not claim to have a scientifically verifiable method for dating the Earth, and instead rely solely on Biblical chronologies.

Other sciences

Cosmology

Whilst Young Earth Creationists believe that the Universe was created approximately 6000 years ago, the current scientific consensus is that it is about 13.7 billion years old. The recent science of nucleocosmochronology is extending the approaches used for Carbon-14 dating to the dating of astronomical features. For example based upon this emerging science, the Galactic thin disk of the Milky Way galaxy is estimated to have been formed between 8.3 ± 1.8 billion years ago.^[79]

Many other creationists, including Old Earth Creationists, do not necessarily dispute these figures.

Nuclear physics

Creationists point to experiments they have performed, which they claim demonstrate that 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay took place over a short period of time, from which they infer that "billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying nuclear physics generally, and radiometric dating in particular.^[80]

The scientific community points to numerous flaws in these experiments, to the fact that their results have not been accepted for publication by any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and to the fact that the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental geochronology.^[81]^[82]

Although scientists have demonstrated that the decay rates of isotopes which decay by an electron capture mechanism can be varied slightly, these variations are of the order of 0.2 percent, far below a level that would give support to the Creationist results, and at a level that it is argued that they would not invalidate radiometric dating, nor is there any evidence of a variation in decay rates or physical constants over time. The consensus of professional scientific organisations worldwide is that no scientific evidence contradicts the age of approximately 4.5 billion years. It is further argued that "[i]t is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates."^[83]

Misrepresentations of science

Quote mining

As a means to criticise mainstream science, creationists have been known to quote, at length, scientists who ostensibly support the mainstream theories, but appear to acknowledge criticisms similar to those of creationists.^[84] However, almost universally these have been shown to be quote mines that do not accurately reflect the evidence for evolution or the mainstream scientific community's opinion of it, or highly out-of-date.^[85]^[86] Many of the same quotes used by creationists have appeared so frequently in Internet discussions due to the availability of cut and paste functions, that the TalkOrigins Archive has created "The Quote Mine Project" for quick reference to the original context of these quotations.^[85]

Public policy issues

Science education

Creationists promote that evolution is a theory in crisis^[87]^[88] with scientists criticizing evolution^[89] and claim that fairness and equal time requires educating students about the alleged scientific controversy.

Opponents, comprised of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and science education organizations,^[90] reply that there is in fact no scientific controversy and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.^[87]^[91] The American Association for the Advancement of Science and other science and education professional organizations say that Teach the Controversy proponents seek to undermine the teaching of evolution^[87]^[92] while promoting intelligent design,^[93]^[94]^[95] and to advance an education policy for US public schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula.^[96]^[97] This viewpoint was supported by the December 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.^[97]

George Mason University Biology Department introduced a course on the creation/evolution controversy, and apparently as students learn more about biology, they find objections to evolution less convincing, suggesting that “teaching the controversy” rightly as a separate elective course on philosophy or history of science, or "politics of science and religion," would undermine creationists’ criticisms, and that the scientific community’s resistance to this approach was bad public relations.^[98]

Freedom of speech

Creationists have claimed that preventing them from teaching Creationism violates their right of Freedom of speech. However court cases (such as Webster v. New Lenox School District and Bishop v. Aronov) have upheld school districts' and universities' right to restrict teaching to a specified curriculum.

Issues relating to religion

Theological arguments

Religion and historical scientists

Creationists often argue that Christianity and literal belief in the Bible are either foundationally significant or directly responsible for scientific progress.^[99] To that end, Institute for Creation Research founder Henry M. Morris has enumerated scientists such as astronomer and philosopher Galileo, mathematician and theoretical physicist James Clerk Maxwell, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, geneticist monk Gregor Mendel, and Isaac Newton as believers in a biblical creation narrative.^[100]

This argument usually involves scientists either who were no longer alive when evolution was proposed or whose field of study didn't include evolution. The argument is generally rejected as specious by those who oppose creationism.^[101]

Many of the scientists in question did some early work on the mechanisms of evolution, e.g., the Modern evolutionary synthesis combines Darwin's Evolution with Mendel's theories of inheritance and genetics. Though biological evolution of some sort had become the primary mode of discussing speciation within science by the late-19th century, it was not until the mid-20th century that evolutionary theories stabilized into the modern synthesis. Some of the historical scientists marshalled by creationists were dealing with quite different issues than any are engaged with today: Louis Pasteur, for example, opposed the theory of spontaneous generation with biogenesis, an advocacy some creationists describe as a critique on chemical evolution and abiogenesis. Pasteur accepted that some form of evolution had occurred and that the Earth was millions of years old.^[102]

The relationship between science and religion was not portrayed in antagonistic terms until the late-19th century, and even then there have been many examples of the two being reconcilable for evolutionary scientists.^[103] Many historical scientists wrote books explaining how pursuit of science was seen by them as fulfillment of spiritual duty in line with their religious beliefs. Even so, such professions of faith were not insurance against dogmatic opposition by certain religious people.

Some extensions to this creationist argument have included the incorrect suggestions that Einstein's deism was a tacit endorsement of creationism or that Charles Darwin converted on his deathbed and recanted evolutionary theory.

Forums for the controversy

Debates

Many creationists and scientists engage in frequent public debates regarding the origin of human life, hosted by a variety of institutions. However, some scientists disagree with this tactic, arguing that by openly debating supporters of supernatural origin explanations (creationism and intelligent design), scientists are lending credibility and unwarranted publicity to creationists, which could foster an inaccurate public perception and obscure the factual merits of the debate.^[104] For example, in May 2004 Dr. Michael Shermer debated creationist Kent Hovind in front of a predominately creationist audience. In Shermer's online reflection while he was explaining that he won the debate with intellectual and scientific evidence he felt it was "not an intellectual exercise," but rather it was "an emotional drama."^{[clarification needed]}^[105] While receiving positive responses from creationist observers, Shermer concluded "Unless there is a subject that is truly debatable (evolution v. creation is not), with a format that is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion."^[105] (see: scientific method). Others, like evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci, have debated Hovind, and have expressed surprise to hear Hovind try "to convince the audience that evolutionists believe humans came from rocks" and at Hovind's assertion that biologists believe humans "evolved from bananas."^[106] ^{[clarification needed]}

Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools, claimed debates are not the sort of arena to promote science to creationists.^[105] Scott says that "Evolution is not on trial in the world of science," and "the topic of the discussion should not be the scientific legitimacy of evolution" but rather should be on the lack of evidence in creationism. Stephen Jay Gould took public stances against appearing to give legitimacy to creationism by debating its proponents. He noted during a Caltech lecture in 1985:^[107]

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!

Political lobbying

A wide range of organisations, on both sides of the controversy, are involved in lobbying in an attempt to influence political decisions relating to the teaching of evolution, at a number of levels. These include the Discovery Institute, the National Center for Science Education, the National Science Teachers Association, state Citizens Alliances for Science, and numerous national science associations and state Academies of Science.^[108]

The controversy in the media

The controversy has been discussed in numerous newspaper articles, reports, op-eds and letters to the editor, as well as a number of radio and television programmes (including the PBS series, Evolution and Coral Ridge Ministries' Darwin's Deadly Legacy). This has led some commentators to express a concern at what they see as a highly inaccurate and biased understanding of evolution among the general public. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and writer Edward Humes states:^[109]

There are really two theories of evolution. There is the genuine scientific theory and there is the talk-radio pretend version, designed not to enlighten but to deceive and enrage. The talk-radio version had a packed town hall up in arms at the "Why Evolution Is Stupid" lecture. In this version of the theory, scientists supposedly believe that all life is accidental, a random crash of molecules that magically produced flowers, horses and humans -- a scenario as unlikely as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747. Humans come from monkeys in this theory, just popping into existence one day. The evidence against Darwin is overwhelming, the purveyors of talk-radio evolution rail, yet scientists embrace his ideas because they want to promote atheism.

The controversy outside the United States

Europe

On 17th September 2007 the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a report on the attempt by American inspired creationists to promote creationism in European schools. It concludes "If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.... 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... some advocates of creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy."^[110]

Australia

With declining church attendance, there has been some growth in fundamentalist and pentecostal Christian denominations.^[111] Under the former Queensland state government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in 1980 lobbying was so successful that Queensland allowed the teaching of creationism as science to school children. Since then Professor Ian Pilmer, a prominent anti-creationist geologist, has been attacked by creationists at home.^[112] Public lectures have been given in rented rooms at Universities, by visiting American speakers, and speakers with doctorates purchased by mail from Florida sites.^[113] A court case taken by Pilmer against prominent creationists found "that the creationists had stolen the work of others for financial profit, that the creationists told lies under oath and that the creationists were engaged in fraud."^{[failed verification]} The debate has also featured on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners^{[failed verification]} and Quantum programs.^[114]

References

^ See Hovind 2006, for example.
^ An Index to Creationist Claims, Mark Isaak, Talkorigins Archive,Copyright © 2006.
^ Larson 2004, p. 247-263 Chapter titled Modern Culture Wars. See also Ruse 1999, p. 26, who writes "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed...religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently been very significant factors in the forward movement of science."
^ Numbers 1992, p. 3-240
^ Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 1
^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 20
^ Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens, Peter Slevin, Washington Post, Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A01
^ The Political Design of Intelligent Design, Russell D. Renka, November 16, 2005.
^ Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive, Jody Wilgoren, The New York Times, April 21, 2005.
^ The Newest Evolution of Creationism, Barbara Forrest, Natural History, April, 2002, page 80.
^ Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, pages 7-9, also pages 64-90
^ Myers 2006; NSTA 2003; IAP 2006; AAAS 2006; and Pinholster 2006
^ Larson 2004, p. 258 "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." See also Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23, a Newsweek article which states "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."
^ The Divine Institutes 6.10-11, trans. W. Fletcher, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers 7.
^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 34-35
^ van Wyhe 2006
^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 321-323, 503-505.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f AAAS Evolution Dialogues: Science, Ethics and Religion study guide (pdf)
^ Hodge 1874, p. 177, Numbers 1992, p. 14
^ Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 965, Huxley 1902
^ Numbers 1992, p. 14
^ Numbers 1992, p. 14-15
^ ^a ^b Numbers 1992, p. 17
^ Numbers 1992, p. 18, noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many or most Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views were rarely expressed in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David Nevins Lord (1792-1880). However, the observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807-1884); John William Dawson (1820-1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818-1907); George D. Armstrong (1813-1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797-1878); James Dwight Dana (1813-1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and respected Amherst College geologist, (1793-1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818-1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?-1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838-1922; Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist who published The Other Side of Evolution Its Effects and Fallacy
^ Moore 2006
^ Larson 2004, p. 248,250, see also Dobzhansky 1973
^ Larson 2004, p. 251
^ Larson 2004, p. 252
^ Larson 2004, p. 255,Numbers 1992, p. xi,200-208
^ Larson 2004, p. 255
^ Numbers 1992, p. 284-285
^ Numbers 1992, p. 284-6
^ Quoting Larson 2004, p. 255-256: "Fundamentalists no longer merely denounced Darwinism as false; they offered a scientific-sounding alternative of their own, which they called either 'scientific creationism (as distinct from religious creationism) or 'creation science' (as opposed to evolution science."
^ Larson 2004, p. 254-255, Numbers 1998, p. 5-6
^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District pp 7-9.
^ Verderame 2007,Simon 2006
^ Dewey 1994, p. 31, and Wiker 2003, summarizing Gould.
^ Larson 2004, p. 258 "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." See also Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23, a Newsweek article which states "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."
^ Bumiller 2005, Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 3
^ "Evolution and religion: In the beginning". The Economist. 2007-04-19. Retrieved 2007-04-25. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.
^ Pitock, Todd (2007). "Science and Islam". Discover: 36–45. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ The "Evolution" of Creationism Timeline: how creationism has "evolved". People for the American Way.
^ Some question group's move with elections nearing 6News Lawrence, Lawrence Journal-World. July 7, 2006.
^ Evolution’s foes lose ground in Kansas MSNBC, August 2, 2006.
^ Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence The Associated Press, via the International Herald Tribune, February 13, 2007.
^ Johnson 1998, Hodge 1874, p. 177, Wiker 2003, Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 5--Peters and Hewlett argue that the atheism of many evolutionary supporters must be removed from the debate
^ Lenski 2000, p. Conclusions
^ Johnson 1998
^ Einstein 1930, p. 1-4
^ Dawkins 1997
^ ^a ^b Free Executive Summary, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences, 1999, ISBN: 978-0-309-06406-4.
^ Johnson 1993, p. 63, Tolson 2005, Moran 1993 ; Selman v. Cobb County School District. US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2005); Talk. Origins; Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29. Interview with Richard Dawkins
^ Merriam-Webster online dictionary. www.m-w.com
^ Gould 1981
^ Number 1992, p. 247
^ Wilkins, John S, Evolution and Philosophy: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?, TalkOrigins Archive.
^ Popper 1976, p. 168 and 172 quoted in Kofahl 1981
^ Unknown sociologist quoted in Numbers 1992, p. 247
^ Kofahl 1989 as quoted by Numbers 1992, p. 247
^ Lewin 1982
^ Popper 1980, p. 611 as cited in Numbers, 1992 & p247
^ Kofahl 1981, p. 873
^ Talkorigins summary of Karl Popper attitudes towards evolution
^ Natural selection and the emergence of mind, Karl Popper, Dialectica 32(3/4): 339—355, 1978.
^ Did Popper refute evolution?, Massimo Pigliucci, Skeptical Inquirer, Sept-Oct 2004.
^ Ruse 1999, p. 13-37, which discusses conflicting ideas about science among Karl Popper, Thomas Samuel Kuhn, and their disciples.
^ As quoted by Wallis 2005, p. 32. Also see Dawkins 1986 and Dawkins 1995
^ Wallis 2005, p. 6 Dawkins quoting Haldane
^ Dorman 1996
^ Ham, Ken. Creation Evangelism (Part II of Relevance of Creation). Creation Magazine '6'(2):17, November 1983.
^ Johnson 1993, p. 69 where Johnson cites three pages spent in Issac Asimov's New Guide to Science that take creationists to task, while only spending one half page on evidence of evolution.
^ Was Java Man a gibbon?, Jim Foley, TalkOrigins website, April 30, 2003.
^ Comparison of all skulls, Jim Foley, TalkOrigins website, August 8, 2005.
^ Scientific Creationism, Henry M. Morris, 1985, pp. 78-90
^ Life--How Did It Get Here?, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985, pp. 57-59
^ Biblical chronogenealogies
^ The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11
^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, Interacademy Panel on Global Issues, June 21, 2006.
^ Del Peloso, E.F. (2005). "The age of the Galactic thin disk from Th/Eu nucleocosmochronology". A&A. 434: 301–308. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20047060. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World, D. Russell Humphreys, Impact, Number 352, October 2002.
^ Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates" Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data, Kevin R. Henke, TalkOrigins website, Original version: March 17, 2005, Revision: November 24, 2005.
^ R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research, J. G. Meert, Gondwana Research, The Official Journal of the International Association for Gondwana, November 13, 2000 (updated February 6, 2003).
^ Claim CF210, Mark Isaak (editor), Index to Creationist Claims, TalkOrigins website, 2004.
^ Dobzhansky 1973
^ ^a ^b Pieret 2006
^
- Isaak, Mark (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA113". Talk.origins. Retrieved 2007-12-27.
- Dunford, Mike (2007-07-02). "A new (mis)take on an old paper (and other posts)". [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|]]. Retrieved 2007-12-26.
- Myers, PZ (2004-09-11). "I'm shocked, shocked to find that quote mining is going on in there!". Pharyngula (blog). Retrieved 2007-12-27.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16 2006 (PDF file) Cite error: The named reference "AAAS" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89
^ "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006
^ See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin Petition has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects intelligent design and denies that there is a legitimate scientific controversy. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
^ "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006
^ "In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." Ruling - disclaimer, pg. 49 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
^ "ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message
^ Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? by William A. Dembski"The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to "teach the controversy." There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy."
^ Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists... Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006
^ "has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science." . . . The effect of Defendants’ actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Conclusion, page 134
^ ^a ^b "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, whether ID is science, page 89
^ AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion, 20 April 2006, Emmett Holman, Associate Professor of Philosophy from George Mason University, retrieved 2007-04-29
^ Woods 2005, p. 67-114, Chapter Five: The Church and Science
^ Morris 1982
^ Index to Creationist Claims - Claim CA114 edited by Mark Isaak. 2005
^ Index to Creationist Claims - Claim CA114.22 edited by Mark Isaak. 2005
^ [1] Science and religion: Conflicts & occasional agreements
^ Why I Won't Debate Creationists, Richard Dawkins, Reason : In the News, richarddawkins.net, the official Richard Dawkins website, Monday, May 15, 2006.
^ ^a ^b ^c Shermer, Michael (May 10, 2004). "Then a Miracle Occurs: An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith". eSkeptic Online. Retrieved 2007-02-11.
^ Massimo Pigliucci. Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. (Sinauer, 2002): ISBN 0878936599 page 102.
^ Shermer, Michael. 'Why People Believe Weird Things', Owl Books, 2002. Paperback ed, p. 153.
^ Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations, NCSE
^ Unintelligent designs on Darwin, Edward Humes, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
^ New Scientist 10 November 2007, p. 72
^ Christianity – Pentecostalism Australian Broadcasting Corporation
^ http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/aevdnun.htm
^ Pilmer, Ian "Telling lies for God- Reason versus Creationism", (Random House)
^ http://www.abc.net.au/abccontentsales/s1179683.htm

Citations

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-14

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-04-29

Template:Harvard referenceRetrieved on 2007-01-22

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-14

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-02-03

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-30

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-14

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-31

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-30

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-17

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-04-28

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-14

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-17

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-14

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-14

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference See abstract Retrieved on 2007-01-29

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-23

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-14 This is a reproduction of a Science article on Robert L. Hall's faculty pages. It quotes a Discover letter to the editor by David Gish responding to Stephen Jay Gould's description of creation science.

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference facsimile retrieved on 2007-04-29

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-04-27

Template:Harvard reference Reproduced here, retrieved on 2007-04-27

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-24

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-23

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-20

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-09-12

Numbers, Ronald L. (1992), Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., p. 224, ISBN 0-679-40104-0

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-28

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-23

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-14

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-04-27

Template:Harvard reference

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-02-03

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-04-27

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-6

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-04-27

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-24

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-02-07

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-31

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-21

Template:Harvard reference Retrieved on 2007-01-14

Template:Harvard reference

Published books and other resources

Burian, RM: 1994. Dobzhansky on Evolutionary Dynamics: Some Questions about His Russian Background. In The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky, ed. MB Adams, Princeton University Press.
Samuel Butler, Evolution Old and New, 1879, p. 54.
Darwin, "Origin of Species," New York: Modern Library, 1998.
Dobzhansky, Th: 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press
Henig, The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
Kutschera, Ulrich and Karl J. Niklas. 2004. "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis." Naturwissenschaften '91', pp. 255-276.
Mayr, E. The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.
James B. Miller (Ed.): An Evolving Dialogue: Theological and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution, ISBN 1-56338-349-7
Morris, H.R. 1963. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Numbers, R.L. 1991. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Berkely: University of California Press.
Pennock, Robert T. 2003. "Creationism and intelligent design." Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics '4', pp. 143-163.
Carl Sagan. The Demon-Haunted World. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
Scott, Eugenie C. 1997. "Antievolution and creationism in the United States." Annual Review of Anthropology '26': 263-289.
Maynard Smith, "The status of neo-darwinism," in "Towards a Theoretical Biology" (C.H. Waddington, ed., University Press, Edinburgh, 1969.
D.L. Hull: The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper. Biology and Philosophy '14':4 (October 1999), 481–504.
Strobel, Lee. 2004. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

External links

Gallup public opinion poll in regards to the concepts of Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design as of May 2007
Data by country regarding the percentage of the population that believes in evolution
Evolution for Creationists Informal site where some religious questions about evolution has being answered

Comments on Creationism as Social Policy

Isaac Asimov, The "Threat" of Creationism.

Theistic Evolution (a mixture of religious belief and science)

A Bahai perspective on the development of theories of origins

Examples of Creationist Beliefs

An Index to Creationist Claims - attempts to maintain a complete list of creationist claims leveled against evolution, with rebuttals and references from the scientific community

Young Earth Creationists

Answers in Genesis
Creation Ministries International A splinter group from Answers in Genesis including most of their non-US chapters.

Old Earth Creationists

Answers In Creation Old Earth Creationists site
Reasons to Believe - Offering a biblically based old-earth creation model

In the News

So what's with all the dinosaurs? A museum dedicated to the idea that the creation of the world, as told in Genesis, is factually correct - will soon open. The Guardian (UK) 13 November 2006: G2 section pp.12-13.

Formal debates

Kenneth R. Miller vs. Phillip E. Johnson (Nova online, 1996)
The 1997 Firing Line Creation-Evolution Debate featuring Kenneth R. Miller, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott, Barry Lynn (evolution) vs. Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe, David Berlinski, William F. Buckley (creationism or intelligent design)
Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? The 1994 Debate between William B. Provine and Phillip E. Johnson at Stanford University
Transcript and audio recording of a debate at Royal Holloway, University of London of London on whether evolution and intelligent design should be accorded equal status as scientific theories, between Steve Fuller (affirmative) and Lewis Wolpert (negative).

[1] See Hovind 2006, for example.

[2] An Index to Creationist Claims, Mark Isaak, Talkorigins Archive,Copyright © 2006.

[3] Larson 2004, p. 247-263 Chapter titled Modern Culture Wars. See also Ruse 1999, p. 26, who writes "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed...religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently been very significant factors in the forward movement of science."

[4] Numbers 1992, p. 3-240

[Peters_and_Hewlett_2005_p1-5] Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 1

[6] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 20

[7] Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens, Peter Slevin, Washington Post, Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A01

[8] The Political Design of Intelligent Design, Russell D. Renka, November 16, 2005.

[9] Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive, Jody Wilgoren, The New York Times, April 21, 2005.

[10] The Newest Evolution of Creationism, Barbara Forrest, Natural History, April, 2002, page 80.

[11] Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, pages 7-9, also pages 64-90

[12] Myers 2006; NSTA 2003; IAP 2006; AAAS 2006; and Pinholster 2006

[13] Larson 2004, p. 258 "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." See also Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23, a Newsweek article which states "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."

[14] The Divine Institutes 6.10-11, trans. W. Fletcher, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers 7.

[15] Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 34-35

[JvW-16] van Wyhe 2006

[17] Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 321-323, 503-505.

[aaas-18] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f AAAS Evolution Dialogues: Science, Ethics and Religion study guide (pdf)

[19] Hodge 1874, p. 177, Numbers 1992, p. 14

[20] Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 965, Huxley 1902

[21] Numbers 1992, p. 14

[22] Numbers 1992, p. 14-15

[Numbers_1992_p17-23] Numbers 1992, p. 17

[24] Numbers 1992, p. 18, noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many or most Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views were rarely expressed in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David Nevins Lord (1792-1880). However, the observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807-1884); John William Dawson (1820-1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818-1907); George D. Armstrong (1813-1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797-1878); James Dwight Dana (1813-1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and respected Amherst College geologist, (1793-1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818-1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?-1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838-1922; Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist who published The Other Side of Evolution Its Effects and Fallacy

[moore06-25] Moore 2006

[26] Larson 2004, p. 248,250, see also Dobzhansky 1973

[27] Larson 2004, p. 251

[28] Larson 2004, p. 252

[29] Larson 2004, p. 255,Numbers 1992, p. xi,200-208

[30] Larson 2004, p. 255

[31] Numbers 1992, p. 284-285

[32] Numbers 1992, p. 284-6

[33] Quoting Larson 2004, p. 255-256: "Fundamentalists no longer merely denounced Darwinism as false; they offered a scientific-sounding alternative of their own, which they called either 'scientific creationism (as distinct from religious creationism) or 'creation science' (as opposed to evolution science."

[34] Larson 2004, p. 254-255, Numbers 1998, p. 5-6

[35] Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District pp 7-9.

[36] Verderame 2007,Simon 2006

[37] Dewey 1994, p. 31, and Wiker 2003, summarizing Gould.

[38] Larson 2004, p. 258 "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." See also Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23, a Newsweek article which states "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."

[39] Bumiller 2005, Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 3

[40] "Evolution and religion: In the beginning". The Economist. 2007-04-19. Retrieved 2007-04-25. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.

[41] Pitock, Todd (2007). "Science and Islam". Discover: 36–45. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[42] The "Evolution" of Creationism Timeline: how creationism has "evolved". People for the American Way.

[43] Some question group's move with elections nearing 6News Lawrence, Lawrence Journal-World. July 7, 2006.

[44] Evolution’s foes lose ground in Kansas MSNBC, August 2, 2006.

[45] Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence The Associated Press, via the International Herald Tribune, February 13, 2007.

[46] Johnson 1998, Hodge 1874, p. 177, Wiker 2003, Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 5--Peters and Hewlett argue that the atheism of many evolutionary supporters must be removed from the debate

[47] Lenski 2000, p. Conclusions

[48] Johnson 1998

[49] Einstein 1930, p. 1-4

[50] Dawkins 1997

[FES-51] Free Executive Summary, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences, 1999, ISBN: 978-0-309-06406-4.

[52] Johnson 1993, p. 63, Tolson 2005, Moran 1993 ; Selman v. Cobb County School District. US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2005); Talk. Origins; Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29. Interview with Richard Dawkins

[53] Merriam-Webster online dictionary. www.m-w.com

[54] Gould 1981

[55] Number 1992, p. 247

[TalkOriginsOnPopper-56] Wilkins, John S, Evolution and Philosophy: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?, TalkOrigins Archive.

[57] Popper 1976, p. 168 and 172 quoted in Kofahl 1981

[58] Unknown sociologist quoted in Numbers 1992, p. 247

[59] Kofahl 1989 as quoted by Numbers 1992, p. 247

[60] Lewin 1982

[61] Popper 1980, p. 611 as cited in Numbers, 1992 & p247

[62] Kofahl 1981, p. 873

[63] Talkorigins summary of Karl Popper attitudes towards evolution

[64] Natural selection and the emergence of mind, Karl Popper, Dialectica 32(3/4): 339—355, 1978.

[65] Did Popper refute evolution?, Massimo Pigliucci, Skeptical Inquirer, Sept-Oct 2004.

[66] Ruse 1999, p. 13-37, which discusses conflicting ideas about science among Karl Popper, Thomas Samuel Kuhn, and their disciples.

[67] As quoted by Wallis 2005, p. 32. Also see Dawkins 1986 and Dawkins 1995

[68] Wallis 2005, p. 6 Dawkins quoting Haldane

[69] Dorman 1996

[70] Ham, Ken. Creation Evangelism (Part II of Relevance of Creation). Creation Magazine '6'(2):17, November 1983.

[71] Johnson 1993, p. 69 where Johnson cites three pages spent in Issac Asimov's New Guide to Science that take creationists to task, while only spending one half page on evidence of evolution.

[72] Was Java Man a gibbon?, Jim Foley, TalkOrigins website, April 30, 2003.

[73] Comparison of all skulls, Jim Foley, TalkOrigins website, August 8, 2005.

[74] Scientific Creationism, Henry M. Morris, 1985, pp. 78-90

[75] Life--How Did It Get Here?, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985, pp. 57-59

[AiG-76] Biblical chronogenealogies

[77] The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11

[78] IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, Interacademy Panel on Global Issues, June 21, 2006.

[Del2005-79] Del Peloso, E.F. (2005). "The age of the Galactic thin disk from Th/Eu nucleocosmochronology". A&A. 434: 301–308. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20047060. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[80] Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World, D. Russell Humphreys, Impact, Number 352, October 2002.

[81] Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates" Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data, Kevin R. Henke, TalkOrigins website, Original version: March 17, 2005, Revision: November 24, 2005.

[82] R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research, J. G. Meert, Gondwana Research, The Official Journal of the International Association for Gondwana, November 13, 2000 (updated February 6, 2003).

[83] Claim CF210, Mark Isaak (editor), Index to Creationist Claims, TalkOrigins website, 2004.

[84] Dobzhansky 1973

[talk_origins_quote_mine-85] Pieret 2006

[86] 
Isaak, Mark (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA113". Talk.origins. Retrieved 2007-12-27.

Dunford, Mike (2007-07-02). "A new (mis)take on an old paper (and other posts)". [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|]]. Retrieved 2007-12-26.

Myers, PZ (2004-09-11). "I'm shocked, shocked to find that quote mining is going on in there!". Pharyngula (blog). Retrieved 2007-12-27.

[87] Isaak, Mark (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA113". Talk.origins. Retrieved 2007-12-27.

[88] Dunford, Mike (2007-07-02). "A new (mis)take on an old paper (and other posts)". [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|]]. Retrieved 2007-12-26.

[89] Myers, PZ (2004-09-11). "I'm shocked, shocked to find that quote mining is going on in there!". Pharyngula (blog). Retrieved 2007-12-27.

[AAAS-87] "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16 2006 (PDF file) Cite error: The named reference "AAAS" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[88] Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89

[89] "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006

[90] See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin Petition has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects intelligent design and denies that there is a legitimate scientific controversy. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.

[91] "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006

[92] "In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." Ruling - disclaimer, pg. 49 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

[93] "ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message

[94] Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? by William A. Dembski"The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to "teach the controversy." There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy."

[95] Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists... Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006

[96] "has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science." . . . The effect of Defendants’ actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Conclusion, page 134

[doverulingpg89-97] "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, whether ID is science, page 89

[98] AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion, 20 April 2006, Emmett Holman, Associate Professor of Philosophy from George Mason University, retrieved 2007-04-29

[99] Woods 2005, p. 67-114, Chapter Five: The Church and Science

[100] Morris 1982

[101] Index to Creationist Claims - Claim CA114 edited by Mark Isaak. 2005

[102] Index to Creationist Claims - Claim CA114.22 edited by Mark Isaak. 2005

[103] [1] Science and religion: Conflicts & occasional agreements

[104] Why I Won't Debate Creationists, Richard Dawkins, Reason : In the News, richarddawkins.net, the official Richard Dawkins website, Monday, May 15, 2006.

[Hovind-105] Shermer, Michael (May 10, 2004). "Then a Miracle Occurs: An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith". eSkeptic Online. Retrieved 2007-02-11.

[106] Massimo Pigliucci. Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. (Sinauer, 2002): ISBN 0878936599 page 102.

[107] Shermer, Michael. 'Why People Believe Weird Things', Owl Books, 2002. Paperback ed, p. 153.

[108] Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations, NCSE

[109] Unintelligent designs on Darwin, Edward Humes, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

[110] New Scientist 10 November 2007, p. 72

[111] Christianity – Pentecostalism Australian Broadcasting Corporation

[112] ttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/aevdnun.htm

[113] Pilmer, Ian "Telling lies for God- Reason versus Creationism", (Random House)

[114] ttp://www.abc.net.au/abccontentsales/s1179683.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]