History of creationism Neo-creationism Day-age creationism Gap creationism Old Earth creationism Progressive creationism Theistic evolution Young Earth creationism Hindu · Islamic · Jewish Deist · Pandeist
Creation in Genesis Genesis as an allegory Framework interpretation Omphalos hypothesis Baraminology Flood geology Intelligent design Politics of creationism Public education History Teach the Controversy Associated articles Adaptation Genetic drift Gene flow Mutation Natural selection Speciation
Evidence History Modern synthesis Social effect / Objections
Cladistics Ecological genetics Evolutionary development Human evolution Molecular evolution Evolutionary history of life Phylogenetics Population genetics 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,
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).
History of the controversy
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.
Creation-evolution controversy in the age of Darwin
See also: Creationism and Scopes trial
In the United States of America there was no official resistance to evolution by mainline denominations, 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.
Creationism
Main article: Daniel v. Waters Daniel v. Waters
See also: Creation Science
As biologists grew more and more confident in evolution as the central defining principle of biology,
Creation Science
Court cases
For more details on this topic, see 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.
Epperson v. Arkansas
For more details on this topic, see 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.
McLean v. Arkansas
For more details on this topic, see 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.
Edwards v. Aguillard
See also: Creation Science
As biologists grew more and more confident in evolution as the central defining principle of biology,
Creation Science
Court casesFor more details on this topic, see 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.
Epperson v. Arkansas
For more details on this topic, see 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.
McLean v. Arkansas
For more details on this topic, see 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.
Edwards v. Aguillard
Main articles: Intelligent design, Intelligent design movement, and Neo-creationism Intelligent Design
See also: Politics of creationism and Intelligent design in politics
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.
Controversy in recent times
For more details on this topic, see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
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. 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.
The Dover Trial
For more details on this topic, see 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.
Kansas "evolution hearings"
Viewpoints
See also: Politics of creationism and Intelligent design in politics
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.
Controversy in recent times
For more details on this topic, see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
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. 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.
The Dover Trial
For more details on this topic, see 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.
Kansas "evolution hearings"
Viewpoints
Main article: Young Earth creationism Young Earth creationism
Main article: Old Earth creationism Old Earth creationism
Main article: Neo-Creationism Neo-Creationism
Main article: Theistic evolution Theistic evolution
See also: Metaphysical naturalism
Naturalistic evolution is the position of acceptance of biological evolution and of metaphysical naturalism (and thus rejection of theism and theistic evolution).
Naturalistic evolution
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.
Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science
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.
Definitions
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.
Limitations of the scientific endeavor
See also: Theory and Fact
See also: Evolution as theory and fact
The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution.
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.
Theory vs. fact
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.
Falsifiability
Many of the most vocal creationists blur the boundaries between criticisms of modern science, philosophy, and culture. They marshall these arguments against "modernism" as tools to promote a certain flavor of Christianity, and to engage in apologetics. For example, as a way of justifying the 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."
Conflation of science and religion
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, 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.
Disputes relating to science
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.
Biology
See also: Common descent and Evidence of 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.
Common descent
See also: Human evolution, Paleoanthropology, Speciation, and Adamism
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 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.
Human evolution
See also: 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.
Macroevolution
See also: Transitional fossil and List of transitional fossils
It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. 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.
Transitional fossils
See also: Flood Geology, Creation geophysics, Geochronology, and Age of the Earth
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). 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.
Geology
Other sciences
See also: Age of the universe
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.
Many other creationists, including Old Earth Creationists, do not necessarily dispute these figures.
Cosmology
See also: radiometric dating
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.
Misrepresentations of science
See also: 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.
Quote mining
Public policy issues
See also: Creation and evolution in public education and Teach the Controversy
Creationists promote that evolution is a theory in crisis
Science education
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.
Freedom of speech
See also: Relationship between religion and science and Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
Issues relating to religion
See also: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis and Evolutionary argument against naturalism
Theological arguments
Creationists often argue that Christianity and literal belief in the Bible are either foundationally significant or directly responsible for scientific progress. 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.
Religion and historical scientists
Forums for the controversy
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.
Debates
See also: Politics of creationism, Kansas evolution hearings, Santorum Amendment, and List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design
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.
Political lobbying
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:
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 in the media
Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy
Allegorical interpretations of Genesis
Anti-intellectualism
Clergy Letter Project
Creation science
Creationism
Evidence of common descent
Evidence of evolution
Evolution Sunday
Evolution
Flying Spaghetti Monster
History of the creation-evolution controversy
Intelligent design
Jainism and non-creationism
Level of support for evolution
List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy
Lysenkoism
Natural theology
Objections to evolution
Politics of creationism
Project Steve
Relationship between religion and science
Teach the Controversy See also
Citations
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. Published books and other resources
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 Theistic Evolution (a mixture of religious belief and science)
Young Earth Creationists
Old Earth Creationists
In the News
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
Answers in Genesis
Creation Ministries International A splinter group from Answers in Genesis including most of their non-US chapters.
Answers In Creation Old Earth Creationists site
Reasons to Believe - Offering a biblically based old-earth creation model
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.
See also: Metaphysical naturalism
Naturalistic evolution is the position of acceptance of biological evolution and of metaphysical naturalism (and thus rejection of theism and theistic evolution).
Naturalistic evolution
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.
Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science
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.
Definitions
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.
Limitations of the scientific endeavor
See also: Theory and Fact
See also: Evolution as theory and fact
The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution.
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.
Theory vs. fact
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.
Falsifiability
Many of the most vocal creationists blur the boundaries between criticisms of modern science, philosophy, and culture. They marshall these arguments against "modernism" as tools to promote a certain flavor of Christianity, and to engage in apologetics. For example, as a way of justifying the 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."
Conflation of science and religion
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, 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.
Disputes relating to science
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.
Biology
See also: Common descent and Evidence of 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.
Common descent
See also: Human evolution, Paleoanthropology, Speciation, and Adamism
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 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.
Human evolution
See also: 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.
Macroevolution
See also: Transitional fossil and List of transitional fossils
It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. 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.
Transitional fossils
See also: Flood Geology, Creation geophysics, Geochronology, and Age of the Earth
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). 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.
Geology
Other sciences
See also: Age of the universe
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.
Many other creationists, including Old Earth Creationists, do not necessarily dispute these figures.
Cosmology
See also: radiometric dating
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.
Misrepresentations of science
See also: 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.
Quote mining
Public policy issuesSee also: Creation and evolution in public education and Teach the Controversy
Creationists promote that evolution is a theory in crisis
Science education
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.
Freedom of speech
See also: Relationship between religion and science and Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
Issues relating to religion
See also: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis and Evolutionary argument against naturalism
Theological arguments
Creationists often argue that Christianity and literal belief in the Bible are either foundationally significant or directly responsible for scientific progress. 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.
Religion and historical scientists
Forums for the controversy
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.
Debates
See also: Politics of creationism, Kansas evolution hearings, Santorum Amendment, and List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design
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.
Political lobbying
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:
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 in the media
Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy
Allegorical interpretations of Genesis
Anti-intellectualism
Clergy Letter Project
Creation science
Creationism
Evidence of common descent
Evidence of evolution
Evolution Sunday
Evolution
Flying Spaghetti Monster
History of the creation-evolution controversy
Intelligent design
Jainism and non-creationism
Level of support for evolution
List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy
Lysenkoism
Natural theology
Objections to evolution
Politics of creationism
Project Steve
Relationship between religion and science
Teach the Controversy See also
Citations
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. Published books and other resources
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 Theistic Evolution (a mixture of religious belief and science)
Young Earth Creationists
Old Earth Creationists
In the News
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
Answers in Genesis
Creation Ministries International A splinter group from Answers in Genesis including most of their non-US chapters.
Answers In Creation Old Earth Creationists site
Reasons to Believe - Offering a biblically based old-earth creation model
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment