Creationism: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Writ Keeper (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by 134.148.10.13 (talk) to last version by Dexbot |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Hatnote|"Creationism" can also refer to [[creation myth]]s, or to a [[Creationism (soul)|concept about the origin of the soul]]. [[Creation science]] refers to the pseudoscience movement in the United States.<ref>[[#Shermer 2002|McComas 2002]], p. 436</ref>}} |
|||
{{About|evolution in biology}} |
|||
{{For|the movement in Spanish literature|Creacionismo}} |
|||
{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} |
|||
<!--*********************************************************************** |
|||
{{See introduction}} |
|||
----This is a controversial topic, which will often be disputed.----------* |
|||
{{Evolutionary biology}} |
|||
----Please read this article's TALK PAGE discussion before making---------* |
|||
{{Use British English|date=January 2014}} |
|||
----substantial changes.--------------------------------------------------* |
|||
************************************************************************--> |
|||
{{creationism2}} |
|||
'''Creationism''' is the belief that the [[Universe]] and [[Life|living organisms]] originate "from specific acts of [[Creation myth|divine creation]]."<ref name="Gunn2004">[[#Gunn 2004|Gunn 2004]], p. 9, "The ''Concise Oxford Dictionary'' says that creationism is 'the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation.'"</ref><ref name="OD_creationism">{{cite web |url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism?q=creationism |title=creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US) |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=Oxford Dictionaries |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |location=Oxford |type=Definition |oclc=656668849 |accessdate=2014-03-05 |quote=The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.}}</ref> For [[Young Earth creationism|young Earth creationists]], this includes a [[Biblical literalism|literalistic reading]] of the [[Genesis creation narrative|Book of Genesis]] and the rejection of [[evolution]].<ref name="Stewart2009">[[#Stewart 2010|Haarsma 2010]], p. 168, "Some Christians, often called 'Young Earth creationists,' reject evolution in order to maintain a semi-literal interpretation of certain biblical passages. Other Christians, called 'progressive creationists,' accept the scientific evidence for some evolution over a long history of the earth, but also insist that God must have performed some miracles during that history to create new life-forms. The theory of Intelligent Design, as it is promoted in North America is a form of progressive creation. Still other Christians, called 'theistic evolutionists' or 'evolutionary creationists,' assert that the scientific theory of evolution and the religious beliefs of Christianity can both be true."</ref> As [[history of evolutionary thought|science developed]] during the 18th century and forward, various views aimed at [[Relationship between religion and science|reconciling]] [[Abrahamic religions|the Abrahamic]] and [[Genesis creation narrative]]s with [[science]] developed in [[Western culture|Western]] societies.<ref name="Numbers_Ordinary_View">{{cite web |url=http://www.counterbalance.net/history/ordcreat-frame.html |title=The ‘Ordinary’ View of Creation |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L |authorlink=Ronald Numbers |website=Counterbalance Interactive Library |publisher=Counterbalance Foundation |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2010-08-11}}</ref> Those holding that [[species]] had been created separately (such as [[Omphalos (book)|Philip Gosse]] in 1857) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists," as in private correspondence between [[Charles Darwin]] and his friends. As the [[creation–evolution controversy]] developed over time, the term "anti-evolutionists" became common. In 1929 in the [[United States]], the term "creationism" first became associated with [[Christian fundamentalism|Christian fundamentalists]], specifically with their rejection of [[human evolution]] and belief in a [[Young Earth creationism|young Earth]]—although this usage was contested by other groups, such as [[old Earth creationism|old Earth creationists]] and [[theistic evolution|evolutionary creationists]], who hold different concepts of creation, such as the acceptance of the age of the Earth and biological evolution as understood by the [[scientific community]].<ref name="Stewart2009"/><ref>[[#Lamoureux 1999|Lamoureux 1999]], [http://books.google.com/?id=wTADzz2w5c4C&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=evolutionary+creation+creationism+lamoreux#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20creation%20creationism%20lamoreux&f=false p. 14]</ref><ref>[[#Rainey 2012|Rainey 2012]], p. 263, "Thus, there is diversity within the Christian community, and a continuum of ideas that begins with young-earth creationists. There are four main Christian schools of thought: young-earth [[creation science]], old-earth creation science, intelligent design, and theistic evolution."</ref> |
|||
Today, the [[American Scientific Affiliation]], a prominent religious organisation in the US, recognizes that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging [[ecumenism|unity]] on the Abrahamic belief that [[God]] "created the universe."<ref name="ASA">{{cite web |url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/ |title=A Spectrum of Creation Views held by Evangelicals |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |publisher=[[American Scientific Affiliation]] |location=Ipswich, MA |accessdate=2007-10-18 |quote=All Christians in the sciences affirm the central role of the ''Logos'' in creating and maintaining the Universe. In seeking to describe how the incredible universe has come to be, a variety of views has emerged in the last two hundred years as continuing biblical and scientific scholarship have enabled deeper understanding of God's word and world.}}</ref><ref>[[#Numbers 1998|Numbers 1998]], [http://books.google.com/books?id=drk3zykoEy4C&pg=PA55&dq=definition+of+creationism#v=onepage&q=definition%20of%20creationism&f=false p. 55], "'Creationists of today are not in agreement concerning what was created according to Genesis.'" — [[Russell L. Mixter]], ''Creation and Evolution'' (1951) {{OCLC|40774047}}</ref> Since the 1920s, [[Biblical literalism|literalist]] creationism in America has contested [[Scientific theory|scientific theories]], such as that of evolution,<ref name="NCSEcreationism">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism |title=Creationism Controversy: Understanding and Responding to Creationist Movements |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=[[National Center for Science Education]] |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2009-06-22}}</ref><ref>[[#Giberson & Yerxa 2002|Giberson & Yerxa 2002]], pp. 3-4. For example, the [[Scopes Trial]] of 1925 brought creationism and evolution into the adversarial environment of the American justice system. The trial was well-publicized, and served as a catalyst for the wider creation–evolution controversy.</ref><ref name="Gould_Moran">{{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |authorlink=Stephen Jay Gould |date=May 1981 |title=Evolution as Fact and Theory |url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html |journal=[[Discover (magazine)|Discover]] |type=Reprint |location=Waukesha, WI |publisher=[[Kalmbach Publishing]] |volume=2 |pages=34–37 |issn=0274-7529 |accessdate=2010-04-12}}; {{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html |title=Evolution is a Fact and a Theory |last=Moran |first=Laurence |year=2002 |origyear=Originally published 1993 |website=[[TalkOrigins Archive]] |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2010-04-12}} Evolution's status as a "theory" has played a prominent role in the creation–evolution controversy. In scientific terminology, "theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." Evolutionists utilise this definition to characterise evolution as a [[Evolution as fact and theory|scientific fact and a theory.]] In contrast, creationists use the term "theory" to characterize evolution as an "imperfect fact," drawing upon the [[vernacular]] conception of "theory" as "part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess."</ref> which derive from [[Naturalism (philosophy)#Methodological naturalism|natural observations]] of the Universe and life. Literalist creationists<ref name="Campbell_2006">{{cite news |last=Campbell |first=Duncan |date=February 20, 2006 |title=Academics fight rise of creationism at universities |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |location=London |publisher=[[Guardian Media Group]] |accessdate=2010-04-07}}</ref> believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the [[Evolutionary history of life|history]], [[Biodiversity|diversity]], and [[complexity]] of life on [[Earth]].<ref name = "crossref1">For the biological understanding of complexity, see ''[[Evolution of complexity]]''. For a creationist perspective, see ''[[Irreducible complexity]]''.</ref> Fundamentalist creationists of the [[Christianity|Christian]] faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative.<ref name="Campbell_2006" /><ref name="TopicIndex">{{cite web |url=http://www.counterbalance.net/history/intro-frame.html |title=Creationism History: Topic Index |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |website=Counterbalance Interactive Library |publisher=Counterbalance Foundation |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2009-06-22}}</ref> Other religions have different deity-led [[creation myth]]s,<ref name="myth" group="note"/><ref>{{cite journal |last=Dundes |first=Alan |authorlink=Alan Dundes |date=Winter 1997 |title=Binary Opposition in Myth: The Propp/Levi-Strauss Debate in Retrospect |journal=[[Western Folklore]] |publisher=Western States Folklore Society |volume=56 |issue=1 |pages=39–50 |issn=0043-373X |jstor=1500385}}</ref><ref>[[#Dundes 1984|Dundes 1984]]</ref><ref>[[#Patton & Doniger 1996|Dundes 1996]]</ref> while different members of individual faiths vary in their acceptance of scientific findings. |
|||
<!--NOTE: Please do not change the lead sentence(s) without consulting the discussion page first. This lead has been discussed and there is general consensus that this is the best one for now. Thanks.--> |
|||
'''Evolution''' is the change in the [[Heredity|inherited]] [[Phenotypic trait|characteristics]] of [[biology|biological]] [[population]]s over successive [[generation]]s. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every [[biological organisation|level of biological organisation]], including [[biodiversity|species]], [[organism|individual organisms]] and [[molecular evolution|molecules]] such as [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s.<ref name="Hall08">{{cite book | editor1-last=Hall | editor1-first=B. K. | editor2-last=Hallgrímsson | editor2-first=B. |title = Strickberger's Evolution |year = 2008 |edition = 4th |publisher = Jones & Bartlett |isbn = 0-7637-0066-5}}{{page needed|date=December 2013}}</ref> |
|||
When scientific research produces [[empirical evidence]] and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, young Earth creationists often reject the conclusions of the research<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp |title=Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution |last=Wallace |first=Tim |year=2007 |origyear=Originally published 2005 |website=The True.Origin Archive |publisher=Tim Wallace |location=Hergiswil, Switzerland |accessdate=2011-04-25}}</ref> or its underlying scientific theories<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html |title=Index to Creationist Claims: CA215: Practical uses of evolution |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |year=2005 |publisher=TalkOrigins Archive |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2009-08-20}} |
|||
All life on Earth is descended from a [[last universal ancestor]] that lived approximately 3.8 [[bya|billion years ago]]. Repeated [[speciation]] and the [[anagenesis|divergence]] of life can be [[inference|inferred]] from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared [[Nucleic acid sequence|DNA sequences]].<ref name="The Cell by Panno">{{cite book|last=Panno|first=Joseph|title=The Cell: Evolution of the First Organism|year=2005|publisher=Facts on File |page=xv-16|isbn=0-8160-4946-7}}</ref> These [[Homology (biology)|homologous]] traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to [[phylogenetics|reconstruct]] [[Tree of life (biology)|evolutionary histories]], using both existing species and the [[fossil record]]. Existing patterns of [[biodiversity]] have been shaped both by speciation and by [[extinction]].<ref name="Cracraft05">{{cite book | editor1-last=Cracraft | editor1-first=J. | editor2-last=Donoghue | editor2-first=M. J. |title = Assembling the tree of life |publisher = Oxford University Press |year = 2005 |page = |isbn = 0-19-517234-5 |url = http://books.google.ca/books?id=6lXTP0YU6_kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Assembling+the+tree+of+life }}{{page needed|date=December 2013}}</ref> |
|||
*{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH100_1.html |title=Index to Creationist Claims: CH100.1: Science in light of Scripture |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |year=2005 |publisher=TalkOrigins Archive |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2009-08-20}}</ref> or its methodology.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html |title=Index to Creationist Claims: CA301: Science and naturalism |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |year=2004 |publisher=TalkOrigins Archive |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2009-08-20}}</ref> This tendency has led to [[Politics|political]] and theological [[creation-evolution controversy|controversy]].<ref name="NCSEcreationism" /> Two disciplines somewhat allied with creationism—creation science and [[intelligent design]]—have been labelled "[[pseudoscience]]" by scientists.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Padian |first=Kevin |authorlink=Kevin Padian |date=January–April 2006 |title=The Dover Victory |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2/dover-victory |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=26 |issue=1-2 |pages=49–50 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2014-05-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Alters |first=Brian |authorlink=Brian Alters |date=January–April 2006 |title='Ties' to Canada |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2/ties-to-canada-0 |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=26 |issue=1-2 |pages=51–52 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2014-05-06}}</ref> The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of [[common descent]], the [[Geological history of Earth|geological history of the Earth]], the [[Formation and evolution of the Solar System|formation of the solar system]] and the [[Cosmogony|origin of the universe]].<ref name="RoyalSociety_2006">{{cite web |url=http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298 |title=Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 11, 2006 |website=[[Royal Society]] |publisher=Royal Society |location=London |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080602213726/http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298 |archivedate=2008-06-02 |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp |title=NABT’s Statement on Teaching Evolution |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=[[National Association of Biology Teachers]] |publisher=National Association of Biology Teachers |location=McLean, VA |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx |title=IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution |author=IAP Member Academies |date=June 21, 2006 |website=[[InterAcademy Panel|IAP]] |publisher=[[TWAS|The World Academy of Sciences]] |location=Trieste, Italy |accessdate=2014-03-09}} Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society.</ref><ref name="aaas">{{cite web |url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf |title=Statement on the Teaching of Evolution |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=February 16, 2006 |publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] |location=Washington, D.C. |format=PDF |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf |archivedate=2006-02-21 |accessdate=2014-03-09}} |
|||
*{{cite press release |last=Pinholster |first=Ginger |date=February 19, 2006 |title=AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event |url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml |location=St. Louis, MO |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060421193306/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml |archivedate=2006-04-21 |accessdate=2014-08-05}}</ref> |
|||
[[Theistic evolution]], also known as evolutionary creationism, reconciles [[theism|theistic]] religious beliefs with scientific findings on the [[age of the Earth]] and the process of evolution. It includes a range of beliefs, including views described as evolutionary creationism and some forms of old Earth creationism, all of which embrace the findings of modern science and uphold classical religious teachings about God and creation.<ref>[[#Collins 2006|Collins 2006]], p. 201, "This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teachings us about the natural world."</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.answersincreation.org/theistic_evolution.htm |title=Theistic Evolution |last=Neyman |first=Greg |website=[[Old Earth creationism#Old Earth creationist organizations|Old Earth Ministries]] |publisher=Old Earth Ministries |location=Springfield, OH |accessdate=2012-04-24 |quote=Theistic Evolution is the old earth creationist belief that God used the process of evolution to create life on earth. The modern scientific understanding of biological evolution is considered to be compatible with the Bible.}}</ref> |
|||
[[Charles Darwin]] was the first to formulate [[On the Origin of Species|a scientific argument]] for the [[scientific theory|theory]] of evolution by means of [[natural selection]]. Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three [[fact]]s about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are [[Heritability|heritable]].<ref name="Lewontin70">{{cite journal |last1 = Lewontin |first1 = R. C. |title = The units of selection |journal = Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics |year = 1970 |volume = 1 |pages = 1–18 |jstor = 2096764 |doi = 10.1146/annurev.es.01.110170.000245 }}</ref> Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the [[offspring|progeny]] of parents better [[adaptation|adapted]] to survive and reproduce in the [[Environment (biophysical)|environment]] in which natural selection takes place. This process creates and preserves traits that are [[teleonomy|seemingly fitted]] for the [[function (biology)|functional]] roles they perform.<ref name="On The Origin of Species">{{cite book |last1 = Darwin |first1 = Charles |title = On The Origin of Species |chapter = XIV |year = 1859 |page = 503 |url = http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species_(1859)/Chapter_XIV |isbn = 0-8014-1319-2 }}</ref> Natural selection is the only known cause of [[adaptation]], but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of [[microevolution|evolution]] include [[mutation]] and [[genetic drift]].<ref name="Kimura M 1991 367–86">{{cite journal |author = Kimura M |title = The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence |url = http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjg/66/4/66_367/_article |journal = Jpn. J. Genet. |volume = 66 |issue = 4 |pages = 367–86 |year = 1991 |pmid = 1954033 |doi = 10.1266/jjg.66.367 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
{{TOC limit|4}} |
|||
In the early 20th century, [[Classical genetics|genetics]] was [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|integrated]] with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of [[population genetics]]. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of [[biology]]. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as [[orthogenesis]] and [[Largest-scale trends in evolution|"progress"]] became [[Obsolete scientific theory|obsolete]].<ref>{{cite book |last = Provine |first = W. B. |year = 1988 |title = Evolutionary progress |chapter = Progress in evolution and meaning in life |pages = 49–79 |publisher = University of Chicago Press }}</ref> Scientists continue to [[current research in evolutionary biology|study various aspects of evolution]] by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing [[Mathematical and theoretical biology|scientific theories]], using [[observational study|observational data]], and performing [[experiment]]s in both the [[habitat|field]] and the laboratory. Biologists [[Scientific consensus|agree]] that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established [[evolution as fact and theory|facts]] in science.<ref name="NAS">{{cite book |author = National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine |title = Science, Evolution, and Creationism |publisher = National Academy Press |year = 2008|isbn=0-309-10586-2 |url = http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876 }}{{page needed|date=December 2013}}</ref> Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., [[biological anthropology|anthropology]] and [[evolutionary psychology|psychology]]) and on society at large.<ref name="Moore09">{{cite book |last1 = Moore |first1 = R. |last2 = Decker |first2 = M. |last3 = Cotner |first3 = S. |title = Chronology of the Evolution-Creationism Controversy |publisher = Greenwood |year = 2009 |page = 454 |isbn = 0-313-36287-4 |url = http://books.google.ca/books?id=4KwJRNgscdEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Chronology+of+the+Evolution-Creationism+Controversy }}</ref><ref name="Futuyma99">{{cite web | editor1-last=Futuyma | editor1-first=Douglas J. |title = Evolution, Science, and Society: Evolutionary Biology and the National Research Agenda |publisher = Office of University Publications, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey |year = 1999 |url = http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.pdf }} {{dead link|date=September 2012}}</ref> |
|||
== |
==History== |
||
{{ |
{{Main|History of creationism}} |
||
The term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism was first used in a letter by Charles Darwin in 1856.<ref name="Darwin_letters_1856_1863" /> In the 1920s, the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist movements that insisted on a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and likewise opposed the idea of human evolution. These groups succeeded in getting teaching of evolution banned in American [[State school#United States|public schools]], then from the mid-1960s the young Earth creationists promoted the teaching of "scientific creationism" using "[[Flood geology]]" in public school science classes as support for a purely literal reading of the Book of Genesis.<ref name="encarta">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L |encyclopedia=[[Encarta|Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2009]] |title=Creationism |url=http://encarta.msn.com/text_761580511___0/Creationism.html |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20091022061756/http://encarta.msn.com/text_761580511___0/Creationism.html |archivedate=2009-10-22 |accessdate=2014-03-09 |publisher=[[Microsoft|Microsoft Corporation]] |location=Redmond, WA}}</ref> After the legal judgment of the case ''[[Daniel v. Waters]]'' (1975) ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]], the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'' (1987) ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was presented by creationists as a new scientific theory. The ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Kitzmiller v. Dover]]'' (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.<ref name="Flank_April2006" /> In September 2012, [[Bill Nye]] ("[[Bill Nye the Science Guy|The Science Guy]]") expressed his concern that ''creationist views'' threaten [[science education]] and [[innovation]]s in the US.<ref name="APNews-20120924">{{cite news |last=Luvan |first=Dylan |date=September 24, 2012 |title=Bill Nye Warns: Creation Views Threaten US Science |url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bill-nye-warns-creation-views-threaten-us-science |agency=[[Associated Press]] |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref><ref name="Youtube-20120823">{{cite web |last=Fowler |first=Jonathan |last2=Rodd |first2=Elizabeth |title=Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU |date=August 23, 2012 |website=[[YouTube]] |publisher=[[Big Think]] |location=New York |accessdate=2012-09-24}}</ref> |
|||
The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first [[pre-Socratic philosophy|pre-Socratic]] Greek philosophers, such as [[Anaximander#Origin of humankind|Anaximander]] and [[Empedocles#Cosmogony|Empedocles]].<ref name="Kirk1">{{cite book |last1 = Kirk |first1 = Geoffrey |last2 = Raven |first2 = John |last3 = Schofield |first3 = John |title = The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts |edition=3rd |publisher = The University of Chicago Press |location = Chicago |year = 1984a |isbn = 0-521-27455-9 |pages=100–142}}</ref><ref name="Kirk2">{{cite book |last1 = Kirk |first1 = Geoffrey |last2 = Raven |first2 = John |last3 = Schofield |first3 = John |title = The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts |edition=3rd |publisher = The University of Chicago Press |location = Chicago |year = 1984b |isbn = 0-521-27455-9 |pages=280–321}}</ref> Such proposals survived into Roman times. The [[poet]] and [[philosopher]] [[Lucretius]] followed Empedocles in his masterwork ''[[De Rerum Natura]]''.<ref name=Carus2011>{{Cite book|url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0131%3Abook%3D5%3Acard%3D855|chapter=lines 855–877 |author=Lucretius|title= De Rerum Natura|postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}}}, edited and translated by William Ellery Leonard (1916).</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|journal=Leeds International Classical Studies 2.4 |year=2003 |first= David |last=Sedley| url=http://lics.leeds.ac.uk/2003/200304.pdf| title=Lucretius and the new Empedocles|postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}}}</ref> In contrast to these [[Materialism|materialistic]] views, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only [[life|living]] things, as being imperfect [[potentiality and actuality|actualisations]] of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "[[Theory of forms|forms]]", "[[idealism|ideas]]", or (in Latin translations) "''[[wikt:species#Latin|species]]''".<ref name="Torrey37">{{cite journal | last1 = Torrey | first1 = Harry Beal | last2 = Felin | first2 = Frances | title = Was Aristotle an evolutionist? | journal = The Quarterly Review of Biology |date=March 1937 | volume = 12 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–18 | jstor = 2808399 | doi = 10.1086/394520 }}</ref><ref name="Hull67">{{cite journal | last1=Hull | first1=D. L. | year=1967 | title=The metaphysics of evolution | journal=The British Journal for the History of Science | volume=3 | issue=4 | pages=309–337 | jstor=4024958 | doi=10.1017/S0007087400002892}}</ref> This was part of his [[teleology|teleological]] understanding of [[Nature (philosophy)|nature]] in which all things have an intended role to play in a [[divinity|divine]] [[cosmos|cosmic]] order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the [[Middle Ages]], and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals always corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.<ref>Mason, ''A History of the Sciences'' pp 43–44</ref> |
|||
===Early and medieval times=== |
|||
In the 17th century the new [[scientific method|method]] of [[modern science]] rejected Aristotle's approach, and sought explanations of natural phenomena in terms of [[physical law]]s which were the same for all visible things, and did not need to assume any fixed natural categories, nor any divine cosmic order. But this new approach was slow to take root in the biological sciences, which became the last bastion of the concept of fixed natural types. [[John Ray]] used one of the previously more general terms for fixed natural types, "species", to apply to animal and plant types, but he strictly identified each type of living thing as a species, and proposed that each species can be defined by the features that perpetuate themselves each generation.<ref>Mayr ''Growth of biological thought'' p256; original was Ray, ''History of Plants''. 1686, trans E. Silk.</ref> These species were designed by God, but showing differences caused by local conditions. The biological classification introduced by [[Carolus Linnaeus]] in 1735 also viewed species as fixed according to a divine plan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html|title=Carl Linnaeus - berkeley.edu|accessdate=February 11, 2012}}</ref> |
|||
The first century Jewish philosopher [[Philo|Philo of Alexandria]] admired the literal narrative of passages concerning the [[Patriarch]]s, but in other passages viewed the literal interpretation as being for those unable to see an underlying deeper meaning. For example, he noted that [[Moses]] said the world was created in six days, but did not consider this as a length of time as "we must think of God as doing all things simultaneously" and the six days were mentioned because of a need for order and according with a [[perfect number]]. Genesis was about real events, but God through Moses described them in figurative or [[Allegory|allegorical]] language.<ref name="Philo_Chapter2">[[#Philo|Philo]]</ref> |
|||
The early Christian [[Church Fathers]] largely read creation history as an allegory, and followed Philo's ideas of time beginning with an instantaneous creation without the convention that a day was the conventional time period. Christian orthodoxy rejected the second century [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] belief that the Book of Genesis was purely allegorical, but without taking a purely literal view of the texts. Thus [[Origen]] believed that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation of God, but did not take the chronology or the days as ‘literal’. Similarly, [[Basil of Caesarea|Saint Basil the Great]] in the fourth century while literal in many ways, described creation as instantaneous and timeless, being immeasurable and indivisible.<ref name="rsf" /> |
|||
[[File:Charles Darwin aged 51.jpg|thumb|left|In 1842 [[Charles Darwin]] penned his first sketch of what became ''[[On the Origin of Species]]''.<ref name="Darwin09">{{cite book |last1 = Darwin |first1 = F. |title= The foundations of the origin of species, a sketch written in 1942 by Charles Darwin |year = 1909 |publisher = Cambridge University Press |page = 53 |url = http://darwin-online.org.uk/pdf/1909_Foundations_F1555.pdf }}</ref>]] |
|||
Other naturalists of this time speculated on evolutionary change of species over time according to natural laws. [[Maupertuis]] wrote in 1751 of natural modifications occurring during reproduction and accumulating over many generations to produce new species.<ref>Bowler, Peter J. 2003. ''Evolution: the history of an idea''. Berkeley, CA. p73–75</ref> [[Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon|Buffon]] suggested that species could degenerate into different organisms, and [[Erasmus Darwin]] proposed that all warm-blooded animals could have descended from a single micro-organism (or "filament").<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/Edarwin.html|title=Erasmus Darwin - berkeley.edu|accessdate=February 11, 2012}}</ref> The first full-fledged evolutionary scheme was [[Lamarck]]'s "transmutation" theory of 1809<ref name=Lamarck1809>Lamarck (1809) Philosophie Zoologique</ref> which envisaged spontaneous generation continually producing simple forms of life that developed greater complexity in parallel lineages with an inherent progressive tendency, and that on a local level these lineages adapted to the environment by inheriting changes caused by use or disuse in parents.<ref name="Margulis91" /><ref name="Gould02">{{cite book | last = Gould | first = S.J. | authorlink = Stephen Jay Gould | title = [[The Structure of Evolutionary Theory]] | publisher = Belknap Press ([[Harvard University Press]]) | location = Cambridge | year = 2002 | isbn = 978-0-674-00613-3 | ref = harv }}{{page needed|date=December 2013}}</ref> (The latter process was later called Lamarckism.)<ref name="Margulis91">{{cite book | last1 = Margulis | first1 = Lynn | last2 = Fester | first2 = René | title = Symbiosis as a source of evolutionary innovation: Speciation and morphogenesis | publisher = The MIT Press | year = 1991 | page = 470 | isbn = 0-262-13269-9 | url = http://books.google.ca/books?id=3sKzeiHUIUQC&pg=PA162&dq=inauthor:%22Lynn+Margulis%22+lamarck#v=onepage&q=inauthor%3A%22Lynn%20Margulis%22%20lamarck&f=false }}</ref><ref name="ImaginaryLamarck">{{cite book |last = Ghiselin |first = Michael T. |authorlink = Michael Ghiselin|publication-date = September–October 1994 |contribution = Nonsense in schoolbooks: 'The Imaginary Lamarck'|contribution-url =http://www.textbookleague.org/54marck.htm |title = The Textbook Letter |publisher = The Textbook League |url = http://www.textbookleague.org/ |accessdate = January 23, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last = Magner |first = Lois N. |title = A History of the Life Sciences |edition = Third |publisher = [[Marcel Dekker]], [[CRC Press]] |year = 2002 |isbn = 978-0-203-91100-6 |url = http://books.google.com/?id=YKJ6gVYbrGwC }}{{page needed|date=December 2013}}</ref><ref name="Jablonka07">{{cite journal |last1 = Jablonka |first1 = E. |last2 = Lamb |first2 = M. J. |year = 2007 |title = Précis of evolution in four dimensions |journal = Behavioural and Brain Sciences |volume = 30 |pages = 353–392 |doi = 10.1017/S0140525X07002221 |issue = 4 }}</ref> These ideas were condemned by established naturalists as speculation lacking empirical support. In particular [[Georges Cuvier]] insisted that species were unrelated and fixed, their similarities reflecting divine design for functional needs. In the meantime, Ray's ideas of benevolent design had been developed by [[William Paley]] into the ''[[Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity]]'' (1802) which proposed complex adaptations as evidence of divine design, and was admired by Charles Darwin.<ref name="Darwin91">{{cite book | editor1-last=Burkhardt | editor1-first=F. | editor2-last=Smith | editor2-first=S. |year = 1991 |title = The correspondence of Charles Darwin |volume = 7 |pages = 1858–1859 |publisher = Cambridge University Press |place = Cambridge }}</ref><ref name="Sulloway09">{{cite journal |last1 = Sulloway |first1 = F. J. |year = 2009 |title = Why Darwin rejected intelligent design |journal = Journal of Biosciences |volume = 34 |issue = 2 |pages = 173–183 |doi = 10.1007/s12038-009-0020-8 |pmid = 19550032 }}</ref><ref name="Dawkins90">{{cite book |last1 = Dawkins |first1 = R. |title = Blind Watchmaker |year = 1990 |publisher = Penguin Books |isbn = 0-14-014481-1 |page = 368 }}</ref> |
|||
[[Augustine of Hippo]] in ''On the Literal Meaning of Genesis'' was insistent that the Book of Genesis describes the creation of physical objects, but also shows creation occurring simultaneously, with the days of creation being categories for didactic reasons, a logical framework which has nothing to do with time. For him, light was the illumination of angels rather than visible light, and spiritual light was just as literal as physical light. Augustine emphasized that the text was difficult to understand and should be reinterpreted as new knowledge became available. In particular, Christians should not make absurd dogmatic interpretations of scripture which contradict what people know from physical evidence.<ref name="Augustine">{{cite journal |last=Young |first=Davis A. |date=March 1988 |title=The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation |url= http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html |journal=[[American Scientific Affiliation|Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith]] |location=Ipswich, MA |publisher=American Scientific Affiliation |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=42–45 |issn=0892-2675 |accessdate=2008-08-18}}</ref> |
|||
The critical break from the concept of fixed species in biology began with the theory of evolution by natural selection, which was formulated by Charles Darwin. Partly influenced by ''[[An Essay on the Principle of Population]]'' by [[Thomas Robert Malthus]], Darwin noted that population growth would lead to a "struggle for existence" where favorable variations could prevail as others perished. Each generation, many offspring fail to survive to an age of reproduction because of limited resources. This could explain the diversity of animals and plants from a common ancestry through the working of natural laws working the same for all types of thing.<ref name="Sober09">{{cite journal |last1 = Sober |first1 = E. |year = 2009 |title = Did Darwin write the origin backwards? |journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume = 106 |issue = S1 |pages = 10048–10055 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0901109106 |bibcode = 2009PNAS..10610048S }}</ref><ref>Mayr, Ernst (2001) ''What evolution is''. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. p165</ref><ref>{{cite book |author = Bowler, Peter J. |title = Evolution: the history of an idea |publisher = University of California Press |location = Berkeley |year = 2003 |pages = 145–146 |isbn = 0-520-23693-9 |oclc = |doi = }} page 147"</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1086/282646 |author = Sokal RR, Crovello TJ |title = The biological species concept: A critical evaluation |journal = The American Naturalist |volume = 104 |issue = 936 |pages = 127–153 |year = 1970 |pmid = |url = http://hymenoptera.tamu.edu/courses/ento601/pdf/Sokal_Crovello_1970.pdf |format = PDF |jstor = 2459191 }}</ref> Darwin was developing his theory of "[[natural selection]]" from 1838 onwards until [[Alfred Russel Wallace]] sent him a similar theory in 1858. Both men presented their [[On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection|separate papers]] to the [[Linnean Society of London]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Darwin | first1 = Charles | last2 = Wallace | first2 = Alfred | url = http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F350&viewtype=text&pageseq=1 | title = On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection | journal = Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society | volume = 3 | issue = 2 |date=August 1858 | pages = 45–62 | accessdate = May 13, 2007 | doi = 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x | ref = harv }}</ref> At the end of 1859, Darwin's publication of ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' explained natural selection in detail and in a way that led to an increasingly wide acceptance of [[Darwinism|Darwinian evolution]]. [[Thomas Henry Huxley]] applied Darwin's ideas to humans, using [[paleontology]] and [[comparative anatomy]] to provide strong evidence that humans and [[apes]] shared a common ancestry. Some were disturbed by this since it implied that humans did not have a special place in the universe.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277746/T-H-Huxley |title = Encyclopædia Britannica Online |publisher = Britannica.com |accessdate = January 11, 2012 }}</ref> |
|||
In the 13th century, [[Thomas Aquinas]], like Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of scripture without wavering while cautioning "that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."<ref name="rsf" /> |
|||
Precise mechanisms of reproductive heritability and the origin of new traits remained a mystery. Towards this end, Darwin developed his provisional theory of [[pangenesis]].<ref name="Liu09">{{cite journal |last1 = Liu |first1 = Y. S. |last2 = Zhou |first2 = X. M. |last3 = Zhi |first3 = M. X. |last4 = Li |first4 = X. J. |last5 = Wang |first5 = Q. L. |title = Darwin's contributions to genetics |journal = J Appl Genet |volume = 50 |issue = 3 |pages = 177–184 |year = 2009 |url = http://jay.up.poznan.pl/JAG/pdfy/2009_Volume_50/2009_Volume_50_3-177-184.pdf |doi = 10.1007/BF03195671 |pmid = 19638672 }}</ref> In 1865 [[Gregor Mendel]] reported that traits were inherited in a predictable manner through the independent assortment and segregation of elements (later known as [[genes]]). Mendel's laws of inheritance eventually supplanted most of Darwin's pangenesis theory.<ref name=Weiling>{{cite journal |author = Weiling F |title = Historical study: Johann Gregor Mendel 1822–1884 |journal = Am. J. Med. Genet. |volume = 40 |issue = 1 |pages = 1–25; discussion 26 |year = 1991 |pmid = 1887835 |doi = 10.1002/ajmg.1320400103 |ref = harv }}</ref> [[August Weismann]] made the important distinction between [[Germline|germ cells (sperm and eggs)]] and [[somatic cells]] of the body, demonstrating that heredity passes through the germ line only. [[Hugo de Vries]] connected Darwin's pangenesis theory to Weismann's germ/soma cell distinction and proposed that Darwin's pangenes were concentrated in the [[cell nucleus]] and when expressed they could move into the [[cytoplasm]] to change the cells structure. De Vries was also one of the researchers who made Mendel's work well-known, believing that Mendelian traits corresponded to the transfer of heritable variations along the germline.<ref name="Wright84">{{cite book |last1 = Wright |first1 = S. |title = Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Volume 1: Genetic and Biometric Foundations |page = 480 |publisher = University of Chicago Press |isbn = 0-226-91038-5 |url = http://books.google.ca/books?id=4pTdTWi83ecC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sewall+wright+volume+1 |date = 1984-06-15 }}</ref> To explain how new variants originate, De Vries developed a [[mutation]] theory that led to a temporary rift between those who accepted Darwinian evolution and biometricians who allied with de Vries.<ref name="Gould02" /><ref>{{cite book |author = [[Will Provine]] |title = The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics |year = 1971 |isbn = 0-226-68464-4 |publisher = University of Chicago Press }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |pmid=10439561 |year=1999 |last1=Stamhuis |first1=IH |last2=Meijer |first2=OG |last3=Zevenhuizen |first3=EJ |title=Hugo de Vries on heredity, 1889–1903. Statistics, Mendelian laws, pangenes, mutations |volume=90 |issue=2 |pages=238–67 |journal=Isis |doi=10.1086/384323}}</ref> At the turn of the 20th century, pioneers in the field of population genetics, such as [[J.B.S. Haldane]], [[Sewall Wright]], and [[Ronald Fisher]], set the foundations of evolution onto a robust statistical philosophy. The false contradiction between Darwin's theory, genetic mutations, and Mendelian inheritance was thus reconciled.<ref>Quammen, D. (2006). [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/books/review/Desmond.t.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/D/Darwin,%20Charles%20Robert ''The reluctant Mr. Darwin: An intimate portrait of Charles Darwin and the making of his theory of evolution.''] New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.</ref> |
|||
===Impact of the Reformation=== |
|||
In the 1920s and 1930s a [[modern evolutionary synthesis]] connected natural selection, mutation theory, and Mendelian inheritance into a unified theory that applied generally to any branch of biology. The modern synthesis was able to explain patterns observed across species in populations, through [[transitional fossils|fossil transitions]] in palaeontology, and even complex cellular mechanisms in [[developmental biology]].<ref name="Gould02" /><ref>{{cite book |last = Bowler |first = Peter J. |authorlink = Peter J. Bowler |year = 1989 |title = The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society |publisher = Johns Hopkins University Press |location = Baltimore |isbn = 978-0-8018-3888-0 }}{{page needed|date=December 2013}}</ref> The publication of the structure of DNA by [[James D. Watson|James Watson]] and [[Francis Crick]] in 1953 demonstrated a physical basis for inheritance.<ref name="Watson53">{{cite journal |last1 = Watson |first1 = J. D. |last2 = Crick |first2 = F. H. C. |title = Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid |journal = Nature |volume = 171 |pages = 737–738 |doi = 10.1038/171737a0 |url = http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/B/Y/W/_/scbbyw.pdf |bibcode = 1953Natur.171..737W |issue = 4356 |pmid = 13054692 |year = 1953 }}</ref> [[Molecular biology]] improved our understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Advancements were also made in [[phylogenetic]] [[systematics]], mapping the transition of traits into a comparative and testable framework through the publication and use of [[Phylogenetic tree|evolutionary trees]].<ref name="Hennig99">{{cite book |last1 = Hennig |first1 = W. |last2 = Lieberman |first2 = B. S. |title = Phylogenetic systematics |page = 280 |publisher = University of Illinois Press |edition = New edition (Mar 1, 1999) |isbn = 0-252-06814-9 |year = 1999 |url = http://books.google.ca/books?id=xsi6QcQPJGkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=phylogenetic+systematics }}</ref><ref name="Wiley11">{{cite book |title = Phylogenetics: Theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics |year = 2011 |edition = 2nd |publisher = Wiley-Blackwell |doi = 10.1002/9781118017883}}{{page needed|date=December 2013}}</ref> In 1973, evolutionary biologist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] penned that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", because it has brought to light the relations of what first seemed disjointed facts in natural history into a coherent [[explanatory]] body of knowledge that describes and predicts many observable facts about life on this planet.<ref name="Dobzhansky73">{{cite journal |last1 = Dobzhansky |first1 = T. |year = 1973 |title = Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution |journal = The American Biology Teacher |volume = 35 |issue = 3 |pages = 125–129 |doi = 10.2307/4444260 }}</ref> |
|||
[[File:Martin Luther by Cranach-restoration.tif|thumb|right|[[Martin Luther]] taught [[young Earth creationism]], a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative]] |
|||
From 1517 the [[Protestant Reformation]] brought a new emphasis on lay literacy. [[Martin Luther]] taught young Earth creationism, that creation took six literal days about [[dating creation|6000 years ago]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Bartz |first=Paul |date=February 1984 |title=Luther on Evolution |url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v6/n3/luther |journal=[[Creation Ministries International|Ex Nihilo]] |location=Sunnybank, Queensland |publisher=Creation Science Foundation |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=18–21 |issn=0726-6782 |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref> [[John Calvin]] also rejected instantaneous creation, but criticised those who, contradicting the contemporary understanding of [[nature]], asserted that there are "waters above the heavens."<ref name="rsf" /> |
|||
Discoveries of new lands brought knowledge of a huge diversity of life, and a new belief developed that each of these [[Biology|biological]] species had been individually created by God. In 1605, [[Francis Bacon]] emphasized that the works of God in nature teach us how to interpret the word of God in the [[Bible]], and his [[Baconian method]] introduced the empirical approach which became central to modern science.<ref name="James_Moore">{{cite interview |last=Moore |first=James |authorlink=James Moore (biographer) |interviewer=[[Krista Tippett]] |title=Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin |url=http://www.onbeing.org/program/evolution-and-wonder-understanding-charles-darwin/transcript/899 |callsign=[[NPR]] |program=[[On Being|Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett]] |date=September 20, 2007 |publisher=[[American Public Media]] |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref> [[Natural theology]] developed the study of nature with the expectation of finding evidence supporting Christianity, and numerous attempts were made to reconcile new knowledge with the biblical [[Flood myth|deluge myth]] and story of [[Noah's Ark]].<ref name="floodgeol">{{cite web |url=http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p82.htm |title=History of the Collapse of 'Flood Geology' and a Young Earth |website=PhilVaz.com |publisher=Philip J. Porvaznik |accessdate=2014-03-09}} Adapted from [[#Young 1995|Young 1995]]</ref> |
|||
Since then, the modern synthesis has been further extended to explain biological phenomena across the full and integrative scale of the [[Biological organisation|biological hierarchy]], from genes to species. This extension has been dubbed "[[Evolutionary developmental biology|evo-devo]]".<ref name=Kutschera>{{cite journal |author = Kutschera U, Niklas K |title = The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis |journal = Naturwissenschaften |volume = 91 |issue = 6 |pages = 255–76 |year = 2004 |pmid = 15241603 |doi = 10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y |ref = harv |bibcode = 2004NW.....91..255K }}</ref><ref name=Kutschera/><ref name="Cracraft04">{{cite book | editor1-last=Cracraft | editor1-first=J. | editor2-last=Bybee | editor2-first=R. W. |title = Evolutionary science and society: Educating a new generation |year = 2004 |place = Chicago, IL |series = Revised Proceedings of the BSCS, AIBS Symposium |url = http://www.bscs.org/curriculumdevelopment/highschool/evolution/pdf.html }}</ref><ref name="Avise10">{{cite journal |last1 = Avise |first1 = J. C. |last2 = Ayala |first2 = F. J. |title = In the Light of Evolution IV. The Human Condition (introduction) |year = 2010 |journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA |volume = 107 |issue = S2 |pages = 8897–8901 |url = http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/johncavise/files/2011/03/311-intro-to-ILE-IV.pdf |doi = 10.1073/pnas.100321410 }}</ref> |
|||
In 1650 the [[Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland)|Archbishop of Armagh]], [[James Ussher]], published the [[Ussher chronology]] based on Bible history giving a date for Creation of 4004 BC. This was generally accepted, but the development of modern [[geology]] in the 18th and 19th centuries found [[Stratum|geological strata]] and [[Fossil#Fossilization processes|fossil]] sequences indicating an ancient Earth. [[Catastrophism]] was favoured in [[England]] as supporting the biblical flood, but this was found to be untenable<ref name="floodgeol" /> and by 1850 all geologists and most [[Evangelicalism|Evangelical Christians]] had adopted various forms of old Earth creationism, while continuing to firmly reject evolution.<ref name="rsf" />{{failed verification|date=December 2010}} |
|||
== Heredity == |
|||
{{Further|Introduction to genetics|Genetics|Heredity|Norms of reaction}} |
|||
[[File:ADN static.png|thumb|upright|[[DNA]] structure. [[nucleobase|Bases]] are in the centre, surrounded by phosphate–sugar chains in a [[double helix]].]] |
|||
Evolution in organisms occurs through changes in heritable [[trait (biology)|traits]] – particular characteristics of an organism. In humans, for example, [[eye colour]] is an inherited characteristic and an individual might inherit the "brown-eye trait" from one of their parents.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Sturm RA, Frudakis TN |title = Eye colour: portals into pigmentation genes and ancestry |journal = Trends Genet. |volume = 20 |issue = 8 |pages = 327–32 |year = 2004 |pmid = 15262401 |doi = 10.1016/j.tig.2004.06.010 |ref = harv }}</ref> Inherited traits are controlled by [[gene]]s and the complete set of genes within an organism's [[genome]] is called its [[genotype]].<ref name=Pearson_2006>{{cite journal |author = Pearson H |title = Genetics: what is a gene? |journal = Nature |volume = 441 |issue = 7092 |pages = 398–401 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16724031 |doi = 10.1038/441398a |ref = harv |bibcode = 2006Natur.441..398P }}</ref> |
|||
===Modern science=== |
|||
The complete set of observable traits that make up the structure and behaviour of an organism is called its [[phenotype]]. These traits come from the interaction of its genotype with the [[Environment (biophysical)|environment]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Visscher PM, Hill WG, Wray NR |title = Heritability in the genomics era—concepts and misconceptions |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |volume = 9 |issue = 4 |pages = 255–66 |year = 2008 |pmid = 18319743 |doi = 10.1038/nrg2322 |ref = harv }}</ref> As a result, many aspects of an organism's phenotype are not inherited. For example, [[sun tanning|suntanned]] skin comes from the interaction between a person's genotype and sunlight; thus, suntans are not passed on to people's children. However, some people tan more easily than others, due to differences in their genotype; a striking example are people with the inherited trait of [[albinism]], who do not tan at all and are very sensitive to [[sunburn]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Oetting WS, Brilliant MH, King RA |title = The clinical spectrum of albinism in humans |journal = Molecular medicine today |volume = 2 |issue = 8 |pages = 330–5 |year = 1996 |pmid = 8796918 |doi = 10.1016/1357-4310(96)81798-9 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
{{Main|History of evolutionary thought}} |
|||
{{See also|History of science}} |
|||
From around the start of the 19th century, ideas such as [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck|Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's]] concept of [[transmutation of species]] had gained a small number of supporters in Paris and [[Edinburgh]], mostly amongst anatomists.<ref name="rsf" /> The anonymous publication of ''[[Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation]]'' in 1844 aroused wide public interest with support from [[Quakers]] and [[Unitarianism|Unitarians]], but was strongly criticised by the scientific community, which called for solidly backed science. In 1859, Charles Darwin's ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' provided that evidence from an authoritative and respected source, and within a decade or so convinced scientists that evolution occurs. This view clashed with that of conservative evangelicals in the [[Church of England]], but their attention quickly turned to the much greater uproar about ''[[Essays and Reviews]]'' by [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Anglican theologians]], which introduced into the controversy "[[Historical criticism|higher criticism]]" begun by [[Desiderius Erasmus|Erasmus]] centuries earlier. This book re-examined the Bible and cast doubt on a literal interpretation.<ref>[[#Desmond & Moore 1991|Desmond & Moore 1991]]</ref> By 1875 most American [[natural history|naturalists]] supported ideas of theistic evolution, often involving [[special creation]] of [[human|human beings]].<ref name="encarta" /> |
|||
At this time those holding that species had been separately created were generally called "advocates of creation," but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private correspondence between Darwin and his friends.<ref name="Numbers_Antievolutionists" /> The term appears in letters Darwin wrote between 1856 and 1863,<ref name="Darwin_letters_1856_1863">{{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-1919 |title=Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D. |last=Darwin |first=Charles |authorlink=Charles Darwin |date=July 5, 1856 |website=[[Correspondence of Charles Darwin#Darwin Correspondence Project website|Darwin Correspondence Project]] |publisher=[[Cambridge University Library]] |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 1919 |accessdate=2010-08-11}} |
|||
Heritable traits are passed from one generation to the next via [[DNA]], a [[molecule]] that encodes genetic information.<ref name=Pearson_2006/> DNA is a long [[polymer]] composed of four types of bases. The sequence of bases along a particular DNA molecule specify the genetic information, in a manner similar to a sequence of letters spelling out a sentence. Before a cell divides, the DNA is copied, so that each of the resulting two cells will inherit the DNA sequence. Portions of a DNA molecule that specify a single functional unit are called [[gene]]s; different genes have different sequences of bases. Within [[cell (biology)|cells]], the long strands of DNA form condensed structures called [[chromosome]]s. The specific location of a DNA sequence within a chromosome is known as a [[locus (genetics)|locus]]. If the DNA sequence at a locus varies between individuals, the different forms of this sequence are called [[allele]]s. DNA sequences can change through [[mutation]]s, producing new alleles. If a mutation occurs within a gene, the new allele may affect the trait that the gene controls, altering the phenotype of the organism.<ref name=Futuyma>{{cite book |last = Futuyma |first = Douglas J. |authorlink = Douglas J. Futuyma |year = 2005 |title = Evolution |publisher = Sinauer Associates, Inc |location = Sunderland, Massachusetts |isbn = 0-87893-187-2 }}</ref> However, while this simple correspondence between an allele and a trait works in some cases, most traits are more complex and are controlled by [[quantitative trait locus|multiple interacting genes]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Phillips PC |title = Epistasis—the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |volume = 9 |issue = 11 |pages = 855–67 |year = 2008 |pmid = 18852697 |doi = 10.1038/nrg2452 |pmc = 2689140 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref name=Lin>{{cite journal |author = Wu R, Lin M |title = Functional mapping – how to map and study the genetic architecture of dynamic complex traits |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |volume = 7 |issue = 3 |pages = 229–37 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16485021 |doi = 10.1038/nrg1804 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
*{{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-4196 |title=Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa |last=Darwin |first=Charles |date=May 31, 1863 |website=Darwin Correspondence Project |publisher=Cambridge University Library |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 4196 |accessdate=2010-08-11}}</ref> and was also used in a response by [[Charles Lyell]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-4041 |title=Lyell, Charles to Darwin, C. R. |last=Lyell |first=Charles |authorlink=Charles Lyell |date=March 15, 1863 |website=Darwin Correspondence Project |publisher=Cambridge University Library |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 4041 |accessdate=2010-08-11}}</ref> |
|||
==Types of creationism== |
|||
Recent findings have confirmed important examples of heritable changes that cannot be explained by changes to the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA. These phenomena are classed as [[epigenetic]] inheritance systems.<ref name="Jablonk09">{{cite journal |last1 = Jablonka |first1 = E. |last2 = Raz |first2 = G. |title = Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: Prevalence, mechanisms and implications for the study of heredity and evolution |journal = The Quarterly Review of Biology |volume = 84 |issue = 2 |pages = 131–176 |year = 2009 |pmid = 19606595 |doi = 10.1086/598822 }}</ref> [[DNA methylation]] marking [[chromatin]], self-sustaining metabolic loops, gene silencing by [[RNA interference]] and the three-dimensional [[Protein structure|conformation]] of proteins (such as [[prions]]) are areas where epigenetic inheritance systems have been discovered at the organismic level.<ref name="Bossdorf10">{{cite journal |last1 = Bossdorf |first1 = O. |last2 = Arcuri |first2 = D. |last3 = Richards |first3 = C. L. |last4 = Pigliucci |first4 = M. |title = Experimental alteration of DNA methylation affects the phenotypic plasticity of ecologically relevant traits in ''Arabidopsis thaliana'' |journal = Evolutionary Ecology |volume = 24 |issue = 3 |pages = 541–553 |year = 2010 |doi = 10.1007/s10682-010-9372-7 }}</ref><ref name="Jablonka05">{{cite book |last1 = Jablonka |first1 = E. |last2 = Lamb |first2 = M. |title = Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioural and symbolic |year = 2005 |publisher = MIT Press |url = http://books.google.ca/books?id=EaCiHFq3MWsC&printsec=frontcover |isbn = 0-262-10107-6 }}</ref> Developmental biologists suggest that complex interactions in [[gene regulatory network|genetic networks]] and communication among cells can lead to heritable variations that may underlay some of the mechanics in [[developmental plasticity]] and [[Canalisation (genetics)|canalization]].<ref name="Jablonka02">{{cite journal |last1 = Jablonka |first1 = E. |last2 = Lamb |first2 = M. J. |title = The changing concept of epigenetics |journal = Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences |volume = 981 |issue = 1 |pages = 82–96 |year = 2002 |doi = 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2002.tb04913.x |bibcode = 2002NYASA.981...82J |pmid=12547675}}</ref> Heritability may also occur at even larger scales. For example, ecological inheritance through the process of [[niche construction]] is defined by the regular and repeated activities of organisms in their environment. This generates a legacy of effects that modify and feed back into the selection regime of subsequent generations. Descendants inherit genes plus environmental characteristics generated by the ecological actions of ancestors.<ref name="Laland06">{{cite journal |title = Perspective: Seven reasons (not) to neglect niche construction |last1 = Laland |first1 = K. N. |last2 = Sterelny |first2 = K. |journal = Evolution |volume = 60 |issue = 8 |pages = 1751–1762 |year = 2006 |doi = 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb00520.x }}</ref> Other examples of heritability in evolution that are not under the direct control of genes include the inheritance of [[Dual inheritance theory|cultural traits]] and [[symbiogenesis]].<ref name="Chapman98">{{cite journal |title = Morphogenesis by symbiogenesis |last1 = Chapman |first1 = M. J. |last2 = Margulis |first2 = L. |journal = International Microbiology |volume = 1 |issue = 4 |pages = 319–326 |year = 1998 |pmid = 10943381 }}</ref><ref name="Wilson07">{{cite journal |last1 = Wilson |first1 = D. S. |last2 = Wilson |first2 = E. O. |title = Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology |journal = The Quarterly Review of Biology |volume = 82 |issue = 4 |year = 2007 |url = http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Rethinking-sociobiology.pdf |doi = 10.1086/522809 |pages = 327–348 |pmid = 18217526 }}</ref> |
|||
Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "[[Taxonomy (general)|taxonomy]]" of creationists.<ref name="Scott1999">{{cite journal |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |authorlink=Eugenie Scott |date=July–August 1999 |title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=16–17, 23–25 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2014-03-14}}</ref><ref name="Wise-p30">{{cite journal |last=Wise |first=Donald U. |date=January 2001 |title=Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution |url=http://nagt.org/nagt/jge/abstracts/jan01.html |journal=Journal of Geoscience Education |location=Bellingham, WA |publisher=[[National Association of Geoscience Teachers]] |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=30–35 |issn=1089-9995 |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref><ref name="nagt-pdf-Ross">{{cite journal |last=Ross |first=Marcus R. |authorlink=Marcus R. Ross |date=May 2005 |title=Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism |url=http://nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf |format=PDF |journal=Journal of Geoscience Education |location=Bellingham, WA |publisher=National Association of Geoscience Teachers |volume=53 |issue=3 |pages=319–323 |issn=1089-9995 |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref> Creationism (broadly construed) covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the general types listed below. |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
== Variation == |
|||
|+ Comparison of major creationist views |
|||
{{Multiple image|direction=vertical|align=right|image1=Biston.betularia.7200.jpg |image2=Biston.betularia.f.carbonaria.7209.jpg|width=200| caption1=White [[peppered moth]] |caption2=Black morph in [[peppered moth evolution]]}} |
|||
|- |
|||
{{Further|Genetic diversity|Population genetics}} |
|||
! |
|||
An individual organism's [[phenotype]] results from both its [[genotype]] and the influence from the [[Environment (biophysical)|environment]] it has lived in. A substantial part of the variation in phenotypes in a population is caused by the differences between their genotypes.<ref name=Lin/> The [[modern evolutionary synthesis]] defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation. The frequency of one particular allele will become more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of [[fixation (population genetics)|fixation]] — when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.<ref name=Amos>{{cite journal |author = Harwood AJ |title = Factors affecting levels of genetic diversity in natural populations |journal = [[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]] |volume = 353 |issue = 1366 |pages = 177–86 |year = 1998 |pmid = 9533122 |pmc = 1692205 |doi = 10.1098/rstb.1998.0200 |last2 = Harwood |first2 = J |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
!Acceptance (U.S.) |
|||
!Humanity |
|||
!Biological species |
|||
!Earth |
|||
!Age of Universe |
|||
|- |
|||
! [[Young Earth creationism]] |
|||
|rowspan="2"| 40%<ref name="gallup" /> |
|||
|rowspan="2"| Directly created by God. |
|||
|rowspan="2"| Directly created by God. [[Macroevolution]] does not occur. |
|||
|Less than 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. |
|||
|Less than 10,000 years old (some hold this view only for our solar system). |
|||
|- |
|||
! [[Gap creationism]] |
|||
|Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. |
|||
|Scientifically accepted age. |
|||
|- |
|||
! [[Progressive creationism]] |
|||
|rowspan="3"| 38%<ref name="gallup" /> |
|||
|Directly created by God (based on [[primate]] anatomy). |
|||
|Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. |
|||
|Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. |
|||
|Scientifically accepted age. |
|||
|- |
|||
! [[Intelligent design]] |
|||
|Proponents hold various beliefs. For example, [[Michael Behe]] accepts evolution from primates |
|||
|Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by what intelligent-design creationists call "[[irreducible complexity]]" |
|||
|Some adherents accept common descent, others not. Some claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention |
|||
|Scientifically accepted age |
|||
|- |
|||
! [[Theistic evolution]] (evolutionary creationism) |
|||
|Evolution from primates. |
|||
|Evolution from single common ancestor. |
|||
|Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. |
|||
|Scientifically accepted age. |
|||
|} |
|||
===Young Earth creationism=== |
|||
Natural selection will only cause evolution if there is enough [[genetic variation]] in a population. Before the discovery of [[Mendelian genetics]], one common hypothesis was [[blending inheritance]]. But with blending inheritance, genetic variance would be rapidly lost, making evolution by natural selection implausible. The ''[[Hardy-Weinberg principle]]'' provides the solution to how variation is maintained in a population with [[Mendelian inheritance]]. The frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) will remain constant in the absence of selection, mutation, migration and genetic drift.<ref name="Ewens W.J. 2004">{{cite book |author = Ewens W.J. |year = 2004 |title = Mathematical Population Genetics (2nd Edition) |publisher = Springer-Verlag, New York |isbn = 0-387-20191-2 }}</ref> |
|||
{{Main|Young Earth creationism}} |
|||
[[File:ICR building.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Institute for Creation Research]] (ICR) is a young Earth creationism organisation]] |
|||
[[File:Kent Hovind mug shot.jpg|thumb|right|[[Kent Hovind]] is a creationist who teaches young Earth creationism]] |
|||
Young Earth creationists believe that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the [[Ussher chronology]]). Most young Earth creationists believe that the Universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assign a much older age to the Universe than to Earth. [[Creationist cosmologies]] attempt to give the Universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other young Earth time frames. Other young Earth creationists believe that the Earth and the Universe were created with the appearance of age, so that the world appears to be much older than it is, and that this appearance is what gives the geological findings and other methods of dating the Earth and the Universe their much longer [[timeline]]s. However, this view has theological implications—an intentional appearance of age is form of [[false evidence]] and so a form of deception. |
|||
The Christian organizations [[Institute for Creation Research]] (ICR) and the [[Creation Research Society]] (CRS) both promote young Earth creationism in the US. Another organization with similar views, [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG)—based in both the US and the [[United Kingdom]]—has opened the [[Creation Museum]] in [[Petersburg, Boone County, Kentucky|Petersburg, Kentucky]], to promote young Earth creationism. [[Creation Ministries International]] promotes young Earth views in [[Australia]], [[Canada]], [[South Africa]], [[New Zealand]], the US, and the UK. Among [[Catholicism|Roman Catholics]], the [[List of Catholic creationist organisations|Kolbe Center]] for the Study of Creation promotes similar ideas. |
|||
Variation comes from [[mutation]]s in [[genetic material]], reshuffling of genes through [[sexual reproduction]] and migration between populations ([[gene flow]]). Despite the constant introduction of new variation through mutation and gene flow, most of the [[genome]] of a species is identical in all individuals of that species.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Butlin RK, Tregenza T |title = Levels of genetic polymorphism: marker loci versus quantitative traits |journal = [[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]] |volume = 353 |issue = 1366 |pages = 187–98 |year = 1998 |pmid = 9533123 |pmc = 1692210 |doi = 10.1098/rstb.1998.0201 |ref = harv }}</ref> However, even relatively small differences in genotype can lead to dramatic differences in phenotype: for example, chimpanzees and humans differ in only about 5% of their genomes.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Wetterbom A, Sevov M, Cavelier L, Bergström TF |title = Comparative genomic analysis of human and chimpanzee indicates a key role for indels in primate evolution |journal = J. Mol. Evol. |volume = 63 |issue = 5 |pages = 682–90 |year = 2006 |pmid = 17075697 |doi = 10.1007/s00239-006-0045-7 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
=== |
====Creation science==== |
||
{{Main|Creation science}} |
|||
{{Further|Mutation}} |
|||
Creation science, or initially scientific creationism, emerged in the 1960s with proponents aiming to have young Earth creationist beliefs taught in school science classes as a counter to teaching of evolution. It is the attempt to present scientific evidence interpreted with Genesis axioms that supports the claims of creationism. Various claims of creationists include such ideas as [[creationist cosmologies]] which accommodate a Universe on the order of thousands of years old, attacks on the science of [[radiometric dating]] through a technical argument about [[radiohalo]]s, explanations for the [[Fossil#Fossil record|fossil record]] as a record of the destruction of the [[Flood myth|global flood]] recorded in the Book of Genesis (see [[Flood geology]]), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect [[genome]]s God placed in "created kinds" or "[[Baraminology|Baramin]]" (see [[Creation science#Creationist biology|creationist biology]]) due to [[mutation]]s. |
|||
[[File:Gene-duplication.svg|thumb|100px|Duplication of part of a [[chromosome]].]] |
|||
Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome. When mutations occur, they can either have no effect, alter the [[gene product|product of a gene]], or prevent the gene from functioning. Based on studies in the fly ''[[Drosophila melanogaster]]'', it has been suggested that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DL |title = Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 104 |issue = 16 |pages = 6504–10 |year = 2007 |pmid = 17409186 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0701572104 |pmc = 1871816 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2007PNAS..104.6504S }}</ref> |
|||
===Old Earth creationism=== |
|||
Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming [[gene duplication|duplicated]] (usually by [[genetic recombination]]), which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genome.<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1038/nrg2593 |pmid = 19597530 |volume = 10 |issue = 8 |pages = 551–564 |last = Hastings |first = P J |title = Mechanisms of change in gene copy number |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |year = 2009 |last2 = Lupski |first2 = JR |last3 = Rosenberg |first3 = SM |last4 = Ira |first4 = G |pmc = 2864001 |ref = harv }}</ref> Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to evolve.<ref>{{cite book |title = From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Second Edition |publisher = Blackwell Publishing |year = 2005 |location = Oxford |isbn = 1-4051-1950-0 |author = Sean B. Carroll; Jennifer K. Grenier; Scott D. Weatherbee. }}</ref> This is important because most new genes evolve within [[gene family|gene families]] from pre-existing genes that share common ancestors.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Harrison P, Gerstein M |title = Studying genomes through the aeons: protein families, pseudogenes and proteome evolution |journal = J Mol Biol |volume = 318 |issue = 5 |pages = 1155–74 |year = 2002 |pmid = 12083509 |doi = 10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00109-2 |ref = harv }}</ref> For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for [[Cone cell|colour vision]] and one for [[Rod cell|night vision]]; all four are descended from a single ancestral gene.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Bowmaker JK |title = Evolution of colour vision in vertebrates |journal = Eye (London, England) |volume = 12 |issue = Pt 3b |pages = 541–7 |year = 1998 |pmid = 9775215 |ref = harv |doi = 10.1038/eye.1998.143 }}</ref> |
|||
{{Main|Old Earth creationism}} |
|||
Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event described in the Book of Genesis is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally believes that the [[age of the universe|age of the Universe]] and the age of the Earth are as described by [[astronomer]]s and [[geologist]]s, but that details of [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|modern evolutionary theory]] are questionable. |
|||
Old Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types: |
|||
New genes can be generated from an ancestral gene when a duplicate copy mutates and acquires a new function. This process is easier once a gene has been duplicated because it increases the [[Redundancy (engineering)|redundancy]] of the system; one gene in the pair can acquire a new function while the other copy continues to perform its original function.<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1101/gr.9.4.317 |author = Gregory TR, Hebert PD |title = The modulation of DNA content: proximate causes and ultimate consequences |url = http://genome.cshlp.org/content/9/4/317.full |journal = Genome Res. |volume = 9 |issue = 4 |pages = 317–24 |year = 1999 |pmid = 10207154 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Hurles M |title = Gene duplication: the genomic trade in spare parts |journal = PLoS Biol. |volume = 2 |issue = 7 |pages = E206 |year = 2004 |pmid = 15252449 |pmc = 449868 |doi = 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020206 |ref = harv }}</ref> Other types of mutations can even generate entirely new genes from previously noncoding DNA.<ref>{{cite journal |title = The evolution and functional diversification of animal microRNA genes |author = Liu N, Okamura K, Tyler DM |journal = Cell Res. |year = 2008 |volume = 18 |pages = 985–96 |doi = 10.1038/cr.2008.278 |url = http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v18/n10/full/cr2008278a.html |pmid = 18711447 |issue = 10 |pmc = 2712117 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Siepel A |title = Darwinian alchemy: Human genes from noncoding DNA |journal = Genome Res. |volume = 19 |issue = 10 |pages = 1693–5 |year = 2009 |pmid = 19797681 |doi = 10.1101/gr.098376.109 |url = http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/10/1693.full |pmc = 2765273 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
====Gap creationism==== |
|||
The generation of new genes can also involve small parts of several genes being duplicated, with these fragments then recombining to form new combinations with new functions.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Orengo CA, Thornton JM |title = Protein families and their evolution-a structural perspective |journal = Annu. Rev. Biochem. |volume = 74 |issue = 1 |pages = 867–900 |year = 2005 |pmid = 15954844 |doi = 10.1146/annurev.biochem.74.082803.133029 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Long M, Betrán E, Thornton K, Wang W |title = The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |volume = 4 |issue = 11 |pages = 865–75 |year = 2003 |pmid = 14634634 |doi = 10.1038/nrg1204 |ref = harv }}</ref> When new genes are assembled from shuffling pre-existing parts, [[protein domain|domains]] act as modules with simple independent functions, which can be mixed together to produce new combinations with new and complex functions.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Wang M, Caetano-Anollés G |title = The evolutionary mechanics of domain organisation in proteomes and the rise of modularity in the protein world |journal = Structure |volume = 17 |issue = 1 |pages = 66–78 |year = 2009 |doi = 10.1016/j.str.2008.11.008 |pmid = 19141283 |ref = harv }}</ref> For example, [[polyketide synthase]]s are large enzymes that make antibiotics; they contain up to one hundred independent domains that each catalyse one step in the overall process, like a step in an assembly line.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Weissman KJ, Müller R |title = Protein-protein interactions in multienzyme megasynthetases |journal = Chembiochem |volume = 9 |issue = 6 |pages = 826–48 |year = 2008 |pmid = 18357594 |doi = 10.1002/cbic.200700751 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
{{Main|Gap creationism}} |
|||
Gap creationism, also called "restoration creationism," holds that life was recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. This theory relies on a particular interpretation of {{Bibleverse|Genesis|1:1-2|KJV}}. It is considered that the words [[Tohu wa-bohu|''formless'' and ''void'']] in fact denote waste and ruin, taking into account the original Hebrew and other places these words are used in the [[Old Testament]]. Genesis 1:1-2 is consequently translated: |
|||
: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Original act of creation.) |
|||
=== Sex and recombination === |
|||
: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." |
|||
{{Further|Sexual reproduction|Genetic recombination|Evolution of sexual reproduction}} |
|||
Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start sometime after the Earth was "without form and void." This allows an indefinite "gap" of time to be inserted after the original creation of the Universe, but prior to the [[Genesis creation narrative|creation according to Genesis]], (when present biological species and [[human]]ity were created). Gap theorists can therefore agree with the [[scientific consensus]] regarding the age of the Earth and Universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text. |
|||
In asexual organisms, genes are inherited together, or ''linked'', as they cannot mix with genes of other organisms during reproduction. In contrast, the offspring of [[sex]]ual organisms contain random mixtures of their parents' chromosomes that are produced through [[independent assortment]]. In a related process called [[homologous recombination]], sexual organisms exchange DNA between two matching chromosomes.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Radding C |title = Homologous pairing and strand exchange in genetic recombination |journal = Annu. Rev. Genet. |volume = 16 |issue = 1 |pages = 405–37 |year = 1982 |pmid = 6297377 |doi = 10.1146/annurev.ge.16.120182.002201 |ref = harv }}</ref> Recombination and reassortment do not alter allele frequencies, but instead change which alleles are associated with each other, producing offspring with new combinations of alleles.<ref name=Agrawal>{{cite journal |author = Agrawal AF |title = Evolution of sex: why do organisms shuffle their genotypes? |journal = Curr. Biol. |volume = 16 |issue = 17 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16950096 |doi = 10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.063 |ref = harv |pages = R696–704 }}</ref> Sex usually increases genetic variation and may increase the rate of evolution.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Peters AD, Otto SP |title = Liberating genetic variance through sex |journal = BioEssays |volume = 25 |issue = 6 |pages = 533–7 |year = 2003 |pmid = 12766942 |doi = 10.1002/bies.10291 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Goddard MR, Godfray HC, Burt A |title = Sex increases the efficacy of natural selection in experimental yeast populations |journal = Nature |volume = 434 |issue = 7033 |pages = 636–40 |year = 2005 |pmid = 15800622 |doi = 10.1038/nature03405 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2005Natur.434..636G }}</ref> |
|||
Some{{which|date=November 2013}} gap theorists expand the basic theory by proposing a "primordial creation" of biological life within the "gap" of time. This is thought to be "the world that then was" mentioned in [[2 Peter]] 3:3-7.<ref>{{Bibleverse|2 Peter|3|KJV}}</ref> Discoveries of fossils and archaeological ruins older than 10,000 years are generally ascribed to this "world that then was," which may also be associated with [[Lucifer]]'s rebellion. These views became popular with publications of Hebrew Lexicons such as the [[Strong's Concordance]], and Bible commentaries such as the ''[[Scofield Reference Bible]]'' and the [[E. W. Bullinger|Companion Bible]].{{citation needed|date=November 2013}} |
|||
=== Gene flow === |
|||
{{Further|Gene flow}} |
|||
====Day-age creationism==== |
|||
[[Gene flow]] is the exchange of genes between populations and between species.<ref name="Morjan C, Rieseberg L 2004 1341–56">{{cite journal |author = Morjan C, Rieseberg L |title = How species evolve collectively: implications of gene flow and selection for the spread of advantageous alleles |journal = Mol. Ecol. |volume = 13 |issue = 6 |pages = 1341–56 |year = 2004 |pmid = 15140081 |doi = 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02164.x |pmc = 2600545 |ref = harv }}</ref> It can therefore be a source of variation that is new to a population or to a species. [[Gene flow]] can be caused by the movement of individuals between separate populations of organisms, as might be caused by the movement of mice between inland and coastal populations, or the movement of [[pollen]] between heavy metal tolerant and heavy metal sensitive populations of grasses. |
|||
{{Main|Day-age creationism}} |
|||
Day-age creationism states that the "six days" of the Book of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time). This theory often states that the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] word "yôm," in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age." Some{{which|date=September 2013}} adherents claim we are still living in the seventh age ("seventh day"). |
|||
Strictly speaking, day-age creationism is not so much a creationist theory as a [[Hermeneutics|hermeneutic]] option which may be combined with theories such as progressive creationism. |
|||
Gene transfer between species includes the formation of [[Hybrid (biology)|hybrid]] organisms and [[horizontal gene transfer]]. [[Horizontal gene transfer]] is the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another organism that is not its offspring; this is most common among [[bacteria]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Boucher Y, Douady CJ, Papke RT, Walsh DA, Boudreau ME, Nesbo CL, Case RJ, Doolittle WF |title = Lateral gene transfer and the origins of prokaryotic groups |doi = 10.1146/annurev.genet.37.050503.084247 |journal = Annu Rev Genet |volume = 37 |issue = 1 |pages = 283–328 |year = 2003 |pmid = 14616063 |ref = harv }}</ref> In medicine, this contributes to the spread of [[antibiotic resistance]], as when one bacteria acquires resistance genes it can rapidly transfer them to other species.<ref name=GeneticEvolution>{{cite journal |author = Walsh T |title = Combinatorial genetic evolution of multiresistance |journal = Current Opinion in Microbiology |volume = 9 |issue = 5 |pages = 476–82 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16942901 |doi = 10.1016/j.mib.2006.08.009 |ref = harv }}</ref> Horizontal transfer of genes from bacteria to eukaryotes such as the yeast ''[[Saccharomyces cerevisiae]]'' and the adzuki bean beetle ''Callosobruchus chinensis'' has occurred.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Kondo N, Nikoh N, Ijichi N, Shimada M, Fukatsu T |title = Genome fragment of Wolbachia endosymbiont transferred to X chromosome of host insect |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 99 |issue = 22 |pages = 14280–5 |year = 2002 |pmid = 12386340 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.222228199 |pmc = 137875 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2002PNAS...9914280K }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Sprague G |title = Genetic exchange between kingdoms |journal = Current Opinion in Genetics & Development |volume = 1 |issue = 4 |pages = 530–3 |year = 1991 |pmid = 1822285 |doi = 10.1016/S0959-437X(05)80203-5 |ref = harv }}</ref> An example of larger-scale transfers are the eukaryotic [[Bdelloidea|bdelloid rotifers]], which have received a range of genes from bacteria, fungi and plants.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Gladyshev EA, Meselson M, Arkhipova IR |title = Massive horizontal gene transfer in bdelloid rotifers |journal = Science |volume = 320 |issue = 5880 |pages = 1210–3 |year = 2008 |pmid = 18511688 |doi = 10.1126/science.1156407 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2008Sci...320.1210G }}</ref> [[Virus]]es can also carry DNA between organisms, allowing transfer of genes even across [[domain (biology)|biological domains]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Baldo A, McClure M |title = Evolution and horizontal transfer of dUTPase-encoding genes in viruses and their hosts |journal = J. Virol. |volume = 73 |issue = 9 |pages = 7710–21 |date = September 1, 1999 |pmid = 10438861 |pmc = 104298 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
====Progressive creationism==== |
|||
Large-scale gene transfer has also occurred between the ancestors of [[Eukaryote|eukaryotic cells]] and [[bacteria]], during the acquisition of [[chloroplast]]s and [[Mitochondrion|mitochondria]]. It is possible that eukaryotes themselves originated from horizontal gene transfers between [[bacteria]] and [[archaea]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = River, M. C. and Lake, J. A. |title = The ring of life provides evidence for a genome fusion origin of eukaryotes |journal = Nature |volume = 431 |issue = 9 |pages = 152–5 |year = 2004 |pmid = 15356622 |doi = 10.1038/nature02848 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2004Natur.431..152R }}</ref> |
|||
{{Main|Progressive creationism}} |
|||
Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operated—though it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order at key moments in Earth history. This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the Earth, but rejects much of modern [[evolutionary biology]] or looks to it for evidence that evolution by [[natural selection]] alone is incorrect.{{Citation needed|date=June 2009}} Organizations such as [[Reasons To Believe]], founded by [[Hugh Ross (creationist)|Hugh Ross]], promote this theory. |
|||
Progressive creationism can be held in conjunction with [[hermeneutic]] approaches to the Genesis creation narrative such as the [[Day-age creationism|day-age theory]] or [[Framework interpretation (Genesis)|framework]]/metaphoric/poetic views. |
|||
== Mechanisms == |
|||
[[File:Mutation and selection diagram.svg|thumb|300px|[[Mutation]] followed by [[natural selection]], results in a population with darker colouration.]] |
|||
From a [[Neo-Darwinian]] perspective, evolution occurs when there are changes in the frequencies of alleles within a population of interbreeding organisms.<ref name="Ewens W.J. 2004" /> For example, the allele for black colour in a population of moths becoming more common. Mechanisms that can lead to changes in allele frequencies include [[natural selection]], [[genetic drift]], [[genetic hitchhiking]], [[mutation]] and [[gene flow]]. |
|||
=== |
===Neo-creationism=== |
||
{{Main|Neo-creationism}} |
|||
{{Further|Natural selection|Fitness (biology)}} |
|||
Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}} Neo-creationism aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the [[Creation myth|origins of life]] in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public. |
|||
Evolution by means of [[natural selection]] is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become and remain more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts: |
|||
* Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms. |
|||
* Organisms produce more progeny than can survive. |
|||
* These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce. |
|||
Neo-creationism sees ostensibly [[Objectivity (science)|objective]] [[Mainstream#In science|mainstream science]] as a dogmatically [[atheism|atheistic]] [[religion]]. Neo-creationists argue that the [[scientific method]] excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards [[supernatural]] elements. They argue that this effectively excludes any possible religious insight from contributing to a scientific understanding of the Universe. Neo-creationists also argue that science, as an "atheistic enterprise," lies at the root of many of contemporary society's ills including social unrest and family breakdown.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}} |
|||
These conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. Consequently, organisms with traits that give them an advantage over their competitors are more likely to pass on their traits on to the next generation than those with traits that do not confer an advantage.<ref name=Hurst>{{cite journal |author = Hurst LD |title = Fundamental concepts in genetics: genetics and the understanding of selection |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |volume = 10 |issue = 2 |pages = 83–93 |year = 2009 |pmid = 19119264 |doi = 10.1038/nrg2506 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
The [[intelligent design movement]] arguably represents the most recognized form of neo-creationism in the US. Unlike their philosophical forebears, neo-creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such as a young Earth, or in a dogmatically [[Biblical inerrancy|literal interpretation of the Bible]]. Common to all forms of neo-creationism is a rejection of [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]],{{Citation needed|date=April 2011}} usually made together with a tacit admission of [[supernatural]]ism, and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "[[Darwinism]]," meaning evolution. |
|||
The central concept of natural selection is the [[fitness (biology)|evolutionary fitness]] of an organism.<ref name=Orr>{{cite journal |author = Orr HA |title = Fitness and its role in evolutionary genetics |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |volume = 10 |issue = 8 |pages = 531–9 |year = 2009 |pmid = 19546856 |doi = 10.1038/nrg2603 |pmc = 2753274 |ref = harv }}</ref> Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.<ref name=Orr/> However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.<ref name=Haldane>{{cite journal |author = Haldane J |title = The theory of natural selection today |journal = Nature |volume = 183 |issue = 4663 |pages = 710–3 |year = 1959 |pmid = 13644170 |doi = 10.1038/183710a0 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1959Natur.183..710H }}</ref> For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.<ref name=Orr/> |
|||
====Intelligent design==== |
|||
If an allele increases fitness more than the other alleles of that gene, then with each generation this allele will become more common within the population. These traits are said to be "selected ''for''". Examples of traits that can increase fitness are enhanced survival and increased [[fecundity]]. Conversely, the lower fitness caused by having a less beneficial or deleterious allele results in this allele becoming rarer — they are "selected ''against''".<ref name="Lande">{{cite journal |author = Lande R, Arnold SJ |year = 1983 |title = The measurement of selection on correlated characters |journal = Evolution |volume = 37 |pages = 1210–26 |doi = 10.2307/2408842 |issue = 6 |ref = harv |jstor = 2408842 }}</ref> Importantly, the fitness of an allele is not a fixed characteristic; if the environment changes, previously neutral or harmful traits may become beneficial and previously beneficial traits become harmful.<ref name="Futuyma" /> However, even if the direction of selection does reverse in this way, traits that were lost in the past may not re-evolve in an identical form (see [[Dollo's law]]).<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00505.x |pmid = 18764918 |volume = 62 |issue = 11 |pages = 2727–2741 |last = Goldberg |first = Emma E |title = On phylogenetic tests of irreversible evolution |journal = Evolution |year = 2008 |last2 = Igić |first2 = B |ref = harv }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.013 |pmid = 18814933 |volume = 23 |issue = 11 |pages = 602–609 |last = Collin |first = Rachel |title = Reversing opinions on Dollo's Law |journal = Trends in Ecology & Evolution |year = 2008 |last2 = Miglietta |first2 = MP |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
{{Main|Intelligent design}} |
|||
Intelligent design (ID) is 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."<ref name="DIposition">{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=CSC - Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? |website=[[Center for Science and Culture]] |publisher=[[Discovery Institute]] |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2007-05-13}}</ref> All of its leading proponents are associated with the [[Discovery Institute]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2014-03-13}}</ref> a think tank whose [[Wedge strategy]] aims to replace the scientific method with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf |title=The Wedge |year=1999 |publisher=[[Center for Science and Culture|Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture]] |location=Seattle, WA |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-13}}</ref> It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,<ref name="Wise-p30" /><ref name="nagt-pdf-Ross" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Mu |first=David |date=Fall 2005 |title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design |url=http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf |format=PDF |journal=[[Harvard College#Publications and media|Harvard Science Review]] |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=Harvard Science Review, Inc. |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=22–25 |accessdate=2014-03-13 |ref=Mu 2005 |quote=...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.}} |
|||
*{{cite journal |last=Klotzko |first=Arlene Judith |date=May 28, 2001 |title=Cynical Science and Stem Cells |url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/13410/title/Cynical-Science-and-Stem-Cells/ |journal=[[The Scientist]] |volume=15 |issue=11 |page=35 |issn=0890-3670 |quote=Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudo-science of 'intelligent design theory.' |accessdate=2014-03-13}} |
|||
*{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}}, [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 136 of 139|Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136]].</ref><ref name="Numbers 2006">[[#Numbers 2006|Numbers 2006]]</ref> and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism."<ref name="Scott1999" /><ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref>[[#Forrest & Gross 2004|Forrest & Gross 2004]]</ref><ref>[[#Pennock 2001|Pennock 2001]], "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski," pp. 645–667, "Dembski chides me for never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationism'. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to 'rally the troops'. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..." |
|||
*[[#Pennock 1999|Pennock 1999]]</ref><ref>[[#Scott 2005|Scott 2005]]</ref> |
|||
ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to get round a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism in American public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns|a series of campaigns]] to change school curricula.<ref name="Flank_April2006" /> In Australia, where curricula are under the control of state governments rather than local school boards, there was a public outcry when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister [[Brendan Nelson]]; the minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.<ref>{{cite news |last=Smith |first=Deborah |date=October 21, 2005 |title=Intelligent design not science: experts |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/intelligent-design-not-science-experts/2005/10/20/1129775902661.html |newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] |location=Sydney |publisher=[[Fairfax Media]] |accessdate=2007-07-13}}</ref> |
|||
[[File:Selection Types Chart.png|thumb|left|A chart showing three types of selection. |
|||
1. [[Disruptive selection]] |
|||
2. [[Stabilizing selection]] |
|||
3. [[Directional selection]]]] |
|||
In the US, teaching of intelligent design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a [[United States district court|federal district court]] to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'', the court found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,"<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}}, [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 136 of 139|Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136]].</ref> and hence cannot be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a [[Precedent#Persuasive precedent|persuasive precedent]], based on previous US [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] decisions in ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' and ''[[Epperson v. Arkansas]]'' (1968), and by the application of the [[Lemon v. Kurtzman|Lemon test]], that creates a legal hurdle to teaching intelligent design in public school districts in other federal court jurisdictions.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref name="kitz">[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.|Full text of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III's ruling in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', dated December 20, 2005.]]</ref> |
|||
Natural selection within a population for a trait that can vary across a range of values, such as height, can be categorised into three different types. The first is [[directional selection]], which is a shift in the average value of a trait over time — for example, organisms slowly getting taller.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Hoekstra H, Hoekstra J, Berrigan D, Vignieri S, Hoang A, Hill C, Beerli P, Kingsolver J |title = Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 98 |issue = 16 |pages = 9157–60 |year = 2001 |pmid = 11470913 |pmc = 55389 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.161281098 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2001PNAS...98.9157H }}</ref> Secondly, [[disruptive selection]] is selection for extreme trait values and often results in [[bimodal distribution|two different values]] becoming most common, with selection against the average value. This would be when either short or tall organisms had an advantage, but not those of medium height. Finally, in [[stabilizing selection]] there is selection against extreme trait values on both ends, which causes a decrease in [[variance]] around the average value and less diversity.<ref name=Hurst/><ref>{{cite journal |author = Felsenstein |title = Excursions along the Interface between Disruptive and Stabilizing Selection |journal = Genetics |volume = 93 |issue = 3 |pages = 773–95 |date = November 1, 1979 |pmid = 17248980 |pmc = 1214112 |ref = harv }}</ref> This would, for example, cause organisms to slowly become all the same height. |
|||
===Obscure and largely discounted beliefs=== |
|||
A special case of natural selection is [[sexual selection]], which is selection for any trait that increases mating success by increasing the attractiveness of an organism to potential mates.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Andersson M, Simmons L |title = Sexual selection and mate choice |journal = Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) |volume = 21 |issue = 6 |pages = 296–302 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16769428 |doi = 10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.015 |ref = harv }}</ref> Traits that evolved through sexual selection are particularly prominent among males of several animal species. Although sexually favoured, traits such as cumbersome antlers, mating calls, large body size and bright colours often attract predation, which compromises the survival of individual males.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara J, Houston A |title = The sexual selection continuum |pmc = 1691039 |journal = Proc. Biol. Sci. |volume = 269 |issue = 1498 |pages = 1331–40 |year = 2002 |pmid = 12079655 |doi = 10.1098/rspb.2002.2020 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref name=Balancing>{{cite journal|last=Quinn|first=Thomas P.|author2=Andrew P. Hendry|author3=Gregory B. Buck|title=Balancing natural and sexual selection in sockeye salmon: interactions between body size, reproductive opportunity and vulnerability to predation by bears|journal=Evolutionary Ecology Research|year=2001|volume=3|pages=917–937}}</ref> This survival disadvantage is balanced by higher reproductive success in males that show these [[Handicap principle|hard to fake]], sexually selected traits.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions M, Smith M, Bentsen C, Bussière L |title = High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young |journal = Nature |volume = 432 |issue = 7020 |pages = 1024–7 |year = 2004 |pmid = 15616562 |doi = 10.1038/nature03084 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2004Natur.432.1024H }}</ref> |
|||
{{Main|Geocentric model}} |
|||
In [[astronomy]], the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is a description of the [[Cosmos]] where Earth is at the orbital center of all celestial bodies. This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as [[ancient Greece]]. As such, they assumed that the [[Sun]], [[Moon]], [[star]]s, and [[Classical planet|naked eye planets]] circled Earth, including the noteworthy systems of [[Aristotle]] (see [[Aristotelian physics]]) and [[Ptolemy]]. |
|||
Articles arguing that geocentrism was the biblical perspective appeared in some early creation science newsletters associated with the Creation Research Society pointing to some passages in the Bible, which, when taken literally, indicate that the daily apparent motions of the Sun and the Moon are due to their actual motions around the Earth rather than due to the rotation of the Earth about its axis for example, [[Book of Joshua|Joshua]] 10:12 where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky, and [[Psalms]] 93:1 where the world is described as immobile.<ref name="Numbers1993">{{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |year=1993 |origyear=Originally published 1992; New York: [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |title=The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |page=237 |isbn=0-5200-8393-8 |lccn=93015804 |oclc=810488078}}</ref> Contemporary advocates for such [[religious belief]]s include [[Robert Sungenis]], co-author of the self-published ''Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right'' (2006).<ref name="Sefton2006">{{cite news |first=Dru |last=Sefton |date=March 30, 2006 |title=In this world view, the sun revolves around the earth |url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_1kaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XCYEAAAAIBAJ&dq=robert-sungenis&pg=6714%2C4991566 |newspaper=[[Times-News (Hendersonville, North Carolina)|Times-News]] |location=Hendersonville, NC |publisher=Hendersonville Newspaper Corporation |agency=[[Religion News Service]] |page=5A |accessdate=2014-03-14}}</ref> These people subscribe to the view that a plain reading of the Bible contains an accurate account of the manner in which the Universe was created and requires a geocentric worldview. Most contemporary creationist organizations reject such perspectives.{{refn|group="note"|Donald B. DeYoung, for example, states that "Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the 'language of appearance,' just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1997/11/05/astronomy-bible |title=Astronomy and the Bible: Selected questions and answers excerpted from the book |last=DeYoung |first=Donald B. |date=November 5, 1997 |website=[[Answers in Genesis]] |publisher=Answers in Genesis Ministries International |location=Hebron, KY |accessdate=2013-12-01}}</ref>}} |
|||
Natural selection most generally makes nature the measure against which individuals and individual traits, are more or less likely to survive. "Nature" in this sense refers to an [[ecosystem]], that is, a system in which organisms interact with every other element, [[abiotic|physical]] as well as [[biotic component|biological]], in their local [[environment (biophysical)|environment]]. Eugene Odum, a founder of ecology, defined an ecosystem as: "Any unit that includes all of the organisms...in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity and material cycles (ie: exchange of materials between living and nonliving parts) within the system."<ref name="Odum1971">Odum, EP (1971) Fundamentals of ecology, third edition, Saunders New York</ref> Each population within an ecosystem occupies a distinct [[Ecological niche|niche]], or position, with distinct relationships to other parts of the system. These relationships involve the life history of the organism, its position in the [[food chain]] and its geographic range. This broad understanding of nature enables scientists to delineate specific forces which, together, comprise natural selection. |
|||
===Omphalos hypothesis=== |
|||
Natural selection can act at [[unit of selection|different levels of organisation]], such as genes, cells, individual organisms, groups of organisms and species.<ref name="Okasha07">{{cite book |last1 = Okasha |first1 = S. |year = 2007 |title = Evolution and the Levels of Selection |publisher = Oxford University Press |isbn = 0-19-926797-9 }}</ref><ref name=Gould>{{cite journal |author = Gould SJ |title = Gulliver's further travels: the necessity and difficulty of a hierarchical theory of selection |journal = [[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]] |volume = 353 |issue = 1366 |pages = 307–14 |year = 1998 |pmid = 9533127 |pmc = 1692213 |doi = 10.1098/rstb.1998.0211 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref name=Mayr1997>{{cite journal |author = Mayr E |title = The objects of selection |doi = 10.1073/pnas.94.6.2091 |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 94 |issue = 6 |pages = 2091–4 |year = 1997 |pmid = 9122151 |pmc = 33654 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1997PNAS...94.2091M }}</ref> Selection can act at multiple levels simultaneously.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Maynard Smith J |title = The units of selection |journal = Novartis Found. Symp. |volume = 213 |pages = 203–11; discussion 211–7 |year = 1998 |pmid = 9653725 |ref = harv }}</ref> An example of selection occurring below the level of the individual organism are genes called [[transposon]]s, which can replicate and spread throughout a [[genome]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Hickey DA |title = Evolutionary dynamics of transposable elements in prokaryotes and eukaryotes |journal = Genetica |volume = 86 |issue = 1–3 |pages = 269–74 |year = 1992 |pmid = 1334911 |doi = 10.1007/BF00133725 |ref = harv }}</ref> Selection at a level above the individual, such as [[group selection]], may allow the evolution of co-operation, as discussed below.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Gould SJ, Lloyd EA |title = Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: how shall we name and generalise the unit of Darwinism? |doi = 10.1073/pnas.96.21.11904 |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 96 |issue = 21 |pages = 11904–9 |year = 1999 |pmid = 10518549 |pmc = 18385 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1999PNAS...9611904G }}</ref> |
|||
{{Main|Omphalos hypothesis}} |
|||
The Omphalos hypothesis argues that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created a mature Earth with mountains and canyons, rock strata, trees with growth rings, and so on; therefore ''no'' evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the Earth and age of the Universe can be taken as reliable.<ref>[[#Gosse 1857|Gosse 1857]]</ref> The idea has seen some revival in the 20th century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that originates in far-off stars and [[galaxy|galaxies]] (see [[Creationist cosmologies#The "starlight problem"|The "starlight problem"]]). |
|||
==Theistic evolution== |
|||
=== Biased mutation === |
|||
{{Main|Theistic evolution}} |
|||
In addition to being a major source of variation, mutation may also function as a mechanism of evolution when there are different probabilities at the molecular level for different mutations to occur, a process known as mutation bias.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Lynch, M. |year = 2007 |title = The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity |journal = PNAS |volume = 104 |pages = 8597–8604 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0702207104 |bibcode = 2007PNAS..104.8597L |pmid = 17494740 |pmc = 1876435 |issue = suppl. 1 }}</ref> If two genotypes, for example one with the nucleotide G and another with the nucleotide A in the same position, have the same fitness, but mutation from G to A happens more often than mutation from A to G, then genotypes with A will tend to evolve.<ref>{{cite journal |title = Deterministic Mutation Rate Variation in the Human Genome |journal = Genome Research |author = Smith N.G.C., Webster M.T., Ellegren, H. |year = 2002 |volume = 12 |pages = 1350–1356 |doi = 10.1101/gr.220502 |url = http://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/9/1350.abstract |issue = 9 |pmid = 12213772 |pmc = 186654 }}</ref> Different insertion vs. deletion mutation biases in different taxa can lead to the evolution of different genome sizes.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Petrov DA, Sangster TA, Johnston JS, Hartl DL, Shaw KL |year = 2000 |title = Evidence for DNA loss as a determinant of genome size |journal = Science |volume = 287 |pages = 1060–1062 |doi = 10.1126/science.287.5455.1060 |issue = 5455 |bibcode = 2000Sci...287.1060P |pmid = 10669421 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Petrov DA |year = 2002 |title = DNA loss and evolution of genome size in Drosophila |journal = Genetica |volume = 115 |pages = 81–91 |doi = 10.1023/A:1016076215168 |issue = 1 |pmid = 12188050 }}</ref> Developmental or mutational biases have also been observed in [[Morphology (biology)|morphological]] evolution.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Kiontke K, Barriere A , Kolotuev I, Podbilewicz B , Sommer R, Fitch DHA , Felix MA |year = 2007 |title = Trends, stasis, and drift in the evolution of nematode vulva development |journal = Current Biology |volume = 17 |pages = 1925–1937 |doi = 10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.061 |issue = 22 |pmid = 18024125 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Braendle C, Baer CF, Felix MA |year = 2010 |title = Bias and Evolution of the Mutationally Accessible Phenotypic Space in a Developmental System |journal = PLoS Genetics |volume = 6 | id = e1000877 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000877 |issue = 3 |editor1-last = Barsh |editor1-first = Gregory S |pages = e1000877 |pmid = 20300655 |pmc = 2837400 }}</ref> For example, according to the [[Baldwin effect|phenotype-first theory of evolution]], mutations can eventually cause the [[genetic assimilation]] of traits that were previously [[phenotypic plasticity|induced by the environment]].<ref name="Palmer 2004">{{cite journal |last = Palmer |first = RA |title = Symmetry breaking and the evolution of development |journal = [[Science (journal)|Science]] |year = 2004 |pages = 828–833 |volume = 306 |doi = 10.1126/science.1103707 |pmid = 15514148 |issue = 5697 |bibcode = 2004Sci...306..828P }}</ref><ref name="West-Eberhard 2003">{{cite book |last = West-Eberhard |first = M-J. |year = 2003 |title = Developmental plasticity and evolution |publisher = Oxford University Press |location = New York |isbn = 978-0-19-512235-0 }}</ref> |
|||
Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, asserts that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."<ref>[[#Sweet & Feist 2007|Sweet & Feist 2007]], [http://books.google.com/?id=qwaRUNj6S34C&pg=PA48&dq=theistic+evolution+evolutionary+creation#v=onepage&q=theistic%20evolution%20evolutionary%20creation&f=false p. 48], "''Evolutionary Creation'' (or Theistic Evolution) asserts that the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."</ref> According to the American Scientific Affiliation: |
|||
{{quote|A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te2-cr.htm |title=Evolutionary Creation |last=Rusbult |first=Craig |year=1998 |publisher=American Scientific Affiliation |location=Ipswich, MA |accessdate=2014-03-14 |quote=A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation * — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.}}</ref>}} |
|||
Mutation bias effects are superimposed on other processes. If selection would favor either one out of two mutations, but there is no extra advantage to having both, then the mutation that occurs the most frequently is the one that is most likely to become fixed in a population.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Stoltzfus, A and Yampolsky, L.Y. |year = 2009 |title = Climbing Mount Probable: Mutation as a Cause of Nonrandomness in Evolution |journal = J Hered |volume = 100 |pages = 637–647 |doi = 10.1093/jhered/esp048 |pmid = 19625453 |issue = 5 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Yampolsky, L.Y. and Stoltzfus, A |year = 2001 |title = Bias in the introduction of variation as an orienting factor in evolution |journal = Evol Dev |volume = 3 |pages = 73–83 |doi = 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003002073.x |pmid = 11341676 |issue = 2 }}</ref> Mutations leading to the loss of function of a gene are much more common than mutations that produce a new, fully functional gene. Most loss of function mutations are selected against. But when selection is weak, mutation bias towards loss of function can affect evolution.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Haldane, JBS |year = 1933 |title = The Part Played by Recurrent Mutation in Evolution |journal = American Naturalist |volume = 67 |pages = 5–19 |jstor = 2457127 |doi = 10.1086/280465 |issue = 708 }}</ref> For example, [[pigment]]s are no longer useful when animals live in the darkness of caves, and tend to be lost.<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.051 |pmid = 17306543 |volume = 17 |issue = 5 |pages = 452–454 |last = Protas |first = Meredith |title = Regressive evolution in the Mexican cave tetra, Astyanax mexicanus |journal = Current Biology |year = 2007 |last2 = Conrad |first2 = M |last3 = Gross |first3 = JB |last4 = Tabin |first4 = C |last5 = Borowsky |first5 = R |pmc = 2570642 |ref = harv }}</ref> This kind of loss of function can occur because of mutation bias, and/or because the function had a cost, and once the benefit of the function disappeared, natural selection leads to the loss. Loss of [[endospore|sporulation]] ability in a [[Bacillus subtilis|bacterium]] during laboratory evolution appears to have been caused by mutation bias, rather than natural selection against the cost of maintaining sporulation ability.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Maughan H, Masel J, Birky WC, Nicholson WL |title = The roles of mutation accumulation and selection in loss of sporulation in experimental populations of Bacillus subtilis |doi = 10.1534/genetics.107.075663 |journal = Genetics |volume = 177 |pages = 937–948 |year = 2007 |issue = 2 |pmid = 17720926 |pmc = 2034656 }}</ref> When there is no selection for loss of function, the speed at which loss evolves depends more on the mutation rate than it does on the [[effective population size]],<ref>{{cite journal |author = Masel J, King OD, Maughan H |title = The loss of adaptive plasticity during long periods of environmental stasis |doi = 10.1086/510212 |journal = American Naturalist |volume = 169 |issue = 1 |pages = 38–46 |year = 2007 |pmid = 17206583 |pmc = 1766558 }}</ref> indicating that it is driven more by mutation bias than by genetic drift. |
|||
Through the 19th century the term ''creationism'' most commonly referred to [[Creationism (soul)|direct creation of individual souls]], in contrast to [[traducianism]]. Following the publication of ''Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation'', there was interest in ideas of Creation by divine law. In particular, the [[liberal Christianity|liberal theologian]] [[Baden Powell (mathematician)|Baden Powell]] argued that this illustrated the Creator's power better than the idea of miraculous creation, which he thought ridiculous.<ref>[[#Bowler 2003|Bowler 2003]], p. 139</ref> When ''On the Origin of Species'' was published, the cleric [[Charles Kingsley]] wrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity."<ref name="Darwinanddesign">{{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article |title=Darwin and design: historical essay |year=2007 |website=Darwin Correspondence Project |publisher=Cambridge University Library |location=Cambridge, UK |accessdate=2012-04-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2534 |title=Kingsley, Charles to Darwin, C. R. |last=Kingsley |first=Charles |authorlink=Charles Kingsley |date=November 18, 1859 |website=Darwin Correspondence Project |publisher=Cambridge University Library |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 2534 |accessdate=2010-08-11}}</ref> Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature,<ref name="James_Moore" /><ref>[[#Quammen 2006|Quammen 2006]], p. 119</ref> and the book makes several references to "creation," though he later regretted using the term rather than calling it an unknown process.<ref>[[#Barlow 1963|Barlow 1963]], [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1577&pageseq=9 p. 207]</ref> In America, [[Asa Gray]] argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or ''modus operandi'', of the first cause, design,<ref>[[#Dewey 1994|Dewey 1994]], p. 27</ref> and published a pamphlet defending the book in theistic terms, ''Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology''.<ref name="Darwinanddesign" /><ref name="Miles_2001">{{cite journal |last=Miles |first=Sara Joan |date=September 2001 |title=Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design |url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html |journal=Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith |location=Ipswich, MA |publisher=American Scientific Affiliation |volume=53 |pages=196–201 |accessdate=2008-11-22}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Gray |first=Asa |authorlink=Asa Gray |date=July, August, and October, 1860 |title=Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/84/69/ |journal=[[The Atlantic|The Atlantic Monthly]] |type=Reprint |location=Boston, MA |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20090220124011/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/84/69/ <!--Added by H3llBot--> |archivedate=2009-02-20 |accessdate=2009-04-11}}</ref> Theistic evolution, also called, evolutionary creation, became a popular compromise, and [[St. George Jackson Mivart]] was among those accepting evolution but attacking Darwin's naturalistic mechanism. Eventually it was realised that supernatural intervention could not be a scientific explanation, and naturalistic mechanisms such as [[Lamarckism#Neo-Lamarckism|neo-Lamarckism]] were favoured as being more compatible with purpose than natural selection.<ref name="bowl202">[[#Bowler 2003|Bowler 2003]], pp. 202–208</ref> |
|||
=== Genetic drift === |
|||
{{Further|Genetic drift|Effective population size}} |
|||
[[File:Allele-frequency.png|thumb|Simulation of [[genetic drift]] of 20 unlinked alleles in populations of 10 (top) and 100 (bottom). Drift to [[Fixation (population genetics)|fixation]] is more rapid in the smaller population.]] |
|||
Genetic drift is the change in [[allele frequency]] from one generation to the next that occurs because alleles are subject to [[sampling error]].<ref name="Masel 2011">{{cite journal |volume = 21 |pages = R837–R838 |author = Masel J |title = Genetic drift |journal = Current Biology |year = 2011 |doi = 10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.007 |issue = 20 |pmid = 22032182 }}</ref> As a result, when selective forces are absent or relatively weak, allele frequencies tend to "drift" upward or downward randomly (in a [[random walk]]). This drift halts when an allele eventually becomes [[Fixation (population genetics)|fixed]], either by disappearing from the population, or replacing the other alleles entirely. Genetic drift may therefore eliminate some alleles from a population due to chance alone. Even in the absence of selective forces, genetic drift can cause two separate populations that began with the same genetic structure to drift apart into two divergent populations with different sets of alleles.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Lande R |title = Fisherian and Wrightian theories of speciation |journal = Genome |volume = 31 |issue = 1 |pages = 221–7 |year = 1989 |pmid = 2687093 |ref = harv |doi = 10.1139/g89-037 }}</ref> |
|||
Some theists took the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about [[God in Christianity|Christian God]] and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including specifically evolution; it is also known as "evolutionary creation." In Evolution versus Creationism, [[Eugenie Scott]] and [[Niles Eldredge]] state that it is in fact a type of evolution.<ref>[[#Scott 2005|Scott 2005]], pp. 62–63</ref> |
|||
It is usually difficult to measure the relative importance of selection and neutral processes, including drift.<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1038/nrg2207 |pmid = 17943192 |volume = 8 |issue = 11 |pages = 845–856 |last = Mitchell-Olds |first = Thomas |title = Which evolutionary processes influence natural genetic variation for phenotypic traits? |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |year = 2007 |last2 = Willis |first2 = JH |last3 = Goldstein |first3 = DB |ref = harv }}</ref> The comparative importance of adaptive and non-adaptive forces in driving evolutionary change is an area of [[current research in evolutionary biology|current research]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Nei M |title = Selectionism and neutralism in molecular evolution |doi = 10.1093/molbev/msi242 |journal = Mol. Biol. Evol. |volume = 22 |issue = 12 |pages = 2318–42 |year = 2005 |pmid = 16120807 |pmc = 1513187 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the [[Unmoved mover#First cause|first cause]] and [[Immanence|immanent]] sustainer/upholder of the Universe; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong [[theism|theistic]] (as opposed to [[deism|deistic]]) convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize with the day-age creationist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of the Book of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a [[framework view|literary framework]] or allegory. |
|||
The [[neutral theory of molecular evolution]] proposed that most evolutionary changes are the result of the fixation of [[neutral mutation]]s by genetic drift.<ref name="Kimura M 1991 367–86" /> Hence, in this model, most genetic changes in a population are the result of constant mutation pressure and genetic drift.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Kimura M |title = The neutral theory of molecular evolution and the world view of the neutralists |journal = Genome |volume = 31 |issue = 1 |pages = 24–31 |year = 1989 |pmid = 2687096 |ref = harv |doi = 10.1139/g89-009 }}</ref> This form of the neutral theory is now largely abandoned, since it does not seem to fit the genetic variation seen in nature.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Kreitman M |title = The neutral theory is dead. Long live the neutral theory |journal = BioEssays |volume = 18 |issue = 8 |pages = 678–83; discussion 683 |year = 1996 |pmid = 8760341 |doi = 10.1002/bies.950180812 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Leigh E.G. (Jr) |year = 2007 |title = Neutral theory: a historical perspective |journal = [[Journal of Evolutionary Biology]] |pmid = 17956380 |volume = 20 |issue = 6 |pages = 2075–91 |doi = 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01410.x |ref = harv }}</ref> However, a more recent and better-supported version of this model is the [[nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution|nearly neutral theory]], where a mutation that would be neutral in a small population is not necessarily neutral in a large population.<ref name=Hurst/> Other alternative theories propose that genetic drift is dwarfed by other stochastic forces in evolution, such as [[genetic hitchhiking]], also known as genetic draft.<ref name="Masel 2011" /><ref name="gillespie 2001">{{cite journal |volume = 55 |issue = 11 |pages = 2161–2169 |last = Gillespie |first = John H. |title = Is the population size of a species relevant to its evolution? |journal = Evolution |year = 2001 |pmid = 11794777 |doi=10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00732.x}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |volume = 188 |pages = 975–996 |author = R.A. Neher and B.I. Shraiman |title = Genetic Draft and Quasi-Neutrality in Large Facultatively Sexual Populations |journal = Genetics |year = 2011 |doi = 10.1534/genetics.111.128876 |pmid = 21625002 |pmc = 3176096 |issue = 4 }}</ref> |
|||
From a theistic viewpoint, the underlying laws of nature were designed by God for a purpose, and are so self-sufficient that the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles in processes such as [[stellar evolution]], life forms developed in biological evolution, and in the same way the [[Abiogenesis|origin of life by natural causes]] has resulted from these laws.<ref name="The Origin of Life">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#intro |title=The Origin of Life |last=Moritz |first=Albrecht |date=October 31, 2006 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2008-11-22}}</ref> |
|||
The time for a neutral allele to become fixed by genetic drift depends on population size, with fixation occurring more rapidly in smaller populations.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Otto S, Whitlock M |title = The probability of fixation in populations of changing size |journal = Genetics |volume = 146 |issue = 2 |pages = 723–33 |date = June 1, 1997 |pmid = 9178020 |pmc = 1208011 |ref = harv }}</ref> The number of individuals in a population is not critical, but instead a measure known as the [[effective population size]].<ref name=Charlesworth>{{cite journal |author = Charlesworth B |title = Fundamental concepts in genetics: Effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |volume = 10 |pages = 195–205 |year = 2009 |pmid = 19204717 |doi = 10.1038/nrg2526 |issue = 3 |ref = harv }}</ref> The effective population is usually smaller than the total population since it takes into account factors such as the level of inbreeding and the stage of the lifecycle in which the population is the smallest.<ref name="Charlesworth" /> The effective population size may not be the same for every gene in the same population.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Asher D. Cutter and Jae Young Choi |title = Natural selection shapes nucleotide polymorphism across the genome of the nematode Caenorhabditis briggsae |journal = Genome Research |volume = 20 |pages = 1103–1111 |year = 2010 |doi=10.1101/gr.104331.109 |pmid=20508143 |pmc=2909573 |issue = 8}}</ref> |
|||
In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline [[Protestantism|Protestant]] seminaries.<ref>[[#Scott 1999|Scott 1999]]</ref> For Roman Catholics, human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. [[Catholic Church and evolution|Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church]] are not in conflict. The [[Catechism of the Catholic Church]] comments positively on the theory of evolution, which is neither precluded nor required by the sources of faith, stating that scientific studies "have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Akin |first=Jimmy |date=January 2004 |title=Evolution and the Magisterium |url=http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp |journal=[[Catholic Answers|This Rock]] |location=San Diego, CA |publisher=[[Catholic Answers|Catholic Answers, Inc.]] |volume=15 |issue=1 |issn=1049-4561 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070804102139/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp |archivedate=2007-08-04 |accessdate=2014-03-14}}</ref> Roman Catholic schools teach evolution without controversy on the basis that scientific knowledge does not extend beyond the physical, and scientific truth and religious truth cannot be in conflict.<ref>{{cite news |last=Guntzel |first=Jeff Severns |url=http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005a/032505/032505ssn.htm |date=March 25, 2005 |title=Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias |newspaper=[[National Catholic Reporter]] |location=Kansas City, MO |publisher=The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company |issn=0027-8939 |accessdate=2007-08-15}}</ref> Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, though many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all. In the creation–evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. [[George Coyne]], (Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):<blockquote>...in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504 |title=Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on 'Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution' |last=Coyne |first=George V. |authorlink=George Coyne |date=January 30, 2006 |publisher=Catholic Online, LLC |accessdate=2011-03-10}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
=== Genetic hitchhiking === |
|||
{{Further|Genetic hitchhiking|Hill-Robertson effect|Selective sweep|Genetic drift}} |
|||
While supporting the [[naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]] inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some [[atheism|atheists]] that this gives credence to [[Ontology|ontological]] [[materialism]]. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,<ref>[[#Pennock 1999|Pennock 1999]] |
|||
Recombination allows alleles on the same strand of DNA to become separated. However, the rate of recombination is low (approximately two events per chromosome per generation). As a result, genes close together on a chromosome may not always be shuffled away from each other and genes that are close together tend to be inherited together, a phenomenon known as [[genetic linkage|linkage]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Lien S, Szyda J, Schechinger B, Rappold G, Arnheim N |title = Evidence for heterogeneity in recombination in the human pseudoautosomal region: high resolution analysis by sperm typing and radiation-hybrid mapping |journal = Am. J. Hum. Genet. |volume = 66 |issue = 2 |pages = 557–66 |year = 2000 |pmid = 10677316 |pmc = 1288109 |doi = 10.1086/302754 |ref = harv }}</ref> This tendency is measured by finding how often two alleles occur together on a single chromosome compared to [[independence (probability theory)|expectations]], which is called their [[linkage disequilibrium]]. A set of alleles that is usually inherited in a group is called a [[haplotype]]. This can be important when one allele in a particular haplotype is strongly beneficial: natural selection can drive a [[selective sweep]] that will also cause the other alleles in the haplotype to become more common in the population; this effect is called [[genetic hitchhiking]] or genetic draft.<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1098/rstb.2000.0716 |pmid = 11127900 |volume = 355 |issue = 1403 |pages = 1553–1562 |last = Barton |first = N H |title = Genetic hitchhiking |journal = [[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]] |year = 2000 |pmc = 1692896 |ref = harv }}</ref> Genetic draft caused by the fact that some neutral genes are genetically linked to others that are under selection can be partially captured by an appropriate effective population size.<ref name="gillespie 2001" /> |
|||
*{{cite web |url=http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/files/naturalism.html |title=Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry |last=Schafersman |first=Steven D. |authorlink=Steven Schafersman |date=May 1997 |website=Free Inquiry: The Humanist and Skeptic Website of Steven Schafersman |publisher=Steven Schafersman |accessdate=2014-03-15}} |
|||
*{{cite web |url=http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/on_methodologic.html |title=On Methodological Naturalism and Intelligent Design (or Why Can't Lawrence VanDyke Leave Well Enough Alone?) |last=Leiter |first=Brian |authorlink=Brian Leiter |date=April 6, 2004 |website=Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog |publisher=Brian Leiter |type=Blog |accessdate=2014-03-15}} |
|||
*{{cite journal |last=Burgeson |first=John W. |year=1997 |title=NTSE: An Intellectual Feast |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/ntse182.htm |journal=Origins & Design |location=Colorado Springs, CO |publisher=[[Access Research Network]] |volume=18 |issue=2 |accessdate=2014-03-15}} |
|||
*[[#Draper 2005|Draper 2005]] |
|||
*{{cite journal |last1=Pigliucci |first1=Massimo |authorlink=Massimo Pigliucci |last2=Banta |first2=Joshua |last3=Bossu |first3=Christen |last4=Crouse |first4=Paula |last5=Dexter |first5=Troy |last6=Hansknecht |first6=Kerry |last7=Muth |first7=Norris |display-authors=1 |date=May–June 2004 |title=The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory |url=http://philosophynow.org/issues/46/The_Alleged_Fallacies_of_Evolutionary_Theory |journal=[[Philosophy Now]] |location=London |issue=46 |issn=0961-5970 |accessdate=2014-03-15}} |
|||
*{{cite web |url=http://www.biology.uiowa.edu/ID.html |title=Statement on Intelligent Design |year=2005 |website=The Department of Biology |publisher=[[University of Iowa]] |type=Petition |location=Iowa City, IA |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100901150357/http://www.biology.uiowa.edu/ID.html |archivedate=2010-09-01 |accessdate=2014-03-15}} |
|||
*{{cite journal |last=Pigliucci |first=Massimo |date=December 2005 |title=Science and fundamentalism |url=http://embor.embopress.org/content/6/12/1106 |journal=EMBO Reports |location=London |publisher=[[Nature Publishing Group]] |volume=6 |issue=12 |doi=10.1038/sj.embor.7400589 |issn=1469-3178 |accessdate=2014-03-15}} |
|||
*{{cite web |url=http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/naturalism.html |title=Justifying Methodological Naturalism |last=Martin |first=Michael |authorlink=Michael Martin (philosopher) |year=2002 |website=The Secular Web |publisher=[[Internet Infidels|Internet Infidels, Inc.]] |location=Colorado Springs, CO |accessdate=2014-03-15}}</ref> including atheists,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2005/intelligent-design-or-natural-design/ |title=Intelligent Design or Natural Design |last=Bradley |first=Raymond |date=November 23, 2005 |website=Butterflies and Wheels |publisher=[[Ophelia Benson]] |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref> refer to the long standing convention in the scientific method that [[observation|observable]] events in nature should be explained by natural causes, with the distinction that it does not assume the actual existence or non-existence of the supernatural. <!---Among other things, it means that science does not deal with the question of the existence of a Creator, and argues neither for nor against it. |
|||
"while on the other hand many scientists support such faiths which allow a voice to their spiritual side." Don't know how to include this, it anyway should talk about scientific positions (and not faiths) and spiritual side---> |
|||
==Religious views== |
|||
=== Gene flow === |
|||
{{Further|Gene flow|Hybrid (biology)|Horizontal gene transfer}} |
|||
[[Gene flow]] is the exchange of genes between populations and between species.<ref name="Morjan C, Rieseberg L 2004 1341–56" /> The presence or absence of gene flow fundamentally changes the course of evolution. Due to the complexity of organisms, any two completely isolated populations will eventually evolve genetic incompatibilities through neutral processes, as in the [[Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller Model|Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller model]], even if both populations remain essentially identical in terms of their adaptation to the environment. |
|||
===Christianity=== |
|||
If genetic differentiation between populations develops, gene flow between populations can introduce traits or alleles which are disadvantageous in the local population and this may lead to organism within these populations to evolve mechanisms that prevent mating with genetically distant populations, eventually resulting in the appearance of new species. Thus, exchange of genetic information between individuals is fundamentally important for the development of the biological species concept (BSC). |
|||
{{Further|Genesis creation narrative|Creation–evolution controversy}} |
|||
{{As of | 2006}} most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation narrative. The US is an exception where belief in religious fundamentalism is much more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere. Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because political partisanship in the US is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike in [[Europe]].<ref name="Science survey">{{cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=Jon D. |last2=Scott |first2=Eugenie C. |last3=Okamoto |first3=Shinji |date=August 2006 |title=Public acceptance of evolution |url=http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/706 |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |volume=313 |issue=5788 |pages=765–766 |doi=10.1126/science.1126746 |pmid=16902112 |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref> |
|||
Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,<ref name="Denominational Views">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/religion/denominational-views |title=Denominational Views |date=October 17, 2008 |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2010-05-17}}</ref> such as [[Anglicanism|Anglicans]]<ref name="Episcopal Church">{{cite web|url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/episcopal-church-general-convention-2006 |title=Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006) |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2010-05-17}}</ref> and [[Lutheranism|Lutherans]],<ref name="Lutheran">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Schick |first=Edwin A. |editor-last=Bodensieck |editor-first=Julius |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church |url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/lutheran-world-federation |accessdate=2010-05-17 |title=Evolution |year=1965 |publisher=[[Augsburg Fortress|Augsburg Publishing House]] |volume=1 |location=Minneapolis, MN |lccn=64021500 |oclc=947120}} Edited for the [[Lutheran World Federation]]. |
|||
During the development of the modern synthesis, [[Sewall Wright]]'s developed his [[shifting balance theory]] that gene flow between partially isolated populations was an important aspect of adaptive evolution.<ref>{{cite journal |last1 = Wright |first1 = Sewall |year = 1932 |title = The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution |url = http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/wright.asp |journal = Proc. 6th Int. Cong. Genet |volume = 1 |issue = |pages = 356–366 }}</ref> However, recently there has been substantial criticism of the importance of the shifting balance theory.<ref name="Coyne 1997">{{cite journal | last1 = Coyne | first1 = Jerry A. |authorlink = Jerry A. Coyne |author2=Barton, Turelli | title = Perspective: A Critique of Sewall Wright's Shifting Balance Theory of Evolution | journal = Evolution | year = 1997 | volume = 51 | issue = 3 | series = 3 | pages = 643–671 | doi = 10.2307/2411143 }}</ref> |
|||
*{{cite journal |last=Hollabaugh |first=Mark |date=October 2006 |title=God allows the universe to create itself and evolve |url=http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=6093 |journal=[[The Lutheran]] |location=Minneapolis, MN |publisher=[[Augsburg Fortress]] |issn=0024-743X |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref> consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution. According to the former [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], [[Rowan Williams]], "...for most of the history of Christianity, and I think this is fair enough, most of the history of the Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 21, 2006 |title=Interview: Rowan Williams |url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/21/religion.uk |newspaper=The Guardian |type=Transcript |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref> |
|||
Leaders of the Anglican<ref>{{cite news |last=Williams |first=Christopher |date=March 21, 2006 |title=Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/archbishop_backs_evolution/ |work=[[The Register]] |location=London |publisher=Situation Publishing Limited |accessdate=2011-03-10}}</ref> and [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]]<ref>{{cite journal |last=McDonell |first=Keelin |date=July 12, 2005 |title=What Catholics Think of Evolution |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2122506/ |journal=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[Graham Holdings Company|The Washington Post Company]] |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050716003211/http://www.slate.com/id/2122506/ |archivedate=2005-07-16 |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref><ref>See also the article [[Catholic Church and evolution]]. |
|||
== Outcomes == |
|||
</ref> churches have made statements in favor of evolutionary theory, as have scholars such as the physicist [[John Polkinghorne]], who argues that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier supporters of evolutionary theory include [[Frederick Temple]], Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon their publication,<ref>[[#Polkinghorne 1998|Polkinghorne 1998]], pp. 7–8</ref> and the French Jesuit priest and geologist [[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin]] saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his more speculative theories. Another example is that of [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal theology]], not providing any creation models, but instead focusing on the [[symbol]]ism in beliefs of the time of authoring Genesis and the cultural environment. |
|||
Evolution influences every aspect of the form and behaviour of organisms. Most prominent are the specific behavioural and physical [[adaptation]]s that are the outcome of natural selection. These adaptations increase fitness by aiding activities such as finding food, avoiding predators or attracting mates. Organisms can also respond to selection by [[Co-operation (evolution)|co-operating]] with each other, usually by aiding their relatives or engaging in mutually beneficial [[symbiosis]]. In the longer term, evolution produces new species through splitting ancestral populations of organisms into new groups that cannot or will not interbreed. |
|||
Many Christians and Jews had been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of historical) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. For example, Philo, whose works were taken up by early Church writers, wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time.<ref name="Philo_Chapter2" /><ref name="www.earlychurch.org.uk">{{cite web |url=http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/philo.php |title=Philo of Alexandria (c.20 BC - c. AD 50) |last=Bradshaw |first=Rob |website=Early Church.org.uk |publisher=Steve Bradshaw |location=West Wickham, England |accessdate=December 21, 2011}}</ref> Augustine of the late fourth century who was also a former neoplatonist argued that everything in the Universe was created by God at the same moment in time (and not in six days as a literal reading of the Book of Genesis would seem to require);<ref name="Augustine" /> It appears that both Philo and Augustine felt uncomfortable with the idea of a seven-day creation because it detracted from the notion of God's omnipotence. In 1950, [[Pope Pius XII]] stated limited support for the idea in his [[Encyclical#Catholic usage|encyclical]] ''[[Humani generis|Humani Generis]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html |author=Pope Pius XII |authorlink=Pope Pius XII |title=Humani Generis |website=Vatican: the Holy See |publisher=[[Holy See]] |location=St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City |type=[[Encyclical#Catholic usage|Papal encyclical]] |date=August 12, 1950 |accessdate=2011-11-08}}</ref> In 1996, [[Pope John Paul II]] stated that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis," but, referring to previous papal writings, he concluded that "if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual [[soul]] is immediately created by God."<ref>{{cite news |author=Pope John Paul II |authorlink=Pope John Paul II |date=October 30, 1996 |title=Magisterium is concerned with question of evolution, for it involves conception of man |url=http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.html |newspaper=[[L'Osservatore Romano]] |type=Message to the [[Pontifical Academy of Sciences]] |edition=Weekly English |location=Tipografia Vaticana, Vatican City |publisher=Holy See |number=44 |pages=3, 7 |accessdate=2014-03-19}}</ref> |
|||
These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into [[macroevolution]], which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as [[extinction]] and [[speciation]] and [[microevolution]], which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population.<ref name=ScottEC>{{cite journal |author = Scott EC, Matzke NJ |title = Biological design in science classrooms |volume = 104 |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |issue = suppl_1 |pages = 8669–76 |year = 2007 |pmid = 17494747 |pmc = 1876445 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0701505104 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2007PNAS..104.8669S }}</ref> In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Hendry AP, Kinnison MT |title = An introduction to microevolution: rate, pattern, process |journal = Genetica |volume = 112–113 |pages = 1–8 |year = 2001 |pmid = 11838760 |doi = 10.1023/A:1013368628607 |ref = harv }}</ref> Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the difference is simply the time involved.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Leroi AM |title = The scale independence of evolution |journal = Evol. Dev. |volume = 2 |issue = 2 |pages = 67–77 |year = 2000 |pmid = 11258392 |doi = 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00044.x |ref = harv }}</ref> However, in macroevolution, the traits of the entire species may be important. For instance, a large amount of variation among individuals allows a species to rapidly adapt to new habitats, lessening the chance of it going extinct, while a wide geographic range increases the chance of speciation, by making it more likely that part of the population will become isolated. In this sense, microevolution and macroevolution might involve selection at different levels – with microevolution acting on genes and organisms, versus macroevolutionary processes such as [[species selection]] acting on entire species and affecting their rates of speciation and extinction.{{sfn|Gould|2002|pp=657–658}}<ref>{{cite journal |author = Gould SJ |title = Tempo and mode in the macroevolutionary reconstruction of Darwinism |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 91 |issue = 15 |pages = 6764–71 |year = 1994 |pmid = 8041695 |pmc = 44281 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.91.15.6764 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1994PNAS...91.6764G }}</ref><ref name=Jablonski2000>{{cite journal |author = Jablonski, D. |year = 2000 |title = Micro- and macroevolution: scale and hierarchy in evolutionary biology and paleobiology |journal = Paleobiology |volume = 26 |issue = sp4 |pages = 15–52 |doi = 10.1666/0094-8373(2000)26[15:MAMSAH]2.0.CO;2 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
In the US, Evangelical Christians have continued to believe in a literal Genesis. Members of evangelical Protestant (70%), [[Mormons|Mormon]] (76%) and [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] (90%) denominations are the most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf |title=U.S. Religious Landscape Survey |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2008 |publisher=[[Pew Research Center]] |location=Washington, D.C. |chapter=Social and Political Views |page=95 |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-19}} Report 2: Religious Beliefs & Practices, Chapter 2.</ref> The historic Christian literal interpretation of creation requires the harmonization of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, for there to be a consistent interpretation.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194 |title= Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? |last=Jackson |first=Wayne |website=Apologetics Press |location=Montgomery, Al |accessdate=2007-05-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/creationint.html |last=Tobin |first=Paul N. |year=2000 |title=The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties |website=The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity |publisher=Paul Tobin |location=Singapore |accessdate=2014-03-19}}</ref> They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in American schools. Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific. Many religious groups teach that God created the Cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of the Book of Genesis as well as literal aspects.<ref name="rsf">[[#Forster & Marston 1999|Forster & Marston 1999]]</ref> |
|||
A common misconception is that evolution has goals or long-term plans; realistically however, evolution has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity.<ref name=sciam>Michael J. Dougherty. [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-human-race-evolvin Is the human race evolving or devolving?] ''[[Scientific American]]'' July 20, 1998.</ref><ref>[[TalkOrigins Archive]] response to [[Creationist]] claims – [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB932.html Claim CB932: Evolution of degenerate forms]</ref> Although [[evolution of complexity|complex species]] have evolved, they occur as a side effect of the overall number of organisms increasing and simple forms of life still remain more common in the biosphere.<ref name=Carroll>{{cite journal |author = Carroll SB |title = Chance and necessity: the evolution of morphological complexity and diversity |journal = Nature |volume = 409 |issue = 6823 |pages = 1102–9 |year = 2001 |pmid = 11234024 |doi = 10.1038/35059227 |ref = harv }}</ref> For example, the overwhelming majority of species are microscopic [[prokaryote]]s, which form about half the world's [[biomass]] despite their small size,<ref>{{cite journal |author = Whitman W, Coleman D, Wiebe W |title = Prokaryotes: the unseen majority |doi = 10.1073/pnas.95.12.6578 |journal = Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A |volume = 95 |issue = 12 |pages = 6578–83 |year = 1998 |pmid = 9618454 |pmc = 33863 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1998PNAS...95.6578W }}</ref> and constitute the vast majority of Earth's biodiversity.<ref name=Schloss>{{cite journal |author = Schloss P, Handelsman J |title = Status of the microbial census |journal = Microbiol Mol Biol Rev |volume = 68 |issue = 4 |pages = 686–91 |year = 2004 |pmid = 15590780 |pmc = 539005 |doi = 10.1128/MMBR.68.4.686-691.2004 |ref = harv }}</ref> Simple organisms have therefore been the dominant form of life on Earth throughout its history and continue to be the main form of life up to the present day, with complex life only appearing more diverse because it is [[biased sample|more noticeable]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Nealson K |title = Post-Viking microbiology: new approaches, new data, new insights |journal = Orig Life Evol Biosph |volume = 29 |issue = 1 |pages = 73–93 |year = 1999 |pmid = 11536899 |doi = 10.1023/A:1006515817767 |ref = harv }}</ref> Indeed, the evolution of [[microorganism]]s is particularly important to [[current research in evolutionary biology|modern evolutionary research]], since their rapid reproduction allows the study of [[experimental evolution]] and the observation of evolution and adaptation in real time.<ref name=Buckling>{{cite journal |author = Buckling A, Craig Maclean R, Brockhurst MA, Colegrave N |title = The Beagle in a bottle |journal = Nature |volume = 457 |issue = 7231 |pages = 824–9 |year = 2009 |pmid = 19212400 |doi = 10.1038/nature07892 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2009Natur.457..824B }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Elena SF, Lenski RE |title = Evolution experiments with microorganisms: the dynamics and genetic bases of adaptation |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |volume = 4 |issue = 6 |pages = 457–69 |year = 2003 |pmid = 12776215 |doi = 10.1038/nrg1088 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
[[Christian Science]], a system of thought and practice derived from the writings of [[Mary Baker Eddy]], interprets the Book of Genesis figuratively rather than literally. It holds that the material world is an illusion, and consequently not created by God: the only real creation is the spiritual realm, of which the material world is a distorted version. Christian Scientists regard the story of the creation in the Book of Genesis as having symbolic rather than literal meaning. According to Christian Science, both creationism and evolution are false from an absolute or "spiritual" point of view, as they both proceed from a (false) belief in the reality of a material universe. However, Christian Scientists do not oppose the teaching of evolution in schools, nor do they demand that alternative accounts be taught: they believe that both material science and literalist theology are concerned with the illusory, mortal and material, rather than the real, immortal and spiritual. In regards to material theories of creation, Mary Baker Eddy showed a preference for Darwin's theory of evolution over others.<ref name=S&Hp547>[[#Eddy 1934|Eddy 1934]], p. 547</ref> |
|||
=== Adaptation === |
|||
{{details|Adaptation}} |
|||
[[File:Homology vertebrates.svg|thumb|300px|[[Homology (biology)|Homologous]] bones in the limbs of [[tetrapods]]. The bones of these animals have the same basic structure, but have been adapted for specific uses.]] |
|||
Adaptation is the process that makes organisms better suited to their [[habitat]].<ref>Mayr, Ernst 1982. ''The growth of biological thought''. Harvard. p483: "Adaptation... could no longer be considered a static condition, a product of a creative past and became instead a continuing dynamic process."</ref><ref>The ''Oxford Dictionary of Science'' defines ''adaptation'' as "Any change in the structure or functioning of an organism that makes it better suited to its environment".</ref> Also, the term adaptation may refer to a [[Trait (biology)|trait]] that is important for an organism's survival. For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass. By using the term ''adaptation'' for the evolutionary process and ''adaptive trait'' for the product (the bodily part or function), the two senses of the word may be distinguished. Adaptations are produced by [[natural selection]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Orr H |title = The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |volume = 6 |issue = 2 |pages = 119–27 |year = 2005 |pmid = 15716908 |doi = 10.1038/nrg1523 |ref = harv }}</ref> The following definitions are due to [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]]. |
|||
# ''Adaptation'' is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its [[habitat]] or habitats.<ref>{{cite book |last1 = Dobzhansky |first1 = T. |last2 = Hecht |first2 = MK |last3 = Steere |first3 = WC |year = 1968 |chapter = On some fundamental concepts of evolutionary biology |title = Evolutionary biology volume 2 |pages = 1–34 |publisher = Appleton-Century-Crofts |location = New York |edition = 1st }}</ref> |
|||
# ''Adaptedness'' is the state of being adapted: the degree to which an organism is able to live and reproduce in a given set of habitats.<ref>{{cite book |last1 = Dobzhansky |first1 = T. |year = 1970 |title = Genetics of the evolutionary process |publisher = Columbia |location = N.Y. |pages = 4–6, 79–82, 84–87 |isbn = 0-231-02837-7 }}</ref> |
|||
# An ''adaptive trait'' is an aspect of the developmental pattern of the organism which enables or enhances the probability of that organism surviving and reproducing.<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.2307/2406099 |last1 = Dobzhansky |first1 = T. |year = 1956 |title = Genetics of natural populations XXV. Genetic changes in populations of ''Drosophila pseudoobscura'' and ''Drosphila persimilis'' in some locations in California |journal = Evolution |volume = 10 |issue = 1 |pages = 82–92 |jstor = 2406099 }}</ref> |
|||
===Hinduism=== |
|||
Adaptation may cause either the gain of a new feature, or the loss of an ancestral feature. An example that shows both types of change is bacterial adaptation to [[antibiotic]] selection, with genetic changes causing [[antibiotic resistance]] by both modifying the target of the drug, or increasing the activity of transporters that pump the drug out of the cell.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Nakajima A, Sugimoto Y, Yoneyama H, Nakae T |title = High-level fluoroquinolone resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa due to interplay of the MexAB-OprM efflux pump and the DNA gyrase mutation |journal = Microbiol. Immunol. |volume = 46 |issue = 6 |pages = 391–5 |year = 2002 |pmid = 12153116 |ref = harv |doi = 10.1111/j.1348-0421.2002.tb02711.x }}</ref> Other striking examples are the bacteria ''[[Escherichia coli]]'' evolving the ability to use [[citric acid]] as a nutrient in a [[E. coli long-term evolution experiment|long-term laboratory experiment]],<ref>{{cite journal |author = Blount ZD, Borland CZ, Lenski RE |title = Inaugural Article: Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 105 |issue = 23 |pages = 7899–906 |year = 2008 |pmid = 18524956 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0803151105 |pmc = 2430337 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2008PNAS..105.7899B }}</ref> ''[[Flavobacterium]]'' evolving a novel enzyme that allows these bacteria to grow on the by-products of [[nylon]] manufacturing,<ref>{{cite journal |author = Okada H, Negoro S, Kimura H, Nakamura S |title = Evolutionary adaptation of plasmid-encoded enzymes for degrading nylon oligomers |journal = Nature |volume = 306 |issue = 5939 |pages = 203–6 |year = 1983 |pmid = 6646204 |doi = 10.1038/306203a0 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1983Natur.306..203O }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Ohno S |title = Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 81 |issue = 8 |pages = 2421–5 |year = 1984 |pmid = 6585807 |pmc = 345072 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.81.8.2421 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1984PNAS...81.2421O }}</ref> and the soil bacterium ''[[Sphingobium]]'' evolving an entirely new [[metabolic pathway]] that degrades the synthetic [[pesticide]] [[pentachlorophenol]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Copley SD |title = Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach |journal = Trends Biochem. Sci. |volume = 25 |issue = 6 |pages = 261–5 |year = 2000 |pmid = 10838562 |doi = 10.1016/S0968-0004(00)01562-0 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Crawford RL, Jung CM, Strap JL |title = The recent evolution of pentachlorophenol (PCP)-4-monooxygenase (PcpB) and associated pathways for bacterial degradation of PCP |journal = Biodegradation |volume = 18 |issue = 5 |pages = 525–39 |year = 2007 |pmid = 17123025 |doi = 10.1007/s10532-006-9090-6 |ref = harv }}</ref> An interesting but still controversial idea is that some adaptations might increase the ability of organisms to generate genetic diversity and adapt by natural selection (increasing organisms' [[evolvability]]).<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.2307/3212376 |author = Eshel I |title = Clone-selection and optimal rates of mutation |journal = Journal of Applied Probability |volume = 10 |issue = 4 |pages = 728–738 |year = 1973 |jstor = 3212376 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Altenberg, L |title = Genome growth and the evolution of the genotype-phenotype map |series = Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume = 899 |booktitle = Evolution and Biocomputation |pages = 205–259 |year = 1995 |doi = 10.1007/3-540-59046-3_11 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Masel J, Bergman A, |title = The evolution of the evolvability properties of the yeast prion [PSI+] |journal = Evolution |volume = 57 |issue = 7 |pages = 1498–1512 |year = 2003 |pmid = 12940355 |doi=10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00358.x}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Lancaster AK, Bardill JP, True HL, Masel J |year = 2010 |title = The Spontaneous Appearance Rate of the Yeast Prion [PSI+] and Its Implications for the Evolution of the Evolvability Properties of the [PSI+] System |journal = Genetics |pmid = 19917766 |volume = 184 |issue = 2 |pmc = 2828720 |pages = 393–400 |doi = 10.1534/genetics.109.110213 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Draghi J, Wagner G |year = 2008 |title = Evolution of evolvability in a developmental model |journal = Theoretical Population Biology |volume = 62 |pages = 301–315 |doi=10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00303.x}}</ref> |
|||
{{Main|Hindu views on evolution}} |
|||
According to Hindu creationism all species on Earth including humans have "devolved" or come down from a high state of pure [[consciousness]].{{citation needed|date=March 2013}} Hindu creationists claim that species of [[plants]] and [[animals]] are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.<ref>[[#McGrath 2010|McGrath 2010]], p. 140</ref> [[Ronald Numbers]] says that: "Hindu Creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."<ref>[[#Numbers 2006|Numbers 2006]], p. 420</ref> Hindu creationism is a form of old Earth creationism, according to Hindu creationists the Universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on the [[Vedas]] which depict an extreme antiquity of the Universe and history of the Earth.<ref>[[#Carper & Hunt 2009|Carper & Hunt 2009]], p. 167</ref><ref>[[#Dasgupta 1922|Dasgupta 1922]], p. 10</ref> |
|||
===Islam=== |
|||
[[File:Whale skeleton.png|300px|thumb|left|A [[baleen whale]] skeleton, ''a'' and ''b'' label [[flipper (anatomy)|flipper]] bones, which were [[adaptation|adapted]] from front [[leg]] bones: while ''c'' indicates [[Vestigiality|vestigial]] leg bones, suggesting an adaptation from land to sea.<ref name="transformation445">{{cite journal |author = Bejder L, Hall BK |title = Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss |journal = Evol. Dev. |volume = 4 |issue = 6 |pages = 445–58 |year = 2002 |pmid = 12492145 |doi = 10.1046/j.1525-142X.2002.02033.x |ref = harv }}</ref>]] |
|||
{{Main|Islamic views on evolution}} |
|||
Adaptation occurs through the gradual modification of existing structures. Consequently, structures with similar internal organisation may have different functions in related organisms. This is the result of a single [[homology (biology)|ancestral structure]] being adapted to function in different ways. The bones within [[bat]] wings, for example, are very similar to those in [[mouse|mice]] feet and [[primate]] hands, due to the descent of all these structures from a common mammalian ancestor.<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1554/05-233.1 |pmid = 16526515 |volume = 59 |issue = 12 |pages = 2691–704 |last = Young |first = Nathan M. |title = Serial homology and the evolution of mammalian limb covariation structure |journal = Evolution |year = 2005 |last2 = Hallgrímsson |first2 = B |ref = harv }}</ref> However, since all living organisms are related to some extent,<ref name=Penny1999/> even organs that appear to have little or no structural similarity, such as [[arthropod]], squid and vertebrate eyes, or the limbs and wings of arthropods and vertebrates, can depend on a common set of homologous genes that control their assembly and function; this is called [[deep homology]].<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1017/S1464793102006097 |pmid = 14558591 |volume = 78 |issue = 3 |pages = 409–433 |last = Hall |first = Brian K |title = Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution |journal = Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society |year = 2003 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1038/nature07891 |pmid = 19212399 |volume = 457 |issue = 7231 |pages = 818–823 |last = Shubin |first = Neil |title = Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty |journal = Nature |year = 2009 |last2 = Tabin |first2 = C |last3 = Carroll |first3 = S |ref = harv |bibcode = 2009Natur.457..818S }}</ref> |
|||
[[Islamic views on evolution|Islamic creationism]] is the belief that the Universe (including humanity) was directly created by [[God in Islam|God]] as explained in the [[Quran|Qur'an]]. It usually views the Book of Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation myths in the Qur'an are vaguer and allow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions. |
|||
[[Islam]] also has its own school of theistic evolutionism, which holds that mainstream scientific analysis of the origin of the Universe is supported by the Qur'an. Some [[Muslims]] believe in evolutionary creation, especially among [[liberal movements within Islam]]. |
|||
During evolution, some structures may lose their original function and become [[vestigial structure]]s.<ref name=Fong>{{cite journal |author = Fong D, Kane T, Culver D |title = Vestigialisation and Loss of Nonfunctional Characters |journal = Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. |volume = 26 |issue = 4 |pages = 249–68 |year = 1995 |doi = 10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.001341 |ref = harv |pmid = }}</ref> Such structures may have little or no function in a current species, yet have a clear function in ancestral species, or other closely related species. Examples include [[pseudogene]]s,<ref>{{cite journal |author = Zhang Z, Gerstein M |title = Large-scale analysis of pseudogenes in the human genome |journal = Current Opinion in Genetics & Development |volume = 14 |issue = 4 |pages = 328–35 |year = 2004 |pmid = 15261647 |doi = 10.1016/j.gde.2004.06.003 |ref = harv }}</ref> the non-functional remains of eyes in blind cave-dwelling fish,<ref>{{cite journal |author = Jeffery WR |title = Adaptive evolution of eye degeneration in the Mexican blind cavefish |doi = 10.1093/jhered/esi028 |journal = J. Hered. |volume = 96 |issue = 3 |pages = 185–96 |year = 2005 |pmid = 15653557 |ref = harv }}</ref> wings in flightless birds,<ref>{{cite journal |author = Maxwell EE, Larsson HC |title = Osteology and myology of the wing of the Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) and its bearing on the evolution of vestigial structures |journal = J. Morphol. |volume = 268 |issue = 5 |pages = 423–41 |year = 2007 |pmid = 17390336 |doi = 10.1002/jmor.10527 |ref = harv }}</ref> and the presence of hip bones in whales and snakes.<ref name="transformation445" /> Examples of [[Human vestigiality|vestigial structures in humans]] include [[wisdom teeth]],<ref>{{cite journal |author = Silvestri AR, Singh I |title = The unresolved problem of the third molar: would people be better off without it? |url = http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/134/4/450 |journal = Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) |volume = 134 |issue = 4 |pages = 450–5 |year = 2003 |pmid = 12733778 |doi = 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0194|ref = harv }}</ref> the [[coccyx]],<ref name=Fong/> the [[vermiform appendix]],<ref name=Fong/> and other behavioural vestiges such as [[goose bumps]]<ref>{{cite book |last = Coyne |first = Jerry A. |authorlink = Jerry A. Coyne |title = Why Evolution is True |publisher = Penguin Group |year = 2009 |isbn = 978-0-670-02053-9 |page = 62 }}</ref><ref>Darwin, Charles. (1872) ''[[The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals]]'' John Murray, London.</ref> and [[primitive reflexes]].<ref>{{cite book |title = Psychology |edition = fifth |author = Peter Gray |year = 2007 |page = 66 |publisher = Worth Publishers |isbn = 0-7167-0617-2 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title = Why Evolution Is True |last = Coyne |first = Jerry A. |authorlink = Jerry A. Coyne | year = 2009 |pages = 85–86 |publisher = Penguin Group |isbn = 978-0-670-02053-9 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title = Archetype: A Natural History of the Self |author = Anthony Stevens |year = 1982 |page = 87 |publisher = Routledge & Kegan Paul |isbn = 0-7100-0980-1 }}</ref> |
|||
Khalid Anees, president of the [[Islamic Society of Britain]], at a conference called 'Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools', made points including the following:<blockquote>There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and [[survival of the fittest]]. However, Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another.<ref name=guardian0104>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 7, 2004 |url=http://education.guardian.co.uk/conferences/story/0,,1117752,00.html |title=Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools |newspaper=The Guardian |type=Conferences |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2008-07-18}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
However, many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact [[exaptation]]s: structures originally adapted for one function, but which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process.{{sfn|Gould|2002|pp=1235–1236}} One example is the African lizard ''Holaspis guentheri'', which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to tree—an [[exaptation]].{{sfn|Gould|2002|pp=1235–1236}} Within cells, [[molecular machine]]s such as the bacterial [[flagella]]<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1038/nrmicro1493 |pmid = 16953248 |volume = 4 |issue = 10 |pages = 784–790 |last = Pallen |first = Mark J. |title = From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella |journal = Nature Reviews Microbiology |accessdate = September 18, 2009 |date = October 2006 |url = http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/pdf/Pallen_Matzke.pdf |last2 = Matzke |first2 = NJ |ref = harv }}</ref> and [[translocase of the inner membrane|protein sorting machinery]]<ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0908264106 |pmid = 19717453 |volume = 106 |issue = 37 |pages = 15791–15795 |last = Clements |first = Abigail |title = The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine |journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |year = 2009 |last2 = Bursac |first2 = D |last3 = Gatsos |first3 = X |last4 = Perry |first4 = AJ |last5 = Civciristov |first5 = S |last6 = Celik |first6 = N |last7 = Likic |first7 = VA |last8 = Poggio |first8 = S |last9 = Jacobs-Wagner |first9 = C |pmc = 2747197 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2009PNAS..10615791C |first10 = R. A. |first11 = T. }}</ref> evolved by the recruitment of several pre-existing proteins that previously had different functions.<ref name=ScottEC/> Another example is the recruitment of enzymes from [[glycolysis]] and [[xenobiotic metabolism]] to serve as structural proteins called [[crystallin]]s within the lenses of organisms' [[eye]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Piatigorsky J, Kantorow M, Gopal-Srivastava R, Tomarev SI |title = Recruitment of enzymes and stress proteins as lens crystallins |journal = EXS |volume = 71 |pages = 241–50 |year = 1994 |pmid = 8032155 |ref = harv |doi=10.1007/978-3-0348-7330-7_24}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Wistow G |title = Lens crystallins: gene recruitment and evolutionary dynamism |journal = Trends Biochem. Sci. |volume = 18 |issue = 8 |pages = 301–6 |year = 1993 |pmid = 8236445 |doi = 10.1016/0968-0004(93)90041-K |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
Writing for ''[[The Boston Globe]]'', Drake Bennett noted: "Without a Book of Genesis to account for ... Muslim creationists have little interest in proving that the age of the Earth is measured in the thousands rather than the billions of years, nor do they show much interest in the problem of the dinosaurs. And the idea that animals might evolve into other animals also tends to be less controversial, in part because there are passages of the Koran that seem to support it. But the issue of whether human beings are the product of evolution is just as fraught among Muslims."<ref name="Bennett 4" /> However, some Muslims, such as [[Adnan Oktar]] (also known as Harun Yahya), do not agree that one species can develop from another.<ref name="PrizeforFossil">{{cite news | url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3102103/Creationist-Adnan-Oktar-offers-trillion-pound-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution.html |last=Irvine |first=Chris |date=September 29, 2008 |title=Creationist Adnan Oktar offers trillion-pound prize for fossil proof of evolution |newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |location=London |publisher=[[Telegraph Media Group]] |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> |
|||
An area of current investigation in [[evolutionary developmental biology]] is the [[Developmental biology|developmental]] basis of adaptations and exaptations.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Johnson NA, Porter AH |title = Toward a new synthesis: population genetics and evolutionary developmental biology |journal = Genetica |volume = 112–113 |pages = 45–58 |year = 2001 |pmid = 11838782 |doi = 10.1023/A:1013371201773 |ref = harv }}</ref> This research addresses the origin and evolution of [[Embryogenesis|embryonic development]] and how modifications of development and developmental processes produce novel features.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Baguñà J, Garcia-Fernàndez J |title = Evo-Devo: the long and winding road |url = http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=14756346 |journal = Int. J. Dev. Biol. |volume = 47 |issue = 7–8 |pages = 705–13 |year = 2003 |pmid = 14756346 |ref = harv }}<br />*{{cite journal |author = Love AC. |year = 2003 |title = Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation and the Synthesis of Evolutionary and Developmental Biology |journal = Biology and Philosophy |volume = 18 |issue = 2 |pages = 309–345 |doi = 10.1023/A:1023940220348|ref = harv }}</ref> These studies have shown that evolution can alter development to produce new structures, such as embryonic bone structures that develop into the jaw in other animals instead forming part of the middle ear in mammals.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Allin EF |title = Evolution of the mammalian middle ear |journal = J. Morphol. |volume = 147 |issue = 4 |pages = 403–37 |year = 1975 |pmid = 1202224 |doi = 10.1002/jmor.1051470404 |ref = harv }}</ref> It is also possible for structures that have been lost in evolution to reappear due to changes in developmental genes, such as a mutation in [[chicken]]s causing embryos to grow teeth similar to those of [[crocodile]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Harris MP, Hasso SM, Ferguson MW, Fallon JF |title = The development of archosaurian first-generation teeth in a chicken mutant |journal = Curr. Biol. |volume = 16 |issue = 4 |pages = 371–7 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16488870 |doi = 10.1016/j.cub.2005.12.047 |ref = harv }}</ref> It is now becoming clear that most alterations in the form of organisms are due to changes in a small set of conserved genes.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Carroll SB |title = Evo-devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: a genetic theory of morphological evolution |journal = Cell |volume = 134 |issue = 1 |pages = 25–36 |year = 2008 |pmid = 18614008 |doi = 10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.030 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
But there is also a growing movement of Islamic creationism. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived conflicts between the Qur'an and the main points of evolutionary theory. The main location for this has been in Turkey, where fewer than 25% of people believe in evolution.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kaufman |first=Marc |date=November 8, 2009 |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110702233.html |title=In Turkey, fertile ground for creationism |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=The Washington Post Company |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> |
|||
=== Co-evolution === |
|||
[[File:Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Wooster.jpg|thumb|[[Common Garter Snake]] (''Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis'') which has evolved resistance to [[tetrodotoxin]] in its amphibian prey.]] |
|||
There are several verses in the Qur'an which some modern writers have interpreted as being compatible with the [[Metric expansion of space|expansion of the Universe]], [[Big Bang]] and [[Big Crunch]] theories:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.harunyahya.com/tr/works/3344/The-Big-Bang-echoes-throught-the-map-of-the-galaxy |title=The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy |author=Harun Yahya |authorlink=Adnan Oktar |date=June 30, 2005 |website=Harun Yahya |publisher=Global Publication Ltd. Co. |location=Horsham, England |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref><ref>[[#Bucaille 1977|Bucaille 1977]] |
|||
{{Further|Co-evolution}} |
|||
*[[#Bucaille 1976|Bucaille 1976]]</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html |title=The Qur'an, Knowledge, and Science |last=Abd-Allah |first=A. |website=Compendium of Muslim Texts |publisher=[[University of Southern California]] |location=Los Angeles, CA |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081128054613/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html |archivedate=2008-11-28 |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> |
|||
Interactions between organisms can produce both conflict and co-operation. When the interaction is between pairs of species, such as a [[pathogen]] and a [[host (biology)|host]], or a [[Predation|predator]] and its prey, these species can develop matched sets of adaptations. Here, the evolution of one species causes adaptations in a second species. These changes in the second species then, in turn, cause new adaptations in the first species. This cycle of selection and response is called [[co-evolution]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Wade MJ |title = The co-evolutionary genetics of ecological communities |journal = Nature Reviews Genetics |volume = 8 |issue = 3 |pages = 185–95 |year = 2007 |pmid = 17279094 |doi = 10.1038/nrg2031 |ref = harv }}</ref> An example is the production of [[tetrodotoxin]] in the [[rough-skinned newt]] and the evolution of tetrodotoxin resistance in its predator, the [[Common Garter Snake|common garter snake]]. In this predator-prey pair, an [[evolutionary arms race]] has produced high levels of toxin in the newt and correspondingly high levels of toxin resistance in the snake.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Geffeney S, Brodie ED, Ruben PC, Brodie ED |title = Mechanisms of adaptation in a predator-prey arms race: TTX-resistant sodium channels |journal = Science |volume = 297 |issue = 5585 |pages = 1336–9 |year = 2002 |pmid = 12193784 |doi = 10.1126/science.1074310 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2002Sci...297.1336G }}<br />*{{cite journal |author = Brodie ED, Ridenhour BJ, Brodie ED |title = The evolutionary response of predators to dangerous prey: hotspots and coldspots in the geographic mosaic of coevolution between garter snakes and newts |journal = Evolution |volume = 56 |issue = 10 |pages = 2067–82 |year = 2002 |pmid = 12449493 |ref = harv |doi=10.1554/0014-3820(2002)056[2067:teropt]2.0.co;2}}<br />*{{cite news |url = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22creature.html?hpw |title = Remarkable Creatures – Clues to Toxins in Deadly Delicacies of the Animal Kingdom |publisher = New York Times |author = Sean B. Carroll |date = December 21, 2009 }}</ref> |
|||
: {{Cite quran|21|30|t=y|q=Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?}} |
|||
=== Co-operation === |
|||
{{Further|Co-operation (evolution)}} |
|||
Not all co-evolved interactions between species involve conflict.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Sachs J |title = Cooperation within and among species |journal = J. Evol. Biol. |volume = 19 |issue = 5 |pages = 1415–8; discussion 1426–36 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16910971 |doi = 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01152.x |ref = harv }}<br />*{{cite journal |author = Nowak M |title = Five rules for the evolution of cooperation |journal = Science |volume = 314 |issue = 5805 |pages = 1560–3 |year = 2006 |pmid = 17158317 |doi = 10.1126/science.1133755 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2006Sci...314.1560N |pmc=3279745}}</ref> Many cases of mutually beneficial interactions have evolved. For instance, an extreme cooperation exists between plants and the [[Mycorrhiza|mycorrhizal fungi]] that grow on their roots and aid the plant in absorbing nutrients from the soil.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Paszkowski U |title = Mutualism and parasitism: the yin and yang of plant symbioses |journal = Current Opinion in Plant Biology |volume = 9 |issue = 4 |pages = 364–70 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16713732 |doi = 10.1016/j.pbi.2006.05.008 |ref = harv }}</ref> This is a [[Reciprocity (evolution)|reciprocal]] relationship as the plants provide the fungi with sugars from photosynthesis. Here, the fungi actually grow inside plant cells, allowing them to exchange nutrients with their hosts, while sending [[signal transduction|signals]] that suppress the plant [[immune system]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Hause B, Fester T |title = Molecular and cell biology of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis |journal = Planta |volume = 221 |issue = 2 |pages = 184–96 |year = 2005 |pmid = 15871030 |doi = 10.1007/s00425-004-1436-x |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
: {{Cite quran|41|11|t=y|q=Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come (together), in willing obedience.'}} |
|||
Coalitions between organisms of the same species have also evolved. An extreme case is the [[eusociality]] found in [[Eusociality|social insects]], such as [[bee]]s, [[termite]]s and [[ant]]s, where sterile insects feed and guard the small number of organisms in a [[Colony (biology)|colony]] that are able to reproduce. On an even smaller scale, the [[somatic cell]]s that make up the body of an animal limit their reproduction so they can maintain a stable organism, which then supports a small number of the animal's [[germ cell]]s to produce offspring. Here, somatic cells respond to specific signals that instruct them whether to grow, remain as they are, or die. If cells ignore these signals and multiply inappropriately, their uncontrolled growth [[carcinogenesis|causes cancer]].<ref name=Bertram>{{cite journal |author = Bertram J |title = The molecular biology of cancer |journal = Mol. Aspects Med. |volume = 21 |issue = 6 |pages = 167–223 |year = 2000 |pmid = 11173079 |doi = 10.1016/S0098-2997(00)00007-8 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
: {{Cite quran|51|47|t=y|q=With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.}} |
|||
Such cooperation within species may have evolved through the process of [[kin selection]], which is where one organism acts to help raise a relative's offspring.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Reeve HK, Hölldobler B |title = The emergence of a superorganism through intergroup competition |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0703466104 |journal = Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. |volume = 104 |issue = 23 |pages = 9736–40 |year = 2007 |pmid = 17517608 |pmc = 1887545 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2007PNAS..104.9736R }}</ref> This activity is selected for because if the ''helping'' individual contains alleles which promote the helping activity, it is likely that its kin will ''also'' contain these alleles and thus those alleles will be passed on.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Axelrod R, Hamilton W |title = The evolution of cooperation |journal = Science |volume = 211 |issue = 4489 |pages = 1390–6 |year = 2005 |pmid = 7466396 |doi = 10.1126/science.7466396 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1981Sci...211.1390A }}</ref> Other processes that may promote cooperation include [[group selection]], where cooperation provides benefits to a group of organisms.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Wilson EO, Hölldobler B |title = Eusociality: origin and consequences |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0505858102 |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 102 |issue = 38 |pages = 13367–71 |year = 2005 |pmid = 16157878 |pmc = 1224642 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2005PNAS..10213367W }}</ref> |
|||
: {{Cite quran|21|104|t=y|q=The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it.}} |
|||
=== Speciation === |
|||
{{Further|Speciation}} |
|||
[[File:Speciation modes edit.svg|left|thumb|350px|The four mechanisms of speciation.]] |
|||
[[Speciation]] is the process where a species diverges into two or more descendant species.<ref name=Gavrilets>{{cite journal |author = Gavrilets S |title = Perspective: models of speciation: what have we learned in 40 years? |journal = Evolution |volume = 57 |issue = 10 |pages = 2197–215 |year = 2003 |pmid = 14628909 |doi = 10.1554/02-727 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
===Ahmadiyya=== |
|||
There are multiple ways to define the concept of "species". The choice of definition is dependent on the particularities of the species concerned.<ref name=Queiroz>{{cite journal |author = de Queiroz K |title = Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 102 |issue = Suppl 1 |pages = 6600–7 |year = 2005 |pmid = 15851674 |pmc = 1131873 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0502030102 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2005PNAS..102.6600D }}</ref> For example, some species concepts apply more readily toward sexually reproducing organisms while others lend themselves better toward asexual organisms. Despite the diversity of various species concepts, these various concepts can be placed into one of three broad philosophical approaches: interbreeding, ecological and phylogenetic.<ref name="Ereshsefsky92">{{cite journal |doi = 10.1086/289701 |last = Ereshefsky |first = M. |title = Eliminative pluralism |journal = Philosophy of Science |volume = 59 |issue = 4 |pages = 671–690 |year = 1992 |jstor = 188136 }}</ref> The biological species concept (BSC) is a classic example of the interbreeding approach. Defined by Ernst Mayr in 1942, the BSC states that "species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".<ref name="Mayr42">{{cite book |author = Mayr, E. |title = Systematics and the Origin of Species |year = 1942 |publisher = Columbia Univ. Press |place = New York |isbn = 978-0-231-05449-2 | page = 120 }}</ref> Despite its wide and long-term use, the BSC like others is not without controversy, for example because these concepts cannot be applied to prokaryotes,<ref>{{cite journal |author = Fraser C, Alm EJ, Polz MF, Spratt BG, Hanage WP |title = The bacterial species challenge: making sense of genetic and ecological diversity |journal = Science |volume = 323 |issue = 5915 |pages = 741–6 |year = 2009 |pmid = 19197054 |doi = 10.1126/science.1159388 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2009Sci...323..741F }}</ref> and this is called the [[species problem]].<ref name=Queiroz /> Some researchers have attempted a unifying monistic definition of species, while others adopt a pluralistic approach and suggest that there may be different ways to logically interpret the definition of a species.<ref name=Queiroz /><ref name="Ereshsefsky92" /> " |
|||
The [[Ahmadiyya]] movement activey promotes evolutionary theory.<ref name="Masood_Ch13">[[#Masood 1994|Masood 1994]], [http://www.itl-usa.org/ahmadi/ahmadi13.html Chapter 13, "Every Wind of Doctrine"]</ref> Ahmadis interpret scripture from the Qur'an to support the concept of [[macroevolution]] and give precedence to scientific theories. Furthermore, unlike orthodox Muslims, Ahmadis believe that mankind has gradually evolved from different species. Ahmadis regard [[Adam]] as being the first Prophet of God{{spaced ndash}}as opposed to him being the first man on Earth.<ref name="Masood_Ch13" /> Rather than wholly adopting the theory of natural selection, Ahmadis promote the idea of a "guided evolution," viewing each stage of the evolutionary process as having been selectively woven by God.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Guided_evolution_and_punctuated_equilibrium-20081104MN.pdf |title=Guided Evolution: Proof From Punctuated Equilibrium |last1=Lahaye |first1=Ataul Wahid |last2=Shah |first2=Zia H. |website=Al Islam |publisher=[[Ahmadiyya Muslim Community]] |location=London |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> [[Mirza Tahir Ahmad]], Fourth [[Khalifatul Masih|Caliph]] of the [[Ahmadiyya Muslim Community]] has stated in his magnum opus ''[[Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth]]'' (1998) that evolution did occur but only through God being the One who brings it about. It does not occur itself, according to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. |
|||
===Judaism=== |
|||
[[reproductive isolation|Barriers to reproduction]] between two diverging sexual populations are required for the populations to [[speciation|become new species]]. Gene flow may slow this process by spreading the new genetic variants also to the other populations. Depending on how far two species have diverged since their [[most recent common ancestor]], it may still be possible for them to produce offspring, as with [[horse]]s and [[donkey]]s mating to produce [[mule]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Short RV |title = The contribution of the mule to scientific thought |journal = J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. |issue = 23 |pages = 359–64 |year = 1975 |pmid = 1107543 |ref = harv }}</ref> Such [[Hybrid (biology)|hybrids]] are generally [[infertility|infertile]]. In this case, closely related species may regularly interbreed, but hybrids will be selected against and the species will remain distinct. However, viable hybrids are occasionally formed and these new species can either have properties intermediate between their parent species, or possess a totally new phenotype.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Gross B, Rieseberg L |title = The ecological genetics of homoploid hybrid speciation |doi = 10.1093/jhered/esi026 |journal = J. Hered. |volume = 96 |issue = 3 |pages = 241–52 |year = 2005 |pmid = 15618301 |pmc = 2517139 |ref = harv }}</ref> The importance of hybridisation in producing [[hybrid speciation|new species]] of animals is unclear, although cases have been seen in many types of animals,<ref>{{cite journal |author = Burke JM, Arnold ML |title = Genetics and the fitness of hybrids |journal = Annu. Rev. Genet. |volume = 35 |issue = 1 |pages = 31–52 |year = 2001 |pmid = 11700276 |doi = 10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.085719 |ref = harv }}</ref> with the [[gray tree frog]] being a particularly well-studied example.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Vrijenhoek RC |title = Polyploid hybrids: multiple origins of a treefrog species |journal = Curr. Biol. |volume = 16 |issue = 7 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16581499 |doi = 10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.005 |ref = harv |pages = R245–7 }}</ref> |
|||
{{Main|Jewish views on evolution}} |
|||
[[Reform Judaism]] does not take the [[Torah]] as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work. For [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]] who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, our own [[Epistemology|epistemological]] limits are to blame for any apparent irreconcilable point. They point to various discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear. They point out the fact that even the root word for "world" in the [[Hebrew language]] — עולם (Olam) — means hidden — נעלם (Neh-Eh-Lahm). Just as they believe God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their adult state, so too can they believe that the world was created in its "adult" state, with the understanding that there are, and can be, no physical ways to verify it. This belief has been advanced by Rabbi [[Dovid Gottlieb]], former philosophy professor at [[Johns Hopkins University]]. Also, relatively old [[Kabbalah|Kabbalistic]] sources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the Universe was first determined are in close concord with modern scientific estimates of the age of the Universe, according to Rabbi [[Aryeh Kaplan]], and based on Sefer Temunah, an early kabbalistic work attributed to the first century [[Tannaim|Tanna]] [[Nehunya ben HaKanah]]. Many kabbalists accepted the teachings of the [[Sefer HaTemunah]], including the medieval Jewish scholar [[Nahmanides]], his close student [[Isaac ben Samuel of Acre]], and the [[David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra]]. Other interesting parallels are derived, among other sources, from Nahmanides, who expounds that there was a [[Neanderthal]]-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).<ref>[[#Aviezer 1990|Aviezer 1990]]</ref><ref>[[#Carmell & Domb 1976|Carmell & Domb 1976]]</ref><ref>[[#Schroeder 1998|Schroeder 1998]]</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Tigay |first=Jeffrey H. |date=Winter 1987–1988 |title=Genesis, Science, and 'Scientific Creationism' |url=http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/sci.htm |journal=[[Conservative Judaism (journal)|Conservative Judaism]] |location=New York |publisher=[[Rabbinical Assembly]]; [[Jewish Theological Seminary of America]] |volume=40 |issue=2 |pages=20–27 |issn=0010-6542 |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> |
|||
===Bahá'í Faith=== |
|||
Speciation has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Rice, W.R. |year = 1993 |title = Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years |journal = Evolution |volume = 47 |issue = 6 |pages = 1637–1653 |doi = 10.2307/2410209 |author2 = Hostert |ref = harv }}<br />*{{cite journal |author = Jiggins CD, Bridle JR |title = Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages? |journal = Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) |volume = 19 |issue = 3 |pages = 111–4 |year = 2004 |pmid = 16701238 |doi = 10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.008 |ref = harv }}<br />*{{cite web |author = Boxhorn, J |year = 1995 |url = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html |title = Observed Instances of Speciation |publisher = [[TalkOrigins Archive]] |accessdate = December 26, 2008 }}<br />*{{cite journal |author = Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D |title = Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory |journal = Evolution |volume = 46 |issue = 4 |pages = 1214–20 |year = 1992 |doi = 10.2307/2409766 |ref = harv |jstor = 2409766 }}</ref> In sexually reproducing organisms, speciation results from reproductive isolation followed by genealogical divergence. There are four mechanisms for speciation. The most common in animals is [[allopatric speciation]], which occurs in populations initially isolated geographically, such as by [[habitat fragmentation]] or migration. Selection under these conditions can produce very rapid changes in the appearance and behaviour of organisms.<ref>{{cite journal |year = 2008 |title = Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource |journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume = 105 |issue = 12 |pages = 4792–5 |pmid = 18344323 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0711998105 |author = Herrel, A.; Huyghe, K.; Vanhooydonck, B.; Backeljau, T.; Breugelmans, K.; Grbac, I.; Van Damme, R.; Irschick, D.J. |pmc = 2290806 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2008PNAS..105.4792H }}</ref><ref name=Losos1997>{{cite journal |year = 1997 |title = Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards |journal = Nature |volume = 387 |issue = 6628 |pages = 70–3 |doi = 10.1038/387070a0 |author = Losos, J.B. Warhelt, K.I. Schoener, T.W. |ref = harv |bibcode = 1997Natur.387...70L }}</ref> As selection and drift act independently on populations isolated from the rest of their species, separation may eventually produce organisms that cannot interbreed.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Hoskin CJ, Higgle M, McDonald KR, Moritz C |year = 2005 |title = Reinforcement drives rapid allopatric speciation |journal = Nature |pmid = 16251964 |volume = 437 |issue = 7063 |pages = 1353–356 |doi = 10.1038/nature04004 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2005Natur.437.1353H }}</ref> |
|||
[[Bahá'u'lláh]], the [[Bahá'í Faith]] founder, taught that the Universe has "neither beginning nor ending," and that the component elements of the material world have always existed and will always exist.<ref>[[#`Abdu'l-Bahá 1982|`Abdu'l-Bahá 1982]], [http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PUP/pup-79.html#gr8 p. 220]</ref> In regards to evolution and the origin of human beings, [[`Abdu'l-Bahá]] gave extensive comments on the subject when he addressed western audiences in the beginning of the 20th century. Transcripts of these comments can be found in ''[[Some Answered Questions]]'', ''[[Paris Talks]]'' and the ''The Promulgation of Universal Peace''. `Abdu'l-Bahá described the human species as having evolved from a primitive form to modern man, but that the capacity to form human intelligence was always in existence. |
|||
==Creationism by country== |
|||
The second mechanism of speciation is [[peripatric speciation]], which occurs when small populations of organisms become isolated in a new environment. This differs from allopatric speciation in that the isolated populations are numerically much smaller than the parental population. Here, the [[founder effect]] causes rapid speciation after an increase in [[inbreeding]] increases selection on homozygotes, leading to rapid genetic change.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Templeton AR |title = The theory of speciation via the founder principle |url = http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/94/4/1011 |journal = Genetics |volume = 94 |issue = 4 |pages = 1011–38 |date = April 1, 1980 |pmid = 6777243 |pmc = 1214177 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
Creationism is widely accepted and taught throughout the [[Middle East]]. Although it has been prominent in the US but not widely accepted in academia, it has been making a resurgence in other countries as well.<ref name="Discover">{{cite journal |last=Pitock |first=Todd |date=July 2007 |title=Science and Islam in Conflict |url=http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/science-and-islam |journal=Discover |location=Waukesha, WI |publisher=Kalmbach Publishing |volume=28 |issue=7 |pages=36–45 |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref><ref name="Katz_AP">{{cite news |last=Katz |first=Gregory |date=February 9, 2008 |title=Creationists seek foothold in Europe |url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-09-3128465947_x.htm |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |location=Tysons Corner, VA |publisher=[[Gannett Company]] |agency=Associated Press |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref><ref name="NCSE Edis">{{cite journal |last=Edis |first=Taner |date=November–December 1999 |title=Cloning Creationism in Turkey |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/cloning-creationism-turkey |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=19 |issue=6 |pages=30–35 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2008-02-17}}</ref> |
|||
===Europe=== |
|||
The third mechanism of speciation is [[parapatric speciation]]. This is similar to peripatric speciation in that a small population enters a new habitat, but differs in that there is no physical separation between these two populations. Instead, speciation results from the evolution of mechanisms that reduce gene flow between the two populations.<ref name=Gavrilets/> Generally this occurs when there has been a drastic change in the environment within the parental species' habitat. One example is the grass ''[[Anthoxanthum|Anthoxanthum odoratum]]'', which can undergo parapatric speciation in response to localised metal pollution from mines.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Antonovics J |title = Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations X: long-term persistence of prereproductive isolation at a mine boundary |journal = Heredity |volume = 97 |issue = 1 |pages = 33–7 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16639420 |url = http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n1/full/6800835a.html |doi = 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800835 |ref = harv }}</ref> Here, plants evolve that have resistance to high levels of metals in the soil. Selection against interbreeding with the metal-sensitive parental population produced a gradual change in the flowering time of the metal-resistant plants, which eventually produced complete reproductive isolation. Selection against hybrids between the two populations may cause ''reinforcement'', which is the evolution of traits that promote mating within a species, as well as [[character displacement]], which is when two species become more distinct in appearance.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Nosil P, Crespi B, Gries R, Gries G |title = Natural selection and divergence in mate preference during speciation |journal = Genetica |volume = 129 |issue = 3 |pages = 309–27 |year = 2007 |pmid = 16900317 |doi = 10.1007/s10709-006-0013-6 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
In recent years the teaching of creationism has become a minor issue in a variety of countries including [[Germany]], the UK, [[Italy]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Poland]] and [[Serbia]].<ref name="Katz_AP" /><ref name="NCSE Edis" /><ref name="Serbia_Darwin">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 9, 2004 |title=Serbia reverses Darwin suspension |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3642460.stm |work=[[BBC News]] |location=London |publisher=[[BBC]] |accessdate=2014-03-21 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Highfield |first=Roger |authorlink=Roger Highfield |date=October 2, 2007 |title=Creationists rewrite natural history |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3309018/Creationists-rewrite-natural-history.html |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> |
|||
[[File:Darwin's finches.jpeg|frame|[[Geographical isolation]] of [[Darwin's finches|finches]] on the [[Galápagos Islands]] produced over a dozen new species.]] |
|||
Creation science has been heavily promoted in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by Adnan Oktar.<ref name="NCSE Edis" /> On October 4, 2007, the [[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe]] adopted ''[[Creation and evolution in public education#Council of Europe|The dangers of creationism in education]]'', a resolution on the attempt by American-inspired creationists to promote creationism in European schools. It concludes "The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements... some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy... If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists."<ref name="R1580">{{cite web |url=http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=October 4, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=[[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe]] |type=Resolution |id=Resolution 1580 |accessdate=2014-03-22}} Paras. 13, 18</ref> |
|||
Finally, in [[sympatric speciation]] species diverge without geographic isolation or changes in habitat. This form is rare since even a small amount of [[gene flow]] may remove genetic differences between parts of a population.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Savolainen V, Anstett M-C, Lexer C, Hutton I, Clarkson JJ, Norup MV, Powell MP, Springate D, Salamin N, Baker WJr |year = 2006 |title = Sympatric speciation in palms on an oceanic island |journal = Nature |volume = 441 |pages = 210–3 |pmid = 16467788 |doi = 10.1038/nature04566 |issue = 7090 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2006Natur.441..210S }}<br />*{{cite journal |author = Barluenga M, Stölting KN, Salzburger W, Muschick M, Meyer A |year = 2006 |title = Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish |journal = Nature |volume = 439 |pages = 719–23 |pmid = 16467837 |doi = 10.1038/nature04325 |issue = 7077 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2006Natur.439..719B }}</ref> Generally, sympatric speciation in animals requires the evolution of both [[Polymorphism (biology)|genetic differences]] and [[assortative mating|non-random mating]], to allow reproductive isolation to evolve.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Gavrilets S |title = The Maynard Smith model of sympatric speciation |journal = J. Theor. Biol. |volume = 239 |issue = 2 |pages = 172–82 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16242727 |doi = 10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.041 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
====Germany==== |
|||
One type of sympatric speciation involves cross-breeding of two related species to produce a new [[Hybrid (biology)|hybrid]] species. This is not common in animals as animal hybrids are usually sterile. This is because during [[meiosis]] the [[homologous chromosome]]s from each parent are from different species and cannot successfully pair. However, it is more common in plants because plants often double their number of chromosomes, to form [[polyploidy|polyploids]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Wood TE, Takebayashi N, Barker MS, Mayrose I, Greenspoon PB, Rieseberg LH |title = The frequency of polyploid speciation in vascular plants |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 106 |issue = 33 |pages = 13875–9 |year = 2009 |pmid = 19667210 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0811575106 |pmc = 2728988 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2009PNAS..10613875W }}</ref> This allows the chromosomes from each parental species to form matching pairs during meiosis, since each parent's chromosomes are represented by a pair already.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Hegarty Mf, Hiscock SJ |title = Genomic clues to the evolutionary success of polyploid plants |journal = Current Biology |volume = 18 |issue = 10 |pages = 435–44 |year = 2008 |pmid = 18492478 |doi = 10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.043 |ref = harv }}</ref> An example of such a speciation event is when the plant species ''[[Arabidopsis thaliana]]'' and ''Arabidopsis arenosa'' cross-bred to give the new species ''Arabidopsis suecica''.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Jakobsson M, Hagenblad J, Tavaré S |title = A unique recent origin of the allotetraploid species Arabidopsis suecica: Evidence from nuclear DNA markers |journal = Mol. Biol. Evol. |volume = 23 |issue = 6 |pages = 1217–31 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16549398 |doi = 10.1093/molbev/msk006 |ref = harv }}</ref> This happened about 20,000 years ago,<ref>{{cite journal |author = Säll T, Jakobsson M, Lind-Halldén C, Halldén C |title = Chloroplast DNA indicates a single origin of the allotetraploid Arabidopsis suecica |journal = J. Evol. Biol. |volume = 16 |issue = 5 |pages = 1019–29 |year = 2003 |pmid = 14635917 |doi = 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00554.x |ref = harv }}</ref> and the speciation process has been repeated in the laboratory, which allows the study of the genetic mechanisms involved in this process.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Bomblies K, Weigel D |title = Arabidopsis-a model genus for speciation |journal = Current Opinion in Genetics & Development |volume = 17 |issue = 6 |pages = 500–4 |year = 2007 |pmid = 18006296 |doi = 10.1016/j.gde.2007.09.006 |ref = harv }}</ref> Indeed, chromosome doubling within a species may be a common cause of reproductive isolation, as half the doubled chromosomes will be unmatched when breeding with undoubled organisms.<ref name=Semon>{{cite journal |author = Sémon M, Wolfe KH |title = Consequences of genome duplication |journal = Current Opinion in Genetics & Development |volume = 17 |issue = 6 |pages = 505–12 |year = 2007 |pmid = 18006297 |doi = 10.1016/j.gde.2007.09.007 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
In 1978, British Professor [[A. E. Wilder-Smith]], who came to Germany after [[World War II]] and lectured at [[Marburg]] and other cities, published a book arguing against evolution with a secular, well known publishing house, titled ''The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution'' (1978).<ref>[[#Wilder-Smith 1978|Wilder-Smith 1978]]</ref> At the end of the year Horst W. Beck became a creationist. Both an engineer and theologian, he was a leading figure in the "Karl-Heim-Gesellschaft" ([[Karl Heim#Place amongst German scholars|Karl Heim Society]]) and had previously published articles and books defending theistic evolution. Together with other members of the society, which they soon left, he followed the arguments of Willem Ouweneel, a Dutch [[biologist]] lecturing in Germany. Beck soon found other scientists who had changed their view or were "hidden" creationists. Under his leadership, the first creationist society was founded ("Wort und Wissen"—Word and Knowledge). Three book series were soon published, an independent creationist monthly journal started (''Factum''), and the first German article in the ''[[Creation Research Society#Publications|Creation Research Society Quarterly]]'' was published.<ref name="Schirrmacher">{{cite journal |last=Schirrmacher |first=Thomas |authorlink=Thomas Schirrmacher |date=July 1985 |title=The German Creationist Movement |url=http://www.icr.org/article/german-creationist-movement/ |journal=Acts & Facts |location=San Diego, CA |publisher=[[Institute for Creation Research]] |volume=14 |issue=7 |issn=1094-8562 |accessdate=2014-03-22}}</ref> |
|||
In 2006, a documentary on the [[Arte]] television network, ''Von Göttern und Designern'' ("Genesis vs. Darwin"), by filmmaker [[Frank Papenbroock]], demonstrated that creationism had already been taught in biology classes in at least two schools in [[Giessen|Giessen, Hesse]], without this being noticed.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=October 31, 2006 |title=Hessische Schulen: 'Kultusministerin fällt auf Kreationisten herein' |url=http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/hessische-schulen-kultusministerin-faellt-auf-kreationisten-herein-a-445487.html |work=[[Spiegel Online]] |location=Hamburg, Germany |publisher=Spiegel Online GmbH |accessdate=2014-03-22}}</ref> During this, the Education Minister of Hessen, Karin Wolff, said she believed creationism should be taught in biology class as a theory, like the theory of evolution: "I think it makes sense to bring up multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary problems for discussion."<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=November 2, 2006 |title=German Scientists Concerned About Rise in Creationist Belief |url=http://www.dw.de/german-scientists-concerned-about-rise-in-creationist-belief/a-2222454-1 |work=[[Deutsche Welle]] |location=Bonn, Germany |publisher=[[ARD (broadcaster)|ARD]] |accessdate=2014-03-22}}</ref> In 2009, an article on the German news site [[Spiegel Online]] stated approximately 20% of people disbelieve evolutionary theory in [[Germany]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Lubbadeh |first=Jens |date=February 25, 2009 |title=Contesting Evolution: European Creationists Take On Darwin |url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/contesting-evolution-european-creationists-take-on-darwin-a-609712.html |work=Spiegel Online |location=Hamburg, Germany |publisher=Spiegel Online GmbH |accessdate=2014-03-22}}</ref> More recently, a 2011 [[Ipsos]] poll commissioned by [[Reuters]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/news/2011/04/polling-creationism-evolution-around-world-006634 |title=Polling creationism and evolution around the world |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 25, 2011 |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2014-01-01}}</ref> found 12% of Germans identify as creationists.<ref>{{cite press release |last=Duffy |first=Bobby |date=April 25, 2011 |title=Ipsos Global @dvisory: Supreme Being(s), the Afterlife and Evolution |url=http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5217 |location=New York, NY |publisher=[[Ipsos]] |accessdate=2014-01-01}} Results are tabulated [http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10670 here], with results by country on page 20.</ref> |
|||
Speciation events are important in the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]], which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short "bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged.<ref name=pe1972>Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, 1972. [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.asp "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism"] In T.J.M. Schopf, ed., ''Models in Paleobiology''. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper. pp. 82–115. Reprinted in N. Eldredge ''Time frames''. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 1985</ref> In this theory, speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing speciation in novel habitats or small populations. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental population and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted habitats and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Gould SJ |title = Tempo and mode in the macroevolutionary reconstruction of Darwinism |doi = 10.1073/pnas.91.15.6764 |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 91 |issue = 15 |pages = 6764–71 |year = 1994 |pmid = 8041695 |pmc = 44281 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1994PNAS...91.6764G }}</ref> |
|||
=== |
====Romania==== |
||
In [[Romania]], in 2002, the Ministry of Education approved the use of a biology book endorsing creationism, titled ''Biologie clasa a IX-a - Măiestrie şi strălucire divină în biosferă'' ("Biology Class IX - Divine Mastery and Light in the Biosphere"), in public high schools. Following a protest of the Romanian Humanist Association the Romanian Ministry of Education replied that the book is not a "textbook" but merely an "accessory." The president of the Association labeled the reply as "disappointing" since, whether a textbook or an accessory, the book remains available for usage in schools. Reports indicate that at least one teacher in [[Oradea]] did use the book.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/carte-creationista-pentru-biologie-avizata-de-minister-844190.html |title=Carte creaţionistă pentru biologie, avizată de minister |last=Dogar |first=Andreea |date=March 20, 2009 |website=EVZ.ro |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110608131053/http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/carte-creationista-pentru-biologie-avizata-de-minister-844190.html |archivedate=2011-06-08 |accessdate=2014-03-23}}</ref> |
|||
{{Further|Extinction}} |
|||
[[File:Palais de la Decouverte Tyrannosaurus rex p1050042.jpg|thumb|left|''[[Tyrannosaurus rex]]''. Non-[[bird|avian]] [[dinosaur]]s died out in the [[Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event]] at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period.]] |
|||
[[Extinction]] is the disappearance of an entire species. Extinction is not an unusual event, as species regularly appear through speciation and disappear through extinction.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Benton MJ |title = Diversification and extinction in the history of life |journal = Science |volume = 268 |issue = 5207 |pages = 52–8 |year = 1995 |pmid = 7701342 |doi = 10.1126/science.7701342 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1995Sci...268...52B }}</ref> Nearly all animal and plant species that have lived on Earth are now extinct,<ref>{{cite journal |author = Raup DM |title = Biological extinction in Earth history |journal = Science |volume = 231 |issue = 4745 |pages = 1528–33 |year = 1986 |pmid = 11542058 |doi = 10.1126/science.11542058 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1986Sci...231.1528R }}</ref> and extinction appears to be the ultimate fate of all species.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Avise JC, Hubbell SP, Ayala FJ. |title = In the light of evolution II: Biodiversity and extinction |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 105 |issue = Suppl 1 |pages = 11453–7 |year = 2008 |pmid = 18695213 |pmc = 2556414 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0802504105 |url = http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11453.full |ref = harv |bibcode = 2008PNAS..10511453A }}</ref> These extinctions have happened continuously throughout the history of life, although the rate of extinction spikes in occasional mass [[extinction event]]s.<ref name=Raup>{{cite journal |author = Raup DM |title = The role of extinction in evolution |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 91 |issue = 15 |pages = 6758–63 |year = 1994 |pmid = 8041694 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.91.15.6758 |pmc = 44280 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1994PNAS...91.6758R }}</ref> The [[Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event]], during which the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct, is the most well-known, but the earlier [[Permian–Triassic extinction event]] was even more severe, with approximately 96% of species driven to extinction.<ref name=Raup/> The [[Holocene extinction event]] is an ongoing mass extinction associated with humanity's expansion across the globe over the past few thousand years. Present-day extinction rates are 100–1000 times greater than the background rate and up to 30% of current species may be extinct by the mid 21st century.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Novacek MJ, Cleland EE |title = The current biodiversity extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery |doi = 10.1073/pnas.091093698 |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 98 |issue = 10 |pages = 5466–70 |year = 2001 |pmid = 11344295 |pmc = 33235 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2001PNAS...98.5466N }}</ref> Human activities are now the primary cause of the ongoing extinction event;<ref>{{cite journal |author = Pimm S, Raven P, Peterson A, Sekercioglu CH, Ehrlich PR |title = Human impacts on the rates of recent, present and future bird extinctions |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0604181103 |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 103 |issue = 29 |pages = 10941–6 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16829570 |pmc = 1544153 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2006PNAS..10310941P }}<br />*{{cite journal |author = Barnosky AD, Koch PL, Feranec RS, Wing SL, Shabel AB |title = Assessing the causes of late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents |journal = Science |volume = 306 |issue = 5693 |pages = 70–5 |year = 2004 |pmid = 15459379 |doi = 10.1126/science.1101476 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2004Sci...306...70B }}</ref> [[global warming]] may further accelerate it in the future.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Lewis OT |title = Climate change, species-area curves and the extinction crisis |journal = [[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]] |volume = 361 |issue = 1465 |pages = 163–71 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16553315 |doi = 10.1098/rstb.2005.1712 |pmc = 1831839 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
====Russia==== |
|||
The role of extinction in evolution is not very well understood and may depend on which type of extinction is considered.<ref name=Raup/> The causes of the continuous "low-level" extinction events, which form the majority of extinctions, may be the result of competition between species for limited resources ([[competitive exclusion]]).<ref name=Kutschera/> If one species can out-compete another, this could produce [[species selection]], with the fitter species surviving and the other species being driven to extinction.<ref name=Gould/> The intermittent mass extinctions are also important, but instead of acting as a selective force, they drastically reduce diversity in a nonspecific manner and promote bursts of [[Adaptive radiation|rapid evolution]] and speciation in survivors.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Jablonski D |title = Lessons from the past: evolutionary impacts of mass extinctions |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 98 |issue = 10 |pages = 5393–8 |year = 2001 |pmid = 11344284 |pmc = 33224 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.101092598 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2001PNAS...98.5393J }}</ref> |
|||
[[Russia]] is home to the Moscow Creation Society.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Doughty |first1=John |last2=Doughty |first2=Svetlana |date=June 1997 |title=Creationism in Russia |url=http://www.icr.org/article/creationism-russia/ |journal=Acts & Facts |location=San Diego, CA |publisher=Institute for Creation Research |volume=26 |issue=6 |issn=1094-8562 |accessdate=2014-03-23}}</ref> The department of extracurricular and alternative education of the [[Ministry of Education and Science (Russia)|Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation]] has cosponsored numerous creationist conferences. Since 1994, Alexander Asmolov, the previous deputy minister of education, has urged that creationism be taught to help restore academic freedom in Russia after years of state-enforced scientific orthodoxy.<ref name="Numbers 2006"/> In February 2007, a 16-year-old girl and her father launched a court case against the Ministry of Education and Science, backed by the [[Russian Orthodox Church]], challenging the teaching of just one "theory" of biology in school textbooks as a breach of her human rights.<ref name="Kjærgaard">{{cite journal |last=Kjærgaard |first=Peter C. |date=May–June 2008 |title=Western front |url=http://newhumanist.org.uk/1783/western-front |journal=[[New Humanist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Rationalist Association]] |volume=123 |issue=3 |pages=39–41 |issn=0306-512X |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=EN |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=September 17, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe |type=Report |id=Doc. 11375 |accessdate=2014-04-24}}</ref> |
|||
{{-}} |
|||
A 2005 poll reportedly found 26% of Russians accepting evolution and 49% accepting creationism.<ref>{{cite news |last=Bigg |first=Claire |date=March 10, 2006 |title=Russia: Creationism Finds Support Among Young |url=http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1066577.html |work=[[Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[Broadcasting Board of Governors]] |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> But a 2003 poll reported that 44% agreed with "Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals,"<ref name="NSB_06">{{cite book |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=February 23, 2006 |chapter=Figure 7-7: Correct answers to specific science literacy questions, by country/region: Most recent year |chapterurl=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/fig07-07.htm |title=Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 |url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/ |type=Figure |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[National Science Foundation]]; [[National Science Board]] |oclc=71342049 |id=NSB 06-01 |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> and a 2009 poll reported (PDF) that 48% of Russians who "know something about Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution" agreed that there was sufficient evidence for the theory.<ref name="britishcouncil.org">{{cite press release |last1=Stephenson |first1=Tony |last2=Michael |first2=Adam |last3=Tan |first3=Benjamyn |date=June 30, 2009 |title=Darwin Survey Shows International Consensus on Acceptance of Evolution |url=http://www.britishcouncil.org/darwin_now_survey_global.pdf |format=PDF |location=London |publisher=[[British Council]] |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> The 2009 poll indicated that 53% of Russians agreed with "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism," with 13% preferring that such perspectives be taught instead of evolution; only 10% agreed with "Evolutionary theories alone should be taught in science lessons in schools."<ref name="britishcouncil.org" /> |
|||
== Evolutionary history of life == |
|||
{{Main|Evolutionary history of life}} |
|||
{{See also|Timeline of evolution|Timeline of human evolution}} |
|||
=== |
====Serbia==== |
||
On September 7, 2004, the Serbian Minister for Education and Sport, [[Ljiljana Čolić]], temporarily banned evolution from being taught in the country. After state-wide outcry she resigned on September 16, 2004, from her post.<ref name="Serbian_schools">{{cite news |last=de Quetteville |first=Harry |date=September 9, 2004 |title=Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1471367/Darwin-is-off-the-curriculum-for-Serbian-schools.html |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=January 24, 2012}}</ref> |
|||
{{Further|Abiogenesis|RNA world hypothesis}} |
|||
Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around {{nowrap|4 billion years}} ago, and half a billion years later the [[last universal common ancestor|last common ancestor of all life]] existed.<ref name=sa282_6_90>{{cite journal |last = Doolittle |first = W. Ford |title = Uprooting the tree of life |journal = Scientific American |date=February 2000 |volume = 282 |issue = 6 |pages = 90–95 |doi = 10.1038/scientificamerican0200-90 |pmid = 10710791 }}</ref> The current [[scientific consensus]] is that the complex [[biochemistry]] that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Peretó J |title = Controversies on the origin of life |url = http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801023.pdf |journal = Int. Microbiol. |volume = 8 |issue = 1 |pages = 23–31 |year = 2005 |pmid = 15906258 |ref = harv }}</ref> The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as [[RNA]]<ref>{{cite journal |author = Joyce GF |title = The antiquity of RNA-based evolution |journal = Nature |volume = 418 |issue = 6894 |pages = 214–21 |year = 2002 |pmid = 12110897 |doi = 10.1038/418214a |ref = harv |bibcode = 2002Natur.418..214J }}</ref> and the assembly of simple cells.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Trevors JT, Psenner R |title = From self-assembly of life to present-day bacteria: a possible role for nanocells |journal = FEMS Microbiol. Rev. |volume = 25 |issue = 5 |pages = 573–82 |year = 2001 |pmid = 11742692 |doi = 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2001.tb00592.x |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
=== |
====Switzerland==== |
||
A 2006 international survey found that 30% of the [[Switzerland|Swiss]] reject evolution, one of the highest national percentages in Europe.<ref name="steph">{{cite news |last=Stephens |first=Thomas |date=October 9, 2006 |title=Swiss drag knuckles accepting evolution |url=http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Swiss_drag_knuckles_accepting_evolution.html?cid=70292 |work=swissinfo.ch |location=Bern, Switzerland |publisher=[[SRG SSR]] |accessdate=2011-12-04}}</ref> Another survey in 2007, commissioned by the fringe Christian organization Pro Genesis, controversially claims 80%. This resulted in schools in the [[Canton of Bern]] printing science textbooks that presented creationism as a valid alternative theory to evolution. Scientists and education experts harshly criticized the move, which quickly prompted school authorities to revise the books.<ref name="sch">{{cite news |last=Bechtel |first=Dale |date=November 28, 2007 |title=Creationism controversy evolves |url=http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Creationism_controversy_evolves.html?cid=6283640 |work=swissinfo.ch |location=Bern, Switzerland |publisher=SRG SSR |accessdate=2011-12-04}}</ref> |
|||
{{Further|Common descent|Evidence of common descent}} |
|||
[[File:Ape skeletons.png|320px|thumbnail|The [[Ape|hominoids]] are descendants of a [[common descent|common ancestor]].]] |
|||
All [[organism]]s on [[Earth]] are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.<ref name=Penny1999>{{cite journal |author = Penny D, Poole A |title = The nature of the last universal common ancestor |journal = Current Opinion in Genetics & Development |volume = 9 |issue = 6 |pages = 672–77 |year = 1999 |pmid = 10607605 |doi = 10.1016/S0959-437X(99)00020-9 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Theobald, DL. |title = A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry |journal = Nature |volume = 465 |pages = 219–22 |year = 2010 |pmid = 20463738 |doi = 10.1038/nature09014 |issue = 7295 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2010Natur.465..219T }}</ref> Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Bapteste E, Walsh DA |title = Does the 'Ring of Life' ring true? |journal = Trends Microbiol. |volume = 13 |issue = 6 |pages = 256–61 |year = 2005 |pmid = 15936656 |doi = 10.1016/j.tim.2005.03.012 |ref = harv }}</ref> The [[common descent]] of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share [[homology (biology)|morphological similarities]]. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups – similar to a family tree.<ref name=Darwin>{{cite book |last = Darwin |first = Charles |authorlink = Charles Darwin |year = 1859 |title = On the Origin of Species |place = London |publisher = John Murray |edition = 1st |page = 1 |url = http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=16 |isbn = 0-8014-1319-2 }}</ref> However, modern research has suggested that, due to horizontal gene transfer, this "[[Tree of life (science)|tree of life]]" may be more complicated than a simple branching tree since some genes have spread independently between distantly related species.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Doolittle WF, Bapteste E |title = Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis |journal = Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume = 104 |issue = 7 |pages = 2043–9 |year = 2007 |pmid = 17261804 |pmc = 1892968 |doi = 10.1073/pnas.0610699104 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2007PNAS..104.2043D }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Kunin V, Goldovsky L, Darzentas N, Ouzounis CA |title = The net of life: reconstructing the microbial phylogenetic network |journal = Genome Res. |volume = 15 |issue = 7 |pages = 954–9 |year = 2005 |pmid = 15965028 |doi = 10.1101/gr.3666505 |pmc = 1172039 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
====United Kingdom==== |
|||
Past species have also left records of their evolutionary history. [[Fossil]]s, along with the comparative anatomy of present-day organisms, constitute the morphological, or anatomical, record.<ref name=Jablonski>{{cite journal |author = Jablonski D |title = The future of the fossil record |journal = Science |volume = 284 |issue = 5423 |pages = 2114–16 |year = 1999 |pmid = 10381868 |doi = 10.1126/science.284.5423.2114 |ref = harv }}</ref> By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species, paleontologists can infer the lineages of those species. However, this approach is most successful for organisms that had hard body parts, such as shells, bones or teeth. Further, as prokaryotes such as [[bacteria]] and [[archaea]] share a limited set of common morphologies, their fossils do not provide information on their ancestry. |
|||
[[File:Gensis expo building ground floor.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Creation Science Movement#Genesis Expo|Genesis Expo]] is a young Earth creationism museum in [[Portsmouth|Portsmouth, England]]]] |
|||
Since the development of evolutionary theory by Charles Darwin in England, where his portrait appears on the back of the [[Bank of England note issues#£10|revised Series E £10 note]] issued in 2000, significant shifts in British public opinion have occurred. A 2006 survey for the [[BBC]] showed that "more than a fifth of those polled were convinced by the creationist argument,"<ref name="Joyce">{{cite news |last=Joyce |first=Julian |date=September 15, 2008 |title=Who are the British creationists? |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7613403.stm |work=BBC News |location=London |publisher=BBC |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> a massive decrease from the almost total acceptance of creationism before Darwin published his theory. A 2010 [[Angus Reid Public Opinion|Angus Reid]] poll found that "In Britain, two-thirds of respondents (68%) side with evolution while less than one-in-five (16%) choose creationism. At least seven-in-ten respondents in the South of England (70%) and Scotland (75%) believe human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.angusreidglobal.com/polls/43135/americans-are-creationists-britons-and-canadians-side-with-evolution/ |title=Americans are creationists; Britons and Canadians side with evolution |date=July 15, 2010 |website=[[Angus Reid Public Opinion|Angus Reid Global]] |publisher=[[Vision Critical]] |location=Vancouver, B.C. |accessdate=2012-06-02}}</ref> A subsequent 2010 [[YouGov]] poll on the origin of humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% did not know.<ref name="YouGov" /> |
|||
Speaking at the [[British Science Association#British Science Festival|British Science Association]]'s British Science Festival at the [[University of Liverpool]] in 2008, Professor [[Michael Reiss]] estimated that about only 10% of children were from a family that supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.<ref name="Wynne-Jones">{{cite news |last=Wynne-Jones |first=Jonathan |date=January 31, 2009 |title=Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4410927/Poll-reveals-public-doubts-over-Charles-Darwins-theory-of-evolution.html |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> [[Richard Dawkins]] has been quoted saying "I have spoken to a lot of science teachers in schools here in Britain who are finding an increasing number of students coming to them and saying they are Young Earth creationists."<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 2, 2008 |title=Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools' |url=http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/richard-dawkins-growth-in-creationist-beliefs-a-problem-for-schools-1-1254885 |newspaper=[[The Scotsman]] |location=London |publisher=Johnston Press |accessdate=2014-04-23}}</ref> |
|||
More recently, evidence for common descent has come from the study of [[biochemistry|biochemical]] similarities between organisms. For example, all living cells use the same basic set of [[nucleotide]]s and [[amino acid]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Mason SF |title = Origins of biomolecular handedness |journal = Nature |volume = 311 |issue = 5981 |pages = 19–23 |year = 1984 |pmid = 6472461 |doi = 10.1038/311019a0 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1984Natur.311...19M }}</ref> The development of [[molecular genetics]] has revealed the record of evolution left in organisms' [[genome]]s: dating when species diverged through the [[molecular clock]] produced by mutations.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Wolf YI, Rogozin IB, Grishin NV, Koonin EV |title = Genome trees and the tree of life |journal = Trends Genet. |volume = 18 |issue = 9 |pages = 472–79 |year = 2002 |pmid = 12175808 |doi = 10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02744-0 |ref = harv }}</ref> For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their genomes and analysing the few areas where they differ helps shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Varki A, Altheide TK |title = Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: searching for needles in a haystack |journal = Genome Res. |volume = 15 |issue = 12 |pages = 1746–58 |year = 2005 |pmid = 16339373 |doi = 10.1101/gr.3737405 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
The director of education at the [[Royal Society]] has said that creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than be excluded, to explain why creationism had no scientific basis.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 13, 2008 |title=Call for creationism in science |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm |work=BBC News |location=London |publisher=BBC |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> [[Wales]] has the largest proportion of theistic evolutionists—the belief that evolution is part of God's plan (38%). [[Northern Ireland]] has the highest proportion of people who believe in 'intelligent design' (16%), which holds 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.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 2, 2009 |title=Four out of five Britons do not believe in creationism |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4926271/Four-out-of-five-Britons-do-not-believe-in-creationism.html |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> Some private religious schools in the UK teach creationism rather than evolution.<ref name="Joyce" /> However the teaching of creationism is illegal in any school that receives state funding. |
|||
=== Evolution of life === |
|||
{{Main|Evolutionary history of life|Timeline of evolution}} |
|||
{{PhylomapA|size=320px|align=right|caption=[[Phylogenetic tree|Evolutionary tree]] showing the divergence of modern species from their common ancestor in the centre.<ref name=Ciccarelli>{{cite journal |author = Ciccarelli FD, Doerks T, von Mering C, Creevey CJ, Snel B, Bork P |title = Toward automatic reconstruction of a highly resolved tree of life |journal = Science |volume = 311 |issue = 5765 |pages = 1283–87 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16513982 |doi = 10.1126/science.1123061 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2006Sci...311.1283C }}</ref> The three [[Domain (biology)|domains]] are coloured, with [[bacteria]] blue, [[archaea]] green and [[eukaryote]]s red.}} |
|||
[[Prokaryote]]s inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 [[bya|billion years ago]].<ref name=Cavalier-Smith>{{cite journal |author = Cavalier-Smith T |title = Cell evolution and Earth history: stasis and revolution |journal = [[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]] |volume = 361 |issue = 1470 |pages = 969–1006 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16754610 |doi = 10.1098/rstb.2006.1842 |pmc = 1578732 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Schopf J |title = Fossil evidence of Archaean life |journal = [[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]] |volume = 361 |issue = 1470 |pages = 869–85 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16754604 |doi = 10.1098/rstb.2006.1834 |pmc = 1578735 |ref = harv }}<br />*{{cite journal |author = Altermann W, Kazmierczak J |title = Archean microfossils: a reappraisal of early life on Earth |journal = Res Microbiol |volume = 154 |issue = 9 |pages = 611–17 |year = 2003 |pmid = 14596897 |doi = 10.1016/j.resmic.2003.08.006 |ref = harv }}</ref> No obvious changes in [[morphology (biology)|morphology]] or cellular organisation occurred in these organisms over the next few billion years.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Schopf J |title = Disparate rates, differing fates: tempo and mode of evolution changed from the Precambrian to the Phanerozoic |doi = 10.1073/pnas.91.15.6735 |journal = Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A |volume = 91 |issue = 15 |pages = 6735–42 |year = 1994 |pmid = 8041691 |pmc = 44277 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1994PNAS...91.6735S }}</ref> The [[eukaryote|eukaryotic cells]] emerged between 1.6 – 2.7 billion years ago. The next major change in cell structure came when bacteria were engulfed by eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called [[endosymbiont|endosymbiosis]].<ref name = "rgruqh">{{cite journal |author = Poole A, Penny D |title = Evaluating hypotheses for the origin of eukaryotes |journal = BioEssays |volume = 29 |issue = 1 |pages = 74–84 |year = 2007 |pmid = 17187354 |doi = 10.1002/bies.20516 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref name=Dyall>{{cite journal |author = Dyall S, Brown M, Johnson P |title = Ancient invasions: from endosymbionts to organelles |journal = Science |volume = 304 |issue = 5668 |pages = 253–57 |year = 2004 |pmid = 15073369 |doi = 10.1126/science.1094884 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2004Sci...304..253D }}</ref> The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent co-evolution, with the bacteria evolving into either [[mitochondrion|mitochondria]] or [[hydrogenosome]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Martin W |title = The missing link between hydrogenosomes and mitochondria |journal = Trends Microbiol. |volume = 13 |issue = 10 |pages = 457–59 |year = 2005 |pmid = 16109488 |doi = 10.1016/j.tim.2005.08.005 |ref = harv }}</ref> Another engulfment of [[cyanobacteria]]l-like organisms led to the formation of [[chloroplast]]s in algae and plants.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Lang B, Gray M, Burger G |title = Mitochondrial genome evolution and the origin of eukaryotes |journal = Annu Rev Genet |volume = 33 |issue = 1 |pages = 351–97 |year = 1999 |pmid = 10690412 |doi = 10.1146/annurev.genet.33.1.351 |ref = harv }}<br />*{{cite journal |author = McFadden G |title = Endosymbiosis and evolution of the plant cell |journal = Current Opinion in Plant Biology |volume = 2 |issue = 6 |pages = 513–19 |year = 1999 |pmid = 10607659 |doi = 10.1016/S1369-5266(99)00025-4 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
===Muslim world=== |
|||
The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the [[Ediacara biota|Ediacaran]] period.<ref name=Cavalier-Smith/><ref>{{cite journal |author = DeLong E, Pace N |title = Environmental diversity of bacteria and archaea |journal = Syst Biol |volume = 50 |issue = 4 |pages = 470–8 |year = 2001 |pmid = 12116647 |doi = 10.1080/106351501750435040 |ref = harv }}</ref> The [[evolution of multicellularity]] occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as [[sponge]]s, [[brown algae]], [[cyanobacteria]], [[slime mold|slime moulds]] and [[myxobacteria]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Kaiser D |title = Building a multicellular organism |journal = Annu. Rev. Genet. |volume = 35 |issue = 1 |pages = 103–23 |year = 2001 |pmid = 11700279 |doi = 10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.090145 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of [[Egypt]]ians, 11% of [[Malaysia]]ns, 14% of [[Pakistan]]is, 16% of [[Indonesia]]ns, and 22% of [[Turkey|Turks]] agree that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true, and a 2006 survey reported that about a quarter of Turkish adults agreed that human beings evolved from earlier animal species.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hameed |first1=Salman |date=December 12, 2008 |title=Bracing for Islamic creationism |url=http://helios.hampshire.edu/~sahCS/Hameed-Science-Creationism.pdf |format=PDF |journal=Science |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |volume=322 |issue=5908 |pages=1637–1638 |doi=10.1126/science.1163672 |pmid=19074331 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> Surveys carried out by researchers affiliated with McGill University's Evolution Education Research Centre found that in Egypt and Pakistan, while the official high school curriculum does include evolution, many of the teachers there do not believe in it themselves, and will often tell their students so.<ref name="Bennett 4" /> |
|||
Currently in Egypt, evolution is taught in schools but [[Saudi Arabia]] and [[Sudan]] have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.<ref name="Discover" /><ref name="BurtonIRNKSA">{{cite journal |last=Burton |first=Elise K. |date=May–June 2010 |title=Teaching Evolution in Muslim States:Iran and Saudi Arabia Compared |url=http://www.academia.edu/870964/Evolution_Education_in_Muslim_States_Iran_and_Saudi_Arabia_Compared |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=25–29 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2014-01-13}}</ref> In recent times, creationism has become more widespread in other Islamic countries.<ref name="Economist_2007">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 19, 2007 |title=In the beginning |url=http://www.economist.com/node/9036706 |work=[[The Economist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Economist Group]] |issn=0013-0613 |accessdate=2007-04-25}}This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.</ref> |
|||
Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the [[Cambrian explosion]]. Here, the majority of [[Phylum|types]] of modern animals appeared in the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct.<ref name=Valentine>{{cite journal |author = Valentine JW, Jablonski D, Erwin DH |title = Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion |url = http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/126/5/851 |journal = Development |volume = 126 |issue = 5 |pages = 851–9 |date = March 1, 1999 |pmid = 9927587 |ref = harv }}</ref> Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of [[oxygen]] in the [[atmosphere]] from [[photosynthesis]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Ohno S |title = The reason for as well as the consequence of the Cambrian explosion in animal evolution |series = 44 |journal = J. Mol. Evol. |volume = 1 |issue = S1 |pages = S23–7 |year = 1997 |pmid = 9071008 |doi = 10.1007/PL00000055 |ref = harv }}<br />*{{cite journal |author = Valentine J, Jablonski D |title = Morphological and developmental macroevolution: a paleontological perspective |url = http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=14756327 |journal = Int. J. Dev. Biol. |volume = 47 |issue = 7–8 |pages = 517–22 |year = 2003 |pmid = 14756327 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
The results of a survey of the adherence to creation science of 5,700 teachers from 14 countries was presented during the 2008 XIII IOSTE Symposium in [[Izmir]], Turkey. [[Lebanon]], [[Senegal]], [[Tunisia]], [[Morocco]] and [[Algeria]] had 62% to 81% of creationist teachers (with no difference between biologists and others). Romania and [[Burkina Faso]] had 45% to 48% of creationist teachers in Romania and Burkina Faso, with no difference between biologists and other in Romania, but a clear difference (p<0.001) in Burkina Faso (with 61% of creationists for the not biology teachers). [[Portugal]] and [[Cyprus]] had 15% to 30% of creationist teachers, with no significant difference between biologists, but a significant difference in Portugal (p=0.004, 17% and 26%).<ref name="IOSTE_survey">{{cite conference |url=https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/8934/1/IOSTE_Evolution.pdf |title=Science and Religion: Evolutionism and Creationism in Education. A survey of teachers conceptions in 14 countries |first1=Pierre |last1=Clément |first2=Marie Pierre |last2=Quessada |first3=Charline |last3=Laurent |first4=Graça |last4=Carvalho |date=September 21–26, 2008 |conference=XIII IOSTE Symposium |location=Izmir, Turkey |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-04-24}}</ref> |
|||
About 500 million years ago, [[plant]]s and [[fungus|fungi]] colonised the land and were soon followed by [[arthropod]]s and other animals.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Waters ER |title = Molecular adaptation and the origin of land plants |journal = Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. |volume = 29 |issue = 3 |pages = 456–63 |year = 2003 |pmid = 14615186 |doi = 10.1016/j.ympev.2003.07.018 |ref = harv }}</ref> [[Insect]]s were particularly successful and even today make up the majority of animal species.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Mayhew PJ |title = Why are there so many insect species? Perspectives from fossils and phylogenies |journal = Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc |volume = 82 |issue = 3 |pages = 425–54 |year = 2007 |pmid = 17624962 |doi = 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00018.x |ref = harv }}</ref> [[Amphibian]]s first appeared around 364 million years ago, followed by early [[amniote]]s and [[bird]]s around 155 million years ago (both from "[[reptile]]"-like lineages), [[mammal]]s around 129 million years ago, [[homininae]] around 10 million years ago and [[modern humans]] around 250,000 years ago.<ref>{{cite journal | last = Carroll | first = Robert L. | title = The Palaeozoic Ancestry of Salamanders, Frogs and Caecilians | journal = Zool J Linn Soc | volume = 150 | issue = s1 | pages = 1–140 |date=May 2007 | pmid = 12752770 | doi = 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2007.00246.x | ref = harv | first2 = RL }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Wible JR, Rougier GW, Novacek MJ, Asher RJ |title = Cretaceous eutherians and Laurasian origin for placental mammals near the K/T boundary |journal = Nature |volume = 447 |issue = 7147 |pages = 1003–1006 |year = 2007 |pmid = 17581585 |doi = 10.1038/nature05854 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2007Natur.447.1003W }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author = Witmer LM |title = Palaeontology: An icon knocked from its perch |journal = Nature |volume = 475 |issue = 7357 |pages = 458–459 |year = 2011 |pmid = 21796198 |doi = 10.1038/475458a |ref = harv }}</ref> However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both [[Biomass (ecology)|biomass]] and species being prokaryotes.<ref name=Schloss/> |
|||
== |
====Iran==== |
||
[[Iran]]ian [[Science and technology in Iran|scientific development]], especially the health-related aspects of biology, has been a goal of the Islamic government since the [[Iranian revolution|revolution of 1979]].<ref name="BurtonIRNKSA" /> Since Iranian traditional practice of [[Shi'a]] religion is not preoccupied with Qur'anic literalism as in case of Saudi Wahhabism but [[ijtihad]], many influential Iranian Shi'ite scholars, including several who were closely involved in [[Iranian Revolution]], are not opposed to evolutionary ideas in general, disagreeing that evolution necessarily conflicts with the Muslim mainstream.<ref name="BurtonIRNKSA" /> Iranian pupils since 5th grade of elementary school learn only about evolution, thus portraying geologists and scientists in general as an authoritative voices of scientific knowledge.<ref name="BurtonIRNKSA" /> |
|||
{{Main|Applications of evolution|Artificial selection|Evolutionary computation}} |
|||
Concepts and models used in evolutionary biology, such as natural selection, have many applications.<ref name=Bull>{{cite journal |author = Bull JJ, Wichman HA |title = Applied evolution |journal = Annu Rev Ecol Syst |volume = 32 |issue = 1 |pages = 183–217 |year = 2001 |doi = 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114020 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
====Turkey==== |
|||
Artificial selection is the intentional selection of traits in a population of organisms. This has been used for thousands of years in the [[domestication]] of plants and animals.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Doebley JF, Gaut BS, Smith BD |title = The molecular genetics of crop domestication |journal = Cell |volume = 127 |issue = 7 |pages = 1309–21 |year = 2006 |pmid = 17190597 |doi = 10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.006 |ref = harv }}</ref> More recently, such selection has become a vital part of [[genetic engineering]], with [[selectable marker]]s such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to manipulate DNA. Proteins with valuable properties have evolved by repeated rounds of mutation and selection (for example modified [[enzyme]]s and new [[antibody|antibodies]]) in a process called [[directed evolution]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Jäckel C, Kast P, Hilvert D |title = Protein design by directed evolution |journal = Annu Rev Biophys |volume = 37 |issue = 1 |pages = 153–73 |year = 2008 |pmid = 18573077 |doi = 10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125832 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
Since the 1980s, creationism in Turkey has grown significantly and is now the government's official position on origins.<ref name="Bennett 4">{{cite news |last=Bennett |first=Drake |date=October 25, 2009 |title=Islam's Darwin problem |url=http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full |newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]] |location=Boston, MA |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20091030044754/http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full |archivedate=2009-10-30 |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> In 1985, the conservative political party then in control of the country’s education ministry added creationist explanations alongside the passages on evolution in the standard high school biology textbook. In Turkey, unlike in the US, the public school curriculum is set by the national government. In 2008, [[Richard Dawkins]]' website was banned in Turkey.<ref>{{cite news |last=Salter |first=Jessica |date=September 19, 2008 |title=Richard Dawkins website banned in Turkey |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/2987807/Richard-Dawkins-website-banned-in-Turkey.html |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> However, the ban was lifted in July 2011.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642074-rd-net-no-longer-banned-in-turkey |title=RD.net no longer banned in Turkey! |author=RDFRS UK |date=July 8, 2011 |website=RichardDawkins.net |publisher=[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] |location=Washington, D.C. |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111105060322/http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642074-rd-net-no-longer-banned-in-turkey |archivedate=2011-11-05 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> In 2009, the Turkish government agency [[Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey]] (TÜBİTAK), publisher of the popular Turkish science magazine ''[[Bilim ve Teknik]]'' (''Science and Technology''), was accused of stripping a cover story about the life and work of Charles Darwin from the March 2009 issue of the Council's publication just before it went to press. The planned portrait of Darwin for the magazine's cover was replaced and the editor of the magazine, Çiğdem Atakuman, claims that she was removed from her post.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090310/full/news.2009.150.html |title=Turkish scientists claim Darwin censorship |last=Abbott |first=Alison |date=March 10, 2009 |website=Nature News |publisher=Nature Publishing Group |location=London |doi=10.1038/news.2009.150 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 19, 2009 |title=Turkey censors evolution |url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/458259a.html |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |type=Editorial |location=London |publisher=Nature Publishing Group |volume=458 |issue=259 |doi=10.1038/458259a |issn=0028-0836 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=May 2009 |title=Evolution Stirs Tempest in Turkish Teapot |url=http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200905/evolution.cfm |journal=APS News |type=News |location=College Park, MD |publisher=[[American Physical Society]] |volume=18 |issue=5 |issn=1058-8132 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 16, 2009 |title=Darwin issue ends in finger pointing |url=http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11214930.asp?gid=244 |newspaper=[[Hürriyet Daily News]] |location=Üsküdar, Turkey |publisher=[[Doğan Media Group]] |issn=1300-0721 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> Most of the Turkish population expressed support for the censorship.<ref>{{cite news |last=Steinvorth |first=Daniel |date=March 17, 2009 |title=Darwin in Turkey: 'Most Express Sympathy for the Censorship' |url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/darwin-in-turkey-most-express-sympathy-for-the-censorship-a-613768.html |work=Spiegel Online |location=Hamburg, Germany |publisher=Spiegel Online GmbH |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> In 2012, it was found that the government's internet content filter, designed to prevent the public having access to pornographic websites, also blocked the words 'evolution' and 'Darwin' on one mode of the filter.<ref>{{cite news |last=Chivers |first=Tom |date=December 10, 2011 |title=Darwin censored by the Turkish government's porn filter |url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100123035/darwin-censored-by-the-turkish-governments-porn-filter/ |work=Telegraph Blogs |type=Blog |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> |
|||
===Australia=== |
|||
Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human [[genetic disorder]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Maher B. |title = Evolution: Biology's next top model? |journal = Nature |volume = 458 |issue = 7239 |pages = 695–8 |year = 2009 |doi = 10.1038/458695a |pmid = 19360058 |ref = harv }}</ref> For example, the [[mexican tetra]] is an [[albino]] cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Borowsky R |title = Restoring sight in blind cavefish |journal = Curr. Biol. |volume = 18 |issue = 1 |pages = R23–4 |year = 2008 |pmid = 18177707 |doi = 10.1016/j.cub.2007.11.023 |ref = harv }}</ref> This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Gross JB, Borowsky R, Tabin CJ |editor1-last=Barsh |editor1-first=Gregory S. |title = A novel role for Mc1r in the parallel evolution of depigmentation in independent populations of the cavefish Astyanax mexicanus |journal = PLoS Genet. |volume = 5 |issue = 1 |pages = e1000326 |year = 2009 |pmid = 19119422 |pmc = 2603666 |doi = 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000326 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
[[File:KenHam.JPG|thumb|right|150px|[[Ken Ham]] is a young Earth creationist who helped start [[Creation Ministries International#History|Creation Science Foundation]] (CSF) in [[Queensland]], [[Australia]]]] |
|||
In the late 1970s, Answers in Genesis, a creationist research organization, was founded in Australia. In 1994, Answers in Genesis expanded from Australia and New Zealand to the US.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/history.asp |title=A Brief History Of Answers in Genesis–USA |work=AnswersOnline |publisher=Answers in Genesis Ministries International |location=Hebron, KY |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20000816033826/http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/history.asp |archivedate=2000-08-16}}</ref> It subsequently expanded into the UK, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. Creationists in Australia have been the leading influence on the development of creation science in the US for the last 20 years. Two of the 3 main international creation science organizations all have original roots within Australia—Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries. [[Ken Ham]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_04.html |title=Ken Ham: Biblical Literalist |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2001 |website=[[PBS]] |publisher=[[WGBH-TV|WGBH Educational Foundation]]; Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. |accessdate=2008-12-17}} Supplemental website material for the documentary series ''[[Evolution (TV series)|Evolution]]'' (2001).</ref> Andrew Snelling,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj |title=Answers Research Journal - Creation, Evolution, Scientific Research - Answers Research Journal |website=Answers Research Journal |publisher=Answers in Genesis |location=Hebron, KY |issn=1937-9056 |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> Jason Lisle,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://creation.com/dr-jason-lisle |title=Dr Jason Lisle, Ph.D. |website=Creation.com |publisher=[[Creation Ministries International]] |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> Jonathan Sarfati<ref>{{cite web |url=http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-sarfati |title=Dr. Jonathan Sarfati |website=Creation.com |publisher=Creation Ministries International |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> and Tasman Bruce Walker <ref>{{cite web |url=http://creation.com/dr-tasman-bruce-walker |title=Dr Tasman Bruce Walker |website=Creation.com |publisher=Creation Ministries International |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> have all had significant impact on the development of creationism in Australia, and have brought their teaching to the US. |
|||
In 1980, the [[Queensland]] state government of [[Joh Bjelke-Petersen]] allowed the teaching of creationism as science to school children. On May 29, 2010, it was announced that creationism and intelligent design will be discussed in history classes as part of the new national curriculum. It will be placed in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies."<ref>{{cite news |last=Hennessy |first=Carly |date=May 30, 2010 |title=Intelligent design to be taught in Queensland schools under national curriculum |url=http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/intelligent-design-to-be-taught-in-queensland-schools-under-national-curriculum/story-e6freoof-1225872896736 |newspaper=[[The Courier-Mail]] |location=Surry Hills, Australia |publisher=[[News Corp Australia|News Limited]] |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> One Australian scientist who adheres to creation science is Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://creation.com/dr-pierre-gunnar-jerlstrom |title=Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström |website=Creation.com |publisher=Creation Ministries International |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> |
|||
Many human diseases are not static phenomena, but capable of evolution. [[Viruses]], [[bacteria]], [[fungi]] and [[cancer]]s evolve to be resistant to host [[immune system|immune defences]], as well as [[pharmaceutical drug]]s.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Merlo|first=LM|author2=Pepper, JW |author3=Reid, BJ |author4= Maley, CC |title=Cancer as an evolutionary and ecological process.|journal=Nature reviews. Cancer|date=Dec 2006|volume=6|issue=12|pages=924–35|pmid=17109012|doi=10.1038/nrc2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Pan|first=D|author2=Xue, W |author3=Zhang, W |author4=Liu, H |author5= Yao, X |title=Understanding the drug resistance mechanism of hepatitis C virus NS3/4A to ITMN-191 due to R155K, A156V, D168A/E mutations: a computational study.|journal=Biochimica et Biophysica Acta|date=Oct 2012|volume=1820|issue=10|pages=1526–34|pmid=22698669|doi=10.1016/j.bbagen.2012.06.001}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Woodford|first=N|author2=Ellington, MJ|title=The emergence of antibiotic resistance by mutation.|journal=Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases|date=Jan 2007|volume=13|issue=1|pages=5–18|pmid=17184282|doi=10.1111/j.1469-0691.2006.01492.x}}</ref> These same problems occur in agriculture with [[pesticide]]<ref>{{cite journal|last=Labbé|first=P|author2=Berticat, C |author3=Berthomieu, A |author4=Unal, S |author5=Bernard, C |author6=Weill, M |author7= Lenormand, T |title=Forty years of erratic insecticide resistance evolution in the mosquito Culex pipiens.|journal=PLoS genetics|date=Nov 2007|volume=3|issue=11|pages=e205|pmid=18020711|doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0030205}}</ref> and [[herbicide]]<ref>{{cite journal|last=NEVE|first=P|title=Challenges for herbicide resistance evolution and management: 50�years after Harper|journal=Weed Research|date=October 2007|volume=47|issue=5|pages=365–369|doi=10.1111/j.1365-3180.2007.00581.x}}</ref> resistance. It is possible that we are facing the end of the effective life of most of available [[antibiotics]]<ref>{{cite journal|last=Rodríguez-Rojas|first=A|author2=Rodríguez-Beltrán, J |author3=Couce, A |author4= Blázquez, J |title=Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance: a bitter fight against evolution.|journal=International journal of medical microbiology : IJMM|date=Aug 2013|volume=303|issue=6–7|pages=293–7|pmid=23517688|doi=10.1016/j.ijmm.2013.02.004}}</ref> and predicting the evolution and [[evolvability]]<ref>{{cite journal|last=Schenk|first=MF|author2=Szendro, IG |author3=Krug, J |author4= de Visser, JA |title=Quantifying the adaptive potential of an antibiotic resistance enzyme.|journal=PLoS genetics|date=Jun 2012|volume=8|issue=6|pages=e1002783|pmid=22761587|doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002783}}</ref> of our pathogens and devising strategies to slow or circumvent it is requiring deeper knowledge of the complex forces driving evolution at the molecular level.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Read|first=AF|author2=Lynch, PA |author3=Thomas, MB |title=How to make evolution-proof insecticides for malaria control.|journal=PLoS Biology|date=Apr 7, 2009|volume=7|issue=4|pages=e1000058|pmid=19355786|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000058}}</ref> |
|||
Professor [[Ian Plimer]], an anti-creationist geologist, reported being attacked by creationists.<ref name="Skeptictank">{{cite journal |last=Plimer |first=Ian |authorlink=Ian Plimer |date=December 12, 1998 |title=EVOLUTION V. CREATION DOWN UNDER |url=http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/aevdnun.htm |work=[[Skeptic (U.S. magazine)|Skeptic Mag Hotline]] |location=Altadena, CA |publisher=[[The Skeptics Society]] |issn=2168-3360 |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> A few public lectures have been given in rented rooms at universities, by visiting American speakers, and speakers with doctorates purchased by mail from Florida sites.<ref>[[#Plimer 1994|Plimer 1994]]</ref> A court case taken by Plimer 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."<ref name="Skeptictank" /> The debate was featured on the science television program ''[[Quantum (TV series)|Quantum]]''.<ref>{{cite episode |title='Telling Lies for God'? - One Man's Crusade |url=http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/97lies.htm |accessdate=2010-10-29 |series=[[Quantum (TV series)|Quantum]] |first=Ian |last=Plimer |network=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]] |date=July 17, 1997 |season=12 |number=12 |transcript=Transcript |transcripturl=http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/lxp.htm}}</ref> In 1989, Plimer debated American creationist [[Duane Gish]]. |
|||
In [[computer science]], simulations of evolution using [[evolutionary algorithm]]s and [[artificial life]] started in the 1960s and was extended with simulation of [[artificial selection]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Fraser AS |title = Monte Carlo analyses of genetic models |journal = Nature |volume = 181 |issue = 4603 |pages = 208–9 |year = 1958 |pmid = 13504138 |doi = 10.1038/181208a0 |ref = harv |bibcode = 1958Natur.181..208F }}</ref> [[Evolutionary algorithm|Artificial evolution]] became a widely recognised optimisation method as a result of the work of [[Ingo Rechenberg]] in the 1960s. He used [[Evolution strategy|evolution strategies]] to solve complex engineering problems.<ref>{{cite book |last = Rechenberg |first = Ingo |year = 1973 |title = Evolutionsstrategie – Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution (PhD thesis) |publisher = Fromman-Holzboog |language = German }}</ref> [[Genetic algorithm]]s in particular became popular through the writing of [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]].<ref>{{cite book |last = Holland |first = John H. |year = 1975 |title = Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems |publisher = University of Michigan Press |isbn = 0-262-58111-6 }}</ref> Practical applications also include [[genetic programming|automatic evolution of computer programmes]].<ref>{{cite book |last = Koza |first = John R. |year = 1992 |title = Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection |publisher = MIT Press |isbn = 0-262-11170-5 }}</ref> Evolutionary algorithms are now used to solve multi-dimensional problems more efficiently than software produced by human designers and also to optimise the design of systems.<ref>{{cite journal |author = Jamshidi M |title = Tools for intelligent control: fuzzy controllers, neural networks and genetic algorithms |journal = [[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A]] |volume = 361 |issue = 1809 |pages = 1781–808 |year = 2003 |pmid = 12952685 |doi = 10.1098/rsta.2003.1225 |ref = harv |bibcode = 2003RSPTA.361.1781J }}</ref> |
|||
===Asia=== |
|||
== Social and cultural responses == |
|||
{{Further|Social effect of evolutionary theory|1860 Oxford evolution debate|Creation–evolution controversy|Objections to evolution}} |
|||
[[File:Editorial cartoon depicting Charles Darwin as an ape (1871).jpg|upright|thumb|As evolution became widely accepted in the 1870s, [[caricature]]s of [[Charles Darwin]] with an [[ape]] or [[monkey]] body symbolised evolution.<ref name=Browne2003e>{{cite book |author = Browne, Janet |title = Charles Darwin: The Power of Place |publisher = Pimlico |location = London |year = 2003 |pages = 376–379 |isbn = 0-7126-6837-3 }}</ref>]] |
|||
In the 19th century, particularly after the publication of ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' in 1859, the idea that life had evolved was an active source of academic debate centred on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution. Today, the modern evolutionary synthesis is accepted by a vast majority of scientists.<ref name=Kutschera/> However, evolution remains a contentious concept for some [[Theism|theists]].<ref>For an overview of the philosophical, religious and cosmological controversies, see: {{cite book |authorlink = Daniel Dennett |last = Dennett |first = D |title = [[Darwin's Dangerous Idea|Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life]] |publisher = Simon & Schuster |year = 1995 |isbn = 978-0-684-82471-0 }}<br />*For the scientific and social reception of evolution in the 19th and early 20th centuries, see: {{cite web |last = Johnston |first = Ian C. |title = History of Science: Origins of Evolutionary Theory |work = And Still We Evolve |publisher = Liberal Studies Department, Malaspina University College |url = http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect3.htm |accessdate = May 24, 2007 }}<br />*{{cite book |authorlink = Peter J. Bowler |last = Bowler |first = PJ |title = Evolution: The History of an Idea, Third Edition, Completely Revised and Expanded |publisher = University of California Press |isbn = 978-0-520-23693-6 |year = 2003 }}<br />*{{cite journal |author = Zuckerkandl E |title = Intelligent design and biological complexity |journal = Gene |volume = 385 |pages = 2–18 |year = 2006 |pmid = 17011142 |doi = 10.1016/j.gene.2006.03.025 |ref = harv }}</ref> |
|||
====South Korea==== |
|||
While [[Level of support for evolution#Support for evolution by religious bodies|various religions and denominations]] have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through concepts such as [[theistic evolution]], there are [[creationism|creationists]] who believe that evolution is contradicted by the [[creation myths]] found in their [[religion]]s and who raise various [[objections to evolution]].<ref name=ScottEC/><ref name=Ross2005>{{cite journal |author = Ross, M.R. |year = 2005 |title = Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism |journal = Journal of Geoscience Education |volume = 53 |issue = 3 |page = 319 |url = http://www.nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf |accessdate = April 28, 2008 |ref = harv }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi = 10.1126/science.1163672 |volume = 322 |issue = 5908 |pages = 1637–1638 |last = Hameed |first = Salman |title = Science and Religion: Bracing for Islamic Creationism |journal = Science |accessdate = 2009 |date = December 12, 2008 |url = http://helios.hampshire.edu/~sahCS/Hameed-Science-Creationism.pdf |pmid = 19074331 |ref = harv }}</ref> As had been demonstrated by responses to the publication of ''[[Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation]]'' in 1844, the most controversial aspect of evolutionary biology is the implication of [[human evolution]] that humans share common ancestry with apes and that the mental and [[Evolution of morality|moral faculties]] of humanity have the same types of natural causes as other inherited traits in animals.<ref name=bowler>{{cite book |last = Bowler |first = Peter J. |authorlink = Peter J. Bowler |title = Evolution:The History of an Idea |publisher = University of California Press |year = 2003 |isbn = 0-520-23693-9 }}</ref> In some countries, notably the United States, these tensions between science and religion have fuelled the current [[Creation–evolution controversy|creation-evolution controversy]], a religious conflict focusing on [[politics of creationism|politics]] and [[creation and evolution in public education|public education]].<ref>{{cite journal |author = Spergel D. N. |title = Science communication. Public acceptance of evolution |journal = Science |volume = 313 |issue = 5788 |pages = 765–66 |year = 2006 |pmid = 16902112 |doi = 10.1126/science.1126746 |last2 = Scott |first2 = EC |last3 = Okamoto |first3 = S |ref = harv }}</ref> While other scientific fields such as [[physical cosmology|cosmology]]<ref name="wmap">{{cite journal |doi = 10.1086/377226 |title = First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters |first = D. N. |last = Spergel |journal = The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series |volume = 148 |year = 2003 |issue = 1 |pages = 175–94 |last2 = Verde |first2 = L. |last3 = Peiris |first3 = H. V. |last4 = Komatsu |first4 = E. |last5 = Nolta |first5 = M. R. |last6 = Bennett |first6 = C. L. |last7 = Halpern |first7 = M. |last8 = Hinshaw |first8 = G. |last9 = Jarosik |first9 = N. |ref = harv |bibcode = 2003ApJS..148..175S |arxiv = astro-ph/0302209 |first10 = A. |first11 = M. |first12 = S. S. |first13 = L. |first14 = G. S. |first15 = J. L. |first16 = E. |first17 = E. L. }}</ref> and [[Earth science]]<ref name="zircon">{{cite journal |author = Wilde SA, Valley JW, Peck WH, Graham CM |title = Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago |journal = Nature |volume = 409 |issue = 6817 |pages = 175–78 |year = 2001 |pmid = 11196637 |doi = 10.1038/35051550 |ref = harv }}</ref> also conflict with literal interpretations of many religious texts, evolutionary biology experiences significantly more opposition from religious literalists. |
|||
Since 1981, the Korea Association for Creation Research has grown to 16 branches, with 1000 members and 500 Ph.Ds. On August 22–24, 1991, recognizing the 10th anniversary of KACR, an International Symposium on Creation Science was held with 4,000 in attendance.<ref name="Chon-Ho_Hyon">{{cite journal |author=Chon-Ho Hyon |date=October 1997 |title=The Creation Science Movement in Korea |url=http://www.icr.org/article/creation-science-movement-korea/ |journal=Acts & Facts |location=San Diego, CA |publisher=Institute for Creation Research |volume=25 |issue=10 |issn=1094-8562 |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.creation.or.kr/ |title=한국창조과학회 |website=Korea Association for Creation Research |publisher=Korea Association for Creation Research |location=Seoul, South Korea |trans_title=Korea Association for Creation Research |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> In 1990, the book ''The Natural Sciences'' was written by Dr. [[Kim Young-gil|Young-Gil Kim]] and 26 other fellow scientists in Korea with a creationist viewpoint. The textbook drew the interest of college communities, and today, many South Korean universities are using it. |
|||
Since 1991, creation science has become a regular university course at [[Myongji University]], which has a centre for creation research. Since that time, other universities have begun to offer creation science courses. At [[Handong Global University]], creationist Dr. Young-Gil Kim was inaugurated as president in March 1995. At Myongji University, creationist Dr. Woongsang Lee is a biology professor. The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology is where the Research Association of Creation Science was founded and many graduate students are actively involved.<ref name="Chon-Ho_Hyon" /> In 2008, a survey found that 36% of South Koreans disagreed with the statement that "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." In May 2012, publishers of high school science textbooks decided to remove references to evolution following a petition by a creationist group.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Soo Bin Park |date=June 7, 2012 |title=South Korea surrenders to creationist demands |url=http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773 |journal=Nature |location=London |publisher=Nature Publishing Group |volume=486 |issue=7401 |page=14 |doi=10.1038/486014a |issn=0028-0836 |accessdate=2012-07-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/news/2012/06/creationist-success-south-korea-007434 |title=Creationist success in South Korea? |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=June 5, 2012 |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2012-07-03}}</ref> However, the ensuing controversy prompted the government to appoint a panel of scientists to look into the matter, and the government urged the publishers to keep the references to evolution following the recommendation of the panel.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nature.com/news/science-wins-over-creationism-in-south-korea-1.11377 |title=Science wins over creationism in South Korea |author=Soo Bin Park |date=September 6, 2012 |website=Nature News |publisher=Nature Publishing Group |location=London |doi=10.1038/nature.2012.11377 |accessdate=2013-06-18}}</ref> |
|||
The teaching of evolution in American secondary school biology classes was uncommon in most of the first half of the 20th century. The ''[[Scopes Trial]]'' decision of 1925 caused the subject to become very rare in American secondary biology textbooks for a generation, but it was gradually re-introduced later and became legally protected with the 1968 ''[[Epperson v. Arkansas]]'' decision. Since then, the competing religious belief of creationism was legally disallowed in secondary school curricula in various decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, but it returned in [[Pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] form as [[intelligent design]], to be excluded once again in the 2005 ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' case.<ref name=BioScience>{{cite journal |last = Branch |first = Glenn |title = Understanding Creationism after ''Kitzmiller'' |journal = BioScience |date = March 2007 |volume = 57 |issue = 3 |pages = 278–284 |doi = 10.1641/B570313 |publisher = American Institute of Biological Sciences }}</ref> |
|||
== |
===Americas=== |
||
{{Wikipedia books|Evolution}} |
|||
====Brazil==== |
|||
{{cmn|2| |
|||
[[Brazil]] has had two creationist societies since the 1970s—the Brazilian Association for Creation Research and the Brazilian Creation Society. According to a 2004 survey, 31% of Brazil believe that "the first humans were created no more than 10,000 years ago."<ref name="Numbers 2006"/> |
|||
* [[Biocultural evolution]] |
|||
* [[Evolutionary anthropology]] |
|||
====United States==== |
|||
* [[Evolutionary epistemology]] |
|||
{{See also|Intelligent design|Creation science}} |
|||
* [[Evolutionary history of plants]] |
|||
[[File:AIG museum.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Creation Museum]] is a young Earth creationism museum run by [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG) in [[Petersburg, Boone County, Kentucky|Petersburg, Kentucky]]]] |
|||
* [[Evolutionary neuroscience]] |
|||
In the US some religious communities have refused to accept naturalistic explanations and tried to counter them. The term started to become associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth in 1929.<ref name="Numbers_Antievolutionists">{{cite web |url=http://www.counterbalance.net/history/anticreat-frame.html |title=Antievolutionists and Creationists |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L |website=Counterbalance Interactive Library |publisher=Counterbalance Foundation |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2007-08-15}}</ref> Several US states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the [[Scopes Trial]]. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in most of the US until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching [[Creation and evolution in public education#United States|creationism in American public schools]] in the form of Flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the [[United States Constitution|constitutional]] [[Separation of church and state in the United States|separation of church and state]] by a succession of legal judgments.<ref name="Flank_April2006">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm |title=Creationism/ID: A Short Legal History |last=Flank |first=Lenny |website=Talk Reason |date=April 24, 2006 |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref> The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and Flood geology.<ref name="Numbers_Antievolutionists" /> |
|||
* [[Evolution of biological complexity]] |
|||
* [[Neuroculture]] |
|||
Most of the anti-evolutionists of the 1920s believed in forms of old Earth creationism, which accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the Earth and believes that these findings do not contradict the Book of Genesis, but rejects evolution. At that time only a minority held to young Earth creationism, proponents of which believe that the Earth is thousands rather than billions of years old, and typically believe that the days in chapter one of the Book of Genesis are 24 hours in length. In the 1960s, this became the most prominent form of anti-evolution. From the 1860s forms of theistic evolution had developed; this term refers to beliefs in creation which are compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth, as held by mainstream Christian denominations. There are other religious people who support creationism, but in terms of allegorical interpretations of the Book of Genesis. |
|||
* [[Timeline of evolutionary history of life]] |
|||
* [[Universal Darwinism]] |
|||
By the start of the 20th century, evolution was widely accepted and was beginning to be taught in American public schools. After [[World War I]], popular belief that German aggression resulted from a Darwinian doctrine of "survival of the fittest" inspired [[William Jennings Bryan]] to campaign against the teaching of Darwinian ideas of human evolution.<ref name="encarta" /> In the 1920s, the [[Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy]] led to an upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor in which schools were prevented from teaching evolution through state laws such as Tennessee’s 1925 [[Butler Act]],<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper">{{cite web |url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |authorlink=Barbara Forrest |date=May 2007 |website=[[Center for Inquiry]] |publisher=Center for Inquiry |location=Washington, D.C. |type=A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}}, [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 19 of 139|Context, p. 19]].</ref> and by getting evolution removed from biology textbooks nationwide. ''Creationism'' became associated in common usage with opposition to evolution.<ref name="tolenny">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar06.html |title=The History of Creationism |last=Flank |first=Lenny |date=March 2006 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |type=Post of the Month |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref> |
|||
In 1961 in the US, an attempt to repeal the Butler Act failed.<ref name="Flank_April2006" /> ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'' by [[Henry M. Morris]] brought the [[Seventh-day Adventist Church|Seventh-day Adventist]] [[Bible|biblically]] literal Flood geology of [[George McCready Price]] to a wider audience, popularizing the idea of young Earth creationism,<ref name="rsf" /> and by 1965 the term "scientific creationism" had gained currency.<ref name="mclean">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html |title=McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2014-03-27}} Decision, January 5, 1982.</ref> The 1968 ''Epperson v. Arkansas'' judgment ruled that state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion.<ref name="eva">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html |title=Edwards v. Aguillard |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2011-03-10}}</ref> and when in 1975 ''Daniel v. Waters'' ruled that a state law requiring biology textbooks discussing "origins or creation of man and his world" to give equal treatment to creation as per the Book of Genesis was unconstitutional, a new group identifying themselves as creationists promoted 'creation science' which omitted explicit biblical references.<ref name="Flank_April2006" /> |
|||
In 1981, the state of [[Arkansas]] passed a law, Act 590, mandating that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution, and defining creation science as positing the "creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing," as well as explaining the Earth's geology by "the occurrence of a worldwide flood."<ref name="mclean" /> This was ruled unconstitutional at ''[[McLean v. Arkansas]]'' in January 1982 as the creationists' methods were not scientific but took the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempted to find scientific support for it.<ref name="mclean" /> Louisiana introduced similar legislation that year. A series of judgments and appeals led to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' that it too violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /> |
|||
"Creation science" could no longer be taught in public schools, and in drafts of the creation science school textbook ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'' all references to creation or creationism were changed to refer to intelligent design.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /> Proponents of the intelligent design movement organised widespread campaigning to considerable effect. They officially denied any links to creation or religion, and claimed that "creationism" only referred to young Earth creationism with Flood geology;<ref name="witt">{{cite web |url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/post_6001764.html |title=Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design |last=Witt |first=Jonathan |date=December 20, 2005 |website=Evolution News & Views |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> but in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' the court found intelligent design to be religious, and unable to dissociate itself from its creationist roots, as part of the ruling that teaching intelligent design in public school science classes was unconstitutional.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /> |
|||
The percentage of people in the US who accept the idea of human evolution declined from 45% in 1985 to 40% in 2005.<ref name="Science survey"/> A [[Gallup (company)|Gallup]] poll reported that the percentage of people in the US who believe in a strict interpretation of creationism had fallen to 40% in 2010 after a high of 46% in 2006. The highest the percentage has risen between 1982 and 2010 was 47% in 1994 and 2000 according to the report. The report found that Americans who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view while those with a college education are more likely to hold a view involving evolution. 47% of those with no more than a high school education believe in creationism while 22% of those with a post graduate education hold that view. The poll also found that church attendance dramatically increased adherence to a strict creationist view (22% for those who do not attend church, 60% for those who attend weekly).<ref name="gallup">{{cite web |url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx |title=Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism |last=Newport |first=Frank |date=December 17, 2010 |website=Gallup.com |location=Omaha, NE |publisher=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup, Inc.]] |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref> The higher percentage of [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] who identified with a creationist view is described as evidence of the strong relationship between religion and politics in the US. Republicans also attend church weekly more than [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] or [[Independent (voter)|independent]] voters. Non-Republican voters are twice as likely to hold a [[nontheism|nontheistic]] view of evolution than Republican voters.<ref name="gallup" /> |
|||
Among US states, acceptance of evolution has a strong negative correlation with [[religiosity]] and a strong positive relationship with science degrees awarded, bachelor degree attainment, advanced degree attainment, average teacher salary, and [[Gross domestic product|GDP]] per capita. In other words, states in which more people say that religion is very important to their lives tend to show less acceptance of evolution. The better the education of individuals, their educational system, or the higher their income, the more they accept evolution, though the US as a country has a comparatively well educated population but lower acceptance of evolution than other countries.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Heddy |first1=Benjamin C. |last2=Nadelson |first2=Louis S. |date=March 26, 2013 |title=The variables related to public acceptance of evolution in the United States |url=http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/6/1/3 |journal=Evolution: Education and Outreach |location=Heidelberg, Germany |publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media]] |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=1–14 |doi=10.1186/1936-6434-6-3 |issn=1936-6434 |accessdate=2013-03-28}}</ref> |
|||
==Prevalence== |
|||
{{Main|Level of support for evolution}} |
|||
[[File:Views on Evolution.svg|thumb|right|440px|Views on human evolution in various countries<ref>{{cite journal |last=Le Page |first=Michael |date=April 19, 2008 |title=Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution |url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826523.000-evolution-myths-it-doesnt-matter-if-people-dont-grasp-evolution.html |journal=[[New Scientist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Reed Business Information]] |volume=198 |issue=2652 |page=31 |doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7 |issn=0262-4079 |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Hecht |first=Jeff |date=August 19, 2006 |title=Why doesn't America believe in evolution? |url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html |journal=New Scientist |location=London |publisher=Reed Business Information |volume=191 |issue=2565 |page=11 |doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X |issn=0262-4079 |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref>]] |
|||
Most vocal literalist creationists are from the US, and strict creationist views are much less common in other developed countries. According to a study published in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', a survey of the US, Turkey, [[Japan]] and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.<ref name="Science survey"/> There seems to be no significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.<ref>{{Citation |
|||
| url = http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/5/24/weekend-update-youd-have-to-be-science-illiterate-to-think-b.html |
|||
| title = The Cultural Cognition Project |
|||
| accessdate = May 2014 |
|||
}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |
|||
| last = Shtulman |
|||
| first = Andrew |
|||
| title = Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution |
|||
| journal = Cognitive Psychology |
|||
| volume = 52 |
|||
| issue = 2 |
|||
| year = 2006 |
|||
| pages = 170–194 |
|||
| url = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028505000745 |
|||
| doi = 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
</ref> |
|||
== |
===Australia=== |
||
A 2009 [[Nielsen Holdings|Nielsen]] poll showed that almost a quarter of Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins". Forty-two percent believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32 percent believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God."<ref>{{cite news |last=Maley |first=Jacqueline |date=December 19, 2009 |title=God is still tops but angels rate well |url=http://www.theage.com.au/national/god-is-still-tops-but-angels-rate-well-20091218-l5v9.html |newspaper=[[The Age]] |location=Melbourne, Australia |publisher=Fairfax Media |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> |
|||
{{Reflist|30em}} |
|||
===Canada=== |
|||
== Further reading == |
|||
A 2012 survey by [[Angus Reid Public Opinion]] revealed that 61 percent of Canadians believe in evolution. The poll asked "Where did human beings come from — did we start as singular cells millions of year ago and evolve into our present form, or did God create us in his image 10,000 years ago?"<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Believe In Evolution: Canadians More Likely Than Americans To Endorse Evolution |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/06/believe-in-evolution_n_1861373.html |date=September 6, 2012 |work=[[The Huffington Post#International editions|HuffPost Canada]] |publisher=[[AOL]] |accessdate=2012-04-28}} |
|||
{{see|Bibliography of biology}} |
|||
*{{cite press release |last=Canseco |first=Mario |date=September 5, 2012 |title=Britons and Canadians More Likely to Endorse than Americans |url=http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012.09.05_CreEvo.pdf |format=PDF |location=New York |publisher=[[Angus Reid Public Opinion]] |accessdate=2014-05-11}}</ref> |
|||
{{Library resources box |
|||
|onlinebooks=yes |
|||
|by=no |
|||
|lcheading= Evolution (Biology) |
|||
|label=Evolution |
|||
}} |
|||
{{refbegin}} |
|||
'''Introductory reading''' |
|||
* {{cite book |author = Carroll, S. |authorlink = Sean B. Carroll |title = [[Endless Forms Most Beautiful]] |publisher = W.W. Norton |location = New York |year = 2005 |isbn = 0-393-06016-0 }} |
|||
* {{cite book |author = [[Brian Charlesworth|Charlesworth, C.B.]] and [[Deborah Charlesworth|Charlesworth, D.]] |title = Evolution |publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] |location = Oxfordshire |year = 2003 |isbn = 0-19-280251-8 }} |
|||
* {{cite book |author= Coyne, J. |authorlink = Jerry Coyne |title = Why evolution is true |publisher = Penguin Group |year = 2009 |isbn = 978-0-670-02053-9 }} |
|||
* {{cite book |author = Gould, S.J. |authorlink = Stephen Jay Gould |title = [[Wonderful Life (book)|Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History]] |publisher = W.W. Norton |location = New York |year = 1989 |isbn = 0-393-30700-X }} |
|||
* {{cite book |author = Jones, J.S. |authorlink = Steve Jones (biologist) |title = [[Almost Like a Whale|Almost Like a Whale: The Origin of Species Updated]]. (''American title:'' ''Darwin's Ghost'') |publisher = Ballantine Books |location = New York |year = 2001 |isbn = 0-345-42277-5 }} |
|||
* {{cite book |last = Mader |first = Sylvia S. |others = Murray P. Pendarvis |title = Biology |edition = 9th |year = 2007 |publisher = [[McGraw Hill]] |isbn = 978-0-07-325839-3 }} |
|||
* {{cite book |author = Maynard Smith, J. |authorlink = John Maynard Smith |title = [[The Theory of Evolution|The Theory of Evolution: Canto Edition]] |publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]] |year = 1993 |isbn = 0-521-45128-0 }} |
|||
* {{cite book |author = Pallen, M.J. |title = The Rough Guide to Evolution |publisher = [[Rough Guides]] |year = 2009 |isbn = 978-1-85828-946-5 }} |
|||
===Europe=== |
|||
'''Advanced reading''' |
|||
In Europe, literalist creationism is more widely rejected, though regular opinion polls are not available. Most people accept that evolution is the most widely accepted scientific theory as taught in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, [[Catholic Church and evolution|papal acceptance of evolutionary creationism]] as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. |
|||
* {{cite book |author = [[Nick Barton|Barton, N.H.]], [[Derek Briggs|Briggs, D.E.G.]], [[Jonathan Eisen|Eisen, J.A.]], Goldstein, D.B. and Patel, N.H. |title = Evolution |publisher = [[Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press]] |year = 2007 |isbn = 0-87969-684-2 }} |
|||
* {{cite book |author = [[Jerry Coyne|Coyne, J.A.]] and [[H. Allen Orr|Orr, H.A.]] |title = Speciation |publisher = Sinauer Associates |location = Sunderland |year = 2004 |isbn = 0-87893-089-2 }} |
|||
* {{cite book |author = [[Carl Bergstrom|Bergstrom, C.T.]] and Lee Alan Dugatkin |title = Evolution|publisher = W.W. Norton |location = New York |year = 2011 |isbn = 0-393-92592-7 }} |
|||
* {{cite book | last = Gould | first = S.J. | authorlink = Stephen Jay Gould | title = [[The Structure of Evolutionary Theory]] | publisher = Belknap Press ([[Harvard University Press]]) | location = Cambridge | year = 2002 | isbn = 978-0-674-00613-3 }} |
|||
* {{cite book |author = [[John Maynard Smith|Maynard Smith, J.]] and [[Eörs Szathmáry|Szathmáry, E.]] |title = [[The Major Transitions in Evolution]] |publisher = Oxford University Press |location = Oxfordshire |year = 1997 |isbn = 0-19-850294-X }} |
|||
* {{cite book |author = Mayr, E. |authorlink = Ernst W. Mayr |title = What Evolution Is |publisher = Basic Books |location = New York |year = 2001 |isbn = 0-465-04426-3 }} |
|||
*[[Alessandro Minelli|Minelli A.]] (2009) – Forms of Becoming. 242 pp. Princeton: Princeton University Press |
|||
* {{cite book |author = Olson, Wendy; Hall, Brian Keith |title = Keywords and concepts in evolutionary developmental biology |publisher = Harvard University Press |location = Cambridge |year = 2003 |isbn = 0-674-02240-8 }} |
|||
{{refend}} |
|||
In the UK, a 2006 poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolutionary theory, and the rest did not know.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 26, 2006 |title=Britons unconvinced on evolution |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm |work=BBC News |location=London |publisher=BBC |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=262 |title=BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 30, 2006 |website=[[Ipsos MORI]] |publisher=Ipsos MORI |location=London |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> A subsequent 2010 [[YouGov]] poll on the correct explanation for the origin of humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% didn't know.<ref name="YouGov">{{cite web |url=http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Pol-Prospect-Evolution-181110.pdf |title=The origin of humans |date=November 20, 2010 |website=YouGov Global |publisher=[[YouGov|YouGov Plc]] |location=London |type=Prospect Survey Results |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> The former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the worldwide [[Anglican Communion]], views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.<ref name="Archbishop_2006">{{cite news |last=Bates |first=Stephen |date=March 20, 2006 |title=Archbishop: stop teaching creationism |url=http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/21/religion.topstories3 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> |
|||
== External links == |
|||
<!-- IMPORTANT! Please do not add any links before discussing them on the talk page. --> |
|||
{{Spoken Wikipedia|Evolution.ogg|2005-04-18}} <!-- updated changed sections 2005-04-18 --> |
|||
{{Sister project links|evolution|voy=no}} |
|||
In Italy, Education Minister [[Letizia Moratti]] wanted to retire evolution from the secondary school level; after one week of massive protests, she reversed her opinion.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=May 3, 2004 |title=Italy Keeps Darwin in its Classrooms |url=http://www.dw.de/italy-keeps-darwin-in-its-classrooms/a-1188423-1 |work=Deutsche Welle |location=Bonn, Germany |publisher=ARD |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Lorenzi |first=Rossella |date=April 28, 2004 |title=No evolution for Italian teens |url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/22817/title/No-evolution-for-Italian-teens/ |journal=[[The Scientist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Faculty of 1000]] |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> |
|||
;General information |
|||
* {{In Our Time|Evolution|p00545gl|Evolution}} |
|||
* {{cite web |url = http://www.newscientist.com/topic/evolution |title = Evolution |publisher = New Scientist |accessdate = May 30, 2011 }} |
|||
* {{cite web |url = http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/ |title = Evolution Resources from the National Academies |publisher = [[U.S. National Academy of Sciences]] |accessdate = May 30, 2011 }} |
|||
* {{cite web |url = http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ |title = Understanding Evolution: your one-stop resource for information on Evolution |publisher = University of California, Berkeley |accessdate = May 30, 2011 }} |
|||
* {{cite web |url = http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/darwin/textonly/index.jsp |title = Evolution of Evolution – 150 Years of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" |publisher = [[National Science Foundation]] |accessdate = May 30, 2011 }} |
|||
There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious groups throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.<ref name="Economist_2007" /> In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has released a draft report titled ''The dangers of creationism in education'' on June 8, 2007,<ref name="Doc11297">{{cite web |url=http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11678&Language=EN |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=June 8, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe |type=Report |id=Doc. 11297 |accessdate=2014-03-22}}</ref> reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4, 2007.<ref name="R1580" /> |
|||
;Experiments concerning the process of biological evolution |
|||
* {{cite web |url = http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html |title = Experimental Evolution – Michigan State University|author = Lenski RE|authorlink=Richard Lenski|accessdate = Jul 31, 2013}} |
|||
Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in September 2004, under education minister [[Ljiljana Čolić]], only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.<ref name="Serbian_schools" /> "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties" says the BBC report, Čolić's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive" and announced that the decision was reversed.<ref name="Serbia_Darwin" /> Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 16, 2004 |title='Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3663196.stm |work=BBC News |location=London |publisher=BBC |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> |
|||
* [http://www.pnas.org/content/111/29/10620.full Algorithms, games, and evolution], ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA'' |
|||
Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006 when the Deputy Education Minister, [[Mirosław Orzechowski]], denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education [[Roman Giertych]], has stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory." Giertych's father, [[Member of the European Parliament]] [[Maciej Giertych]], has opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that [[dinosaur]]s and humans co-existed.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=December 18, 2006 |title=And finally... |url=http://www.wbj.pl/?command=article&id=35336&type=wbj |newspaper=[[Warsaw Business Journal]] |location=Warsaw, Poland |publisher=Valkea Media |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> |
|||
===United States=== |
|||
[[File:Creationist car.jpg|230px|right|thumb|Anti-evolution car in [[Athens, Georgia]]]] |
|||
According to a 2014 Gallup poll,<ref name="Gallup2014">{{cite web |url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx |title=In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins |last=Newport |first=Frank |date=November 19, 2004 |website=Gallup.com |publisher=Gallup, Inc. |location=Omaha, NE |accessdate=2014-05-10}}</ref> about 42% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."<ref name="Gallup2014" /> Another 31% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,"and 19% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."<ref name="Gallup2014" /> |
|||
Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with [[postgraduate degree]]s, 74% accept evolution.<ref>{{cite AV media |people=Newport, Frank (Host) |date=June 11, 2007 |title=Evolution Beliefs |url=http://www.gallup.com/video/27838/Evolution-Beliefs.aspx |series=The Gallup Poll Daily Briefing |accessdate=2014-03-27 |location=Omaha, NE |publisher=Gallup, Inc.}}</ref><ref name="Robinson_BA">{{cite web |url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm |title=Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation |last=Robinson |first=Bruce A. |date=November 1995 |website=ReligiousTolerance.org |publisher=Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance |location=Kingston, Canada |accessdate=2007-11-11}}</ref> In 1987, ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (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.'"<ref name="Robinson_BA" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Martz |first1=Larry |last2=McDaniel |first2=Ann |date=June 29, 1987 |title=Keeping God Out of the Classroom |url=http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/8700012181/keeping-god-out-classroom |journal=[[Newsweek]] |volume=109 |issue=26 |page=23 |issn=0028-9604 |accessdate=2014-03-28}}</ref> |
|||
A 2000 poll for [[People for the American Way]] found 70% of the US public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.<ref name="pfaw">{{cite web |url=http://media.pfaw.org/pdf/creationism/creationism-poll.pdf |title=Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public Opinion |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 2000 |website=[[People For the American Way]] |publisher=People For the American Way |location=Washington, D.C. |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-28}}</ref> |
|||
According to a study published in ''Science'', between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult [[North America]]ns who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the US the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the US was Turkey (25%).<ref name="Science survey"/> |
|||
According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in Creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.<ref name="Fox Creationism Poll">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 7, 2011 |title=Fox News Poll: Creationism |url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/07/fox-news-poll-creationism/ |work=[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] |publisher=[[News Corporation]] |accessdate=2011-09-22}}</ref> 21% believe in 'the theory of evolution as outlined by |
|||
Darwin and other scientists' (up from 15% in 1999), and 27% answered that both are true (up from 26% in 1999).<ref name="Fox Creationism Poll" /> |
|||
In September 2012, educator and television personality Bill Nye spoke with the [[Associated Press]] and aired his fears about acceptance of creationist theory, believing that teaching children that creationism is the only true answer and without letting them understand the way science works will prevent any future innovation in the world of science.<ref name="APNews-20120924"/><ref name="Youtube-20120823" /> In February 2014, Nye defended [[Creation–evolution controversy|evolution in the classroom]] in a [[Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate|debate]] with creationist Ken Ham on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern, [[History of science#Modern science|scientific era]].<ref name="NBC-20140204">{{cite news |last=Boyle |first=Alan |authorlink=Alan Boyle |date=February 5, 2014 |title=Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/bill-nye-wins-over-science-crowd-evolution-debate-n22836 |work=[[NBCNews.com]] |accessdate=2014-02-06}}</ref><ref name="TG-20140204">{{cite news |last=Kopplin |first=Zack |authorlink=Zack Kopplin |date=February 4, 2014 |title=Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists |url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/04/bill-nye-science-guy-evolution-debate-creationists |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2014-02-06}}</ref><ref name="Debate-20140204">{{cite web |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI |title=Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official) |last=Foreman |first=Tom (Moderator) |authorlink=Tom Foreman |date=February 4, 2014 |website=YouTube |publisher=Answers in Genesis |location=Hebron, KY |accessdate=2014-02-05}} Program begins at 13:14.</ref> |
|||
====Education controversies==== |
|||
[[File:Truth fish.jpg|thumb|right|The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the [[Parodies of the ichthys symbol|Darwin fish]]]] |
|||
{{Main|Creation–evolution controversy}} |
|||
In the US, creationism has become centered in the political controversy over [[Creation and evolution in public education#United States|creation and evolution in public education]], and whether teaching creationism in science classes conflicts with the separation of church and state. Currently, the controversy comes in the form of whether advocates of the intelligent design movement who wish to "[[Teach the Controversy]]" in science classes have conflated [[Relationship between religion and science|science with religion]].<ref name="kitz" /> |
|||
[[People for the American Way]] polled 1500 North Americans about the teaching of evolution and creationism in November and December 1999. They found that most North Americans were not familiar with Creationism, and most North Americans had heard of evolution, but many did not fully understand the basics of the theory. The main findings were: |
|||
{{bar box |
|||
|title= Americans believe that:<ref name="pfaw"/> |
|||
|barwidth=200px |
|||
|width=800px |
|||
|bars= |
|||
{{bar percent|Public schools should teach evolution only|silver|60|20%}} |
|||
{{bar percent|Only evolution should be taught in science classes, religious explanations can be discussed in another class|gray|51|17%}} |
|||
{{bar percent|Creationism can be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory|silver|87|29%}} |
|||
{{bar percent|Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class|gray|39|13%}} |
|||
{{bar percent|Only Creationism should be taught|silver|48|16%}} |
|||
{{bar percent|Teach both evolution and Creationism, but unsure how to do so|gray|12|4%}} |
|||
{{bar percent|No opinion|silver|3|1%}} |
|||
}} |
|||
In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously based origin belief is superior to those of other [[belief system]]s, in particular those made through secular or scientific rationale. Political creationists are opposed by many individuals and organizations who have made detailed critiques and given testimony in various court cases that the [[objections to evolution|alternatives to scientific reasoning offered by creationists]] are opposed by the [[scientific consensus|consensus]] of the scientific community.<ref name="aaas" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Delgado |first=Cynthia |date=July 28, 2006 |title=Finding the Evolution in Medicine |url=http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm |journal=[[NIH Record]] |location=Bethesda, MD |publisher=[[United States Department of Health and Human Services]]; [[National Institutes of Health]] |issn=1057-5871 |accessdate=2014-03-31}} "...While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory." — [[Brian Alters]]</ref> |
|||
==Criticism== |
|||
===Christian criticism=== |
|||
Many Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism. Several religious organizations, among them the [[Catholic Church]], hold that their faith does not conflict with the scientific consensus regarding evolution.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion |title=Statements from Religious Organizations |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2011-03-10}}</ref> The [[Clergy Letter Project]], which has collected more than 13,000 signatures, is an "endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible." |
|||
In his 2002 article "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem," George Murphy argues against the view that life on Earth, in all its forms, is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes [[Phillip E. Johnson]]'s claim that he is speaking "of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Christ." The basis of this theology is [[Isaiah]] 45:15, "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." |
|||
Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by [[Roman Empire|Roman]] authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require Divine action. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" Himself. It was for this reason that [[Paul the Apostle]] wrote, in [[Epistle to the Philippians|Philippians]] 2:5-8: |
|||
: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." |
|||
Murphy concludes that,<blockquote>"Just as the Son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on a cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws which God has chosen. This enables us to understand the world on its own terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation."</blockquote>For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a [[Naturalism (philosophy)#Methodological naturalism|''methodological'' naturalism]], meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a [[Metaphysical naturalism|''metaphysical'' naturalism]], which proposes that nature is all that there is.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Murphy |first=George L. |date=Second quarter 2002 |title=Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem |url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/nrcse/IDTHG.html |journal=Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology |location=Chicago, IL |publisher=Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Division for Ministry |volume=IV |issue=2 |oclc=52753579 |accessdate=2014-03-31}} Reprinted with permission.</ref> |
|||
===Teaching of creationism=== |
|||
Other Christians have expressed qualms about teaching creationism. In March 2006, then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of [[category mistake]], as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." The views of the [[Episcopal Church (United States)|Episcopal Church]] - a major American-based branch of the Anglican Communion - on teaching creationism resemble those of Williams.<ref name="Archbishop_2006" /> |
|||
In April 2010, the [[American Academy of Religion]] issued ''Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K‐12 Public Schools in the United States'' which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, they, as well as other "worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/news/2010/07/american-academy-religion-teaching-creationism-005712 |title=American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism |date=July 23, 2010 |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2010-08-09}}</ref> |
|||
Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, from the biology program at the [[University of Minnesota]], reflect on the relevance of teaching creationism in the article ''The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism?'' They conclude that "Despite decades of science education reform, numerous legal decisions declaring the teaching of creationism in public-school science classes to be unconstitutional, overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, and the many denunciations of creationism as nonscientific by professional scientific societies, creationism remains popular throughout the United States."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Moore |first1=Randy |last2=Cotner |first2=Sehoya |date=May 2009 |title=The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism? |journal=[[BioScience]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=Oxford University Press on behalf of the [[American Institute of Biological Sciences]] |volume=59 |issue=5 |pages=429–435 |doi=10.1525/bio.2009.59.5.10 |issn=0006-3568 |jstor=25502451}}</ref> |
|||
===Scientific criticism=== |
|||
{{Main|Creation–evolution controversy}} |
|||
Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence and testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is often based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts.<ref>[[#National Research Council 2008|National Research Council 2008]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=12 p. 12]</ref> Some creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and often do not allow predictions at all. Therefore, these can neither be confirmed nor disproved by scientists.<ref name="SEaC">[[#National Research Council 2008|National Research Council 2008]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=10 p. 10], "In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations."</ref> However, many creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its [[geological history of Earth|geological history]] and the origins, [[biogeography|distributions]] and [[Phylogenetics|relationships]] of living organisms found on it. [[History of science|Early science]] incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually [[Falsifiability|falsified]] and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence that often allows the accurate prediction of future results.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html |title=An Index to Creationist Claims |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |year=2006 |publisher=TalkOrigins Archive |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2012-12-09}}</ref><ref>[[#Futuyma 2005|Futuyma 2005]]</ref> Some scientists, such as [[Stephen Jay Gould]],<ref name="RoA">[[#Gould 1999|Gould 1999]]</ref> consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called [[non-overlapping magisteria]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |date=March 1997 |title=Nonoverlapping Magisteria |url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html |journal=[[Natural History (magazine)|Natural History]] |location=Research Triangle Park, NC |publisher=Natural History Magazine, Inc. |volume=106 |pages=16–22 |issue=3 |issn=0028-0712 |accessdate=2014-03-31}}</ref> This view is also held by many theologians, who believe that [[Unmoved mover|ultimate origins]] and [[meaning of life|meaning]] are addressed by religion, but favour verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as [[Richard Dawkins]],<ref>[[#Dawkins 2006|Dawkins 2006]], p. 5</ref> reject the non-overlapping magisteria and argue that, in disproving literal interpretations of creationists, the scientific method also undermines religious texts as a source of truth. Irrespective of this diversity in viewpoints, since creationist beliefs are not supported by empirical evidence, the scientific consensus is that any attempt to teach creationism as science should be rejected.<ref name="RoyalSociety_2006" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism |title=Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism |last1=Matsumura |first1=Molleen |last2=Mead |first2=Louise |date=February 14, 2001 |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2008-11-04}} Updated 2007-07-31.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php |title=Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? |last=Myers |first=PZ |authorlink=PZ Myers |date=June 18, 2006 |website=[[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] |publisher=[[ScienceBlogs|ScienceBlogs LLC]] |type=Blog |accessdate=2007-09-12}}</ref> |
|||
==Organizations== |
|||
{| style="width:100%;" |
|||
|- style="vertical-align:top;" |
|||
|width=47%| |
|||
'''Creationism (in general)''' |
|||
* [[American Scientific Affiliation]] |
|||
* [[Christians in Science]] |
|||
'''Young Earth Creationism''' |
|||
* [[Answers in Genesis]], a group promoting young Earth creationism |
|||
* [[Creation Ministries International]], an organisation promoting biblical creation |
|||
* [[Creation Research Society]] |
|||
* [[Institute for Creation Research]] |
|||
'''Old Earth Creationism''' |
|||
* Old Earth Ministries (OEM), formerly Answers In Creation (AIC), led by Greg Neyman<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.oldearth.org/about_aic.htm |title=About Old Earth Ministries? |website=Old Earth Ministries |publisher=Old Earth Ministries |location=Springfield, OH |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref> |
|||
* [[Reasons To Believe|Reasons to Believe]], led by [[Hugh Ross (creationist)|Hugh Ross]] |
|||
|width=6%| |
|||
|width=47%| |
|||
'''Intelligent design''' |
|||
* [[Access Research Network]] |
|||
* [[Centre for Intelligent Design]] |
|||
* [[Center for Science and Culture]] |
|||
'''Evolutionary creationism''' |
|||
* [[BioLogos Foundation]] |
|||
'''Evolution''' |
|||
* [[National Center for Science Education]] |
|||
* [[TalkOrigins Archive]] |
|||
|} |
|||
==See also== |
|||
{{Portal|Creationism}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia books |
|||
|1=Evolution |
|||
|3=Creationism and Intelligent Design |
|||
}} |
|||
* [[Abiogenesis]] |
|||
* [[Biblical inerrancy]] |
|||
* [[Biogenesis]] |
|||
* [[Cosmological argument]] |
|||
* [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] |
|||
* [[Teleological argument]] |
|||
* [[Watchmaker analogy]] |
|||
==Footnotes== |
|||
{{Reflist|group="note"|refs= |
|||
<ref name="myth" group="note">[[#Patton & Doniger 1996|Patton & Doniger 1996]], [http://books.google.com/books?id=OgsTmeRHpeUC&pg=147 p. 147]. While the term ''[[myth]]'' is often used colloquially to refer to "a false story," this article uses the term in the academic meaning of "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form."</ref>}} |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
{{Reflist|30em}} |
|||
==References== |
|||
;Online lectures |
|||
{{Refbegin|30em}} |
|||
* {{cite web |url = http://www.molbio.wisc.edu/carroll/Fittest.html |title = The Making of the Fittest |author = Carroll SB |authorlink = Sean B. Carroll |accessdate = May 30, 2011 }} |
|||
*{{cite book |author=`Abdu'l-Bahá |authorlink=`Abdu'l-Bahá |year=1982 |origyear=Originally published 1922–1925 |title=The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by `Abdu'l-Bahá during His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912 |others=Compiled by Howard MacNutt |edition=2nd |location=Wilmette, IL |publisher=Bahá’í Publishing Trust |isbn=0-8774-3172-8 |lccn=81021689 |oclc=853066452 |ref=`Abdu'l-Bahá 1982}} |
|||
* {{cite web |url = http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/ |title = Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior |author = Stearns SC |authorlink = Stephen C. Stearns |accessdate = August 30, 2011 }} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Aviezer |first=Nathan |authorlink=Nathan Aviezer |year=1990 |title=In the Beginning—: Biblical Creation and Science |location=Hoboken, NJ |publisher=KTAV Publishing House |isbn=0-88125-328-6 |lccn=89049127 |oclc=20800545 |ref=Aviezer 1990}} |
|||
*{{cite journal |editor-last=Barlow |editor-first=Nora |editor-link=Nora Barlow |year=1963 |title=Darwin's Ornithological Notes |url=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1577&viewtype=side |journal=Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series |location=London |publisher=[[List of trustees of the British Museum|Trustees of the British Museum]] |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=201–278 |issn=0068-2306 |accessdate=2009-06-10 |ref=Barlow 1963}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Bowler |first=Peter J. |year=2003 |title=Evolution: The History of an Idea |edition=3rd |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |isbn=0-520-23693-9 |lccn=2002007569 |oclc=49824702 |ref=Bowler 2003}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Bucaille |first=Maurice |authorlink=Maurice Bucaille |year=1977 |origyear=Original French edition published 1976 |title=The Bible, The Qur'an and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge |others=translated from the French by Alastair D. Pannell and the author |location=Paris |publisher=Seghers |lccn=76488005 |oclc=373529514 |ref=Bucaille 1977}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Bucaille |first=Maurice |year=1976 |title=The Qur'an and Modern Science |url=http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html |type=Booklet |location=Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia |publisher=Cooperative Offices for Call & Guidance at Al-Badiah & Industrial Area |oclc=52246825 |accessdate=2014-03-21 |ref=Bucaille 1976}} |
|||
*{{cite book |editor1-last=Carmell |editor1-first=Aryeh |editor2-last=Domb |editor2-first=Cyril |year=1976 |title=Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems |location=Jerusalem; New York |publisher=[[Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists]]; [[Feldheim Publishers]] |isbn=0-87306-174-8 |lccn=77357516 |oclc=609518840 |ref=Carmell & Domb 1976}} |
|||
*{{cite book |editor1-last=Carper |editor1-first=James C. |editor2-last=Hunt |editor2-first=Thomas C. |year=2009 |title=The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States |volume=1: A–L |location=Westport, CT |publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group|Praeger Publishers]] |isbn=978-0-275-99228-6 |lccn=2008041156 |oclc=246888936 |ref=Carper & Hunt 2009}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Collins |first=Francis S. |authorlink=Francis Collins |year=2006 |title=[[The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief]] |location=New York |publisher=[[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]] |isbn=978-0-7432-8639-8 |lccn=2006045316 |oclc=65978711 |ref=Collins 2006}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Darwin |first=Charles |authorlink=Charles Darwin |year=1958 |editor-last=Barlow |editor-first=Nora |title=The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With original omissions restored; Edited and with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter, Nora Barlow |url=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=side&pageseq=1 |location=London |publisher=Collins |lccn=93017940 |oclc=869541868 |accessdate=2009-01-09 |ref=Darwin 1958}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Dasgupta |first=Surendranath |authorlink=Surendranath Dasgupta |year=1922 |title=A History of Indian Philosophy |volume=1 |location=Cambridge, England |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |lccn=22018463 |oclc=4235820 |ref=Dasgupta 1922}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Dawkins |year=2006 |title=The God Delusion |location=London |publisher=[[Bantam Press]] |isbn=978-0-5930-5548-9 |lccn=2006015506 |oclc=70671839 |ref=Dawkins 2006}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Desmond |first=Adrian |authorlink=Adrian Desmond |year=1989 |title=The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London |series=Science and its Conceptual Foundations |location=Chicago, IL |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |isbn=0-226-14346-5 |lccn=89005137 |oclc=828159401 |ref=Desmond 1989}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Desmond |first=Adrian |last2=Moore |first2=James |author2-link=James Moore (biographer) |year=1991 |title=Darwin |location=London; New York |publisher=[[Michael Joseph (publisher)|Michael Joseph]]; [[Viking Press|Viking Penguin]] |isbn=0-7181-3430-3 |lccn=92196964 |oclc=26502431 |ref=Desmond & Moore 1991}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Dewey |first=John |authorlink=John Dewey |year=1994 |chapter=The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy |editor=Martin Gardner |editor-link=Martin Gardner |title=Great Essays in Science |location=Buffalo, NY |publisher=[[Prometheus Books]] |isbn=0-87975-853-8 |lccn=93035453 |oclc=28846489 |ref=Dewey 1994}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Draper |first=Paul R. |authorlink=Paul Draper (philosopher) |year=2005 |chapter=God, Science, and Naturalism |editor-last=Wainwright |editor-first=William J. |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion |url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195138090.001.0001/acprof-9780195138092-chapter-12 |location=Oxford; New York |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |doi=10.1093/0195138090.003.0012 |isbn=978-0-1951-3809-2 |lccn=2004043890 |oclc=54542845 |accessdate=2014-03-15 |ref=Draper 2005}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Dundes |first=Alan |authorlink=Alan Dundes |year=1984 |chapter=Introduction |editor-last=Dundes |editor-first=Alan |title=Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=0-5200-5192-0 |lccn=83017921 |oclc= 9944508 |ref=Dundes 1984}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Dundes |first=Alan |year=1996 |chapter=Madness in Method, Plus a Plea for Projective Inversion in Myth |editor1-last=Patton |editor1-first=Laurie L. |editor1-link=Laurie L. Patton |editor2-last=Doniger |editor2-first=Wendy |editor2-link=Wendy Doniger |title=Myth and Method |location=Charlottesville; London |publisher=[[University of Virginia Press]] |isbn=0-8139-1657-7 |lccn=96014672 |oclc=34516050 |ref=Patton & Doniger 1996}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Eddy |first=Mary Baker |authorlink=Mary Baker Eddy |year=1934 |origyear=Originally published 1875 as ''Science and Health''; Christian Scientist Publishing Company: Boston, MA |title=[[Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures]] |edition=Sunday school |location=Boston, MA |publisher=[[Christian Science Publishing Society]] for the Trustees under the will of Mary Baker G. Eddy |lccn=42044682 |oclc=4579118 |ref=Eddy 1934}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last1=Forrest |first1=Barbara |authorlink1=Barbara Forrest |last2=Gross |first2=Paul R. |authorlink2=Paul R. Gross |year=2004 |title=[[Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design]] |location=Oxford; New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-515742-7 |oclc=50913078 |lccn=2002192677 |ref=Forrest & Gross 2004}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last1=Forster |first1=Roger |authorlink1= Roger T. Forster |last2=Marston |first2=V. Paul |year=1999 |chapter=Genesis Through History |title=Reason, Science, and Faith |location=Crowborough, East Sussex |publisher=Monarch Books |isbn=1-85424-441-8 |lccn=99488551 |oclc=41159110 |ref=Forster & Marston 1999}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Futuyma |first=Douglas J. |authorlink=Douglas J. Futuyma |year=2005 |chapter=Evolutionary Science, Creationism, and Society |title=Evolution |location=Sunderland, MA |publisher=[[Sinauer Associates]] |isbn=0-87893-187-2 |lccn=2004029808 |oclc=57311264 |ref=Futuyma 2005}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last1=Giberson |first1=Karl W. |last2=Yerxa |first2=Donald A. |year=2002 |title=Species of Origins: America's Search for a Creation Story |location=Lanham, MD |publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]] |isbn=0-7425-0764-5 |lccn=2002002365 |oclc=49031109 |ref=Giberson & Yerxa 2002}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Gosse |first=Philip Henry |authorlink=Philip Henry Gosse |year=1857 |title=[[Omphalos (book)|Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot]] |location=London |publisher=[[John Van Voorst|J. Van Voorst]] |lccn=11004351 |oclc=7631539 |ref=Gosse 1857}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |authorlink=Stephen Jay Gould |year=1999 |title=[[Rocks of Ages|Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life]] |series=Library of Contemporary Thought |edition=1st |location=New York |publisher=[[Ballantine Books|Ballantine Publishing Group]] |isbn=0-345-43009-3 |lccn=98031335 |oclc=39886951 |ref=Gould 1999}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Gunn |first=Angus M. |year=2004 |title=Evolution and Creationism in the Public Schools: A Handbook for Educators, Parents, and Community Leaders |location=Jefferson, NC |publisher=[[McFarland & Company]] |isbn=0-7864-2002-2 |lccn=2004018788 |oclc=56319812 |ref=Gunn 2004}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Hayward |first=James L. |year=1998 |title=The Creation/Evolution Controversy: An Annotated Bibliography |series=Magill Bibliographies |location=Lanham, MD; Pasadena, CA |publisher=Scarecrow Press; Salem Press |page=253 |isbn=0-8108-3386-7 |lccn=98003138 |oclc=38496519 |ref=Hayward 1998}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Lamoureux |first=Denis O. |authorlink=Denis Lamoureux |year=1999 |chapter=Evangelicals Inheriting the Wind: The Phillip E. Johnson Phenomenon |title=Darwinism Defeated?: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins |others=Foreword by [[J. I. Packer]] |location=Vancouver, B.C. |publisher=[[Regent College#Media|Regent College Publishing]] |isbn=1-57383-133-6 |oclc=40892139 |ref=Lamoureux 1999}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Masood |first=Steven |year=1994 |origyear=Originally published 1986 |title=Jesus and the Indian Messiah |location=Oldham, England |publisher=Word of Life |isbn=1-898868-00-X |lccn=94229476 |oclc=491161526 |ref=Masood 1994}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=McComas |first=William F. |year=2002 |chapter=Science and Its Myths |editor-last=Shermer |editor-first=Michael |editor-link=Michael Shermer |title=[[The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience]] |volume=1 |location=Santa Barbara, CA |publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]] |isbn=1-57607-653-9 |lccn=2002009653 |oclc=50155642 |ref=Shermer 2002}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=McGrath |first=Alister E. |authorlink=Alister McGrath |year=2010 |title=Science and Religion: A New Introduction |edition=2nd |location=Malden, MA |publisher=[[Wiley-Blackwell]] |isbn=978-1-4051-8790-9 |lccn=2009020180 |oclc=366494307 |ref=McGrath 2010}} |
|||
*{{cite book |editor-last=Stewart |editor-first=Melville Y. |editor-link=Melville Y. Stewart |year=2010 |title=Science and Religion in Dialogue |location=Malden, MA |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |isbn=978-1-4051-8921-7 |lccn=2009032180 |oclc=430678957 |ref=Stewart 2010}} |
|||
*{{cite book |author=National Research Council |authorlink=United States National Research Council |year=2008 |title=[[Science, Evolution, and Creationism]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[National Academies Press]] |isbn=978-0-309-10586-6 |lccn=2007015904 |oclc=192020861 |ref=National Research Council 2008}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |authorlink=Ronald Numbers |year=1998 |title=Darwinism Comes to America |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=0-674-19312-1 |lccn=98016212 |oclc=38747194 |ref=Numbers 1998}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |year=2006 |origyear=Originally published 1992 as ''The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism''; New York: [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |title=[[The Creationists|The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design]] |edition=Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=0-674-02339-0 |lccn=2006043675 |oclc=69734583 |ref=Numbers 2006}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Pennock |first=Robert T. |authorlink=Robert T. Pennock |year=1999 |title=Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |isbn=0-262-16180-X |lccn=98027286 |oclc=44966044 |ref=Pennock 1999}} |
|||
*{{cite book |editor-last=Pennock |editor-first=Robert T |editor-link=Robert T. Pennock |year=2001 |title=Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |isbn=0-262-66124-1 |lccn=2001031276 |oclc=46729201 |accessdate=2014-01-10 |ref=Pennock 2001}} |
|||
*{{cite book |author=Philo, of Alexandria |authorlink=Philo |year=1854–55 |chapter=The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, after the Work of the Six Days of Creation |chapterurl=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html |title=The Works of Philo Judaeus |url=https://archive.org/details/worksofphilojuda01yonguoft |series=Bohn's Classical Library |others=Translated from the Greek, by [[Charles Duke Yonge|C. D. Yonge]] |location=London |publisher=[[Henry George Bohn|H.G. Bohn]] |lccn=20007801 |oclc=1429769 |accessdate=2014-03-09 |ref=Philo}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Plimer |first=Ian |authorlink=Ian Plimer |year=1994 |title=Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism |location=Milsons Point, NSW |publisher=[[Random House|Random House Australia]] |isbn=0-09-182852-X |lccn=94237744 |oclc=32608689 |ref=Plimer 1994}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Polkinghorne |first=John |authorlink=John Polkinghorne |year=1998 |title=Science and Theology: An Introduction |location=Minneapolis, MN |publisher=[[Fortress Press]] |isbn=0-8006-3153-6 |lccn=98229115 |oclc=40117376 |ref=Polkinghorne 1998}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Quammen |first=David |authorlink=David Quammen |year=2006 |title=The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution |series=Great Discoveries |location=New York |publisher=[[James Atlas|Atlas Books/W. W. Norton & Company]] |isbn=978-0-393-05981-6 |lccn=2006009864 |oclc=65400177 |ref=Quammen 2006}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Rainey |first=David |title=Faith Reads: A Selective Guide to Christian Nonfiction |year=2008 |location=Westport, CT |publisher=Libraries Unlimited |isbn=978-1-59158-602-9 |lccn=2008010352 |oclc=213599217 |ref=Rainey 2012}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Schroeder |first=Gerald L. |authorlink=Gerald Schroeder |year=1998 |origyear=Originally published 1997; New York: [[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]] |title=The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom |edition=1st Broadway Books trade paperback |location=New York |publisher=[[Broadway Books]] |isbn=0-7679-0303-X |lccn=97014978 |oclc=39162332 |ref=Schroeder 1998}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |authorlink=Eugenie Scott |year=1999 |chapter=Science, Religion, and Evolution |editor1-last=Springer |editor1-first=Dale A. |editor2-last=Scotchmoor |editor2-first=Judy |title=Evolution: Investigating the Evidence |url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/528_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp |type=Reprint |series=The Paleontological Society Special Publications |volume=9 |location=Pittsburgh, PA |publisher=[[Paleontological Society]] |lccn=00274093 |oclc=42725350 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20030628210954/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/528_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp |archivedate=2003-06-28 |ref=Scott 1999}} "Presented as a Paleontological Society short course at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Denver, Colorado, October 24, 1999." |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |year=2005 |origyear=Originally published 2004; Westport, CT: [[Greenwood Publishing Group|Greenwood Press]] |title=Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction |others=Foreword by [[Niles Eldredge]] |edition=1st paperback |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=0-520-24650-0 |lccn=2005048649 |oclc=60420899 |ref=Scott 2005}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Secord |first=James A. |title=Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation |location=Chicago, IL |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2000 |isbn=0-226-74410-8 |lccn=00009124 |oclc=43864195 |ref=Secord 2000}} |
|||
*{{cite book |editor1-last=Sweet |editor1-first=William |editor1-link=William Sweet |editor2-last=Feist |editor2-first=Richard |year=2007 |title=Religion and the Challenges of Science |location=Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT |publisher=[[Ashgate Publishing|Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.]] |isbn=978-0-7546-5715-6 |lccn=2006030598 |oclc=71778930 |ref=Sweet & Feist 2007}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Wilder-Smith |first=A. E. |authorlink=A. E. Wilder-Smith |year=1978 |title=Die Naturwissenschaften kennen keine Evolution: Empirische und theoretische Einwände gegen die Evolutionstheorie |trans_title=The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution |location=Basel, Switzerland |publisher=Schwabe Verlag |isbn=3-7965-0691-7 |lccn=80067425 |oclc=245955034 |ref=Wilder-Smith 1978}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Young |first=Davis A. |year=1995 |title=The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence |location=Grand Rapids, MI |publisher=[[William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company|Eerdmans]] |isbn=0-8028-0719-4 |lccn=95001899 |oclc=246813515 |ref=Young 1995}} |
|||
{{Refend}} |
|||
==Further reading== |
|||
{{Evolution}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Anderson |first=Bernard W. |authorlink=Bernhard Anderson |year=1967 |title=Creation versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible |location=New York |publisher=Association Press |lccn=67014578 |oclc=671184 |ref=Anderson 1967}} |
|||
{{Breakthrough of the Year}} |
|||
*{{cite book |editor-last=Anderson |editor-first=Bernhard W. |year=1984 |title=Creation in the Old Testament |series=Issues in Religion and Theology |volume=6 |others=Introduction by Bernhard W. Anderson |location=Philadelphia; London |publisher=Fortress Press; [[Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge]] |isbn=0-8006-1768-1 |lccn=83048910 |oclc=10374840 |ref=Anderson 1984}} |
|||
{{Portal bar|Evolutionary biology}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Barbour |first=Ian G. |authorlink=Ian Barbour |year=1997 |title=Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues |edition=1st HarperCollins revised |location=San Francisco, CA |publisher=[[HarperCollins|HarperSanFrancisco]] |isbn=0-06-060938-9 |lccn=97006294 |oclc=36417827 |ref=Barbour 1997}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Barbour |first=Ian G. |year=2000 |title=When Science Meets Religion |edition=1st |location=San Francisco, CA |publisher=HarperSanFrancisco |isbn=0-06-060381-X |lccn=99055579 |oclc=42752713 |ref=Barbour 2000}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Kaplan |first=Aryeh |authorlink=Aryeh Kaplan |year=1993 |title=Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View |others=With an appendix Derush Or ha-Hayyim by Israel Lipschitz; translated and annotated by Yaakov Elman |location=Hoboken, NJ |publisher=KTAV Publishing House in association with the [[Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists]] |isbn=0-88125-345-6 |lccn=92036917 |oclc=26800167 |ref=Kaplan 1993}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Kauffman |first=Stuart A. |authorlink=Stuart Kauffman |year=2008 |title=Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion |location=New York |publisher=[[Basic Books]] |isbn=978-0-465-00300-6 |lccn=2007052263 |oclc=191023778 |ref=Kauffman 2008}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last1=Leeming |first1=David Adams |last2=Leeming |first2=Margaret |year=1995 |title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-510275-4 |lccn=95039961 |oclc=33160980 |ref=Leeming & Leeming 1995}} |
|||
*{{cite journal |last1=Primack |first1=Joel R. |authorlink1=Joel Primack |last2=Abrams |first2=Nancy Ellen |date=Jan–Feb 1995 |title=In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah |url=http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/InABeginningTikkun1995.pdf |format=PDF |journal=[[Tikkun (magazine)|Tikkun]] |location=Durham, NC |publisher=[[Duke University Press]] |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=66–73 |issn=0887-9982 |accessdate=2014-04-24}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Roberts |first=Michael |year=2008 |title=Evangelicals and Science |series=Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion |location=Westport, CT |publisher=Greenwood Press |isbn=978-0-313-33113-8 |lccn=2007041059 |oclc=174138819 |ref=Roberts 2008}} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
{{Featured article}} |
|||
<!--======================== {{No more links}} ============================ |
|||
| PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. Wikipedia | |
|||
| is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising. | |
|||
| | |
|||
| Excessive or inappropriate links WILL BE DELETED. | |
|||
| See [[Wikipedia:External links]] & [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details. | |
|||
| | |
|||
| If there are already plentiful links, please propose additions or | |
|||
| replacements on this article's discussion page, or submit your link | |
|||
| to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) | |
|||
| and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template. | |
|||
======================= {{No more links}} =============================--> |
|||
{{Commons|Creationism}}{{Wikiquote}} |
|||
<!-- overviews of creationism, i.e. all these links are similar because they describe the variety of viewpoints that have been described as creationist. --> |
|||
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/ "Creationism"] at the [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] by [[Michael Ruse]] |
|||
* [http://www.howstuffworks.com/creationism.htm "How Creationism Works"] at [[HowStuffWorks]] by Julia Layton |
|||
* [http://www.allviewpoints.org/RESOURCES/EVOLUTION/timeline.htm "TIMELINE: Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design"] Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate |
|||
* {{PDF|[http://images.derstandard.at/20051012/Evolution-and-Creationism.pdf "Evolution and Creationism: A Guide for Museum Docents"]|204 KB}} by Warren D. Allmon, Director of the [[Museum of the Earth]] |
|||
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html "What is creationism?"] at [[talk.origins]] by Mark Isaak |
|||
* [http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum "The Creation/Evolution Continuum"] by [[Eugenie Scott]] |
|||
* [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"] by [[John Rennie (editor)|John Rennie]], editor in chief of ''[[Scientific American]]'' magazine |
|||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Creationism| ]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Origin of life]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Theism]] |
||
[[Category:Theology]] |
|||
[[Category:Christian terminology]] |
|||
[[Category:Creation myths]] |
|||
[[Category:Denialism]] |
|||
[[Category:Obsolete biological theories]] |
|||
[[Category:Religious cosmologies]] |
Revision as of 08:30, 6 September 2014
Part of a series on | ||||
Creationism | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
History | ||||
Types | ||||
Biblical cosmology | ||||
Creation science | ||||
Rejection of evolution by religious groups | ||||
Religious views | ||||
|
||||
Creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate "from specific acts of divine creation."[2][3] For young Earth creationists, this includes a literalistic reading of the Book of Genesis and the rejection of evolution.[4] As science developed during the 18th century and forward, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic and Genesis creation narratives with science developed in Western societies.[5] Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1857) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists," as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed over time, the term "anti-evolutionists" became common. In 1929 in the United States, the term "creationism" first became associated with Christian fundamentalists, specifically with their rejection of human evolution and belief in a young Earth—although this usage was contested by other groups, such as old Earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who hold different concepts of creation, such as the acceptance of the age of the Earth and biological evolution as understood by the scientific community.[4][6][7]
Today, the American Scientific Affiliation, a prominent religious organisation in the US, recognizes that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Abrahamic belief that God "created the universe."[8][9] Since the 1920s, literalist creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution,[10][11][12] which derive from natural observations of the Universe and life. Literalist creationists[13] believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[14] Fundamentalist creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative.[13][15] Other religions have different deity-led creation myths,[note 1][16][17][18] while different members of individual faiths vary in their acceptance of scientific findings.
When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, young Earth creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[19] or its underlying scientific theories[20] or its methodology.[21] This tendency has led to political and theological controversy.[10] Two disciplines somewhat allied with creationism—creation science and intelligent design—have been labelled "pseudoscience" by scientists.[22][23] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[24][25][26][27]
Theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creationism, reconciles theistic religious beliefs with scientific findings on the age of the Earth and the process of evolution. It includes a range of beliefs, including views described as evolutionary creationism and some forms of old Earth creationism, all of which embrace the findings of modern science and uphold classical religious teachings about God and creation.[28][29]
History
The term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism was first used in a letter by Charles Darwin in 1856.[30] In the 1920s, the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist movements that insisted on a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and likewise opposed the idea of human evolution. These groups succeeded in getting teaching of evolution banned in American public schools, then from the mid-1960s the young Earth creationists promoted the teaching of "scientific creationism" using "Flood geology" in public school science classes as support for a purely literal reading of the Book of Genesis.[31] After the legal judgment of the case Daniel v. Waters (1975) ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was presented by creationists as a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.[32] In September 2012, Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") expressed his concern that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the US.[33][34]
Early and medieval times
The first century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria admired the literal narrative of passages concerning the Patriarchs, but in other passages viewed the literal interpretation as being for those unable to see an underlying deeper meaning. For example, he noted that Moses said the world was created in six days, but did not consider this as a length of time as "we must think of God as doing all things simultaneously" and the six days were mentioned because of a need for order and according with a perfect number. Genesis was about real events, but God through Moses described them in figurative or allegorical language.[35]
The early Christian Church Fathers largely read creation history as an allegory, and followed Philo's ideas of time beginning with an instantaneous creation without the convention that a day was the conventional time period. Christian orthodoxy rejected the second century Gnostic belief that the Book of Genesis was purely allegorical, but without taking a purely literal view of the texts. Thus Origen believed that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation of God, but did not take the chronology or the days as ‘literal’. Similarly, Saint Basil the Great in the fourth century while literal in many ways, described creation as instantaneous and timeless, being immeasurable and indivisible.[36]
Augustine of Hippo in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis was insistent that the Book of Genesis describes the creation of physical objects, but also shows creation occurring simultaneously, with the days of creation being categories for didactic reasons, a logical framework which has nothing to do with time. For him, light was the illumination of angels rather than visible light, and spiritual light was just as literal as physical light. Augustine emphasized that the text was difficult to understand and should be reinterpreted as new knowledge became available. In particular, Christians should not make absurd dogmatic interpretations of scripture which contradict what people know from physical evidence.[37]
In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of scripture without wavering while cautioning "that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."[36]
Impact of the Reformation
From 1517 the Protestant Reformation brought a new emphasis on lay literacy. Martin Luther taught young Earth creationism, that creation took six literal days about 6000 years ago.[38] John Calvin also rejected instantaneous creation, but criticised those who, contradicting the contemporary understanding of nature, asserted that there are "waters above the heavens."[36]
Discoveries of new lands brought knowledge of a huge diversity of life, and a new belief developed that each of these biological species had been individually created by God. In 1605, Francis Bacon emphasized that the works of God in nature teach us how to interpret the word of God in the Bible, and his Baconian method introduced the empirical approach which became central to modern science.[39] Natural theology developed the study of nature with the expectation of finding evidence supporting Christianity, and numerous attempts were made to reconcile new knowledge with the biblical deluge myth and story of Noah's Ark.[40]
In 1650 the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, published the Ussher chronology based on Bible history giving a date for Creation of 4004 BC. This was generally accepted, but the development of modern geology in the 18th and 19th centuries found geological strata and fossil sequences indicating an ancient Earth. Catastrophism was favoured in England as supporting the biblical flood, but this was found to be untenable[40] and by 1850 all geologists and most Evangelical Christians had adopted various forms of old Earth creationism, while continuing to firmly reject evolution.[36][failed verification]
Modern science
From around the start of the 19th century, ideas such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's concept of transmutation of species had gained a small number of supporters in Paris and Edinburgh, mostly amongst anatomists.[36] The anonymous publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844 aroused wide public interest with support from Quakers and Unitarians, but was strongly criticised by the scientific community, which called for solidly backed science. In 1859, Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species provided that evidence from an authoritative and respected source, and within a decade or so convinced scientists that evolution occurs. This view clashed with that of conservative evangelicals in the Church of England, but their attention quickly turned to the much greater uproar about Essays and Reviews by liberal Anglican theologians, which introduced into the controversy "higher criticism" begun by Erasmus centuries earlier. This book re-examined the Bible and cast doubt on a literal interpretation.[41] By 1875 most American naturalists supported ideas of theistic evolution, often involving special creation of human beings.[31]
At this time those holding that species had been separately created were generally called "advocates of creation," but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private correspondence between Darwin and his friends.[42] The term appears in letters Darwin wrote between 1856 and 1863,[30] and was also used in a response by Charles Lyell.[43]
Types of creationism
Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "taxonomy" of creationists.[44][45][46] Creationism (broadly construed) covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the general types listed below.
Acceptance (U.S.) | Humanity | Biological species | Earth | Age of Universe | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Young Earth creationism | 40%[47] | Directly created by God. | Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. | Less than 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. | Less than 10,000 years old (some hold this view only for our solar system). |
Gap creationism | Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. | Scientifically accepted age. | |||
Progressive creationism | 38%[47] | Directly created by God (based on primate anatomy). | Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. | Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. | Scientifically accepted age. |
Intelligent design | Proponents hold various beliefs. For example, Michael Behe accepts evolution from primates | Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by what intelligent-design creationists call "irreducible complexity" | Some adherents accept common descent, others not. Some claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention | Scientifically accepted age | |
Theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) | Evolution from primates. | Evolution from single common ancestor. | Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. | Scientifically accepted age. |
Young Earth creationism
Young Earth creationists believe that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Most young Earth creationists believe that the Universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assign a much older age to the Universe than to Earth. Creationist cosmologies attempt to give the Universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other young Earth time frames. Other young Earth creationists believe that the Earth and the Universe were created with the appearance of age, so that the world appears to be much older than it is, and that this appearance is what gives the geological findings and other methods of dating the Earth and the Universe their much longer timelines. However, this view has theological implications—an intentional appearance of age is form of false evidence and so a form of deception.
The Christian organizations Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society (CRS) both promote young Earth creationism in the US. Another organization with similar views, Answers in Genesis (AiG)—based in both the US and the United Kingdom—has opened the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, to promote young Earth creationism. Creation Ministries International promotes young Earth views in Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, the US, and the UK. Among Roman Catholics, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation promotes similar ideas.
Creation science
Creation science, or initially scientific creationism, emerged in the 1960s with proponents aiming to have young Earth creationist beliefs taught in school science classes as a counter to teaching of evolution. It is the attempt to present scientific evidence interpreted with Genesis axioms that supports the claims of creationism. Various claims of creationists include such ideas as creationist cosmologies which accommodate a Universe on the order of thousands of years old, attacks on the science of radiometric dating through a technical argument about radiohalos, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the destruction of the global flood recorded in the Book of Genesis (see Flood geology), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect genomes God placed in "created kinds" or "Baramin" (see creationist biology) due to mutations.
Old Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event described in the Book 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 modern evolutionary theory are questionable.
Old Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:
Gap creationism
Gap creationism, also called "restoration creationism," holds that life was recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. This theory relies on a particular interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2. It is considered that the words formless and void in fact denote waste and ruin, taking into account the original Hebrew and other places these words are used in the Old Testament. Genesis 1:1-2 is consequently translated:
- "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Original act of creation.)
- "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start sometime after the Earth was "without form and void." This allows an indefinite "gap" of time to be inserted after the original creation of the Universe, but prior to the creation according to Genesis, (when present biological species and humanity were created). Gap theorists can therefore agree with the scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and Universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text.
Some[which?] gap theorists expand the basic theory by proposing a "primordial creation" of biological life within the "gap" of time. This is thought to be "the world that then was" mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-7.[48] Discoveries of fossils and archaeological ruins older than 10,000 years are generally ascribed to this "world that then was," which may also be associated with Lucifer's rebellion. These views became popular with publications of Hebrew Lexicons such as the Strong's Concordance, and Bible commentaries such as the Scofield Reference Bible and the Companion Bible.[citation needed]
Day-age creationism
Day-age creationism states that the "six days" of the Book of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time). This theory often states that the Hebrew word "yôm," in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age." Some[which?] adherents claim we are still living in the seventh age ("seventh day").
Strictly speaking, day-age creationism is not so much a creationist theory as a hermeneutic option which may be combined with theories such as progressive creationism.
Progressive creationism
Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operated—though it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order at key moments in Earth history. This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the Earth, but rejects much of modern evolutionary biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection alone is incorrect.[citation needed] Organizations such as Reasons To Believe, founded by Hugh Ross, promote this theory.
Progressive creationism can be held in conjunction with hermeneutic approaches to the Genesis creation narrative such as the day-age theory or framework/metaphoric/poetic views.
Neo-creationism
Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy.[citation needed] Neo-creationism aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators 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-creationism sees ostensibly objective mainstream science as a dogmatically atheistic religion. Neo-creationists argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements. They argue that this effectively excludes any possible religious insight from contributing to a scientific understanding of the Universe. Neo-creationists also argue that science, as an "atheistic enterprise," lies at the root of many of contemporary society's ills including social unrest and family breakdown.[citation needed]
The intelligent design movement arguably represents the most recognized form of neo-creationism in the US. Unlike their philosophical forebears, neo-creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such as a young Earth, or in a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible. Common to all forms of neo-creationism is a rejection of naturalism,[citation needed] usually made together with a tacit admission of supernaturalism, and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism," meaning evolution.
Intelligent design
Intelligent design (ID) is 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."[49] All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute,[50] a think tank whose Wedge strategy aims to replace the scientific method with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations.[51][52] It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,[45][46][53][54] and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism."[44][51][55][56][57]
ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to get round a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism in American public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run a series of campaigns to change school curricula.[32] In Australia, where curricula are under the control of state governments rather than local school boards, there was a public outcry when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson; the minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.[58]
In the US, teaching of intelligent design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a federal district court to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, the court found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,"[59] and hence cannot be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a persuasive precedent, based on previous US Supreme Court decisions in Edwards v. Aguillard and Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), and by the application of the Lemon test, that creates a legal hurdle to teaching intelligent design in public school districts in other federal court jurisdictions.[51][60]
Obscure and largely discounted beliefs
In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is a description of the Cosmos where Earth is at the orbital center of all celestial bodies. This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece. As such, they assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circled Earth, including the noteworthy systems of Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy.
Articles arguing that geocentrism was the biblical perspective appeared in some early creation science newsletters associated with the Creation Research Society pointing to some passages in the Bible, which, when taken literally, indicate that the daily apparent motions of the Sun and the Moon are due to their actual motions around the Earth rather than due to the rotation of the Earth about its axis for example, Joshua 10:12 where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky, and Psalms 93:1 where the world is described as immobile.[61] Contemporary advocates for such religious beliefs include Robert Sungenis, co-author of the self-published Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right (2006).[62] These people subscribe to the view that a plain reading of the Bible contains an accurate account of the manner in which the Universe was created and requires a geocentric worldview. Most contemporary creationist organizations reject such perspectives.[note 2]
Omphalos hypothesis
The Omphalos hypothesis argues that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created a mature Earth with mountains and canyons, rock strata, trees with growth rings, and so on; therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the Earth and age of the Universe can be taken as reliable.[64] The idea has seen some revival in the 20th century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that originates in far-off stars and galaxies (see The "starlight problem").
Theistic evolution
Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, asserts that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."[65] According to the American Scientific Affiliation:
A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.[66]
Through the 19th century the term creationism most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. Following the publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, there was interest in ideas of Creation by divine law. In particular, the liberal theologian Baden Powell argued that this illustrated the Creator's power better than the idea of miraculous creation, which he thought ridiculous.[67] When On the Origin of Species was published, the cleric Charles Kingsley wrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity."[68][69] Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature,[39][70] and the book makes several references to "creation," though he later regretted using the term rather than calling it an unknown process.[71] In America, Asa Gray argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or modus operandi, of the first cause, design,[72] and published a pamphlet defending the book in theistic terms, Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology.[68][73][74] Theistic evolution, also called, evolutionary creation, became a popular compromise, and St. George Jackson Mivart was among those accepting evolution but attacking Darwin's naturalistic mechanism. Eventually it was realised that supernatural intervention could not be a scientific explanation, and naturalistic mechanisms such as neo-Lamarckism were favoured as being more compatible with purpose than natural selection.[75]
Some theists took the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about Christian God and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including specifically evolution; it is also known as "evolutionary creation." In Evolution versus Creationism, Eugenie Scott and Niles Eldredge state that it is in fact a type of evolution.[76]
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 creationist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of the Book of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a literary framework or allegory.
From a theistic viewpoint, the underlying laws of nature were designed by God for a purpose, and are so self-sufficient that the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles in processes such as stellar evolution, life forms developed in biological evolution, and in the same way the origin of life by natural causes has resulted from these laws.[77]
In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries.[78] For Roman Catholics, human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are not in conflict. The Catechism of the Catholic Church comments positively on the theory of evolution, which is neither precluded nor required by the sources of faith, stating that scientific studies "have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man."[79] Roman Catholic schools teach evolution without controversy on the basis that scientific knowledge does not extend beyond the physical, and scientific truth and religious truth cannot be in conflict.[80] Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, though many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all. In the creation–evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. George Coyne, (Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):
...in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.[81]
While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some atheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,[82] including atheists,[83] refer to the long standing convention in the scientific method that observable events in nature should be explained by natural causes, with the distinction that it does not assume the actual existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
Religious views
Christianity
As of 2006[update] most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation narrative. The US is an exception where belief in religious fundamentalism is much more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere. Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because political partisanship in the US is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike in Europe.[84]
Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,[85] such as Anglicans[86] and Lutherans,[87] consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution. According to the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, "...for most of the history of Christianity, and I think this is fair enough, most of the history of the Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."[88]
Leaders of the Anglican[89] and Roman Catholic[90][91] churches have made statements in favor of evolutionary theory, as have scholars such as the physicist John Polkinghorne, who argues that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier supporters of evolutionary theory include Frederick Temple, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon their publication,[92] and the French Jesuit priest and geologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his more speculative theories. Another example is that of Liberal theology, not providing any creation models, but instead focusing on the symbolism in beliefs of the time of authoring Genesis and the cultural environment.
Many Christians and Jews had been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of historical) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. For example, Philo, whose works were taken up by early Church writers, wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time.[35][93] Augustine of the late fourth century who was also a former neoplatonist argued that everything in the Universe was created by God at the same moment in time (and not in six days as a literal reading of the Book of Genesis would seem to require);[37] It appears that both Philo and Augustine felt uncomfortable with the idea of a seven-day creation because it detracted from the notion of God's omnipotence. In 1950, Pope Pius XII stated limited support for the idea in his encyclical Humani Generis.[94] In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis," but, referring to previous papal writings, he concluded that "if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God."[95]
In the US, Evangelical Christians have continued to believe in a literal Genesis. Members of evangelical Protestant (70%), Mormon (76%) and Jehovah's Witnesses (90%) denominations are the most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.[96] The historic Christian literal interpretation of creation requires the harmonization of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, for there to be a consistent interpretation.[97][98] They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in American schools. Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific. Many religious groups teach that God created the Cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of the Book of Genesis as well as literal aspects.[36]
Christian Science, a system of thought and practice derived from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, interprets the Book of Genesis figuratively rather than literally. It holds that the material world is an illusion, and consequently not created by God: the only real creation is the spiritual realm, of which the material world is a distorted version. Christian Scientists regard the story of the creation in the Book of Genesis as having symbolic rather than literal meaning. According to Christian Science, both creationism and evolution are false from an absolute or "spiritual" point of view, as they both proceed from a (false) belief in the reality of a material universe. However, Christian Scientists do not oppose the teaching of evolution in schools, nor do they demand that alternative accounts be taught: they believe that both material science and literalist theology are concerned with the illusory, mortal and material, rather than the real, immortal and spiritual. In regards to material theories of creation, Mary Baker Eddy showed a preference for Darwin's theory of evolution over others.[99]
Hinduism
According to Hindu creationism all species on Earth including humans have "devolved" or come down from a high state of pure consciousness.[citation needed] Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.[100] Ronald Numbers says that: "Hindu Creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."[101] Hindu creationism is a form of old Earth creationism, according to Hindu creationists the Universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on the Vedas which depict an extreme antiquity of the Universe and history of the Earth.[102][103]
Islam
Islamic creationism is the belief that the Universe (including humanity) was directly created by God as explained in the Qur'an. It usually views the Book of Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation myths in the Qur'an are vaguer and allow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions.
Islam also has its own school of theistic evolutionism, which holds that mainstream scientific analysis of the origin of the Universe is supported by the Qur'an. Some Muslims believe in evolutionary creation, especially among liberal movements within Islam.
Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, at a conference called 'Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools', made points including the following:
There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and survival of the fittest. However, Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another.[104]
Writing for The Boston Globe, Drake Bennett noted: "Without a Book of Genesis to account for ... Muslim creationists have little interest in proving that the age of the Earth is measured in the thousands rather than the billions of years, nor do they show much interest in the problem of the dinosaurs. And the idea that animals might evolve into other animals also tends to be less controversial, in part because there are passages of the Koran that seem to support it. But the issue of whether human beings are the product of evolution is just as fraught among Muslims."[105] However, some Muslims, such as Adnan Oktar (also known as Harun Yahya), do not agree that one species can develop from another.[106]
But there is also a growing movement of Islamic creationism. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived conflicts between the Qur'an and the main points of evolutionary theory. The main location for this has been in Turkey, where fewer than 25% of people believe in evolution.[107]
There are several verses in the Qur'an which some modern writers have interpreted as being compatible with the expansion of the Universe, Big Bang and Big Crunch theories:[108][109][110]
- "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"[Quran 21:30 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]
- "Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come (together), in willing obedience.'"[Quran 41:11 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]
- "With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace."[Quran 51:47 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]
- "The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it."[Quran 21:104 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]
Ahmadiyya
The Ahmadiyya movement activey promotes evolutionary theory.[111] Ahmadis interpret scripture from the Qur'an to support the concept of macroevolution and give precedence to scientific theories. Furthermore, unlike orthodox Muslims, Ahmadis believe that mankind has gradually evolved from different species. Ahmadis regard Adam as being the first Prophet of God – as opposed to him being the first man on Earth.[111] Rather than wholly adopting the theory of natural selection, Ahmadis promote the idea of a "guided evolution," viewing each stage of the evolutionary process as having been selectively woven by God.[112] Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has stated in his magnum opus Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth (1998) that evolution did occur but only through God being the One who brings it about. It does not occur itself, according to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
Judaism
Reform Judaism does not take the Torah as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work. For Orthodox Jews who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, our own epistemological limits are to blame for any apparent irreconcilable point. They point to various discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear. They point out the fact that even the root word for "world" in the Hebrew language — עולם (Olam) — means hidden — נעלם (Neh-Eh-Lahm). Just as they believe God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their adult state, so too can they believe that the world was created in its "adult" state, with the understanding that there are, and can be, no physical ways to verify it. This belief has been advanced by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb, former philosophy professor at Johns Hopkins University. Also, relatively old Kabbalistic sources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the Universe was first determined are in close concord with modern scientific estimates of the age of the Universe, according to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, and based on Sefer Temunah, an early kabbalistic work attributed to the first century Tanna Nehunya ben HaKanah. Many kabbalists accepted the teachings of the Sefer HaTemunah, including the medieval Jewish scholar Nahmanides, his close student Isaac ben Samuel of Acre, and the David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra. Other interesting parallels are derived, among other sources, from Nahmanides, who expounds that there was a Neanderthal-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).[113][114][115][116]
Bahá'í Faith
Bahá'u'lláh, the Bahá'í Faith founder, taught that the Universe has "neither beginning nor ending," and that the component elements of the material world have always existed and will always exist.[117] In regards to evolution and the origin of human beings, `Abdu'l-Bahá gave extensive comments on the subject when he addressed western audiences in the beginning of the 20th century. Transcripts of these comments can be found in Some Answered Questions, Paris Talks and the The Promulgation of Universal Peace. `Abdu'l-Bahá described the human species as having evolved from a primitive form to modern man, but that the capacity to form human intelligence was always in existence.
Creationism by country
Creationism is widely accepted and taught throughout the Middle East. Although it has been prominent in the US but not widely accepted in academia, it has been making a resurgence in other countries as well.[118][119][120]
Europe
In recent years the teaching of creationism has become a minor issue in a variety of countries including Germany, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Serbia.[119][120][121][122]
Creation science has been heavily promoted in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by Adnan Oktar.[120] On October 4, 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted The dangers of creationism in education, a resolution on the attempt by American-inspired creationists to promote creationism in European schools. It concludes "The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements... some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy... If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists."[123]
Germany
In 1978, British Professor A. E. Wilder-Smith, who came to Germany after World War II and lectured at Marburg and other cities, published a book arguing against evolution with a secular, well known publishing house, titled The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (1978).[124] At the end of the year Horst W. Beck became a creationist. Both an engineer and theologian, he was a leading figure in the "Karl-Heim-Gesellschaft" (Karl Heim Society) and had previously published articles and books defending theistic evolution. Together with other members of the society, which they soon left, he followed the arguments of Willem Ouweneel, a Dutch biologist lecturing in Germany. Beck soon found other scientists who had changed their view or were "hidden" creationists. Under his leadership, the first creationist society was founded ("Wort und Wissen"—Word and Knowledge). Three book series were soon published, an independent creationist monthly journal started (Factum), and the first German article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly was published.[125]
In 2006, a documentary on the Arte television network, Von Göttern und Designern ("Genesis vs. Darwin"), by filmmaker Frank Papenbroock, demonstrated that creationism had already been taught in biology classes in at least two schools in Giessen, Hesse, without this being noticed.[126] During this, the Education Minister of Hessen, Karin Wolff, said she believed creationism should be taught in biology class as a theory, like the theory of evolution: "I think it makes sense to bring up multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary problems for discussion."[127] In 2009, an article on the German news site Spiegel Online stated approximately 20% of people disbelieve evolutionary theory in Germany.[128] More recently, a 2011 Ipsos poll commissioned by Reuters[129] found 12% of Germans identify as creationists.[130]
Romania
In Romania, in 2002, the Ministry of Education approved the use of a biology book endorsing creationism, titled Biologie clasa a IX-a - Măiestrie şi strălucire divină în biosferă ("Biology Class IX - Divine Mastery and Light in the Biosphere"), in public high schools. Following a protest of the Romanian Humanist Association the Romanian Ministry of Education replied that the book is not a "textbook" but merely an "accessory." The president of the Association labeled the reply as "disappointing" since, whether a textbook or an accessory, the book remains available for usage in schools. Reports indicate that at least one teacher in Oradea did use the book.[131]
Russia
Russia is home to the Moscow Creation Society.[132] The department of extracurricular and alternative education of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation has cosponsored numerous creationist conferences. Since 1994, Alexander Asmolov, the previous deputy minister of education, has urged that creationism be taught to help restore academic freedom in Russia after years of state-enforced scientific orthodoxy.[54] In February 2007, a 16-year-old girl and her father launched a court case against the Ministry of Education and Science, backed by the Russian Orthodox Church, challenging the teaching of just one "theory" of biology in school textbooks as a breach of her human rights.[133][134]
A 2005 poll reportedly found 26% of Russians accepting evolution and 49% accepting creationism.[135] But a 2003 poll reported that 44% agreed with "Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals,"[136] and a 2009 poll reported (PDF) that 48% of Russians who "know something about Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution" agreed that there was sufficient evidence for the theory.[137] The 2009 poll indicated that 53% of Russians agreed with "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism," with 13% preferring that such perspectives be taught instead of evolution; only 10% agreed with "Evolutionary theories alone should be taught in science lessons in schools."[137]
Serbia
On September 7, 2004, the Serbian Minister for Education and Sport, Ljiljana Čolić, temporarily banned evolution from being taught in the country. After state-wide outcry she resigned on September 16, 2004, from her post.[138]
Switzerland
A 2006 international survey found that 30% of the Swiss reject evolution, one of the highest national percentages in Europe.[139] Another survey in 2007, commissioned by the fringe Christian organization Pro Genesis, controversially claims 80%. This resulted in schools in the Canton of Bern printing science textbooks that presented creationism as a valid alternative theory to evolution. Scientists and education experts harshly criticized the move, which quickly prompted school authorities to revise the books.[140]
United Kingdom
Since the development of evolutionary theory by Charles Darwin in England, where his portrait appears on the back of the revised Series E £10 note issued in 2000, significant shifts in British public opinion have occurred. A 2006 survey for the BBC showed that "more than a fifth of those polled were convinced by the creationist argument,"[141] a massive decrease from the almost total acceptance of creationism before Darwin published his theory. A 2010 Angus Reid poll found that "In Britain, two-thirds of respondents (68%) side with evolution while less than one-in-five (16%) choose creationism. At least seven-in-ten respondents in the South of England (70%) and Scotland (75%) believe human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years."[142] A subsequent 2010 YouGov poll on the origin of humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% did not know.[143]
Speaking at the British Science Association's British Science Festival at the University of Liverpool in 2008, Professor Michael Reiss estimated that about only 10% of children were from a family that supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.[144] Richard Dawkins has been quoted saying "I have spoken to a lot of science teachers in schools here in Britain who are finding an increasing number of students coming to them and saying they are Young Earth creationists."[145]
The director of education at the Royal Society has said that creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than be excluded, to explain why creationism had no scientific basis.[146] Wales has the largest proportion of theistic evolutionists—the belief that evolution is part of God's plan (38%). Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of people who believe in 'intelligent design' (16%), which holds 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.[147] Some private religious schools in the UK teach creationism rather than evolution.[141] However the teaching of creationism is illegal in any school that receives state funding.
Muslim world
A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 16% of Indonesians, and 22% of Turks agree that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true, and a 2006 survey reported that about a quarter of Turkish adults agreed that human beings evolved from earlier animal species.[148] Surveys carried out by researchers affiliated with McGill University's Evolution Education Research Centre found that in Egypt and Pakistan, while the official high school curriculum does include evolution, many of the teachers there do not believe in it themselves, and will often tell their students so.[105]
Currently in Egypt, evolution is taught in schools but Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.[118][149] In recent times, creationism has become more widespread in other Islamic countries.[150]
The results of a survey of the adherence to creation science of 5,700 teachers from 14 countries was presented during the 2008 XIII IOSTE Symposium in Izmir, Turkey. Lebanon, Senegal, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria had 62% to 81% of creationist teachers (with no difference between biologists and others). Romania and Burkina Faso had 45% to 48% of creationist teachers in Romania and Burkina Faso, with no difference between biologists and other in Romania, but a clear difference (p<0.001) in Burkina Faso (with 61% of creationists for the not biology teachers). Portugal and Cyprus had 15% to 30% of creationist teachers, with no significant difference between biologists, but a significant difference in Portugal (p=0.004, 17% and 26%).[151]
Iran
Iranian scientific development, especially the health-related aspects of biology, has been a goal of the Islamic government since the revolution of 1979.[149] Since Iranian traditional practice of Shi'a religion is not preoccupied with Qur'anic literalism as in case of Saudi Wahhabism but ijtihad, many influential Iranian Shi'ite scholars, including several who were closely involved in Iranian Revolution, are not opposed to evolutionary ideas in general, disagreeing that evolution necessarily conflicts with the Muslim mainstream.[149] Iranian pupils since 5th grade of elementary school learn only about evolution, thus portraying geologists and scientists in general as an authoritative voices of scientific knowledge.[149]
Turkey
Since the 1980s, creationism in Turkey has grown significantly and is now the government's official position on origins.[105] In 1985, the conservative political party then in control of the country’s education ministry added creationist explanations alongside the passages on evolution in the standard high school biology textbook. In Turkey, unlike in the US, the public school curriculum is set by the national government. In 2008, Richard Dawkins' website was banned in Turkey.[152] However, the ban was lifted in July 2011.[153] In 2009, the Turkish government agency Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK), publisher of the popular Turkish science magazine Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), was accused of stripping a cover story about the life and work of Charles Darwin from the March 2009 issue of the Council's publication just before it went to press. The planned portrait of Darwin for the magazine's cover was replaced and the editor of the magazine, Çiğdem Atakuman, claims that she was removed from her post.[154][155][156][157] Most of the Turkish population expressed support for the censorship.[158] In 2012, it was found that the government's internet content filter, designed to prevent the public having access to pornographic websites, also blocked the words 'evolution' and 'Darwin' on one mode of the filter.[159]
Australia
In the late 1970s, Answers in Genesis, a creationist research organization, was founded in Australia. In 1994, Answers in Genesis expanded from Australia and New Zealand to the US.[160] It subsequently expanded into the UK, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. Creationists in Australia have been the leading influence on the development of creation science in the US for the last 20 years. Two of the 3 main international creation science organizations all have original roots within Australia—Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries. Ken Ham,[161] Andrew Snelling,[162] Jason Lisle,[163] Jonathan Sarfati[164] and Tasman Bruce Walker [165] have all had significant impact on the development of creationism in Australia, and have brought their teaching to the US.
In 1980, the Queensland state government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen allowed the teaching of creationism as science to school children. On May 29, 2010, it was announced that creationism and intelligent design will be discussed in history classes as part of the new national curriculum. It will be placed in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies."[166] One Australian scientist who adheres to creation science is Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström.[167]
Professor Ian Plimer, an anti-creationist geologist, reported being attacked by creationists.[168] A few public lectures have been given in rented rooms at universities, by visiting American speakers, and speakers with doctorates purchased by mail from Florida sites.[169] A court case taken by Plimer 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."[168] The debate was featured on the science television program Quantum.[170] In 1989, Plimer debated American creationist Duane Gish.
Asia
South Korea
Since 1981, the Korea Association for Creation Research has grown to 16 branches, with 1000 members and 500 Ph.Ds. On August 22–24, 1991, recognizing the 10th anniversary of KACR, an International Symposium on Creation Science was held with 4,000 in attendance.[171][172] In 1990, the book The Natural Sciences was written by Dr. Young-Gil Kim and 26 other fellow scientists in Korea with a creationist viewpoint. The textbook drew the interest of college communities, and today, many South Korean universities are using it.
Since 1991, creation science has become a regular university course at Myongji University, which has a centre for creation research. Since that time, other universities have begun to offer creation science courses. At Handong Global University, creationist Dr. Young-Gil Kim was inaugurated as president in March 1995. At Myongji University, creationist Dr. Woongsang Lee is a biology professor. The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology is where the Research Association of Creation Science was founded and many graduate students are actively involved.[171] In 2008, a survey found that 36% of South Koreans disagreed with the statement that "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." In May 2012, publishers of high school science textbooks decided to remove references to evolution following a petition by a creationist group.[173][174] However, the ensuing controversy prompted the government to appoint a panel of scientists to look into the matter, and the government urged the publishers to keep the references to evolution following the recommendation of the panel.[175]
Americas
Brazil
Brazil has had two creationist societies since the 1970s—the Brazilian Association for Creation Research and the Brazilian Creation Society. According to a 2004 survey, 31% of Brazil believe that "the first humans were created no more than 10,000 years ago."[54]
United States
In the US some religious communities have refused to accept naturalistic explanations and tried to counter them. The term started to become associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth in 1929.[42] Several US states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in most of the US until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of Flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of church and state by a succession of legal judgments.[32] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and Flood geology.[42]
Most of the anti-evolutionists of the 1920s believed in forms of old Earth creationism, which accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the Earth and believes that these findings do not contradict the Book of Genesis, but rejects evolution. At that time only a minority held to young Earth creationism, proponents of which believe that the Earth is thousands rather than billions of years old, and typically believe that the days in chapter one of the Book of Genesis are 24 hours in length. In the 1960s, this became the most prominent form of anti-evolution. From the 1860s forms of theistic evolution had developed; this term refers to beliefs in creation which are compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth, as held by mainstream Christian denominations. There are other religious people who support creationism, but in terms of allegorical interpretations of the Book of Genesis.
By the start of the 20th century, evolution was widely accepted and was beginning to be taught in American public schools. After World War I, popular belief that German aggression resulted from a Darwinian doctrine of "survival of the fittest" inspired William Jennings Bryan to campaign against the teaching of Darwinian ideas of human evolution.[31] In the 1920s, the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy led to an upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor in which schools were prevented from teaching evolution through state laws such as Tennessee’s 1925 Butler Act,[51][176] and by getting evolution removed from biology textbooks nationwide. Creationism became associated in common usage with opposition to evolution.[177]
In 1961 in the US, an attempt to repeal the Butler Act failed.[32] The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris brought the Seventh-day Adventist biblically literal Flood geology of George McCready Price to a wider audience, popularizing the idea of young Earth creationism,[36] and by 1965 the term "scientific creationism" had gained currency.[178] The 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas judgment ruled that state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion.[179] and when in 1975 Daniel v. Waters ruled that a state law requiring biology textbooks discussing "origins or creation of man and his world" to give equal treatment to creation as per the Book of Genesis was unconstitutional, a new group identifying themselves as creationists promoted 'creation science' which omitted explicit biblical references.[32]
In 1981, the state of Arkansas passed a law, Act 590, mandating that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution, and defining creation science as positing the "creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing," as well as explaining the Earth's geology by "the occurrence of a worldwide flood."[178] This was ruled unconstitutional at McLean v. Arkansas in January 1982 as the creationists' methods were not scientific but took the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempted to find scientific support for it.[178] Louisiana introduced similar legislation that year. A series of judgments and appeals led to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that it too violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[51]
"Creation science" could no longer be taught in public schools, and in drafts of the creation science school textbook Of Pandas and People all references to creation or creationism were changed to refer to intelligent design.[51] Proponents of the intelligent design movement organised widespread campaigning to considerable effect. They officially denied any links to creation or religion, and claimed that "creationism" only referred to young Earth creationism with Flood geology;[180] but in Kitzmiller v. Dover the court found intelligent design to be religious, and unable to dissociate itself from its creationist roots, as part of the ruling that teaching intelligent design in public school science classes was unconstitutional.[51]
The percentage of people in the US who accept the idea of human evolution declined from 45% in 1985 to 40% in 2005.[84] A Gallup poll reported that the percentage of people in the US who believe in a strict interpretation of creationism had fallen to 40% in 2010 after a high of 46% in 2006. The highest the percentage has risen between 1982 and 2010 was 47% in 1994 and 2000 according to the report. The report found that Americans who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view while those with a college education are more likely to hold a view involving evolution. 47% of those with no more than a high school education believe in creationism while 22% of those with a post graduate education hold that view. The poll also found that church attendance dramatically increased adherence to a strict creationist view (22% for those who do not attend church, 60% for those who attend weekly).[47] The higher percentage of Republicans who identified with a creationist view is described as evidence of the strong relationship between religion and politics in the US. Republicans also attend church weekly more than Democratic or independent voters. Non-Republican voters are twice as likely to hold a nontheistic view of evolution than Republican voters.[47]
Among US states, acceptance of evolution has a strong negative correlation with religiosity and a strong positive relationship with science degrees awarded, bachelor degree attainment, advanced degree attainment, average teacher salary, and GDP per capita. In other words, states in which more people say that religion is very important to their lives tend to show less acceptance of evolution. The better the education of individuals, their educational system, or the higher their income, the more they accept evolution, though the US as a country has a comparatively well educated population but lower acceptance of evolution than other countries.[181]
Prevalence
Most vocal literalist creationists are from the US, and strict creationist views are much less common in other developed countries. According to a study published in Science, a survey of the US, Turkey, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[84] There seems to be no significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.[184][185]
Australia
A 2009 Nielsen poll showed that almost a quarter of Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins". Forty-two percent believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32 percent believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God."[186]
Canada
A 2012 survey by Angus Reid Public Opinion revealed that 61 percent of Canadians believe in evolution. The poll asked "Where did human beings come from — did we start as singular cells millions of year ago and evolve into our present form, or did God create us in his image 10,000 years ago?"[187]
Europe
In Europe, literalist creationism is more widely rejected, though regular opinion polls are not available. Most people accept that evolution is the most widely accepted scientific theory as taught in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, papal acceptance of evolutionary creationism as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people.
In the UK, a 2006 poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolutionary theory, and the rest did not know.[188][189] A subsequent 2010 YouGov poll on the correct explanation for the origin of humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% didn't know.[143] The former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.[190]
In Italy, Education Minister Letizia Moratti wanted to retire evolution from the secondary school level; after one week of massive protests, she reversed her opinion.[191][192]
There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious groups throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.[150] In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has released a draft report titled The dangers of creationism in education on June 8, 2007,[193] reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4, 2007.[123]
Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in September 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Čolić, only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.[138] "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties" says the BBC report, Čolić's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive" and announced that the decision was reversed.[121] Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."[194]
Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006 when the Deputy Education Minister, Mirosław Orzechowski, denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education Roman Giertych, has stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory." Giertych's father, Member of the European Parliament Maciej Giertych, has opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.[195]
United States
According to a 2014 Gallup poll,[196] about 42% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."[196] Another 31% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,"and 19% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."[196]
Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept evolution.[197][198] In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (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.'"[198][199]
A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the US public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[200]
According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult North Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the US the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the US was Turkey (25%).[84]
According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in Creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.[201] 21% believe in 'the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientists' (up from 15% in 1999), and 27% answered that both are true (up from 26% in 1999).[201]
In September 2012, educator and television personality Bill Nye spoke with the Associated Press and aired his fears about acceptance of creationist theory, believing that teaching children that creationism is the only true answer and without letting them understand the way science works will prevent any future innovation in the world of science.[33][34] In February 2014, Nye defended evolution in the classroom in a debate with creationist Ken Ham on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era.[202][203][204]
Education controversies
In the US, creationism has become centered in the political controversy over creation and evolution in public education, and whether teaching creationism in science classes conflicts with the separation of church and state. Currently, the controversy comes in the form of whether advocates of the intelligent design movement who wish to "Teach the Controversy" in science classes have conflated science with religion.[60]
People for the American Way polled 1500 North Americans about the teaching of evolution and creationism in November and December 1999. They found that most North Americans were not familiar with Creationism, and most North Americans had heard of evolution, but many did not fully understand the basics of the theory. The main findings were:
In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously based origin belief is superior to those of other belief systems, in particular those made through secular or scientific rationale. Political creationists are opposed by many individuals and organizations who have made detailed critiques and given testimony in various court cases that the alternatives to scientific reasoning offered by creationists are opposed by the consensus of the scientific community.[27][205]
Criticism
Christian criticism
Many Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism. Several religious organizations, among them the Catholic Church, hold that their faith does not conflict with the scientific consensus regarding evolution.[206] The Clergy Letter Project, which has collected more than 13,000 signatures, is an "endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible."
In his 2002 article "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem," George Murphy argues against the view that life on Earth, in all its forms, is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes Phillip E. Johnson's claim that he is speaking "of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Christ." The basis of this theology is Isaiah 45:15, "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."
Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by Roman authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require Divine action. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" Himself. It was for this reason that Paul the Apostle wrote, in Philippians 2:5-8:
- "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
Murphy concludes that,
"Just as the Son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on a cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws which God has chosen. This enables us to understand the world on its own terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation."
For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a methodological naturalism, meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a metaphysical naturalism, which proposes that nature is all that there is.[207]
Teaching of creationism
Other Christians have expressed qualms about teaching creationism. In March 2006, then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." The views of the Episcopal Church - a major American-based branch of the Anglican Communion - on teaching creationism resemble those of Williams.[190]
In April 2010, the American Academy of Religion issued Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K‐12 Public Schools in the United States which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, they, as well as other "worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."[208]
Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, from the biology program at the University of Minnesota, reflect on the relevance of teaching creationism in the article The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism? They conclude that "Despite decades of science education reform, numerous legal decisions declaring the teaching of creationism in public-school science classes to be unconstitutional, overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, and the many denunciations of creationism as nonscientific by professional scientific societies, creationism remains popular throughout the United States."[209]
Scientific criticism
Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence and testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is often based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts.[210] Some creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and often do not allow predictions at all. Therefore, these can neither be confirmed nor disproved by scientists.[211] However, many creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its geological history and the origins, distributions and relationships of living organisms found on it. Early science incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually falsified and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence that often allows the accurate prediction of future results.[212][213] Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould,[214] consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called non-overlapping magisteria.[215] This view is also held by many theologians, who believe that ultimate origins and meaning are addressed by religion, but favour verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as Richard Dawkins,[216] reject the non-overlapping magisteria and argue that, in disproving literal interpretations of creationists, the scientific method also undermines religious texts as a source of truth. Irrespective of this diversity in viewpoints, since creationist beliefs are not supported by empirical evidence, the scientific consensus is that any attempt to teach creationism as science should be rejected.[24][217][218]
Organizations
Creationism (in general) Young Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
|
Intelligent design Evolutionary creationism Evolution |
See also
- Abiogenesis
- Biblical inerrancy
- Biogenesis
- Cosmological argument
- Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Teleological argument
- Watchmaker analogy
Footnotes
- ^ Patton & Doniger 1996, p. 147. While the term myth is often used colloquially to refer to "a false story," this article uses the term in the academic meaning of "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form."
- ^ Donald B. DeYoung, for example, states that "Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the 'language of appearance,' just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate."[63]
Notes
- ^ McComas 2002, p. 436
- ^ Gunn 2004, p. 9, "The Concise Oxford Dictionary says that creationism is 'the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation.'"
- ^ "creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)". Oxford Dictionaries (Definition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. OCLC 656668849. Retrieved 2014-03-05.
The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
- ^ a b Haarsma 2010, p. 168, "Some Christians, often called 'Young Earth creationists,' reject evolution in order to maintain a semi-literal interpretation of certain biblical passages. Other Christians, called 'progressive creationists,' accept the scientific evidence for some evolution over a long history of the earth, but also insist that God must have performed some miracles during that history to create new life-forms. The theory of Intelligent Design, as it is promoted in North America is a form of progressive creation. Still other Christians, called 'theistic evolutionists' or 'evolutionary creationists,' assert that the scientific theory of evolution and the religious beliefs of Christianity can both be true."
- ^ Numbers, Ronald L. "The 'Ordinary' View of Creation". Counterbalance Interactive Library. Seattle, WA: Counterbalance Foundation. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
- ^ Lamoureux 1999, p. 14
- ^ Rainey 2012, p. 263, "Thus, there is diversity within the Christian community, and a continuum of ideas that begins with young-earth creationists. There are four main Christian schools of thought: young-earth creation science, old-earth creation science, intelligent design, and theistic evolution."
- ^ "A Spectrum of Creation Views held by Evangelicals". Ipswich, MA: American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved 2007-10-18.
All Christians in the sciences affirm the central role of the Logos in creating and maintaining the Universe. In seeking to describe how the incredible universe has come to be, a variety of views has emerged in the last two hundred years as continuing biblical and scientific scholarship have enabled deeper understanding of God's word and world.
- ^ Numbers 1998, p. 55, "'Creationists of today are not in agreement concerning what was created according to Genesis.'" — Russell L. Mixter, Creation and Evolution (1951) OCLC 40774047
- ^ a b "Creationism Controversy: Understanding and Responding to Creationist Movements". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2009-06-22.
- ^ Giberson & Yerxa 2002, pp. 3-4. For example, the Scopes Trial of 1925 brought creationism and evolution into the adversarial environment of the American justice system. The trial was well-publicized, and served as a catalyst for the wider creation–evolution controversy.
- ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (May 1981). "Evolution as Fact and Theory". Discover (Reprint). 2. Waukesha, WI: Kalmbach Publishing: 34–37. ISSN 0274-7529. Retrieved 2010-04-12.; Moran, Laurence (2002) [Originally published 1993]. "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2010-04-12. Evolution's status as a "theory" has played a prominent role in the creation–evolution controversy. In scientific terminology, "theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." Evolutionists utilise this definition to characterise evolution as a scientific fact and a theory. In contrast, creationists use the term "theory" to characterize evolution as an "imperfect fact," drawing upon the vernacular conception of "theory" as "part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess."
- ^ a b Campbell, Duncan (February 20, 2006). "Academics fight rise of creationism at universities". The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
- ^ For the biological understanding of complexity, see Evolution of complexity. For a creationist perspective, see Irreducible complexity.
- ^ Numbers, Ronald L. "Creationism History: Topic Index". Counterbalance Interactive Library. Seattle, WA: Counterbalance Foundation. Retrieved 2009-06-22.
- ^ Dundes, Alan (Winter 1997). "Binary Opposition in Myth: The Propp/Levi-Strauss Debate in Retrospect". Western Folklore. 56 (1). Western States Folklore Society: 39–50. ISSN 0043-373X. JSTOR 1500385.
- ^ Dundes 1984
- ^ Dundes 1996
- ^ Wallace, Tim (2007) [Originally published 2005]. "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution". The True.Origin Archive. Hergiswil, Switzerland: Tim Wallace. Retrieved 2011-04-25.
- ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005). "Index to Creationist Claims: CA215: Practical uses of evolution". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2009-08-20.
- Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005). "Index to Creationist Claims: CH100.1: Science in light of Scripture". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2009-08-20.
- ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: CA301: Science and naturalism". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2009-08-20.
- ^ Padian, Kevin (January–April 2006). "The Dover Victory". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 26 (1–2). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education: 49–50. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-05-06.
- ^ Alters, Brian (January–April 2006). "'Ties' to Canada". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 26 (1–2). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education: 51–52. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-05-06.
- ^ a b "Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design". Royal Society. London: Royal Society. April 11, 2006. Archived from the original on 2008-06-02. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
- ^ "NABT's Statement on Teaching Evolution". National Association of Biology Teachers. McLean, VA: National Association of Biology Teachers. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
- ^ IAP Member Academies (June 21, 2006). "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution". IAP. Trieste, Italy: The World Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 2014-03-09. Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society.
- ^ a b "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-02-21. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
- Pinholster, Ginger (February 19, 2006). "AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event" (Press release). St. Louis, MO: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archived from the original on 2006-04-21. Retrieved 2014-08-05.
- ^ Collins 2006, p. 201, "This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teachings us about the natural world."
- ^ Neyman, Greg. "Theistic Evolution". Old Earth Ministries. Springfield, OH: Old Earth Ministries. Retrieved 2012-04-24.
Theistic Evolution is the old earth creationist belief that God used the process of evolution to create life on earth. The modern scientific understanding of biological evolution is considered to be compatible with the Bible.
- ^ a b Darwin, Charles (July 5, 1856). "Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D." Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 1919. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
- Darwin, Charles (May 31, 1863). "Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa". Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 4196. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
- ^ a b c Numbers, Ronald L. "Creationism". Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2009. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation. Archived from the original on 2009-10-22. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
- ^ a b c d e Flank, Lenny (April 24, 2006). "Creationism/ID: A Short Legal History". Talk Reason. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
- ^ a b Luvan, Dylan (September 24, 2012). "Bill Nye Warns: Creation Views Threaten US Science". Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
- ^ a b Fowler, Jonathan; Rodd, Elizabeth (August 23, 2012). "Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children". YouTube. New York: Big Think. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
- ^ a b Philo
- ^ a b c d e f g Forster & Marston 1999
- ^ a b Young, Davis A. (March 1988). "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 40 (1). Ipswich, MA: American Scientific Affiliation: 42–45. ISSN 0892-2675. Retrieved 2008-08-18.
- ^ Bartz, Paul (February 1984). "Luther on Evolution". Ex Nihilo. 6 (3). Sunnybank, Queensland: Creation Science Foundation: 18–21. ISSN 0726-6782. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
- ^ a b Moore, James (September 20, 2007). "Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin" (Interview). Interviewed by Krista Tippett. American Public Media. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
{{cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter|callsign=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter|program=
ignored (help) - ^ a b "History of the Collapse of 'Flood Geology' and a Young Earth". PhilVaz.com. Philip J. Porvaznik. Retrieved 2014-03-09. Adapted from Young 1995
- ^ Desmond & Moore 1991
- ^ a b c Numbers, Ronald L. "Antievolutionists and Creationists". Counterbalance Interactive Library. Seattle, WA: Counterbalance Foundation. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
- ^ Lyell, Charles (March 15, 1863). "Lyell, Charles to Darwin, C. R." Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 4041. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
- ^ a b Scott, Eugenie C. (July–August 1999). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 19 (4). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education: 16–17, 23–25. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
- ^ a b Wise, Donald U. (January 2001). "Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution". Journal of Geoscience Education. 49 (1). Bellingham, WA: National Association of Geoscience Teachers: 30–35. ISSN 1089-9995. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
- ^ a b Ross, Marcus R. (May 2005). "Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism" (PDF). Journal of Geoscience Education. 53 (3). Bellingham, WA: National Association of Geoscience Teachers: 319–323. ISSN 1089-9995. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
- ^ a b c d Newport, Frank (December 17, 2010). "Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism". Gallup.com. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
- ^ 2 Peter 3
- ^ "CSC - Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
- ^ "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-03-13.
- ^ a b c d e f g Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" (PDF). Center for Inquiry (A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy). Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. Retrieved 2014-03-13.
- ^ "The Wedge" (PDF). Seattle, WA: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 1999. Retrieved 2014-03-13.
- ^ Mu, David (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review. 19 (1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Science Review, Inc.: 22–25. Retrieved 2014-03-13.
...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.
- Klotzko, Arlene Judith (May 28, 2001). "Cynical Science and Stem Cells". The Scientist. 15 (11): 35. ISSN 0890-3670. Retrieved 2014-03-13.
Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudo-science of 'intelligent design theory.'
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.
- Klotzko, Arlene Judith (May 28, 2001). "Cynical Science and Stem Cells". The Scientist. 15 (11): 35. ISSN 0890-3670. Retrieved 2014-03-13.
- ^ a b c Numbers 2006
- ^ Forrest & Gross 2004
- ^ Pennock 2001, "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski," pp. 645–667, "Dembski chides me for never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationism'. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to 'rally the troops'. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..."
- ^ Scott 2005
- ^ Smith, Deborah (October 21, 2005). "Intelligent design not science: experts". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
- ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.
- ^ a b Full text of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, dated December 20, 2005.
- ^ Numbers, Ronald L. (1993) [Originally published 1992; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p. 237. ISBN 0-5200-8393-8. LCCN 93015804. OCLC 810488078.
- ^ Sefton, Dru (March 30, 2006). "In this world view, the sun revolves around the earth". Times-News. Hendersonville, NC: Hendersonville Newspaper Corporation. Religion News Service. p. 5A. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
- ^ DeYoung, Donald B. (November 5, 1997). "Astronomy and the Bible: Selected questions and answers excerpted from the book". Answers in Genesis. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis Ministries International. Retrieved 2013-12-01.
- ^ Gosse 1857
- ^ Sweet & Feist 2007, p. 48, "Evolutionary Creation (or Theistic Evolution) asserts that the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."
- ^ Rusbult, Craig (1998). "Evolutionary Creation". Ipswich, MA: American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation * — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.
- ^ Bowler 2003, p. 139
- ^ a b "Darwin and design: historical essay". Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. 2007. Retrieved 2012-04-18.
- ^ Kingsley, Charles (November 18, 1859). "Kingsley, Charles to Darwin, C. R." Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 2534. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
- ^ Quammen 2006, p. 119
- ^ Barlow 1963, p. 207
- ^ Dewey 1994, p. 27
- ^ Miles, Sara Joan (September 2001). "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 53. Ipswich, MA: American Scientific Affiliation: 196–201. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
- ^ Gray, Asa (July, August, and October, 1860). "Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology". The Atlantic Monthly (Reprint). Boston, MA. Archived from the original on 2009-02-20. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Bowler 2003, pp. 202–208
- ^ Scott 2005, pp. 62–63
- ^ Moritz, Albrecht (October 31, 2006). "The Origin of Life". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
- ^ Scott 1999
- ^ Akin, Jimmy (January 2004). "Evolution and the Magisterium". This Rock. 15 (1). San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, Inc. ISSN 1049-4561. Archived from the original on 2007-08-04. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
- ^ Guntzel, Jeff Severns (March 25, 2005). "Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias". National Catholic Reporter. Kansas City, MO: The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company. ISSN 0027-8939. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
- ^ Coyne, George V. (January 30, 2006). "Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on 'Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution'". Catholic Online, LLC. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
- ^ Pennock 1999
- Schafersman, Steven D. (May 1997). "Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry". Free Inquiry: The Humanist and Skeptic Website of Steven Schafersman. Steven Schafersman. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
- Leiter, Brian (April 6, 2004). "On Methodological Naturalism and Intelligent Design (or Why Can't Lawrence VanDyke Leave Well Enough Alone?)". Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog (Blog). Brian Leiter. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
- Burgeson, John W. (1997). "NTSE: An Intellectual Feast". Origins & Design. 18 (2). Colorado Springs, CO: Access Research Network. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
- Draper 2005
- Pigliucci, Massimo; et al. (May–June 2004). "The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory". Philosophy Now (46). London. ISSN 0961-5970. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
- "Statement on Intelligent Design". The Department of Biology (Petition). Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa. 2005. Archived from the original on 2010-09-01. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
- Pigliucci, Massimo (December 2005). "Science and fundamentalism". EMBO Reports. 6 (12). London: Nature Publishing Group. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400589. ISSN 1469-3178. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
- Martin, Michael (2002). "Justifying Methodological Naturalism". The Secular Web. Colorado Springs, CO: Internet Infidels, Inc. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
- ^ Bradley, Raymond (November 23, 2005). "Intelligent Design or Natural Design". Butterflies and Wheels. Seattle, WA: Ophelia Benson. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
- ^ a b c d Miller, Jon D.; Scott, Eugenie C.; Okamoto, Shinji (August 2006). "Public acceptance of evolution". Science. 313 (5788). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science: 765–766. doi:10.1126/science.1126746. PMID 16902112. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
- ^ "Denominational Views". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
- ^ "Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006)". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
- ^ Schick, Edwin A. (1965). "Evolution". In Bodensieck, Julius (ed.). The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church. Vol. 1. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House. LCCN 64021500. OCLC 947120. Retrieved 2010-05-17. Edited for the Lutheran World Federation.
- Hollabaugh, Mark (October 2006). "God allows the universe to create itself and evolve". The Lutheran. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress. ISSN 0024-743X. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
- ^ "Interview: Rowan Williams". The Guardian (Transcript). London: Guardian Media Group. March 21, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
- ^ Williams, Christopher (March 21, 2006). "Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution". The Register. London: Situation Publishing Limited. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
- ^ McDonell, Keelin (July 12, 2005). "What Catholics Think of Evolution". Slate. Washington, D.C.: The Washington Post Company. Archived from the original on 2005-07-16. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
- ^ See also the article Catholic Church and evolution.
- ^ Polkinghorne 1998, pp. 7–8
- ^ Bradshaw, Rob. "Philo of Alexandria (c.20 BC - c. AD 50)". Early Church.org.uk. West Wickham, England: Steve Bradshaw. Retrieved December 21, 2011.
- ^ Pope Pius XII (August 12, 1950). "Humani Generis". Vatican: the Holy See (Papal encyclical). St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City: Holy See. Retrieved 2011-11-08.
- ^ Pope John Paul II (October 30, 1996). "Magisterium is concerned with question of evolution, for it involves conception of man". L'Osservatore Romano (Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences). No. 44 (Weekly English ed.). Tipografia Vaticana, Vatican City: Holy See. pp. 3, 7. Retrieved 2014-03-19.
- ^ "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. 2008. p. 95. Retrieved 2014-03-19.
{{cite web}}
:|chapter=
ignored (help) Report 2: Religious Beliefs & Practices, Chapter 2. - ^ Jackson, Wayne. "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?". Apologetics Press. Montgomery, Al. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
- ^ Tobin, Paul N. (2000). "The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties". The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity. Singapore: Paul Tobin. Retrieved 2014-03-19.
- ^ Eddy 1934, p. 547
- ^ McGrath 2010, p. 140
- ^ Numbers 2006, p. 420
- ^ Carper & Hunt 2009, p. 167
- ^ Dasgupta 1922, p. 10
- ^ "Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools". The Guardian (Conferences). London: Guardian Media Group. January 7, 2004. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
- ^ a b c Bennett, Drake (October 25, 2009). "Islam's Darwin problem". The Boston Globe. Boston, MA. Archived from the original on 2009-10-30. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- ^ Irvine, Chris (September 29, 2008). "Creationist Adnan Oktar offers trillion-pound prize for fossil proof of evolution". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- ^ Kaufman, Marc (November 8, 2009). "In Turkey, fertile ground for creationism". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: The Washington Post Company. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- ^ Harun Yahya (June 30, 2005). "The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy". Harun Yahya. Horsham, England: Global Publication Ltd. Co. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- ^ Bucaille 1977
- ^ Abd-Allah, A. "The Qur'an, Knowledge, and Science". Compendium of Muslim Texts. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Archived from the original on 2008-11-28. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- ^ a b Masood 1994, Chapter 13, "Every Wind of Doctrine"
- ^ Lahaye, Ataul Wahid; Shah, Zia H. "Guided Evolution: Proof From Punctuated Equilibrium" (PDF). Al Islam. London: Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- ^ Aviezer 1990
- ^ Carmell & Domb 1976
- ^ Schroeder 1998
- ^ Tigay, Jeffrey H. (Winter 1987–1988). "Genesis, Science, and 'Scientific Creationism'". Conservative Judaism. 40 (2). New York: Rabbinical Assembly; Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 20–27. ISSN 0010-6542. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- ^ `Abdu'l-Bahá 1982, p. 220
- ^ a b Pitock, Todd (July 2007). "Science and Islam in Conflict". Discover. 28 (7). Waukesha, WI: Kalmbach Publishing: 36–45. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- ^ a b Katz, Gregory (February 9, 2008). "Creationists seek foothold in Europe". USA Today. Tysons Corner, VA: Gannett Company. Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- ^ a b c Edis, Taner (November–December 1999). "Cloning Creationism in Turkey". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 19 (6). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education: 30–35. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
- ^ a b "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension". BBC News. London: BBC. September 9, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- ^ Highfield, Roger (October 2, 2007). "Creationists rewrite natural history". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- ^ a b "The dangers of creationism in education". Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Resolution). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. October 4, 2007. Resolution 1580. Retrieved 2014-03-22. Paras. 13, 18
- ^ Wilder-Smith 1978
- ^ Schirrmacher, Thomas (July 1985). "The German Creationist Movement". Acts & Facts. 14 (7). San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research. ISSN 1094-8562. Retrieved 2014-03-22.
- ^ "Hessische Schulen: 'Kultusministerin fällt auf Kreationisten herein'". Spiegel Online. Hamburg, Germany: Spiegel Online GmbH. October 31, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-22.
- ^ "German Scientists Concerned About Rise in Creationist Belief". Deutsche Welle. Bonn, Germany: ARD. November 2, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-22.
- ^ Lubbadeh, Jens (February 25, 2009). "Contesting Evolution: European Creationists Take On Darwin". Spiegel Online. Hamburg, Germany: Spiegel Online GmbH. Retrieved 2014-03-22.
- ^ "Polling creationism and evolution around the world". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. April 25, 2011. Retrieved 2014-01-01.
- ^ Duffy, Bobby (April 25, 2011). "Ipsos Global @dvisory: Supreme Being(s), the Afterlife and Evolution" (Press release). New York, NY: Ipsos. Retrieved 2014-01-01. Results are tabulated here, with results by country on page 20.
- ^ Dogar, Andreea (March 20, 2009). "Carte creaţionistă pentru biologie, avizată de minister". EVZ.ro. Archived from the original on 2011-06-08. Retrieved 2014-03-23.
- ^ Doughty, John; Doughty, Svetlana (June 1997). "Creationism in Russia". Acts & Facts. 26 (6). San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research. ISSN 1094-8562. Retrieved 2014-03-23.
- ^ Kjærgaard, Peter C. (May–June 2008). "Western front". New Humanist. 123 (3). London: Rationalist Association: 39–41. ISSN 0306-512X. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
- ^ "The dangers of creationism in education". Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. September 17, 2007. Doc. 11375. Retrieved 2014-04-24.
- ^ Bigg, Claire (March 10, 2006). "Russia: Creationism Finds Support Among Young". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Washington, D.C.: Broadcasting Board of Governors. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
- ^ "Figure 7-7: Correct answers to specific science literacy questions, by country/region: Most recent year". Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 (Figure). Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation; National Science Board. February 23, 2006. OCLC 71342049. NSB 06-01. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) - ^ a b Stephenson, Tony; Michael, Adam; Tan, Benjamyn (June 30, 2009). "Darwin Survey Shows International Consensus on Acceptance of Evolution" (PDF) (Press release). London: British Council. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ a b de Quetteville, Harry (September 9, 2004). "Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved January 24, 2012.
- ^ Stephens, Thomas (October 9, 2006). "Swiss drag knuckles accepting evolution". swissinfo.ch. Bern, Switzerland: SRG SSR. Retrieved 2011-12-04.
- ^ Bechtel, Dale (November 28, 2007). "Creationism controversy evolves". swissinfo.ch. Bern, Switzerland: SRG SSR. Retrieved 2011-12-04.
- ^ a b Joyce, Julian (September 15, 2008). "Who are the British creationists?". BBC News. London: BBC. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ "Americans are creationists; Britons and Canadians side with evolution". Angus Reid Global. Vancouver, B.C.: Vision Critical. July 15, 2010. Retrieved 2012-06-02.
- ^ a b "The origin of humans" (PDF). YouGov Global (Prospect Survey Results). London: YouGov Plc. November 20, 2010. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ Wynne-Jones, Jonathan (January 31, 2009). "Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ "Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'". The Scotsman. London: Johnston Press. April 2, 2008. Retrieved 2014-04-23.
- ^ "Call for creationism in science". BBC News. London: BBC. September 13, 2008. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ "Four out of five Britons do not believe in creationism". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. March 2, 2009. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ Hameed, Salman (December 12, 2008). "Bracing for Islamic creationism" (PDF). Science. 322 (5908). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science: 1637–1638. doi:10.1126/science.1163672. PMID 19074331. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ a b c d Burton, Elise K. (May–June 2010). "Teaching Evolution in Muslim States:Iran and Saudi Arabia Compared". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 30 (3). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education: 25–29. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-01-13.
- ^ a b "In the beginning". The Economist. London: Economist Group. April 19, 2007. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2007-04-25.This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.
- ^ Clément, Pierre; Quessada, Marie Pierre; Laurent, Charline; Carvalho, Graça (September 21–26, 2008). Science and Religion: Evolutionism and Creationism in Education. A survey of teachers conceptions in 14 countries (PDF). XIII IOSTE Symposium. Izmir, Turkey. Retrieved 2014-04-24.
- ^ Salter, Jessica (September 19, 2008). "Richard Dawkins website banned in Turkey". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ RDFRS UK (July 8, 2011). "RD.net no longer banned in Turkey!". RichardDawkins.net. Washington, D.C.: Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Archived from the original on 2011-11-05. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ Abbott, Alison (March 10, 2009). "Turkish scientists claim Darwin censorship". Nature News. London: Nature Publishing Group. doi:10.1038/news.2009.150. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ "Turkey censors evolution". Nature (Editorial). 458 (259). London: Nature Publishing Group. March 19, 2009. doi:10.1038/458259a. ISSN 0028-0836. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ "Evolution Stirs Tempest in Turkish Teapot". APS News (News). 18 (5). College Park, MD: American Physical Society. May 2009. ISSN 1058-8132. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ "Darwin issue ends in finger pointing". Hürriyet Daily News. Üsküdar, Turkey: Doğan Media Group. March 16, 2009. ISSN 1300-0721. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ Steinvorth, Daniel (March 17, 2009). "Darwin in Turkey: 'Most Express Sympathy for the Censorship'". Spiegel Online. Hamburg, Germany: Spiegel Online GmbH. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
- ^ Chivers, Tom (December 10, 2011). "Darwin censored by the Turkish government's porn filter". Telegraph Blogs (Blog). London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ "A Brief History Of Answers in Genesis–USA". AnswersOnline. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis Ministries International. Archived from the original on 2000-08-16.
- ^ "Ken Ham: Biblical Literalist". PBS. WGBH Educational Foundation; Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. 2001. Retrieved 2008-12-17. Supplemental website material for the documentary series Evolution (2001).
- ^ "Answers Research Journal - Creation, Evolution, Scientific Research - Answers Research Journal". Answers Research Journal. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis. ISSN 1937-9056. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
- ^ "Dr Jason Lisle, Ph.D." Creation.com. Creation Ministries International. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
- ^ "Dr. Jonathan Sarfati". Creation.com. Creation Ministries International. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
- ^ "Dr Tasman Bruce Walker". Creation.com. Creation Ministries International. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
- ^ Hennessy, Carly (May 30, 2010). "Intelligent design to be taught in Queensland schools under national curriculum". The Courier-Mail. Surry Hills, Australia: News Limited. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ "Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström". Creation.com. Creation Ministries International. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
- ^ a b Plimer, Ian (December 12, 1998). "EVOLUTION V. CREATION DOWN UNDER". Skeptic Mag Hotline. Altadena, CA: The Skeptics Society. ISSN 2168-3360. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
- ^ Plimer 1994
- ^ Plimer, Ian (July 17, 1997). "'Telling Lies for God'? - One Man's Crusade". Quantum. Season 12. Episode 12. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Transcript. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
{{cite episode}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|transcripturl=
|transcripturl=
ignored (|transcript-url=
suggested) (help) - ^ a b Chon-Ho Hyon (October 1997). "The Creation Science Movement in Korea". Acts & Facts. 25 (10). San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research. ISSN 1094-8562. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
- ^ "한국창조과학회". Korea Association for Creation Research. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Association for Creation Research. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (help) - ^ Soo Bin Park (June 7, 2012). "South Korea surrenders to creationist demands". Nature. 486 (7401). London: Nature Publishing Group: 14. doi:10.1038/486014a. ISSN 0028-0836. Retrieved 2012-07-03.
- ^ "Creationist success in South Korea?". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. June 5, 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-03.
- ^ Soo Bin Park (September 6, 2012). "Science wins over creationism in South Korea". Nature News. London: Nature Publishing Group. doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11377. Retrieved 2013-06-18.
- ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Context, p. 19.
- ^ Flank, Lenny (March 2006). "The History of Creationism". TalkOrigins Archive (Post of the Month). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
- ^ a b c "McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-03-27. Decision, January 5, 1982.
- ^ "Edwards v. Aguillard". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
- ^ Witt, Jonathan (December 20, 2005). "Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design". Evolution News & Views. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ Heddy, Benjamin C.; Nadelson, Louis S. (March 26, 2013). "The variables related to public acceptance of evolution in the United States". Evolution: Education and Outreach. 6 (3). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science+Business Media: 1–14. doi:10.1186/1936-6434-6-3. ISSN 1936-6434. Retrieved 2013-03-28.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Le Page, Michael (April 19, 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist. 198 (2652). London: Reed Business Information: 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ Hecht, Jeff (August 19, 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?". New Scientist. 191 (2565). London: Reed Business Information: 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ The Cultural Cognition Project, retrieved May 2014
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help) - ^ Shtulman, Andrew (2006), "Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution", Cognitive Psychology, 52 (2): 170–194, doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001
- ^ Maley, Jacqueline (December 19, 2009). "God is still tops but angels rate well". The Age. Melbourne, Australia: Fairfax Media. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ "Believe In Evolution: Canadians More Likely Than Americans To Endorse Evolution". HuffPost Canada. AOL. September 6, 2012. Retrieved 2012-04-28.
- Canseco, Mario (September 5, 2012). "Britons and Canadians More Likely to Endorse than Americans" (PDF) (Press release). New York: Angus Reid Public Opinion. Retrieved 2014-05-11.
- ^ "Britons unconvinced on evolution". BBC News. London: BBC. January 26, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ "BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life". Ipsos MORI. London: Ipsos MORI. January 30, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ a b Bates, Stephen (March 20, 2006). "Archbishop: stop teaching creationism". The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ "Italy Keeps Darwin in its Classrooms". Deutsche Welle. Bonn, Germany: ARD. May 3, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ Lorenzi, Rossella (April 28, 2004). "No evolution for Italian teens". The Scientist. London: Faculty of 1000. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ "The dangers of creationism in education". Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. June 8, 2007. Doc. 11297. Retrieved 2014-03-22.
- ^ "'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits". BBC News. London: BBC. September 16, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ "And finally..." Warsaw Business Journal. Warsaw, Poland: Valkea Media. December 18, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ a b c Newport, Frank (November 19, 2004). "In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins". Gallup.com. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 2014-05-10.
- ^ Newport, Frank (Host) (June 11, 2007). Evolution Beliefs. The Gallup Poll Daily Briefing. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
- ^ a b Robinson, Bruce A. (November 1995). "Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation". ReligiousTolerance.org. Kingston, Canada: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 2007-11-11.
- ^ Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (June 29, 1987). "Keeping God Out of the Classroom". Newsweek. 109 (26): 23. ISSN 0028-9604. Retrieved 2014-03-28.
- ^ a b "Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public Opinion" (PDF). People For the American Way. Washington, D.C.: People For the American Way. March 2000. Retrieved 2014-03-28.
- ^ a b "Fox News Poll: Creationism". Fox News. News Corporation. September 7, 2011. Retrieved 2011-09-22.
- ^ Boyle, Alan (February 5, 2014). "Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate". NBCNews.com. Retrieved 2014-02-06.
- ^ Kopplin, Zack (February 4, 2014). "Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists". The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 2014-02-06.
- ^ Foreman, Tom (Moderator) (February 4, 2014). "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official)". YouTube. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2014-02-05. Program begins at 13:14.
- ^ Delgado, Cynthia (July 28, 2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record. Bethesda, MD: United States Department of Health and Human Services; National Institutes of Health. ISSN 1057-5871. Retrieved 2014-03-31. "...While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory." — Brian Alters
- ^ "Statements from Religious Organizations". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
- ^ Murphy, George L. (Second quarter 2002). "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem". Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology. IV (2). Chicago, IL: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Division for Ministry. OCLC 52753579. Retrieved 2014-03-31.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) Reprinted with permission. - ^ "American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. July 23, 2010. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
- ^ Moore, Randy; Cotner, Sehoya (May 2009). "The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism?". BioScience. 59 (5). Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences: 429–435. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.5.10. ISSN 0006-3568. JSTOR 25502451.
- ^ National Research Council 2008, p. 12
- ^ National Research Council 2008, p. 10, "In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations."
- ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (2006). "An Index to Creationist Claims". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2012-12-09.
- ^ Futuyma 2005
- ^ Gould 1999
- ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (March 1997). "Nonoverlapping Magisteria". Natural History. 106 (3). Research Triangle Park, NC: Natural History Magazine, Inc.: 16–22. ISSN 0028-0712. Retrieved 2014-03-31.
- ^ Dawkins 2006, p. 5
- ^ Matsumura, Molleen; Mead, Louise (February 14, 2001). "Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2008-11-04. Updated 2007-07-31.
- ^ Myers, PZ (June 18, 2006). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula (Blog). ScienceBlogs LLC. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
- ^ "About Old Earth Ministries?". Old Earth Ministries. Springfield, OH: Old Earth Ministries. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
References
- `Abdu'l-Bahá (1982) [Originally published 1922–1925]. The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by `Abdu'l-Bahá during His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912. Compiled by Howard MacNutt (2nd ed.). Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust. ISBN 0-8774-3172-8. LCCN 81021689. OCLC 853066452.
- Aviezer, Nathan (1990). In the Beginning—: Biblical Creation and Science. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House. ISBN 0-88125-328-6. LCCN 89049127. OCLC 20800545.
- Barlow, Nora, ed. (1963). "Darwin's Ornithological Notes". Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series. 2 (7). London: Trustees of the British Museum: 201–278. ISSN 0068-2306. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
- Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23693-9. LCCN 2002007569. OCLC 49824702.
- Bucaille, Maurice (1977) [Original French edition published 1976]. The Bible, The Qur'an and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge. translated from the French by Alastair D. Pannell and the author. Paris: Seghers. LCCN 76488005. OCLC 373529514.
- Bucaille, Maurice (1976). The Qur'an and Modern Science (Booklet). Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Cooperative Offices for Call & Guidance at Al-Badiah & Industrial Area. OCLC 52246825. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
- Carmell, Aryeh; Domb, Cyril, eds. (1976). Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems. Jerusalem; New York: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists; Feldheim Publishers. ISBN 0-87306-174-8. LCCN 77357516. OCLC 609518840.
- Carper, James C.; Hunt, Thomas C., eds. (2009). The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States. Vol. 1: A–L. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. ISBN 978-0-275-99228-6. LCCN 2008041156. OCLC 246888936.
- Collins, Francis S. (2006). The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-0-7432-8639-8. LCCN 2006045316. OCLC 65978711.
- Darwin, Charles (1958). Barlow, Nora (ed.). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With original omissions restored; Edited and with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter, Nora Barlow. London: Collins. LCCN 93017940. OCLC 869541868. Retrieved 2009-01-09.
- Dasgupta, Surendranath (1922). A History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. 1. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. LCCN 22018463. OCLC 4235820.
- Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press. ISBN 978-0-5930-5548-9. LCCN 2006015506. OCLC 70671839.
- Desmond, Adrian (1989). The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London. Science and its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-14346-5. LCCN 89005137. OCLC 828159401.
- Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London; New York: Michael Joseph; Viking Penguin. ISBN 0-7181-3430-3. LCCN 92196964. OCLC 26502431.
- Dewey, John (1994). "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy". In Martin Gardner (ed.). Great Essays in Science. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-853-8. LCCN 93035453. OCLC 28846489.
- Draper, Paul R. (2005). "God, Science, and Naturalism". In Wainwright, William J. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195138090.003.0012. ISBN 978-0-1951-3809-2. LCCN 2004043890. OCLC 54542845. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
- Dundes, Alan (1984). "Introduction". In Dundes, Alan (ed.). Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-5200-5192-0. LCCN 83017921. OCLC 9944508.
- Dundes, Alan (1996). "Madness in Method, Plus a Plea for Projective Inversion in Myth". In Patton, Laurie L.; Doniger, Wendy (eds.). Myth and Method. Charlottesville; London: University of Virginia Press. ISBN 0-8139-1657-7. LCCN 96014672. OCLC 34516050.
- Eddy, Mary Baker (1934) [Originally published 1875 as Science and Health; Christian Scientist Publishing Company: Boston, MA]. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Sunday school ed.). Boston, MA: Christian Science Publishing Society for the Trustees under the will of Mary Baker G. Eddy. LCCN 42044682. OCLC 4579118.
- Forrest, Barbara; Gross, Paul R. (2004). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515742-7. LCCN 2002192677. OCLC 50913078.
- Forster, Roger; Marston, V. Paul (1999). "Genesis Through History". Reason, Science, and Faith. Crowborough, East Sussex: Monarch Books. ISBN 1-85424-441-8. LCCN 99488551. OCLC 41159110.
- Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). "Evolutionary Science, Creationism, and Society". Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 0-87893-187-2. LCCN 2004029808. OCLC 57311264.
- Giberson, Karl W.; Yerxa, Donald A. (2002). Species of Origins: America's Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-7425-0764-5. LCCN 2002002365. OCLC 49031109.
- Gosse, Philip Henry (1857). Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. London: J. Van Voorst. LCCN 11004351. OCLC 7631539.
- Gould, Stephen Jay (1999). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. Library of Contemporary Thought (1st ed.). New York: Ballantine Publishing Group. ISBN 0-345-43009-3. LCCN 98031335. OCLC 39886951.
- Gunn, Angus M. (2004). Evolution and Creationism in the Public Schools: A Handbook for Educators, Parents, and Community Leaders. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-7864-2002-2. LCCN 2004018788. OCLC 56319812.
- Hayward, James L. (1998). The Creation/Evolution Controversy: An Annotated Bibliography. Magill Bibliographies. Lanham, MD; Pasadena, CA: Scarecrow Press; Salem Press. p. 253. ISBN 0-8108-3386-7. LCCN 98003138. OCLC 38496519.
- Lamoureux, Denis O. (1999). "Evangelicals Inheriting the Wind: The Phillip E. Johnson Phenomenon". Darwinism Defeated?: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins. Foreword by J. I. Packer. Vancouver, B.C.: Regent College Publishing. ISBN 1-57383-133-6. OCLC 40892139.
- Masood, Steven (1994) [Originally published 1986]. Jesus and the Indian Messiah. Oldham, England: Word of Life. ISBN 1-898868-00-X. LCCN 94229476. OCLC 491161526.
- McComas, William F. (2002). "Science and Its Myths". In Shermer, Michael (ed.). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1-57607-653-9. LCCN 2002009653. OCLC 50155642.
- McGrath, Alister E. (2010). Science and Religion: A New Introduction (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-8790-9. LCCN 2009020180. OCLC 366494307.
- Stewart, Melville Y., ed. (2010). Science and Religion in Dialogue. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-8921-7. LCCN 2009032180. OCLC 430678957.
- National Research Council (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-10586-6. LCCN 2007015904. OCLC 192020861.
- Numbers, Ronald L. (1998). Darwinism Comes to America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-19312-1. LCCN 98016212. OCLC 38747194.
- Numbers, Ronald L. (2006) [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0. LCCN 2006043675. OCLC 69734583.
- Pennock, Robert T. (1999). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-16180-X. LCCN 98027286. OCLC 44966044.
- Pennock, Robert T, ed. (2001). Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-66124-1. LCCN 2001031276. OCLC 46729201.
{{cite book}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help) - Philo, of Alexandria (1854–55). "The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, after the Work of the Six Days of Creation". The Works of Philo Judaeus. Bohn's Classical Library. Translated from the Greek, by C. D. Yonge. London: H.G. Bohn. LCCN 20007801. OCLC 1429769. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) - Plimer, Ian (1994). Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism. Milsons Point, NSW: Random House Australia. ISBN 0-09-182852-X. LCCN 94237744. OCLC 32608689.
- Polkinghorne, John (1998). Science and Theology: An Introduction. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. ISBN 0-8006-3153-6. LCCN 98229115. OCLC 40117376.
- Quammen, David (2006). The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution. Great Discoveries. New York: Atlas Books/W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-05981-6. LCCN 2006009864. OCLC 65400177.
- Rainey, David (2008). Faith Reads: A Selective Guide to Christian Nonfiction. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. ISBN 978-1-59158-602-9. LCCN 2008010352. OCLC 213599217.
- Schroeder, Gerald L. (1998) [Originally published 1997; New York: Free Press]. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (1st Broadway Books trade paperback ed.). New York: Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-0303-X. LCCN 97014978. OCLC 39162332.
- Scott, Eugenie C. (1999). "Science, Religion, and Evolution". In Springer, Dale A.; Scotchmoor, Judy (eds.). Evolution: Investigating the Evidence (Reprint). The Paleontological Society Special Publications. Vol. 9. Pittsburgh, PA: Paleontological Society. LCCN 00274093. OCLC 42725350. Archived from the original on 2003-06-28. "Presented as a Paleontological Society short course at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Denver, Colorado, October 24, 1999."
- Scott, Eugenie C. (2005) [Originally published 2004; Westport, CT: Greenwood Press]. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Foreword by Niles Eldredge (1st paperback ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24650-0. LCCN 2005048649. OCLC 60420899.
- Secord, James A. (2000). Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74410-8. LCCN 00009124. OCLC 43864195.
- Sweet, William; Feist, Richard, eds. (2007). Religion and the Challenges of Science. Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7546-5715-6. LCCN 2006030598. OCLC 71778930.
- Wilder-Smith, A. E. (1978). Die Naturwissenschaften kennen keine Evolution: Empirische und theoretische Einwände gegen die Evolutionstheorie. Basel, Switzerland: Schwabe Verlag. ISBN 3-7965-0691-7. LCCN 80067425. OCLC 245955034.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (help) - Young, Davis A. (1995). The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. ISBN 0-8028-0719-4. LCCN 95001899. OCLC 246813515.
Further reading
- Anderson, Bernard W. (1967). Creation versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible. New York: Association Press. LCCN 67014578. OCLC 671184.
- Anderson, Bernhard W., ed. (1984). Creation in the Old Testament. Issues in Religion and Theology. Vol. 6. Introduction by Bernhard W. Anderson. Philadelphia; London: Fortress Press; Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. ISBN 0-8006-1768-1. LCCN 83048910. OCLC 10374840.
- Barbour, Ian G. (1997). Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (1st HarperCollins revised ed.). San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-060938-9. LCCN 97006294. OCLC 36417827.
- Barbour, Ian G. (2000). When Science Meets Religion (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-060381-X. LCCN 99055579. OCLC 42752713.
- Kaplan, Aryeh (1993). Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View. With an appendix Derush Or ha-Hayyim by Israel Lipschitz; translated and annotated by Yaakov Elman. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House in association with the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. ISBN 0-88125-345-6. LCCN 92036917. OCLC 26800167.
- Kauffman, Stuart A. (2008). Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00300-6. LCCN 2007052263. OCLC 191023778.
- Leeming, David Adams; Leeming, Margaret (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-510275-4. LCCN 95039961. OCLC 33160980.
- Primack, Joel R.; Abrams, Nancy Ellen (Jan–Feb 1995). "In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah" (PDF). Tikkun. 10 (1). Durham, NC: Duke University Press: 66–73. ISSN 0887-9982. Retrieved 2014-04-24.
- Roberts, Michael (2008). Evangelicals and Science. Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-33113-8. LCCN 2007041059. OCLC 174138819.
External links
- "Creationism" at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Michael Ruse
- "How Creationism Works" at HowStuffWorks by Julia Layton
- "TIMELINE: Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design" Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate
- Template:PDF by Warren D. Allmon, Director of the Museum of the Earth
- "What is creationism?" at talk.origins by Mark Isaak
- "The Creation/Evolution Continuum" by Eugenie Scott
- "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" by John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American magazine