Creationism

This article describes the creationism controversy.

Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible. The term usually refers to Christian creationism and especially to the belief that living organisms were created by God "after their kind". However, not all Christians are creationists, nor are all creationists Christian. In fact, other major religions believe some variant of Creationism, though often not in such terms.

Most creationists reject the modern evolutionary synthesis (the current scientific theory of evolution) because it attempts to explain the appearance of life without divine intervention. In this article, supporters of evolution will be referred to as evolutionists. The creationism controversy is the debate between creationists and evolutionists about the origins of life. This debate is highly controversial and is not considered a serious debate by most scientists.

The creation stories of Genesis

The opening chapters of Genesis (first chapter of the Old Testament of the jewish and christian holy book) tell about creation. Many biblical scholars distinguish two separate creation stories:

The story of the creation in six days (Genesis 1:1–2:3) The story of the day of creation (Genesis 2:4–24) The two stories are not identical and there are various claims about how they can be interpreted.

The first story, Genesis 1:1–2:3

This story is an account of God (Elohim) creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh day. The order of creation is:

First day God creates the heavens and the Earth. (1:1) The Earth is dark and without form. (1:2) God creates light. (1:3–5) Second day God creates a "firmament" or a "dome", called "sky", to separate the heavens and Earth. (1:6-8) Third day God separates the seas and dry land. (1:9–10) God creates fruits and vegetation. (1:11–13) Fourth day God puts lights in the sky to separate day and night and to indicate the passing of the seasons. The sun, moon, and stars are created. (1:14–19) Fifth day God creates sea creatures and birds. (1:20–23) Sixth day God creates living creatures for the land: wild animals, cattle and creeping things. (1:24–25) God creates mankind, male and female, "in his own image". (1:26–31) Seventh day The Sabbath (2:1–3)

The second story, Genesis 2:4–2:25

This story is an account of the day the LORD (Yahweh) created the world. It begins on the day of the creation (2:4) before plants, rain, and men (2:5).

The man is formed. (2:7) The LORD plants the garden of Eden and places the man in it. (2:8) The trees grow in the Garden, including the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (2:9) Description of the rivers of Eden. (2:10–14) The man is put in garden to care for it. (2:15) The man is commanded not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (2:16–17) The LORD decides the man should not be alone. (2:18) The LORD creates animals and birds and has Adam name them. (2:19–20) The creation of the first woman. (2:21–22) The man and the woman form the first family. (2:23–25)

Reconciling the two stories

The creation accounts are consistent within themselves but the order of creation and other details are significantly different. In each story the deity is referred to differently. There are many ways of accounting for these differences, and creationists have different interpretations of these stories.

Some hold that the passages in Genesis are not to be interpreted literally, but are a symbolic or poetic account of the creation of the universe or that they are based on the prevailing knowledge of the physical world at the time that they were written. Others take the stories far more literally. Some do not believe that the two accounts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are compatible, that neither account as "history", but that the creation of mankind is the culmination of God's creating work.

Others believe that Genesis Chapter 2 from verse 5 onward is a parallel account of things that takes up at a point before land plants "was in the earth" and when a "mist" "watered the whole face of the ground": [1].

The time frame of the creation stories

The first creation story is about six days of creation (Genesis 1:31); the second is about the day of creation (Genesis 2:4). This apparent contradiction in two verses that are so close together has troubled many commentators (see A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by A.D. White, 1896, Dover Publications, 1960, page 5). The distinction is concealed by some translations, such as the New International Version by substituting when for on the day that in Genesis 2:4.

History of Creationism

The creation beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can be traced back to the creation stories in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. During the Middle Ages, most Europeans believed that God had existed and would exist eternally, and that everything else had been created by God as described in the Bible. However, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment challenged this viewpoint. New scientific discoveries, the rediscovery of old philosophical ideas, and new philosophical ideas led many to doubt the validity of this belief.

Charles Darwin's famous work, The Origin of Species (1859), introduced the idea that natural selection could account for the evolution of living things. While the concepts of natural selection and evolution had been introduced before, Darwin was the first person to put the two together (although the first five editions of Origin did not include the word "evolution").

Darwin's book ignited a furious controversy in Victorian Britain. His subsequent book The Descent of Man (1871), in which he applied his theory to humankind and proposed common descent, stoked the controversy further. Because Darwin's book contradicted a literal reading of the Bible, it divided people into the secular and religious, and the religious into literal and non-literal theists. One of the most famous disputes was the Oxford Debate of 1860, in which T.H. Huxley, Darwin's self-appointed "bulldog", debated evolution with "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford. Darwin's theory continued to arouse controversy, but by the 1930s, most Europeans considered it the standard explanation for the origins of life.

However, the situation in the United States was different due to the strong influence of fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalist Christianity had arisen as a reaction to Modernist Christianity. The modernist approach held that some observable facts about the natural world were in contradiction to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that the Bible contained factual, but not religious, errors. Fundamentalist Christianity, reacting against modernism, codified its own belief in the plenary and inerrant inspiration of the Bible, including the creation stories of Genesis. Consequently, when Darwin's theory was introduced, fundamentalist Christianity rejected it outright.

While academic opinion in the United States was generally in favor of Darwin's theory, much public and some legislative opinion was strongly against it, especially in the Bible Belt. The first major clash occurred in the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, when a Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution was upheld. The teaching of both creationism and evolution is still controversial in some states.

In recent times, creationists have been a driving force of the intelligent design (ID) movement. Intelligent design states that life is too complex to have evolved naturally, and that consequently life must have been designed. Advocates of intelligent design never name the designer. Their opponents state that the designer is God and that the movement is a disguised version of creationism. Though the intelligent design movement is well-organized and well-funded, it has found few endorsements.

Creationism of any variety has also made little headway against mainstream scientific opinion; the vast majority of scientists accept the modern evolutionary synthesis. However, perhaps as a result of Christian fundamentalism recently gaining converts among well-educated right-wing Americans, a small but vociferous number of academics have come out in favour of creationism.

While Christian fundamentalists are credited as the originators of the movement, there are also creationists among Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and conservatives of mainline Protestant churches, such as the Confessing Movements, as well as some Roman Catholics, Jews, and many Muslims. Many of these hold creation beliefs that have elements of both the views of Christian fundamentalists and the views of evolutionists. Consequently, "creationism" is sometimes used as an umbrella term for any creation belief that requires the existence of a creator god.

Types of creationist beliefs

Within the broader term creationist, there is no single set of beliefs, but a few general categories do exist. One classification is based on beliefs about the age of the Earth.

• Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth was created by God around 6,000 years ago, usually as described in the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar.
• Old Earth creationists believe that the Earth is millions or billions of years old. Old Earth creationism comes in two flavors:
  • Gap creationism, also called Restitution creationism — the view that life was immediately created on a pre-existing old Earth. This group generally translates Genesis 1:2 as “The earth became without form and void,” indicating a destruction of the original creation by some unknown cataclysm.
  • Day-age creationism — the view that the “six days” of Genesis are not ordinary twenty-four-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each “day” could be the equivalent of millions of years of modern time).

Another classification is based on beliefs about how organisms have been created.

• Progressive creationism states that new kinds of organisms are constantly being created to replace extinct ancient forms.
• Intelligent design states that life is too complex to have evolved without the intervention of an (unnamed) intelligent designer. The originators of this view include biochemist Michael Behe, William Dembski and law professor Phillip Johnson and it is commonly associated with the Discovery Institute of Seattle.
• Evolutionary creationism (or theistic evolution) states that biological evolution happens, but that God controls the apparently random events or designed the fundamental physical laws that allow evolution.
• Deism states that the universe was created by a God who then made no further intervention in its affairs. This is often expressed by the metaphor of the “Divine Watchmaker” who created a mechanism so perfect as to be self-regulating. Deists do not believe in miracles or revelations.

Part of creationist expression is the creation science movement. Advocates of creation science attempt to offer scientific explanations for religious creation scenarios. Usually these theories disagree with mainstream scientific theories of cosmology, human origins, and evolution. Not all creationists accept creation science.

Many Christian creationists believe that a creator would logically attempt to communicate with intelligent members of his creation. Jesus and the Bible are taken to be the creator's attempt at communication. However, there is strong disagreement in interpretation and in how literally the Bible is to be taken.

Distribution of creationist views

United States

In the United States, creationism remains popular among non-scientists. According to several evolution polls over the last decade, 60–65% of Americans believe that “God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” About 10% believe that the evolution of species occurred without any divine intervention. The latter figure is higher among the upper class, Internet users and among college graduates, higher still among scientists (about 55% believe that evolution occurred without God over millions of years according to a 1997 Gallup poll [2]), and higher still among biologists and geologists. These data have remained relatively stable over time.

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.’” A 2000 poll by People for the American Way examined the question of popular support for evolution and creationism in schools, and showed that a majority of 83% supported the teaching of the theory of evolution [3].

The western world outside the United States

The United States fundamentalist Christian community has no real parallels (in terms of numbers, prominence, and political influence) elsewhere in the Western world (aside from possibly Canada), and because most vocal creationists are from the United States, it is generally assumed that creationist views are not as common elsewhere. Statistics are not clear on the issue.

According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian creationists claimed that “five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.” The documentary further states that “Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement.” Taking these claims at face value, “young-earth” creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries other than the USA.

In Europe, creationism is a less well defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available; however, the option of teaching creationism in school has never been seriously considered in any Western European country. In Roman Catholic-majority countries, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. Nevertheless, creationist groups such as the German Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen[4] are actively lobbying there as well. In the United Kingdom the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (previously the Vardy Foundation), which owns two colleges in the north of England and plans to open several more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid “faith positions.”

Of particular note for Eastern Europe, Serbia suspended teaching of evolution for 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Colic, only allowing schools to reintroduce it into the curriculum if they also teach creationism. [5] After a strong reaction from the scientific community, the decision was however later reversed and Ms. Colic fired. [6]

Islamic creationism

In the Islamic world the theory of evolution has generally been ignored or condemned with purely religious arguments. However, liberal movements within Islam, which are generally partial to secular scientific thought, tend to be more accepting of evolution.

In recent years, however, the arguments of “intelligent design”-style creationism have fallen on fertile ground in parts of the Islamic world and among Muslim immigrants in the Western diaspora.

The centre of the Islamic creationist movement is Turkey. Its main exponent is the writer Harun Yahya (or. Adnan Oktar, b. 1956) who uses the Internet for the propagation of his ideas. His BAV (Bilim Araştırma Vakfı/ Science Research Foundation) organizes conferences with leading American creationists. Another leading advocate of Islamic creationism is Fethullah Gülen (b. 1941).

The movement seems to have a considerable following in Indonesia and Malaysia whereas interest seems to be low in the Arabic countries and Iran. As in the Western context, the theory of evolution is held responsible for a materialist worldview that is the alleged base of all kinds of societal problems and negative political developments.

Creationism in public education

In the United States, creationists and evolutionary scientists are engaged in a long-running battle over the primary and supplementary science curriculum of public schools. The goal on both sides is to eliminate the other side's viewpoint from the public school curriculum; currently, evolutionists seem to be winning.

In the early 20th century, William Jennings Bryan and his followers passed or introduced legislation in several states prohibiting the teaching of evolution. By 1925, such legislation was being considered in 15 states. The American Civil Liberties Union offered to defend anyone who wanted to bring a test case against one of these laws. John T. Scopes accepted, and he taught his Tennessee class evolution in defiance of the Butler Act. The result was the widely publicized Scopes Monkey Trial. H. L. Mencken, in his widely-distributed newspaper reports of the trial, wrote, "The Scopes trial, from the start, has been carried on in a manner exactly fitted to the anti-evolution law and the simian imbecility under it. There hasn't been the slightest pretense to decorum." Evolutionists say that his and other reports turned public opinion against creationism, and for this reason they consider the Scopes trial a victory. When the case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court overturned the decision on a technicality, then dismissed the case. Consequently, the teaching of evolution remained illegal in Tennessee. In 1967, the Tennessee public schools were threatened with another lawsuit over the Butler Act's constitutionality, and, fearing of public reprisal, Tennessee's legislature repealed the Butler Act. In the following year, 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that Arkansas's law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court stated that the First Amendment prohibits public schools from teaching religious beliefs as facts, and it has consistently ruled that creationism is a religious belief.

Creationists say that this position does not consider the possibility that creationism is true. Creationists also say that this prohibits classroom discussion by students who believe in creationism. Evolutionists say that creationism is a non-scientific belief which is inappropriate in a science class. Some evolutionists also say that the teaching of evolution is not necessarily incompatible with the belief that God is the creator of the universe and of all life.

More recently, creationists have proposed that public schools teach creation science and that public schools should give "equal time" to non-evolutionary theories of origin. The Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that creation science is a religious belief, and as such it is inadmissible in public education. Proponents of intelligent design say that because intelligent design is scientific, not religious, it should be included in any well-balanced discussion of origins. In 2002, proponents of intelligent design asked the Ohio Board of Education to adopt intelligent design as part of its standard biology curriculum. In December 2002, the Board adopted a proposal that permitted, but did not require, the teaching of intelligent design.

In the United Kingdom, one of the few countries in which teaching religion in state schools is a legal requirement, there is an agreed syllabus for religious education with the right of parents to withdraw their children from these lessons.[7]

Arguments in the creationism versus evolution debate

Most creationists reject the theory of gradualism, that life gradually evolved over millions of years from simple to increasingly complex forms only by means of mutation and natural selection. Evolutionists hold that, on the contrary, there is abundant evidence in favour of evolution over time from sciences such as geology, paleontology and physics. The disagreement between the two parties is the source of the debate.

Creationism has shifted over the past century as the advance of scientific knowledge and growing judicial strictness in the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution have squeezed out the more overtly religious or unscientific creationist forays into the classroom.

Creationism and the origins of life

To scientists, the question of the origin of life is separate from the question of how different species came to be. The former question is known as the problem of abiogenesis, and there are currently several different theories for how it occurs. While there have been attempts to experimentally verify these theories, so far none of them have widespread support among scientists. In contrast, most scientists are evolutionists, and they consider the latter question solved by the modern evolutionary synthesis. Since abiogenesis and evolution are considered separate subjects, scientists do not think that the current lack of results in abiogenesis invalidates evolution.

Creationists usually answer both questions by stating that God created all life, and is thus responsible for both its origins and for the different species. Creationists often state that because neither abiogenesis nor the totality of human evolution have been observed, the two questions are outside of the scope of empirical science and are part of philosophy, forensic science or historical science. As such, they say, other options such as creationism should be considered equally valid. Evolutionists reject such arguments because divine intervention cannot be disproved and is thus unscientific.

Creation science

Some creationists posit that certain assumptions, procedures, theories, and findings of science, particularly the theory of evolution through natural selection, are scientifically incorrect. Creation science is a modern movement that attacks these ideas on scientific grounds and proposes alternative theories that are more compatible with creationism. This article uses the term creation scientist to mean a scientist who believes in creation science. Because creation science is not accepted by most scientists, this article uses the term mainstream scientist to mean a scientist who does not believe in creation science.

The term "creation science" covers a broad range of beliefs. There are many different creation scientific theories, each of which has its own supporters and detractors, both within and without the creation science community. Additionally, there are differing interpretations of what creation science is among those who consider themselves creation scientists. Some creation scientists do not seek to challenge mainstream scientists. Others deny the applicability of the scientific method and Occam's razor to their religiously-inspired beliefs about the physical world.

Not all creationists are creation scientists. Some creationists view scientific truth as separate from spiritual truth and are unconcerned by apparent contradictions between the two. Others believe that neither mainstream science nor creation science is appropriate, and prefer to be guided by revelation alone.

Creation science has been criticized by many mainstream scientists for making scientific errors. Consequently most mainstream scientists regard creation science as, at best, a pseudoscience. (Specific arguments and rebuttals are listed below.)

Many critics of creation science believe that all creation scientists attempt to falsely disguise the Biblical story of creation as science (Arthur, 1996). United States federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have been receptive to this argument, and have overturned various state laws seeking to give creation science equal time with the theory of evolution in public schools. See, for example, Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) and McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F.Supp. 1255 (1982); also Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971).

Intelligent design

Main article: Intelligent design

The intelligent design (ID) movement denies natural selection as a probable mechanism for macroevolution. Instead, intelligent design advocates state that living organisms must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Intelligent design is often associated with claims of irreducible complexity, the assertion that certain biological structures are so complex that they could not have arisen naturally.

Macroevolution vs. microevolution

Macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of a species, whereas microevolution is evolution below the level of a species. Creationists reject the possibility of macroevolution and usually accept the possibility of microevolution. Current mainstream scientific opinion concludes that all evolution proceeds by shifts in the gene pool from generation to generation. For example, the evolution of man from the ancestors of the chimpanzees consisted of many, many shifts in the gene pool of successive generations spread through 5 million years. (Current mainstream scientific discussion uses neither the term 'microevolution' nor the term 'macroevolution.')

Thermodynamics

Some creationists have said that because the second law of thermodynamics prevents the universe from spontaneously ordering itself, life could not have spontaneously arisen. However, the second law of thermodynamics does allow entropy to diminish (i.e. order to grow) provided energy is contributed to the system; in the case of the Earth, energy has constantly been provided by the Sun for billions of years, so this particular argument is incorrect.

Rock strata

Rock strata are apparently out of order in some places. Creationists say that this contradicts the idea that the depth of a stratum indicates the age of the rock. Geologists say they expect the strata to be out of order in places. They are sometimes visibly folded or overthrust, with adjacent layers remaining adjacent in all but the border zones.

Creationists have also suggested that the existence of strata and fossils mean they were laid down catastrophically. This is the basis of flood geology. Paleontologists say that is highly improbable that fossils were laid out catastrophically, since fossils of different types occur only in specific strata, with almost no exceptions among billions of samples.

Inaccuracy of radiometric dating

Creationists say that calculating the date of crystallization of a rock from the concentration of a decay product, such as argon, will be unreliable because some of the decay product may have been in the melt from which the rock crystallized. Chemists say that when rocks are heated to the melting point, any argon contained in them is released into the atmosphere. When the rock recrystallizes, it becomes impermeable to gases again. As the potassium K⁴⁰ in the rock decays into argon Ar⁴⁰, the gas is trapped in the rock and accumulates until the time the chemist measures its concentration. [8]

While Creationists assert that radiocarbon dating makes assumptions about the conditions present in and around an object throughout history, chemists state that the dating techniques have been confirmed extensively on artifacts from known times in history, and have shown a high degree of success. Chemical data confirming historical records exists for a few thousand years of human history, which coincides with the application range of radiocarbon dating - since the half-life of carbon-14 is about 5000 years, it is unreliable for dating much older objects, and therefore not used in those cases anyway.

A very few creationists even claim that the speed of light may have changed over time, thus changing the speed of radioactive decay (although this theory is held by a very small creationist minority). While there is some recent, controversial evidence that the speed of light might have changed in the very early universe, physicists say that the possible change is too small to create the claimed effects.

Relativity and time measurement

The theory of relativity implies that the passage of time on Earth may have been different from the passage of time in the wider universe. Creationists state that while a few thousand years elapsed on earth, millions of years may have elapsed in the wider universe. Physicists say that for time to be warped on Earth enough to cause such an effect would cause a gravitational distortion large enough to destroy the planet.

Creationism and philosophical naturalism

Certain tenets of creationism are opposed to philosophical naturalism and materialism:

1. There was an origin of the universe for which the direct intervention of God was required.
2. The origin of life required the direct intervention of God.
3. Sentience, perception, self-awareness, and the capacities for knowledge and understanding, are not reducible to physical processes alone, but were granted to living and intelligent creatures by the direct intervention of God.
4. These capacities, and more basically life itself, are not possible to describe in terms of physics alone.

A general response to the modern creationism controversy has been articulated by creationist Phillip E. Johnson, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, who argues that the entire issue of biological origins has been framed in terms of naturalism, and that natural science per se is not identical with naturalism. According to him, the statement, “Science has nothing to say about whether or not there exists a supernatural realm,” is true and based on the fact that rigorous physical science is naturalistic, but the statement, “Science holds that there is no supernatural realm,” is false because it is beyond the scope of natural science to make such an assertion, but is instead a philosophical position. According to Johnson, this distinction opens the possibility of natural science and creationism being non-contradictory. However, such an assertion is problematic when trying to reconcile natural science with certain types of creationism that do make specific claims about the natural realm.

Noted Paleontologist and writer, Stephen J. Gould, in his book Rocks of Ages [9], argues that acceptance of evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive despite rigourous assertions from the extremes that they are. A notable example of an evolutionary scientist who also believes in God is Ashley Montagu.

See also

• cosmological argument
• cosmology
• evolution
• National Center for Science Education
• theism
• theories of the origin of humans
• theory of evolution
• Creation belief
• existence
• timeline of the Universe
• ultimate fate of the Universe
• Creation (theology)
• Creator god
• estimates of the date of Creation
• young Earth creationism
• day-age creationism
• old Earth creationism
• evolutionary creationism
• gap creationism
• Biblical cosmology
• pseudoscience
• deism
• theism
• intelligent design
• “creationism” on Wiktionary

External links and references

• The Belief Spectrum: Who Believes What? — a list of sites, categorised by belief
• What is Creationism — Mark Isaak describes the varieties of Christian creationism, and additionally describes how the beliefs of other religions fit into the creationist spectrum.
• Was Darwin Wrong? A list of expert reviews of creationist books (scroll down)
• The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
• Islam & Evolution A site that documents the activities of Islamic creationists and their opponents
• The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie C. Scott, for the National Center for Science Education
• 'Outcry at creationism in UK schools' — Article on the Vardy Foundation in The Guardian 2003-05-12
• Science and religious creation myths from LiberalIslam.net
• Keane, Gerard: "Creation Rediscovered: Evolution & the Importance of the Origins Debate"
• The CEFAC FAQ - a long list of alleged flaws in evolutionary theory, and rebuttals to those flaws.

Young Earth creationism

• Creation Science Evangelism
• Creation Research Society, a professional organization of trained scientists committed to scientific special creation
• Institute for Creation Research
• "The True.Origin Archive: Exposing the Myth of Evolution"
• Research on issues surrounding creationism
• Answers in Genesis — Creation research
• The Center for Scientific Creation
• Association of Christian Astronomers International
• Creationnews daily

Old Earth creationism

• Reasons.org Creation vs. Evolution FAQ
• Creation and Revelation
• Darwinism Refuted (Harun Yahya site)

Intelligent design

• Discovery Institute - the leading proponent of Intelligent Design theory
• Kenneth Einar Himma, "Design Arguments for the Existence of God", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; at http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/design.htm
• God's Truth - A Scientist shows why it makes sense to believe the Bible (Alan Hayward)

Evolution

• Science and Creationism, A view from the National Academy of Sciences
• The Talk.Origins Archive — Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy — anti-creationism site, links
• National Center for Science Education — defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools
• Arthur, Joyce: Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? Critical discussion of Duane Gish's methods. Published in the Skeptic, magazine of the Skeptic Society, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 88-93.
• Evolution Education Wiki — see EvoWiki
• A Brief Analysis of the Scientific/Natural Laws and Phenomena
• Reasons.org Creation vs. Evolution FAQ, from a pro-creationist perspective
• How Evolution Works