Rejection of evolution by religious groups

The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is an ongoing dispute in the popular arena about the origins of the universe, the Earth, life, or humanity.

The main opposing sides are those espousing religious origin beliefs (see Creationism) and those who support the natural history accounts of the sciences of astronomy, geology and biology.

Those advocating religious viewpoints (primarily derived from fundamentalist or religiously conservative Christian, Jewish and Muslim accounts of origins) hold the scientific explanations to be antithetical to their belief in creation, in particular Creation according to Genesis and creationism. The term evolution is used in an overarching sense by these creationists to represent the sum total of the scientific theories and observational implications that they see as being in conflict with their worldview. Their key contention is that only a supernatural miracle and not "evolution" can account for origins. Their opponents hold that natural laws alone are sufficient to account for all observations in nature and that supernatural origins are beyond the scope of the scientific method.

The controversy is not occurring within the scientific community or academia, whose members — when pressed — overwhelmingly tend to oppose creationism. Nor is it considered of great importance to most religious groups, even those that — when pressed — tend to support creationism. Rather, the controversy is promoted by vocal creationists and those who actively dispute creationism as an important battle between truth and falsehood. The debate is most prevalent and visible in the U.S., where it is often portrayed in the mass media in the broader context of the culture wars or a dispute between religion and science.

A new strain of creationism that has become well known as part of the controversy in schools is the Intelligent Design (ID) movement and its associated arguments. ID proponents have asserted that science inappropriately excludes the idea that origins of the biological and physical worlds could derive from an intelligent designer and have advocated a program named Teach the Controversy.

Overview of the controversy

Although religious people and organizations of various stripes have challenged the legitimacy of science since the Enlightenment, the controversy really developed in the late 18th century, when geological discoveries indicated that the earth is much older than was suggested by the Judeo-Christian Bible. It grew further when the theory of evolution came to prominence. The profound impact of this early debate upon the popular culture signalled an important rift between popular understanding and scientific discovery, which can also be found elsewhere, such as in the nature versus nurture debate. This rift is said to have been the direct cause for the 1857-1860 revival in Protestant religious enthusiasm, proselytization, and politicization.

The controversy entered into the practical realm when public schools began teaching faith-based creationism (and more recently, intelligent design) as science. One of the first occasions was in the Scopes Trial of 1925. (See related sections of this article on the controversy in US public schools and in education worldwide.)

The debate continues to be actively promoted and maintained by a number of creationist organizations and religious groups who desire to uphold creationism (often "Young Earth creationism") or "creation science" as an alternative to the scientific consensus on the origins and evolution of life, which they term "mainstream" and "secular". The most prominent of these groups are explicitly Christian, and more than one sees the debate as an opportunity to evangelize.

There are those involved on both sides of the debate who see secular science and theistic religion as being diametrically opposed views which cannot be reconciled (see section on the false dichotomy). More accommodating viewpoints include those who see science and religion as possibly compatible as they ask fundamentally different questions about reality and posit different avenues for investigating it. There are also those who try to incorporate both viewpoints in an amalgam belief (see Theistic evolution).

The Intelligent design movement has attempted to frame an anti-evolution position by avoiding any 'direct' appeal to religion, although the motivations behind these groups has been alleged by their opponents to be "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" (see Neo-Creationism). Intelligent design, as a perspective, does not represent a research program within the mainstream scientific community and is opposed by many of the same groups who oppose creationism.

Creationists often refer to those who support mainstream science and scientific history with the derisive neologism, evolutionists.

Common venues for debate

Conflict occurs mostly in the public arena rather than through academic channels or through scientific journals, as creationists have been unwilling or unable to publish their ideas there. Popular-level books and articles by creationists attacking mainstream science and by proponents of mainstream science attacking creationism have been published and numerous public debates have been put on by churches, universities, and clubs. With the advent of the Internet, the battle between proponents has also been waged on-line. One of the first usenet newsgroups was created to be a proving ground for the controversy. Over a 19-year history, the Talk.origins newsgroup has allowed for multiple discussions of nearly every topic and issue ever developed in the controversy. In 1994, an archive of the mainstream science responses to creationist objections was created as a website (referenced below). Various creationists followed suit with their own clearinghouses, the most famous of which are Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis and the internet pages of the Institute for Creation Research. Chatrooms, message boards, and blogs have continued to promote the controversy with many arguments printed and reprinted.

Additionally many churches and denominations make statements about what is appropriate or inappropriate in terms of scientific theories. Almost every Christian denomination has an official stance on the controversy. In the United States of America, many conservative Protestant denominations unapologetically promote creationism and attack evolution from the pulpits, as well as sponsor lectures and debates on the subject. Some of the denominations that have explicitly advocated for creationism and against evolution include Assemblies of God, Church of Christ, Church of the Nazarene, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Free Methodist Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Pentecostal Churches, Seventh-day Adventist Churches, Southern Baptist Convention Churches, and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

Conflicts inherent to the controversy

While debate on the details of scientific theories are often the most intense parts of the controversy, ultimately the conflict comes down to opposing definitions of all or parts of science, reality, and religion. Accusations of misleading formulations, incorrect or false statements, and inappropriate mixing of ideas are fundamental points of disagreement.

Defining Evolution

While most evolutionary biologists believe that life was formed through natural means, evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter. Yet many creationists argue that, since scientists cannot fully explain the origin of life, evolution as a whole is flawed. Many vocal Young Earth Creationists, such as Kent Hovind, explain this by recasting "evolution" as a broader statement than the one typically accepted by mainstream science. Accordingly, creationists count no less than six different aspects to "evolution" despite the formal scientific definition which applies only to the modern synthesis. These aspects, as defined by Hovind, are:

Cosmic evolution — the origin of time, space and matter (essentially referring to the Big Bang).
Stellar and planetary evolution — Origin of stars and planets.
Chemical evolution — the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Organic evolution — Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution — Origin of major 'kinds' (for a creationist treatment see Created kinds).
Microevolution — Variations within 'kinds'.

The first four of the above definitions are taken from disparate fields of science, including cosmology, astronomy, geology, and chemistry, and have little to do with the more restrictive definition of biological evolution as per the modern synthesis. Biologists who have responded to creationist criticism dispute that there is any meaningful difference between the last two types, noting that microevolution over a longer span of time is macroevolution. Many creationists currently accept the sixth aspect as being fact (microevolution is defined, by them, as the creation of new breeds of dog or the divergence of the human races while remaining within the bounds of a so-called "created kind") but tend to reject some or all of the rest.

False dichotomy

The idea that there is a dichotomy between creationism and the broadly termed "evolution" itself has been pointed out by opponents of creationism to be an example of a false dichotomy. Since it is, in principle, possible for someone to be a creationist while simultaneously accepting the fact of evolution (see evolutionary creationism), there may be no need for any controversy. Even the two alternative points of view, creation and evolution, are not black and white options. There is a spectrum of views on these topics, ranging from a belief in young earth creationism and disbelief in evolution to a belief in both atheism and evolution. This kind of argumentation is strenuously objected to by creationists on two grounds.

Creationists claim that "evolution" is an attempt to remove God from the natural world. "Evolution as understood by its ablest advocates is an inherently atheistic explanation," claims one creationist[1]. Creationists claim that, because probability, chance, and randomness are used as explanations for mutations and genetic drift, God is necessarily excluded from the mechanisms of evolution. Creationists who are actively involved in the conflict tend to criticize those who advocate theistic evolution as having missed a claimed fundamental disparity between the naturalistic mechanisms described as explanations for the natural sciences and the theistic action inherent to the doctrine of creation.
Creationists claim that there are two and only two positions that can possibly be correct: creation science and the scientific mainstream (evolution). This automatically precludes discussions of origin beliefs other than creationism and of scientific theories other than the current understanding of evolution.

Beyond the dichotomy

Opponents of creationist argumentation claim that there is no way to distinguish between creationism's objection to mainstream science and objections to mainstream science that are derived from groups that are not followers of creationism. The following list gives an idea of the many diverse views on origins beyond the creation-evolution dichotomy:

With Zen and New Age religions, everything and nothing are all interconnected, inseparable, a made whole. These conceptions deny that the person is the first cause and posit a guiding non-anthropomorphic consciousness that balances the universe and serves as a source for all being.
Theogony by Hesiod contains a poetic rendering of the Greek myth that the Cosmos was created through sexual intercourse.
Panspermia is a theory explaining the existence of life on the Earth as a result of fertilization by germs coming from outer space.
Norse mythology says that Odin and his brothers used the body of Ymir, the giant, to create the world.

Spectrum of creationist beliefs

Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorised into the broad types listed below. Not all creationists dispute various scientific theories. Some are opposed to the theory of evolution and some are not. Belief in creation exists in many forms:

Flat Earth creationism — God created the world with a flat surface 6,000 years ago. All that modern science says about shape, size, and age of the Earth is wrong, and evolution does not occur. Very few people today maintain such a belief.

Modern geocentrism — God recently created a spherical world, and placed it in the center of the universe. The Sun, planets and everything else in the universe revolve around it. All scientific claims about the age of the Earth are lies; evolution does not occur. Very few people today maintain such a belief. See, for example, the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, in Cleveland, MO, USA.

Young-Earth Creationism — The belief that the Earth was created by God a few thousand years ago, literally as described in Creation according to Genesis, within the approximate timeframe of the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar or somewhat more according to the interpretation of biblical genealogies. As such, it rejects not only radiometric and isochron dating of the age of the Earth, arguing that they are based on debatable assumptions, but also approaches such as ice core dating and dendrochronology, which make the barest of assumptions of uniformitarianism, and which hint that the Earth is far older than the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar suggests. Instead, it interprets the geologic record largely as a result of the biblical global flood. This view is held by many Protestant Christians in the USA, and by many Haredi Jews. For Christian groups promoting this view, see the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, California, USA, and the Creation Research Society (CRS), St. Joseph, MO, USA.

God created the Earth only recently, but made it appear much older. This is the belief of a subgroup of Young Earth creationists, which is sometimes termed the Omphalos argument. This argument was first made by Philip Henry Gosse in 1857. He held that the universe is only about 6,000 years old, but that God faked the appearance of the world, and planted fake fossils, to fool humans into believing that the world is really much older. This, in his view, was done as a test of faith. However, most modern Young-Earth Creationists no longer see this as deliberate attempt by God at trickery but merely a natural result of having a fully functioning earth and ecosystem in only six days. The standard argument goes that if one could travel back in time and see Adam on the seventh day of creation, he would appear to be perhaps twenty years old despite being no older than a day. Likewise, one could cut down a tree in the Garden of Eden and counting its rings conclude the Garden is at least a hundred years old. Then one could dig up a rock and date it to be millions of years old — all along the entire universe has only been in existence for barely a week.

Old-Earth Creationism — which maintains that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event of Genesis is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally believes that the Universe and the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of the evolutionary theory are questionable.

Old-Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:

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 unspecified cataclysm. This was popularized in the Scofield Reference Bible, but has little support from Hebrew scholars.

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 theory states that the Hebrew word was mistranslated, and it's supposed to be seven ages. Some adherents, such as Hugh Ross, claim we are living in the sixth or seventh age, while opponents say that the seventh day of creation must be the same type of day as the Sabbath for the Sabbath command to make sense. Opponents also argue that this theory cannot be true since plants (day 3) were created before the sun (day 4) and thus could not have survived an age.

Progressive creationism — the view that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operates. This accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the earth, but rejects much of modern biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection is incorrect.

Evolutionary creationism/Theistic evolutionism — the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution. It views evolution as a tool used by God and can synthesize with gap or day-age creationism, although most adherents deny that Genesis was meant to be interpreted as history at all. It can still be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, but in the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side while disputing that some scientists' methodological assumption of materialism can be taken as ontological as well. Many creationists would deny that this is creationism at all, and should rather be called "theistic evolution", just as many scientists allow voice to their spiritual side.

Intelligent Design — The intelligent design movement, as a matter of policy and strategy, distances iteself from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Outwardly, in addressing the public, education officials, and public policymakers, ID proponents claim to support an uncritical look at origins as a means to discover the inherent supernatural design of the natural and biological worlds.^[2] But when addressing their constituency, who are largely evangelical Protestants, they present their arguments primarily in theistic terms.^[3] Since the ID premise relies on a supernatural explanation for natural events, it is by necessity another form of creationism. Leading ID proponents, notably law professor Phillip E. Johnson, have stated that the goal of ID is to cast creationism as a scientific concept: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."^[4] "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."^[5] Ongoing attempts by ID proponents to include ID alongside with evolution in public schools often present a "teach the controversy" slogan to appeal to a sense of fairness and open-mindedness. Opponents reply that this is inappropriate for a science classroom because the "controversy" is a matter of religion and politics and there is no scientific controversy about evolution.

Conflation of science and religion

File:Truth fish.JPG

The Truth fish, made popular in response to the Darwin fish.

File:T-Rex 200.jpg

T-Rex eating the ichthus, motivated by the challenge posed by scientific facts to literal interpretations of the Bible.

The controversy is usually portrayed in the mass media as being between scientists, in particular evolutionary biologists, and creationists, but as almost all scientists do not consider the debate to have any academic legitimacy, it may be more correctly described as a conflict over a conflation of science and religion. Many of the most vocal creationists who perpetuate the controversy rely heavily on their critiques of modern science, philosophy, and culture as a means of Christian apologetics. For example, as a way of justifying the struggle against "evolution", one prominent creationist has declared "the Lord has not just called us to knock down evolution, but to help in restoring the foundation of the gospel in our society. We believe that if the churches took up the tool of Creation Evangelism in society, not only would we see a stemming of the tide of humanistic philosophy, but we would also see the seeds of revival sown in a culture which is becoming increasingly more pagan each day." [6]

Most creationists involved in the controversy posit that they have alternatives to mainstream science in the forms of creation sciences or intelligent design. They argue that science needs a paradigm shift and that a scientific revolution needs to occur in order to remove what they perceive as anti-religious bias from science. This conflation of religious and scientific ideas has come to define the controversy separately from either theological or scientific discourse.

Following are some examples of well known participants in the debate who conflate science and religion:

Henry M. Morris, a young earth creationist, says: "Divine revelation from the Creator of the world states that He did it all in six days, several thousand years ago. The Bible is a book of science! It contains all the basic principles upon which true science is built".
Julian Huxley, a British biologist and author, says: "The truth will set us free. Evolutionary truth frees us from subservient fear of the unknown and supernatural, and exhorts us to face this new freedom. It shows us our destiny and our duty. The evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern the outline of the new religion that will arise to serve the needs of the coming era".

The Darwin fish is a parody of the ichthus, a symbol often used to self-identify Christians and sometimes creationists.

A popular accusation among creationists is that evolution is itself a religion based on secular humanism, scientific materialism, or philosophical naturalism. Creationists argue that there is an atheist bias in the scientific community that systematically discriminates against their religious views. Creationists involved in the controversy do not believe distinction can be made between science and religion, and hold that the modern philosophy of science is informed inappropriately by rejection of a deity. They also balk at skepticism aimed at claims of supernatural events or miracles. Richard Dawkins, biologist and professor of public understanding of science at Oxford University, argues that science and religion are not mutually exclusive: "Science does not produce evidence against God, Science and religion ask different questions" [7]

In the nineteenth century, there was a movement by certain scientists and intellectuals to form a quasi-religion out of scientism. Since that time, most members of the scientific community have moved to maintain a pragmatic separation between scientific theories and religious faith, but creationist participants in the controversy continue to charge that there is a conspiratorial movement on the part of evolutionists to maintain paradigmatic hegemony over all aspects of culture (see, for example the Wedge strategy which is an attempt to combat the perceived attack on religious thought). Additionally, some atheists involved in the controversy extrapolate from some scientific facts to declare that religious faith is falsified.

Accusations involving science

Creationists often attack scientific theories they dislike in a number of ways, including opposition to specific applications of scientific processes, accusations of bias within the scientific community, and claims that discussions within the scientific community reveal a crisis. In response, creationists claim to have an alternative, either based on faith, or creation science, or intelligent design. Opponents of creationism spend much of their participation in the controversy defending against the attacks. Some of the more common creationist accusations involving science are listed below, together with their associated debates.

Theory vs. Fact

An often contentious conflict that occurs is the accusation by creationists that proponents of mainstream science inappropriately conflate scientific theory with fact. While certain creationist organizations have distanced themselves from this accusation, various levels of incredulity about scientific conclusions are a nearly universal component of creationist argumentation. In particular, creationists are very wary about scientific arguments involving events that happened in the distant past. Some creationists have even called into question whether it is philosophically tenable to make any claims about the past at all. Oftentimes, these critiques are leveled against unifying concepts within scientific disciplines, such as uniformitarianism, Occam's razor/parsimony, and the Copernican principle, that are claimed to be the result of a bias within science toward philosophical naturalism. The paradigmatic nature of scientific work is also criticized by the creationists as being too close-minded.

Mainstream proponents who respond to these criticisms tend to criticize the creationists' understanding of the scientific method and the nature of scientific investigation. A theory is not, as it is considered to be in colloquial usage, a guess or conjecture, but rather a very strongly supported statement about the natural world that has survived all tests thus far. Since science itself is a dynamic process that allows for self-correction and falsification, scientists rely on all the empirical observations ever made to create and refine scientific theories. The principles that allow for investigation of natural phenomena also provide for the scientific community's rigorous vetting process for ideas, widely considered to be the most effective safeguard against dogmatism and falsehood. The proponents of mainstream science contrast this with creationism and posit that the kinds of creationism that contradict basic scientific observations can be considered neither theory nor fact.

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

Evidence against evolution

Evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what would disprove evolution in exchange for a creationist concept replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era", a period more than 540 million years ago, a time when evolutionists claim that life on Earth consisted largely of bacteria, algea, and plankton. Richard Dawkins, biologist and professor at Oxford University, explains that evolution "is a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years, which starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual gradients to greater complexity. ... If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."[8]

A famous instance of creationist evidence was the supposed human and dinosaur tracks found in Paluxy riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas which was allegedly evidence that showed dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. Another was use of the Nebraska Man and other paleontology hoaxes that were used to claim that all pieces of evidence for human evolution were fabrications. Yet another was an argument relating to the accumulation of moon dust indicating an age for the moon of a few thousand years. These claims have been so thoroughly discounted that now even many creationists disavow them.

Creationists have also criticized the scientific evidence used to support "evolution" as being based on faulty assumptions, unjustified jumping to conclusions, or even outright lies. Such criticism typically involves the most often cited pieces of evidence in favor of mainstream science. This includes the fossil record, which creationists claim has significant gaps that cast doubt on evolution, the emergence of new species, which creationists claim hasn't been observed directly, and radiometric dating, which creationists claim is inaccurate due to an inappropriate reliance on assumptions of uniformitarianism. Certain creationist organizations have, over time, modified or distanced themselves completely from these claims, becoming more sophisticated in their argumentation. In debates, the back-and-forth criticism has a tendency to degenerate into arguments over details of the major ideas, creationists claiming that the problems they point out represent significant "holes" while their opponents respond that the holes are either due to a lack of understanding by creationists or are not detrimental to the paradigm.

Some creationist organizations have recently tried to reposition their criticism against mainstream science by using more subtle critiques involving information science and the laws of thermodynamics. In particular, creationists have adopted many of the arguments of the intelligent design movement such as that specified complexity and irreducible complexity either has not had enough time to develop naturally (see intelligent design) or is impossible to develop due to the second law of thermodynamics. Most of the largest creationist organizations now discourage using the idea that entropy prevents evolution, but similar types of arguments continue to be made in the controversy.

Most scientists do not spend a great deal of time debunking such claims and oftentimes this gives the impression that they are either unwilling or unable to answer the creationist critiques. There are even those that outright refuse to participate so as not to lend the creationists any legitimacy. The latest instance of this was in 2005, when mainstream science organizations boycotted hearings held by the Kansas Board of Education who held what certain evolution pundits described as a "kangaroo court" over whether new science standards should be designed with the "Teach the controversy" model in mind. The committee members had already stated their positions ahead of time and evolutionary scientists believed that no amount of testimony would be likely to change the outcome.

Accusations of bias

Creationists argue that the scientific community's methodological naturalism "could just as well be called atheism, and is really a religion to be accepted on faith." [9]. Creationists claim that their ideas are unfairly dismissed as pseudoscience so as to stifle the debate. This claim is hotly disputed by scientists in the relevant fields who point out that the creationist ideas have fundamental flaws, misconceptions, errors, and a lack of substantiating facts, rendering them unworthy of inclusion in academic discussion. Creationists tend to respond at length to such criticisms, sometimes to the point of responding line-by-line to anti-creationist articles, though it is disputed whether these succeed in addressing the issues.

Many creationist organizations have tried to preempt criticism from the scientific establishment by recruiting religious scientists and academics who are sympathetic to their cause. The Institute for Creation Research, the intelligent design think-tank the Discovery Institute, and Answers in Genesis all employ people with doctoral degrees in scientific or related fields. The true credentials of some of the creationist experts that rely on their non-biological doctoral degrees as an appeal to authority (notably, those of Kent Hovind) have been criticized as being fraudulent or misleading. Some creationists (for example, the Old Earth creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, who believes in the age of the Earth but questions macroevolution), raise objections to scientific theories outside of their field of expertise.

Religion and Historical Scientists

A somewhat popular creationist claim in the context of the controversy is that Christianity and belief in a literal bible are either foundationally significant or directly resposible for scientific progress. To that end, creationists have been known to list scientists such as Galileo, Newton, Pascal, and Mendel as believers in a biblical creation narrative.

Since most of the scientists creationists tend to list as supporters weren't aware of evolution because they were either not alive when it was proposed or the idea was outside their field of study, this kind of argument is generally rejected as being specious by those who oppose creationism.

It can also be construed that the religious beliefs of prominent scientists are actually evidence that science and religion are independent, separate enterprises. Many historical scientists wrote books explaining how pursuit of science was seen by them as fulfillment of spiritual duty in line with their religious beliefs. Even so, such professions of faith were not insurance against dogmatic opposition by certain religious people.

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

Quote mining

As a means to critique mainstream science, creationists have been known to quote, at length, scientists who obstensibly support the mainstream theories, but appear to acknowledge criticisms similar to those of creationists. Many evolutionists allege that these are quote mines (lists of out of context or misleading quotations) that do not accurately reflect the evidence for evolution or the mainstream scientific community's opinion of it. Many of the same quotes used by creationists have appeared so frequently in internet discussions due to the availability of cut and paste functions, that the talk.origins archive has created "The Quote Mine Project" for quick reference. [10]

Noteworthy participants in the controversy

Creationists

File:Henry M Morris.jpg

Henry M. Morris

Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in the early 1960s co-authored The Genesis Flood, the book credited with reviving interest in creation as an alternative to evolution. Dr. Morris is considered the "father" of modern creationism.

The Creation Research Society, founded in 1963 by a number of creationists, including Henry Morris, is a membership organisation with voting membership limited to holders of an earned postgraduate degree. CRS has a voting membership of about 650, and a total membership of 1700 people. It publishes the CRS Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal for creationists, conducts research, and operates a web-site.

The Institute for Creation Research is based in San Diego and was founded in 1970 by Henry Morris, and is now led by his son, John Morris. ICR publishes a number of books and newsletters, as well as producing radio spots and operating a web-site and a small museum.

Answers in Genesis is a Christian apologetics organization devoted to the beliefs of Young Earth Creationism, specifically a plain reading of the first chapters of the Book of Genesis.

The Discovery Institute is a Seattle-based intelligent design think-tank whose members include Michael Behe and William Dembski. It has a stated goal of introducing intelligent design into the scientific community and society by a wide range of methods as described on its web site and in the Wedge strategy document.

Robert Gentry, who concluded that a phenomenon he claimed to observe, "polonium haloes", were an indication of a young earth. Additionally, Gentry has invented his own creationist cosmology.

Duane Gish is a creationist who has become well-known for debating evolutionists across America and in other countries. He is also Senior Vice President of ICR. His Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics was a creationist response to Strahler's book (see below) and many other anti-creationist books.

Kent Hovind, aka Dr. Dino is a creationist enthusiast who started a creationist theme park and tours churches arguing against evolution. He has been the proponent of a number of ideas including advocating that dinosaurs lived at the same time as human beings. Hovind has been at the center of a number of controversies including a questionable doctoral degree granted by a university without official accredation and investigation by the IRS for tax evasion.

Reasons to Believe is a progressive-creationist organisation founded in 1986 by Hugh Ross. It publishes a number of books and operates a web-site. He opposes biological evolution but accepts mainstream theories of geological and astronomical history.

Answers In Creation is an old earth creationist website which supports both progressive creationists and theistic evolutionists. This is accomplished by examining young earth creationist arguments and showing the flaws they contain.

The True.Origins Archive is a web-site set up to respond to claims made on The Talk.Origins Archive (see below); it includes a page of purchasable material of interest to creationists. The only links present are to other pro-creation sites; TalkOrigins.org is conspicuous by its absence.

Walt Brown is a famous proponent of creation science including flood geology and creationist cosmologies. He runs his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation and is famous for claiming that "evolutionists" refuse to debate him.

Their opposition

Arthur Peacocke was one of the first to have developed a rigorously argued, complex argument for the compatibility of modern evolutionary theory with Christianity. He famously refers to evolution as "the disguised friend" of faith.

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution should be taught in schools. They state that "Policy makers and administrators should not mandate policies requiring the teaching of 'creation science' or related concepts, such as so-called 'intelligent design,' 'abrupt appearance,' and 'arguments against evolution.'"[11]

The National Center for Science Education was founded in 1981 to oppose creationism and is led by Eugenie Scott. It has 4,000 members and operates a web-site.

The American Association of Physics Teachers states that "we do not endorse teaching the 'evidence against evolution,' because currently no such scientific evidence exists. Nor can we condone teaching "scientific creationism," "intelligent design," or other non-scientific viewpoints as valid scientific theories."[12]

The National Academy of Sciences has made a number of statements opposing creation science and intelligent design. They state, "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[ http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/conclusion.html]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (the world's largest general scientific society) contrasts the "scientific robustness of the contemporary theory of biological evolution"[13] with the proposed teaching of intelligent design that will "confuse students about the nature of science."[14]

The American Astronomical Society supports teaching evolution, noting that many astronomical observations show changes in the universe over a long period of time consistent with evolution. They state that "'Intelligent Design' fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea" and "does not belong in the science curriculum."[15]

The American Geophysical Union states that "Earth History and the Evolution of Life Must Be Taught: Creationism Is Not Science," thus the AGU "opposes all efforts to require or promote teaching creationism or any other religious tenets as science." [16] In addition, the American Geological Institute, the Association for Women Geoscientists, the Geological Society of America, the Paleontological Society, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and The Society for Organic Petrology all have position statements supporting the teaching of evolution and opposing the teaching of non-scientific ideas.

The Board of Directors of the American Chemical Society supports "evolution as the only scientifically accepted explanation for the origin and diversity of species."[17]

The American Physical Society's governing Council has long expressed its opposition to the inclusion of religious concepts such as intelligent design and related forms of creationism in science classes.[18] APS is the world's largest professional body of physicists, representing over 43,000 physicists in academia and industry in the US and internationally.

Kansas Citizens for Science is a group that is trying to fight the revision of science standards in Kansas.

CSICOP and The Skeptics Society are anti-pseudoscience organizations with creationism among their targets.

The Talk.Origins Archive is a large web-site of articles critiquing creationary ideas, plus a discussion forum; there is an extensive set of links to sites of interest on both sides of the debate - including True.Origins.

Talk Reason is a take-off of the talk.origins archive that deals exclusively with debunking intelligent design.

File:Stephen Jay Gould.png

Stephen Jay Gould

Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse, and the late Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould figure among the well-known scientists who have been outspoken against creationism.

Simon Conway Morris is an evolutionary biologist who is also a Christian, and who has publically supported the acceptance of evolutionary biology by moderate Christians.

Arthur N. Strahler, author of the 1987 book Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy.

Wesley R. Elsberry hosts The Panda's Thumb weblog which sponsors articles and posts by some of the most active debaters of creationists and Intelligent Design advocates.

PZ Myers is probably the most outspoken critic of creationism online [19].

Ramifications of the controversy

Public education in the United States

Main article: creation and evolution in public education

The status of creation in public education in the United States is the subject of contention between creationists and other members of the community. The history extends back to the Scopes trial and locally controlled school boards in regions of the country dominated by creationists have made numerous and varied attempts over the years to remove or undermine discussion of biological evolution in science classrooms.

Those who do not consider faith-based origin beliefs to be legitimate science are opposed to having children learn these beliefs in science class as opposed to a humanities or philosophy class. Some religious idealogues perceive science as a threat as it makes apparently conflicting claims about the origin of the Universe.

Scientists opposed to the teaching of faith-baesd origins argue that the realm of hard science such as physics and biology is wholely seperate from religious belief. They assert that teaching variants of creationism confuses religion with science which, and while religion and science are not mutually exclusive, such discussions are not worthy of time spent in science class.

Along with legal challenges to creationist pedagogy, controversy surfaces frequently in school textbook/curriculum reviews. Creationists lobby for equal time, teach the controversy, or replacement of science curriculum with creation science or intelligent design, and allege science textbooks are biased, out of date and contain factual errors. A perenial hot-spot is Kansas, where the school board has gone back and forth on this over the years, sometimes endorsing evolution and sometimes allowing it to be denigrated and downplayed in the curriculum.

Some creationists seek to do an end run around the limitations of public school by endorsing voucher programs that divert funds from the education budget to pay private religious schools to teach creationism. Others have argued for tax rebates for parents who home-school, once again diverting public money to pay for overtly religious education in the place of science.

Surveys of views in the United States

In a 2001 Gallup poll on the origin and development of human beings [20] [21] a sample of about one thousand Americans were asked which statement came closest to their views on the origin and development of human beings. Of those polled, 45% chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so", 37% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process", 12% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process", and the remainder (6%) either volunteered a different response or had no opinion. When asked by name whether they believe in or lean more towards the "theory of creationism" or the "theory of evolution", 57% indicated creationism, 33% indicated evolution, and 10% responded "not sure." The Religious Tolerance website claims that the poll also found that 5% of American scientists (not necessarily working in fields connected with evolution) believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in "theistic evolution", and 55% believed in "naturalistic evolution" [22].

However, following another opinion poll by DYG Inc., it seems that such results may reveal a false dichotomy. According to the DYG poll, about 70% of Americans indicated that they did not see the theories of evolution and creation as in conflict [23].

A poll conducted in July 2005 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and reported in the New York Times on August 31, 2005, "found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that 'living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.' In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was 'guided by a supreme being,' and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism." In contrast, the Times reported on August 30, 2005, that 20% of the U.S. population believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Survey of views in German speaking countries

A 2002 survey [24] commissioned by the 'Verein ProGenesis' (Switzerland, Zurich) and a magazine, 'factum' (Switzerland, Berneck), interviewed 500 people each in Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. (Note the name of the organization for potential bias - however, the institute conducting the poll, IHA-Gfk, can be considered reputable).

Results: Around 20% believed that the universe, life and humans were created by God within the last 10 000 years. 21% held the position that they came about by a process of evolution and development guided by God. 40% subscribed to Darwinian evolution. (The remaining 19% were of unknown/undecided/other opinion.)

Controversy in education world-wide

In the British education systems, "faith schools" are part of the state system though many, if not most, do not teach creationism, and evolution is included in most biology curricula. The introduction of private sponsorship to some schools in England has allowed a millionaire car dealer (Peter Vardy) to introduce teaching of creationism as well as evolution in a small number of schools, known as the Emmanuel Schools Foundation. This has resulted in public controversy, and it has been found that one Seventh Day Adventist school and some Muslim schools are doing the same. Despite protests by scientists, bishops and politicians, the government has so far refused to restrain teaching of creationism as long as National Curriculum guidelines on teaching evolution are met.

In September 2004, the teaching of evolution in schools was briefly banned in Serbia, but the ban was lifted days later after an outcry from scientists and even Serbian Orthodox bishops. The incident led to the resignation of education minister Ljiljana Čolić.

The Netherlands education minister Maria van der Hoeven was persuaded that discussion of Intelligent design in schools might promote dialogue between religious groups by Cees Dekker, a physicist at the Delft University of Technology who had written a book on the subject in May 2004. Widespread opposition from scientists led to proposals for a conference on the plan being dropped.

Turkey has a strong creationist movement, initiated after contact with creationists from the USA. Only creationism is presented in school texts, and after professors who taught evolution were harassed and threatened in 1999, all public opposition to creationism ended.

In Pakistan, evolution is no longer taught in universities.

Brazilian scientists protested in 2004, when the education department of Rio de Janeiro started teaching creationism in religious education classes.

History

1785 - James Hutton presented his theory of uniformitarianism, explaining that the Earth must be much older than previously supposed to allow time for mountains to be eroded and for sediment to form new rocks at the bottom of the sea, which in turn were raised up to become dry land.
1794 to 1796 - Erasmus Darwin published Zoönomia with ideas on evolution and all warm-blooded animals arising from one living filament.
1809 - Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed a theory of evolution by acquired characteristics, later known as Lamarckism.
1859 - Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species regarding the theory of evolution, after over 20 years of research and discovery. Darwin was prompted to publish by the publication of an essay by Alfred Russel Wallace, which independently summarized the theory. The theory's most profound element, "natural selection," challenged the generally accepted idea of divine intervention in species formation, leading to strong reaction to Darwin's theory.
1860 - Liberal theologians published Essays and Reviews supporting Darwin. A debate of Darwin's theory was arranged at the Oxford Museum, with Thomas Huxley among its defenders and Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford leading its critics. Later accounts indicate Sir Joseph Hooker was most vocal in defending Darwinism.
1925 - The Scopes Trial (Dayton, TN U.S.A.) tested the new Butler Act, which made it illegal to teach that man descended from animals in public schools. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100; prosecution lawyer William Jennings Bryan offered to pay it, but it was later set aside on a technicality after appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
1950 - Pope Pius XII issued a letter Humani Generis stating that evolution was compatible with Christianity insofar as to discover "the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter," but to apply evolution to matters of spirituality was inappropriate. Since then the Roman Catholic Church has refined its interpretations of Genesis as symbolic of spirituality.
1958 - Biological Sciences Curriculum Study was started by the National Science Foundation which emphasized evolution in high school biology textbooks. This was part of a broad based improvement of education in the U.S. in response to the launch of the Soviet Sputnik satellite. (See Sputnik crisis, "New Math")
1960 - The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and John C Whitcomb, Jr. reinvigorated the creationist movement.
1968 - A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Epperson v. Arkansas case, repealed all remaining creationist laws. The Court supported a District Court ruling that the Creationism Act violated the Establishment Clause, because it prohibited the teaching of evolution, and it required the teaching of a particular religious doctrine.
1973 - Tennessee passed a law requiring textbooks with a theory of origin to give equal emphasis to the Genesis account of Creation. In 1975 it was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the principle of separation of church and state.
1991 - Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson popularized the intelligent design movement.
1996 - Michael J. Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box which proposed that some biological systems are irreducibly complex.
1996 - On October 23, Pope John Paul II sent a formal statement to the Pontifical Academy of Science stating that "fresh knowledge" requires one to realize that evolution is "more than a hypothesis."
1999 - On August 11, the Kansas State Board of Education deletes discussion of evolution and the Big Bang from standards relating to state assessments. Two years later, the standards were reinstated after removal of three of the board members.
2002 - After much debate, the Ohio State Board of Education partially adopted the new "teach the controversy" initiative of intelligent design activists. In 2004 the board created a "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan for teachers.
2004 - In Italy, the minister of education Letizia Moratti proposed that children should learn about creationism instead of evolution. Top Italian scientists responded with an open letter and a petition, signed by more than 50,000 citizens, claiming her proposal would sacrifice the "scientific curiosity of youth." The minister revised her position.
2005 - Evolution goes on trial once again in the Kansas State Board of Education. Advertisements pushing intelligent design start to appear in European cities like Budapest that have been untouched by creationism so far. [25]
2005 - In September intelligent design is legally challenged (see: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) by parents when a statement read to students explains there are "gaps" in evolution and that ID is an alternative they can learn about from "Of Pandas and People." The federal court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is hearing the landmark case and will rule on the constitutionality of the school district's statement.
2005 - In November eight of the nine member Dover school board were voted out and replaced with democratic candidates who oppose the previous board's decision to introduce Intelligent Design and lay doubts on evolution. The newly elected board members have announced that they will await the pending court decision before taking action.

References

Burian, RM: 1994. Dobzhansky on Evolutionary Dynamics: Some Questions about His Russian Background. In The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky, ed. MB Adams, Princeton University Press.
Samuel Butler, Evolution Old and New, 1879, p. 54.
Darwin, "Origin of Species," New York: Modern Library, 1998.
Dobzhansky, Th: 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press
Henig, The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
Kutschera, Ulrich and Karl J. Niklas. 2004. "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis." Naturwissenschaften 91, pp. 255-276.
Mayr, E. The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.
James B. Miller (Ed.): An Evolving Dialogue: Theological and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution, ISBN 1563383497
Morris, H.R. 1963. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Numbers, R.L. 1991. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Berkely: University of California Press.
Pennock, Robert T. 2003. "Creationism and intelligent design." Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 4, pp. 143-163.
Carl Sagan. The Demon-Haunted World. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
Scott, Eugenie C. 1997. "Antievolution and creationism in the United States." Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 263-289.
Maynard Smith, "The status of neo-darwinism," in "Towards a Theoretical Biology" (C.H. Waddington, ed., University Press, Edinburgh, 1969.

Footnotes

^ "...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." Phillip Johnson. "The Wedge", Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999.
^ "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed." Phillip Johnson. "Keeping the Darwinists Honest", an interview with Phillip Johnson. In Citizen Magazine. April 1999.
^ Elizabeth Nickson, 2004. "Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin." In Christianity.ca.
^ Joel Belz, 1996. "Witnesses For The Prosecution." In World Magazine.

External links

Creation vs Evolution links

Creation versus Evolution - includes an active forum with ongoing discussion about any subject related to the controversy
Evolution & Creation: A Theosophic Synthesis Surveys critical problems on both sides of the controversy and explores ancient and modern "excluded middle" alternatives
[[26]] University to offer intelligent design class in spring