Rejection of evolution by religious groups

A satirical cartoon from 1882, parodying Darwin's theory of evolution, in response to the publication of The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms

The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe.

This debate is most prevalent in the United States, but to a lesser extent is also present in Europe and elsewhere, and often portrayed as part of a culture war. Creationists dispute the evidence of common descent of humans and other animals as demonstrated in modern palaeontology, and those who defend the conclusions of modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and other related fields. They argue for the Abrahamic religions accounts of creation, attempting to frame it as reputable science ("creation science"). While the controversy has a long history, today it is mainly over what constitutes good science education, with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education. The debate also focuses on issues such as the definition of science (and of what constitutes scientific research and evidence), science education, free speech, separation of Church and State, and theology.

Evolution is an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal. The support for Abrahamic accounts or other creationist alternatives is very low among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among scientists in the relevant fields. However, a 2012 Gallup survey reports, "Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."

The debate is sometimes portrayed as being between science and religion. However, as the United States National Academy of Sciences states:

Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth's history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

— National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism

History

See also: History of evolutionary thought

The creation-evolution controversy began in Europe and North America in the late 18th century when new interpretations of geology led to various theories of an ancient earth, and the extinctions demonstrated in the fossil geological sequence prompted early ideas of evolution, notably Lamarckism. In England these ideas of continuing change were at first seen as a threat to the fixed social order, and were repressed by the church and state. Conditions gradually eased, and in 1844 the controversial Vestiges popularised the transmutation of species. The scientific establishment at first dismissed it scornfully and the Church of England reacted with fury, but many Unitarians, Quakers and Baptists opposed to the privileges of the Established church favoured its ideas of God acting through such laws.

Contemporary reaction to Darwin

See also: Reaction to Darwin's theory

By the end of the 19th century, there was no serious scientific opposition to the basic evolutionary tenets of descent with modification and the common ancestry of all forms of life.

— Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction 

A satirical 1871 image of Charles Darwin as an ape reflects part of the social controversy over whether humans and apes share a common lineage.

The publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859 brought scientific credibility to evolution, and made it a respectable field of study.

There was intense interest in the religious implications of Darwin's book, but the Church of England's attention was largely diverted by theological controversy over higher criticism set out in Essays and Reviews by liberal Christian authors, some of whom expressed support for Darwin, as did many Nonconformists. The Reverend Charles Kingsley, for instance, openly supported the idea of God working through evolution. Other Christians were opposed to the idea and even some of Darwin's close friends and supporters including Charles Lyell and Asa Gray initially expressed reservations about some of his ideas. Gray later became a staunch supporter of Darwin in America, and collected together a number of his own writings to produce an influential book, Darwiniana. These essays argued for a conciliation between Darwinian evolution and the tenets of theism, at a time when many on both sides perceived the two as mutually exclusive. Gray denied that investigation of physical causes stood opposed to the theological view and the study of the harmonies between mind and Nature, and thought it "most presumable that an intellectual conception realized in Nature would be realized through natural agencies". Thomas Huxley, who strongly promoted Darwin's ideas while campaigning to end the dominance of science by the clergy, coined the term agnostic to describe his position that God's existence is unknowable, and Darwin also took this position, but evolution was also taken up by prominent atheists including Edward Aveling and Ludwig Büchner and it was criticised, in the words of one reviewer, as "tantamount to atheism". Following the lead of figures such as St. George Jackson Mivart and John Zahm, Catholics in the United States were accepting of evolution itself while ambivalent towards natural selection and stressing humanity's divinely imbued soul. Though evolution was never condemned by the church, initially the more conservative leaning Catholic leadership in Rome held back but gradually adopted a similar position.

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

Creationism in Theology

A depiction of human evolution

Main article: History of creationism

See also: Creation and evolution in public education

At the beginning of the 19th century most Europeans had accepted the Genesis creation narrative as true, but debate was developing in applying historical methods to Biblical criticism, suggesting a less literal account of the Bible. Simultaneously the developing science of Geology indicated the Earth was ancient, and religious thinkers sought to accommodate this by day-age theory or gap theory. The Neptunianist catastrophism that had earlier proposed that all geological features could be explained by a universal flood, had been replaced by a gradualism based upon the erosion and depositional cycle over millions of years, which gave a better explanation of the sedimentary column. Biology and the discovery of extinction challenged ideas of a fixed immutable Aristotelian "great chain of being". Natural theology had earlier expected that scientific findings based on empirical evidence would help religious understanding. These differences led some to increasingly think that science and theology were concerned with different non-competitive domains. When most scientists came to accept evolution by around 1875, European theologians generally came to accept evolution as an instrument of God. Pope Leo XIII, for instance, referred to longstanding Christian thought that scriptural interpretations could be reevaluated in the light of new knowledge, and Roman Catholics came around to acceptance of human evolution subject to direct creation of the soul. However, in the United States of America the development of the racist Social Darwinian eugenics movement led many Catholics to reject evolution. In this enterprise they received little aid from conservative Christians in Britain and Europe. In Britain this has been attributed to their minority status leading to a more tolerant, less militant theological tradition.

Development of Creationism in the USA

At first in the USA evangelical Christians paid little attention to the developments in geology and biology, being more concerned with the rise of Higher Biblical Criticism which questioned the belief in the bible as literal truth. Those criticising these approaches took the name "fundamentalist" which was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time. The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.

Up until the early mid-20th century there was little official resistance to evolution by mainline denominations within the United States of America. Around the start of the 20th century some evangelical scholars had ideas accommodating evolution, such as B. B. Warfield who saw it as a natural law expressing God's will. By then most U.S. high school and college biology classes taught scientific evolution, but several factors including the rise of Christian fundamentalism and social factors of changes and insecurity in more traditionalist Bible Belt communities led to a backlash. The numbers of children taking secondary education increased rapidly, and parents who were fundamentalist or opposed to social ideas of what was called survival of the fittest had real concerns about what their children were learning about evolution.

British Creationism

The main British creationist movement in this period was the Evolution Protest Movement, formed in the 1930s out of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, which was founded in 1865, as a response to the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species and Essays and Reviews. Its stated objective was to defend "the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture ... against the opposition of Science falsely so called." Although it was not officially opposed to evolution, it attracted a number of scientists sceptical of Darwinism, including John William Dawson and Arnold Guyot. The Victoria Institute had reached a high point of 1,246 in 1897, but quickly plummeted to less than one third of that figure in the first two decades of the twentieth century. Though it was anti-evolution at first, the institute joined the theistic evolution (see below) camp by the 1920s, which led to the development of the Evolution Protest Movement in reaction. Amateur ornithologist Douglas Dewar was the main driving force within the EPM, publishing a booklet entitled Man: A Special Creation and engaging in public speaking and debates with supporters of evolution. In the late 1930s he resisted the American creationists call for acceptance of flood geology, which later led to conflict within the organisation. Despite trying to win the public endorsement of C.S. Lewis, the most prominent Christian apologist of his day, by the mid-1950s the EPM came under control of schoolmaster/pastor Albert G. Tilney, whose dogmatic and authoritarian style ran the organisation "as a one-man band", rejecting Flood Geology and unwaveringly promoting Gap creationism and reducing the membership to lethargic inactivity. As a result of being captured by Young Earth Creationists in the 1970s it was renamed Creation Science Movement in 1980, under the Chairmanship of David Rosevear, who has a Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry from the University of Bristol. Today it has formally incorporated flood geology into their 'Deed of Trust' (which all officers were required to sign) and condemned Gap and Day-Age Creationism as unscriptural.

United States legal challenges and their consequences

The modern struggle of religious fundamentalists accepting creationism, to get their rejection of evolution accepted as legitimate science within education institutions in the USA, has been highlighted through a series of important court cases.

Butler Act and Scopes monkey trial

Main article: Scopes Trial

Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan chat in court during the Scopes trial.

In the aftermath of World War I, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy had brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the campaigning of William Jennings Bryan several states introduced legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution. By 1925, such legislation was being considered in 15 states, and had passed in some states, such as Tennessee. 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 confessed to teaching his Tennessee class evolution in defiance of the Butler Act. The textbook in question was Hunter's Civic Biology (1914). The trial was widely publicized by H. L. Mencken among others, and is commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial. Scopes was convicted; however, the widespread publicity galvanized proponents of evolution. When the case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court overturned the decision on a technicality (the judge had assessed the minimum $100 fine instead of allowing the jury to assess the fine).

Although it overturned the conviction, the Court decided that the law was not in violation of the Religious Preference provisions of the Tennessee Constitution (section 3 of article 1), which stated "that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship." The Court, applying that state Constitutional language, held

We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory.... Protestants, Catholics, and Jews are divided among themselves in their beliefs, and that there is no unanimity among the members of any religious establishment as to this subject. Belief or unbelief in the theory of evolution is no more a characteristic of any religious establishment or mode of worship than is belief or unbelief in the wisdom of the prohibition laws. It would appear that members of the same churches quite generally disagree as to these things.

... Furthermore, [the Butler Act] requires the teaching of nothing. It only forbids the teaching of evolution of man from a lower order of animals.... As the law thus stands, while the theory of evolution of man may not be taught in the schools of the State, nothing contrary to that theory [such as Creationism] is required to be taught.

... It is not necessary now to determine the exact scope of the Religious Preference clause of the Constitution ... Section 3 of Article 1 is binding alike on the Legislature and the school authorities. So far we are clear that the Legislature has not crossed these constitutional limitations.

— Scopes v. State, 289 S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927).

The interpretation of the Establishment clause up to that time was that the government could not establish a particular religion as the State religion. The Tennessee Supreme Court's decision held in effect that the Butler Act was constitutional under the state Constitution's Religious Preference Clause, because the Act did not establish one religion as the "State religion". As a result of the holding, the teaching of evolution remained illegal in Tennessee, and continued campaigning succeeded in removing evolution from school textbooks throughout the United States.

Epperson v. Arkansas

Main article: Epperson v. Arkansas

In 1968, the United States Supreme Court invalidated a forty-year-old Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution in the public schools. A Little Rock high school biology teacher, Susan Epperson, filed suit charging the law violated the federal constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion as set forth in the Establishment Clause. The Little Rock Ministerial Association supported Epperson's challenge, declaring, "to use the Bible to support an irrational and an archaic concept of static and undeveloping creation is not only to misunderstand the meaning of the Book of Genesis, but to do God and religion a disservice by making both enemies of scientific advancement and academic freedom." The Court held that the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma". But the Supreme Court decision also suggested that creationism could be taught in addition to evolution.

Daniel v. Waters

Main article: Daniel v. Waters

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

Creation Science

Main article: Creation Science

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

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

Court cases

McLean v. Arkansas

Main article: McLean v. Arkansas

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

Edwards v. Aguillard

Main article: Edwards v. Aguillard

In the early 1980s, the Louisiana legislature passed a law titled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act". The act did not require teaching either evolution or creationism as such, but did require that when evolutionary science was taught, Creation Science had to be taught as well. Creationists had lobbied aggressively for the law, arguing that the act was about academic freedom for teachers, an argument adopted by the state in support of the act. Lower courts ruled that the State's actual purpose was to promote the religious doctrine of Creation Science, but the State appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the similar case of McLean v. Arkansas (see above) the federal trial court had also decided against creationism. Mclean v. Arkansas, however, was not appealed to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals, creationists instead thinking that they had better chances with Edwards v. Aguillard. However, in 1987 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Louisiana act was also unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it stated in its opinion that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction," leaving open the door for a handful of proponents of Creation Science to evolve their arguments into the iteration of creationism that later came to be known as intelligent design.

Intelligent design

The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture used banners based on The Creation of Adam from the Sistine Chapel. Later it used a less religious image, then was renamed the Center for Science and Culture.

Main article: Intelligent design

See also: Neo-creationism, Intelligent design movement, Teach the Controversy, and Critical Analysis of Evolution

In response to Edwards v. Aguillard, the neo-creationist intelligent design movement was formed around the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community, and makes the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It has been viewed as a "scientific" approach to creationism by creationists, but is widely rejected as unscientific by the science community—primarily because intelligent design cannot be tested and rejected like scientific hypotheses (see for example, list of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design).

Kansas evolution hearings

Main article: Kansas evolution hearings

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

Dover trial

Main article: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Following the Edwards v. Aguillard decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court held that a Louisiana law requiring that Creation Science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion, creationists renewed their efforts to introduce creationism into public school science classes. This effort resulted in intelligent design, which sought to avoid legal prohibitions by leaving the source of creation to an unnamed and undefined intelligent designer, as opposed to God. This ultimately resulted in the "Dover Trial", Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which went to trial on 26 September 2005 and was decided on 20 December 2005 in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design be taught in public school science classrooms was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The Kitzmiller v. Dover decision held that intelligent design was not a subject of legitimate scientific research, and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and hence religious, antecedents".

The December 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial supported the viewpoint of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and other science and education professional organizations say that Teach the Controversy proponents seek to undermine the teaching of evolution while promoting intelligent design, and to advance an education policy for US public schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula.

Texas Board of Education support for intelligent design

On March 27, 2009, the Texas Board of Education, by a vote of 13 to 2, voted that at least in Texas, textbooks must teach intelligent design alongside evolution, and question the validity of the fossil record. Don McLeroy, a dentist and chair of the board, said, "I think the new standards are wonderful ... dogmatism about evolution [has sapped] America's scientific soul." According to Science magazine, "Because Texas is the second-largest textbook market in the United States, publishers have a strong incentive to be certified by the board as 'conforming 100% to the state's standards'."

Recent developments

See also: Politics of creationism and Intelligent design in politics

The controversy continues to this day, with the mainstream scientific consensus on the origins and evolution of life continuing to be challenged by creationist organizations and religious groups who desire to uphold some form of literal creationism (usually Young Earth creationism, Creation Science, Old Earth creationism or intelligent design) as an alternative. Most of these groups are literalist Christian, and more than one sees the debate as part of the Christian mandate to evangelize. Some groups see science and religion as being diametrically opposed views that cannot be reconciled. More accommodating viewpoints, held by many mainstream churches and many scientists, consider science and religion to be separate categories of thought (non-overlapping magisteria), which ask fundamentally different questions about reality and posit different avenues for investigating it. Public opinion in regards to the concepts of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design is fluctuating.

More recently, the intelligent design movement has attempted an anti-evolution position that avoids any direct appeal to religion. Scientists, however, argue that intelligent design does not represent any research program within the mainstream scientific community, and is still essentially creationism. Its leading proponent, the Dominionist funded Discovery Institute, made widely publicised claims that it was a new science, though the only paper arguing for it published in a scientific journal was accepted in questionable circumstances and quickly disavowed in the Sternberg peer review controversy, with the Biological Society of Washington stating that it did not meet the journal's scientific standards, was a "significant departure" from the journal's normal subject area and was published at the former editor's sole discretion, "contrary to typical editorial practices". President Bush commented endorsing the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about."

Viewpoints

In the controversy a number of divergent opinions can be recognised, regarding both the acceptance of scientific theories and religious practice.

Young Earth creationism

Main article: Young Earth creationism

See also: Creation Science and Flood geology

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

Old Earth creationism

Main article: Old Earth creationism

See also: Gap creationism, Day-age creationism, and Progressive creationism

Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event of Genesis within 6 literal days is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally accepts the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth as described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of the evolutionary theory are questionable. Old Earth creationists interpret the Genesis creation narrative in a number of ways, that each differ from the six, consecutive, 24-hour day creation of the Young Earth creationist view.

Neo-creationism

Main article: Neo-creationism

See also: Intelligent design

Neo-creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Their goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public. Neo-creationists may be either Young Earth or Old Earth creationists, and hold a range of underlying theological viewpoints (e.g. on the interpretation of the Bible). Neo-creationism currently exists in the form of the intelligent design movement, which has a 'big tent' strategy making it inclusive of many Young Earth creationists (such as Paul Nelson and Percival Davis).

Theistic evolution

Main article: Theistic evolution

See also: Naturalism (philosophy), Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, and Clergy Letter Project

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

This position generally accepts the viewpoint of methodological naturalism, a long standing convention of the scientific method in science.

Theistic evolutionists have frequently been prominent in opposing creationism (including intelligent design). Notable examples have been biologist Kenneth R. Miller and theologian John Haught, who testified for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Another example is the Clergy Letter Project, an organization that has created and maintains a statement signed by American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism, with specific reference to points raised by intelligent design proponents. Theistic evolutionists have also been active in Citizens Alliances for Science that oppose the introduction of creationism into public school science classes (one example being evangelical Christian geologist Keith B. Miller, who is a prominent board member of Kansas Citizens for Science).

Agnostic evolution

Agnostic evolution is the position of acceptance of biological evolution, combined with the belief that it is not important whether God is, was, or will have been involved.

Materialistic evolution

Materialistic evolution is the position of acceptance of biological evolution, combined with the position that the supernatural does not exist (a position common to philosophical naturalists, humanists and atheists). It is a view championed by what have been called "The New Atheists", who argue strongly that the creationist viewpoint is not only dangerous, but is completely rejected by science.

Arguments relating to the definition and limits of science

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

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

Definitions

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true". Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

— National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Limitations of scientific endeavor

See also: Scientific empiricism

In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.

— National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism

Theory vs. fact

Main article: Evolution as theory and fact

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

Exploring this issue, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

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

— Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory

Falsifiability

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

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

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

In fact, Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory. Only a few years later, Popper wrote, "I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological' ... I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation." His conclusion, later in the article is "The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true."

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

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

Conflation of science and religion

See also: Objection to evolution that it is a religion

Creationists commonly argue against evolution on the grounds that "evolution is a religion; it is not a science", in order to undermine the higher ground biologists claim in debating creationists, and to reframe the debate from being between science (evolution) and religion (creationism) to being between two equally religious beliefs—or even to argue that evolution is religious while intelligent design is not. Those that oppose evolution frequently refer to supporters of evolution as "evolutionists" or "Darwinists".

This is generally argued by analogy, by arguing that evolution and religion have one or more things in common, and that therefore evolution is a religion. Examples of claims made in such arguments are statements that evolution is based on faith, that supporters of evolution revere Darwin as a prophet, and that supporters of evolution dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand. These claims have become more popular in recent years as the neocreationist movement has sought to distance itself from religion, thus giving it more reason to make use of a seemingly anti-religious analogy.

In response, supporters of evolution have argued that no scientist's claims, including Darwin's, are treated as sacrosanct, as shown by the aspects of Darwin's theory that have been rejected or revised by scientists over the years, to form first neo-Darwinism and later the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Appeal to consequences

See also: Objection to evolution's moral implications

A number of creationists have blurred the boundaries between their disputes over the truth of the underlying facts, and explanatory theories, of evolution, with their purported philosophical and moral consequences. This type of argument is known as an appeal to consequences, and is a logical fallacy. Examples of these arguments include those of prominent creationists such as Ken Ham and Henry M. Morris.

Disputes relating to science

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

Biology

A phylogenetic tree based on rRNA genes.

Disputes relating to evolutionary biology are central to the controversy between creationists and the scientific community. The aspects of evolutionary biology disputed include common descent (and particularly human evolution from common ancestors with other members of the Great Apes), macroevolution, and the existence of transitional fossils.

Common descent

Main article: Common descent

See also: Evidence of common descent and Tree of life (science)

[The] Discovery [Institute] presents common descent as controversial exclusively within the animal kingdom, as it focuses on embryology, anatomy, and the fossil record to raise questions about them. In the real world of science, common descent of animals is completely noncontroversial; any controversy resides in the microbial world. There, researchers argued over a variety of topics, starting with the very beginning, namely the relationship among the three main branches of life.

— John Timmer, Evolution: what's the real controversy?

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

With a few exceptions (e.g. Michael Behe), the vast majority of creationists reject this theory in favor of the belief that a common design suggests a common designer (God).

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

Human evolution

Main article: Human evolution

See also: Paleoanthropology and Adam and Eve

Human evolution is the study of the biological evolution of humans as a distinct species from its common ancestors with other animals. Analysis of fossil evidence and genetic distance are two of the means by which scientists understand this evolutionary history.

Fossil evidence suggests that humans' earliest hominid ancestors may have split from other primates as early as the late Oligocene, circa 26c24 Ma, and that by the early Miocene, the adaptive radiation of many different hominoid forms was well underway. Evidence from the molecular dating of genetic differences indicates that the gibbon lineage (family Hylobatidae) diverged between 18 and 12 Ma, and the orangutan lineage (subfamily Ponginae) diverged about 12 Ma. While there is no fossil evidence thus far clearly documenting the early ancestry of gibbons, fossil proto-orangutans may be represented by Sivapithecus from India and Griphopithecus from Turkey, dated to around 10 Ma. Molecular evidence further suggests that between 8 and 4 Ma, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzee (genus Pan) split from the line leading to the humans. We have no fossil record of this divergence, but distinctively hominid fossils have been found dating to 3.2 Ma (see Lucy) and possibly even earlier, at 6 or 7 Ma (see Toumaï). Comparisons of DNA show that 99.4 percent of the coding regions are identical in chimpanzees and humans (95–96% overall), which is taken as strong evidence of recent common ancestry. Today, only one distinct human species survives, but many earlier species have been found in the fossil record, including Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Homo neanderthalensis.

Creationists dispute there is evidence of shared ancestry in the fossil evidence, and argue either that these are misassigned ape fossils (e.g. that Java man was a gibbon) or too similar to modern humans to designate them as distinct or transitional forms. However, creationists frequently disagree where the dividing lines would be. Creation myths (such as the Book of Genesis) frequently posit a first man (Adam, in the case of Genesis) as an alternative viewpoint to the scientific account.

Creationists also dispute science's interpretation of genetic evidence in the study of human evolution. They argue that it is a "dubious assumption" that genetic similarities between various animals imply a common ancestral relationship, and that scientists are coming to this interpretation only because they have preconceived notions that such shared relationships exist. Creationists also argue that genetic mutations are strong evidence against evolutionary theory because the mutations required for major changes to occur would almost certainly be detrimental.

Macroevolution

Main article: Macroevolution

See also: Speciation

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

Recent arguments against (such restrictive definitions of) macroevolution include the intelligent design (ID) arguments of irreducible complexity and specified complexity. However, neither argument has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and both arguments have been rejected by the scientific community as pseudoscience. Further when taken to court in attempt to introduce ID into the classroom, the judge wrote "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

Biologist Richard Dawkins published a book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution giving evidence for evolution and macroevolution.

Transitional fossils

Main article: Transitional fossil

See also: List of transitional fossils, Bird evolution, and Evolution of the horse

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

Reconstruction of Ambulocetus natans

As another example, Alan Haywood stated in Creation and Evolution that "Darwinists rarely mention the whale because it presents them with one of their most insoluble problems. They believe that somehow a whale must have evolved from an ordinary land-dwelling animal, which took to the sea and lost its legs ... A land mammal that was in the process of becoming a whale would fall between two stools—it would not be fitted for life on land or at sea, and would have no hope for survival." The evolution of whales has, however, been documented in considerable detail, with Ambulocetus, described as looking like a three-metre long mammalian crocodile, as one of the transitional fossils.

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

The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. For example, the change from a creature the size of a mouse, to one the size of an elephant, could be accomplished over 60,000 years, with a rate of change too small to be noticed over any human lifetime. 60,000 years is too small a gap to be identified or identifiable in the fossil record.

Experts in evolutionary theory have pointed out that even if it were possible for enough fossils to survive to show a close transitional change critics will never be satisfied, as the discovery of one "missing link" itself creates two more so-called "missing links" on either side of the discovery. Richard Dawkins says that the reason for this "losing battle" is that many of these critics are theists who "simply don't want to see the truth".

Geology

Main article: Flood geology

See also: Creation geophysics, Geochronology, and Age of the Earth

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

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

Other sciences

Cosmology

See also: Age of the universe

While Young Earth creationists believe that the Universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God approximately 6000 years ago, the current scientific consensus is that the Universe as we know it emerged from the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. The recent science of nucleocosmochronology is extending the approaches used for Carbon-14 dating to the dating of astronomical features. For example, based upon this emerging science, the Galactic thin disk of the Milky Way galaxy is estimated to have been formed 8.3 ± 1.8 billion years ago.

Old Earth creationists and some others do not necessarily dispute these figures.

Nuclear physics

See also: radiometric dating

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

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

In refutation of Young-Earth claims of inconstant decay rates affecting the reliability of radiometric dating, Roger C. Wiens, a physicist specialising in isotope dating states:

There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do not affect the dating methods [under discussion]":

1. Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating.... The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment. ... [H]eavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent.
2. ... Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. 'Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus.... All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than several hundred thousand degrees....
3. The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by atomic clocks in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates....
   — Roger C. Wiens, Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective

Misrepresentations of science

Quote mining

Main article: Quote mining

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

Public policy issues

Science education

Main article: Creation and evolution in public education

See also: Teach the Controversy

Creationists promoted the idea that evolution is a theory in crisis with scientists criticizing evolution and claim that fairness and equal time requires educating students about the alleged scientific controversy.

Opponents, being the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and science education organizations, reply that there is no scientific controversy and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.

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

Freedom of speech

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

Issues relating to religion

See also: Relationship between religion and science and Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church

See also: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis and Evolutionary argument against naturalism

Religion and historical scientists

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

This argument usually involves scientists who were no longer alive when evolution was proposed or whose field of study did not include evolution. The argument is generally rejected as specious by those who oppose creationism.

Many of the scientists in question did some early work on the mechanisms of evolution, e.g., the modern evolutionary synthesis combines Darwin's theory of evolution with Mendel's theories of inheritance and genetics. Though biological evolution of some sort had become the primary mode of discussing speciation within science by the late-19th century, it was not until the mid-20th century that evolutionary theories stabilized into the modern synthesis. The orthodox believer, Theodosius Dobzhansky, called the Father of the Modern Synthesis, argued that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," and saw no conflict between evolutionary and his religious beliefs. Nevertheless some of the historical scientists marshalled by creationists were dealing with quite different issues than any are engaged with today: Louis Pasteur, for example, opposed the theory of spontaneous generation with biogenesis, an advocacy some creationists describe as a critique on chemical evolution and abiogenesis. Pasteur accepted that some form of evolution had occurred and that the Earth was millions of years old.

The relationship between science and religion was not portrayed in antagonistic terms until the late-19th century, and even then there have been many examples of the two being reconcilable for evolutionary scientists. 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.

Forums

Debates

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

Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools, claimed debates are not the sort of arena to promote science to creationists. Scott says that "Evolution is not on trial in the world of science," and "the topic of the discussion should not be the scientific legitimacy of evolution" but rather should be on the lack of evidence in creationism. Stephen Jay Gould adopted a similar position, explaining:

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

— Stephen Jay Gould, lecture 1985

Political lobbying

See also: Politics of creationism, Kansas evolution hearings, Santorum Amendment, and List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design

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

Media coverage

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

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

— Edward Humes, Unintelligent Designs on Darwin

Outside the United States

Views on human evolution in various countries (2008).

While the controversy has been prominent in the United States, it has flared up in other countries as well.

Europe

Europeans have often regarded the creation-evolution controversy as an American matter. However, in recent years the conflict has become an issue in a variety of countries including Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Serbia.

On 17 September 2007 the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a report on the attempt by American-inspired creationists to promote creationism in European schools. It concludes "If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.... The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements ... some advocates of creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy."

Australia

With declining church attendance, there has been some growth in fundamentalist and Pentecostal Christian denominations. Under the former Queensland state government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in the 1980s Queensland allowed the teaching of creationism in secondary schools. In 2010 the Queensland state government introduced the topic of creationism into school classes within the "ancient history" subject where its origins and nature are discussed as a significant controversy. Public lectures have been given in rented rooms at Universities, by visiting American speakers, and speakers with doctorates purchased by mail from Florida sites. One of the most acrimonious aspects of the Australian debate was featured on the science television program Quantum, about a long-running and ultimately unsuccessful court case by Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology at Melbourne University, against an ordained minister, Dr. Allen Roberts, who had claimed that there were remnants of Noah's Ark in eastern Turkey. Although the court found that Dr Roberts had made false and misleading claims, they were not made in the course of trade or commerce, so the case failed.

Islamic countries

See also: Islamic creationism

In recent times, the controversy has become more prominent in Islamic countries. In Egypt, evolution is currently taught in schools. But Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools. Creation Science has also been heavily promoted in Turkey and in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by Harun Yahya.

See also

Main article: Outline of the creation-evolution controversy

• Anti-intellectualism
• Evolution Sunday
• Evolutionary origin of religions
• Hindu views on evolution
• History of the creation-evolution controversy
• Jainism and non-creationism
• Jewish views on evolution
• List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy
• Mormonism and evolution
• Objections to evolution
• Politics of creationism
• Project Steve
• Relationship between religion and science
• Stereotypes of Americans
• Teach the Controversy
• Theology of creationism and evolution

References

Books

• Barbour, Ian G. (1997). Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (first revised ed.). HarperSanFrancisco. pp. 58, 65. ISBN 0-06-060938-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Burns, Edward M.; Ralph, Philip Lee; Lerner, Robert E.; Standish, Meacham (1982). World Civilizations Their History and Their Culture (Sixth ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-95077-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Cookson, Catharine (2003). Encyclopedia of religious freedom. Taylor & Francis. pp. 132 et seq. ISBN 0-415-94181-4.
• Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-393-31570-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Dawkins, Richard (1995). River Out of Eden. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. ISBN 0-7181-3430-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Dewey, John (1994). "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy". In Martin Gardner (ed.). Great Essays in Science. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-853-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Dixon, Thomas (2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-0-19-929551-7.
• Hodge, Charles (1874). What is Darwinism?. Scribner, Armstrong, and Company. ASIN B0006AEEMO. Retrieved 2007-01-14. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Johnson, Phillip E. (1998). Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education. IntervaVsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1929-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Johnson, Phillip E. (1993). Darwin on Trial (2nd ed.). InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1324-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Larson, Edward J. (2003). Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution. Oxford University Press. p. 276. ISBN 0-19-515470-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Larson, Edward J. (2004). Evolution. Modern Library. ISBN 0-679-64288-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Lenski, Richard E. (2000). Evolution: Fact and Theory. AcitionBioscience.org. Retrieved 2007-01-23. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Moore, James (2006). "Evolution and Wonder—Understanding Charles Darwin". Speaking of Faith (Radio Program). American Public Media. Retrieved 2007-01-24. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Numbers, Ronald L. (1992). Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. p. 224. ISBN 0-679-40104-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Numbers, Ronald (2006-11-30). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. p. 624 pages. ISBN 0-674-02339-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Numbers, Ronald L. (1998-11-15). Darwinism Comes to America. Harvard University Press. p. 224. ISBN 0-674-19312-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Popper, Karl (1976). Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. Open Court Publishing Co. ISBN 0-87548-366-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Ruse, Michael (1999-04-30). Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction. Harvard University Press. p. 320. ISBN 0-674-46706-X. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Science, Evolution, and Creationism. National Academy of Sciences. 2008. p. 12. ISBN 0-309-10586-2.
• Witham, Larry A. (2002). "From Broadway to Biophilia". Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America (kindle ed.). Oxford University Press. Chapter 2, sect. "From Broadway to Biophilia", para. 9. ISBN 978-0-19-515045-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)
• Woods, Thomas E., Jr. (2005). How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Regnery Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-89526-038-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Journals

• Curry, Andrew (2009). "Creationist Beliefs Persist in Europe". Science. 323 (5918): 1159. doi:10.1126/science.323.5918.1159. PMID 19251601. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Dawkins, Richard (January 1997). "Is Science a Religion?". The Humanist (journal). Retrieved 2007-01-30. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1973). "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". American Biology Teacher. 35. National Association of Biology Teachers: 125–129. Retrieved 2007-01-14. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Forrest, Barbara (2002). "The Newest Evolution of Creationism". Natural History: 80. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Huxley, Thomas H. (1902). "An Episcopal Trilogy 1887". Collected Essays Science and Christian Tradition. V. Kessinger Publishing: 126–159. ISBN 978-1-4179-7372-9. Retrieved 2007-01-14. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kofahl, Robert E. (22 May 1981). "Popper on Darwinism". Science (New Series). 212 (4497). {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kofahl, Robert E. (June, 1989). "The Hierarchy of Conceptual Levels For Scientific Thought And Research". CRS Quarterly. 26 (1). The Creation Research Society. Retrieved 2007-01-29. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Lewin, Roger (1982). Robert L. Hall (ed.). "Where Is the Science in Creation Science?" (PDF). Science. 215 (7): 142–146. Bibcode:1982Sci...215..142L. doi:10.1126/science.215.4529.142. Retrieved 20 April 2012. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Morris, Henry M. (1982). "Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past". Impact. 103. Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved 2007-01-20. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Myers, P.Z. (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?" (blog). Pharyngula. ScienceBlogs. Retrieved 2007-09-01. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Popper, Karl (1980). "Letter to the Editor". New Scientist. 87. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Wiker, Benjamin D. (July/August 2003). "Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics". Crisis Politics, Culture, and the Church. CRISIS Magazine. Retrieved 2007-01-21. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

News

• "Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence". International Herald Tribune. Associated Press. 2007. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Bumiller, Elisabeth (2005-08-03). "Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution". The New York Times. No. 2005-08-03. Retrieved 2007-02-03. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Einstein, Albert (1930-11-09). "Religion and Science". The New York Times Magazine. pp. 1–4. Retrieved 2007-01-30. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (1987-06-29). "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)". Newsweek. Vol. CIX, no. 26. Newsweek Inc. pp. 23–24. ISBN 0028-9604. {{cite news}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• msnbc.com staff and news service reports (2006). "Evolution's foes lose ground in Kansas". MSNBC. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Simon, Stephanie (2006). "Their Own Version of a Big Bang: Those who believe in creationism—children and adults—are being taught to challenge evolution's tenets in an in-your-face way". Los Angeles Times. No. 2006-02-11. Archived from the original on 2006-09-04. Retrieved 2007-02-03. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Slevin, Peter (2005). "Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens". Washington Post. p. A01. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• "Some question group's move with elections nearing". 6News Lawrence, Lawrence Journal-World. 2006. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Tolson, Jay (2005-09-05). "Religion in America: Intelligent Design on Trial". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2007-01-06. {{cite news}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Wallis, Claudia (2005-08-07). "The Evolution Wars". Time. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Retrieved on 2007-01-31
• Wilgoren, Jody (2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Web

• AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006-02-16). "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). aaas.org. Retrieved 2007-01-14. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science. "Study Guide: Evolution Dialogues: Science, Ethics and Religion" (PDF). study guide. AAAS.org.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• Clark (1996). "Transcription of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton". TalkOrigins Archive Foundation. Retrieved 2007-01-31. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Cole, Fay-Cooper (2008) [1959]. "50 Years Ago: A Witness at the Scopes Trial". Scientific American. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• "Court Opinion of Scope's Trial" (primary source).
• "Decision on Scopes' Appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee". University of Missouri-Kansas City School of law. 1927. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Discovery Institute (2007). "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
• Editor - People for the American Way (2006). "Timeline: How Creationism Has "Evolved"". People for the American Way. Retrieved 1 May 2012. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Flank, Lenny (2006). "The History of Creationism". TalkOrigins Archive: Post of the Month:. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
• Forrest, Barbara (2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" (PDF). Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Gould, Stephen Jay (1981). "Evolution as Fact and Theory". The Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive. Retrieved 2007-01-17. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Hovind, Kent (2006). "Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer". Creation Science Evangelism. Retrieved 2010-11-11. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• IAP, Interacademy Panel (2006-06-21). "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). interacademies.net. Archived from the original on 2006-11-02. Retrieved 2007-01-14. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Isaak, Mark (2006). "An Index to Creationist Claims". Talkorigins Archive. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kerr, Orin (2005). "Book Review of Professor Larson's Pulitzer Prize winning Summer for the Gods". {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Moran, Laurence (1993). "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory". TalkOrigins Archive Foundation. Retrieved 2007-01-23. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• NCSE (2002). "Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute". NCSE Resource. Retrieved 2009-04-07. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• NSTA, National Science Teachers Association (2007). "An NSTA Evolution Q&A". Retrieved 2008-02-01. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Peters, Ted; Hewlett, Martinez (2005). "The Evolution Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What?" (PDF). Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-12-11. Retrieved 2007-01-28. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Pierce, J. Kingston (2006). "Scopes Trial". HistoryNet. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Pieret, John (2006). "The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines". TalkOrigins Archive Foundation. Retrieved 2007-01-23. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Pinholster, Ginger (2006-02-19). "AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event". aaas.org. Retrieved 2007-01-14. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Renka, Russell D. (2005). "The Political Design of Intelligent Design". {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• "Timeline and Myths of Scopes Trial".
• van Wyhe, John (2006). "Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist: A biographical sketch". Retrieved 2007-01-24. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Verderame, John (2007). "Creation evangelism: cutting through the excess". answersingenesis.org. Retrieved 2007-02-07. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Wayback

• Archived 2007-09-26 at the Wayback Machine, "primary source". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

Court

• Epperson et al. v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (U.S. Supreme Court 1968).

Further reading

• Burian, RM: 1994. Dobzhansky on Evolutionary Dynamics: Some Questions about His Russian Background; in Adams, Mark A. (1994). The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky: essays on his life and thought in Russia and America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03479-6.
• Butler, Samuel (2007). Evolution, Old And New: Or The Theories Of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin And Lamarck, As Compared With That Of Charles Darwin (1911). Kessinger Publishing, LLC. ISBN 0-548-64132-3.
• Beer, Gillian; Darwin, Charles (1996). The origin of species. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-283438-X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Gould, Stephen Jay; Dobzhansky, Theodosius Grigorievich (1982). Genetics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-05475-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Haught, John F. (2010). Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 144. ISBN 978-0-664-23285-6.
• Henig, Robin Marantz (2000). The monk in the garden: the lost and found genius of Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-97765-7.
• Kutschera U, Niklas KJ (2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften. 91 (6): 255–76. Bibcode:2004NW.....91..255K. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. PMID 15241603.
• Mayr, Ernst (1985). The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-36446-5.
• Miller, James H. (2001). An evolving dialogue: theological and scientific perspectives on evolution. Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-349-7.
• Morris, HR (1963). The Twilight of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Pub Group. ISBN 0-8010-5862-7.
• Pennock RT (2003). "Creationism and intelligent design". Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 4: 143–63. doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400. PMID 14527300.
• Sagan, Carl (1997). The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-40946-9.
• Scott, E.C. (1997). "Antievolution And Creationism In The United States". Annual Review of Anthropology. 26 (1): 263–289. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.263.
• Scott, Eugenie (2005). Evolution Vs. Creationism. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24650-0.
• Maynard Smith, "The status of neo-Darwinism", in "Towards a Theoretical Biology" (C.H. Waddington, ed., University Press, Edinburgh, 1969.
• Hull, D.L. (1999). "The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper" (PDF). Biology and Philosophy. 14 (4): 481–504. doi:10.1023/A:1006554919188. Retrieved 2008-04-11.
• Strobel, Lee (2004). The case for a Creator: a journalist investigates scientific evidence that points toward God. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan/Willow Creek Resources. ISBN 0-310-24050-6.

External links

• Gallup public opinion poll in regards to the concepts of Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design as of May 2007
• Data by country regarding the percentage of the population that believes in evolution
• Opinion of Tennessee Supreme Court in Scopes v. State
• National Center for Science Education. Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism