Panda's Thumb discussions etc.

Navigation
Main
Weekly Archive
Category: Cilium evolution
« Ken Ham is being sued…by his fellow creationists
» Dover: The Sequel?
Comments (42)
Post a Comment
TrackBacks (2)
Email
Printer-friendly version

Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Recent Comments
dora on July 28, 2007 5:46 PM
Science Avenger on July 14, 2007 10:07 AM
Jonadab The Drunk on July 14, 2007 7:59 AM
Henry J on June 27, 2007 6:45 PM
zilch on June 14, 2007 10:30 AM
Pierce R. Butler on June 9, 2007 10:29 PM
Mark Farmer on June 8, 2007 8:59 AM
David Stanton on June 8, 2007 8:02 AM
TomS on June 8, 2007 7:44 AM
anomalous4 on June 7, 2007 11:39 PM


Recent Trackbacks
Aetiology: Behe pwned again
Stranger Fruit: Beating on Behe


Site Traffic
Site Meter

Recommend this entry to a friend
 
Friend's email address:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




Banner


Of cilia and silliness (more on Behe)
Nick Matzke posted Entry 3170 on June 5, 2007 12:02 AM.
 Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3160

Well, my own personal copy of Michael Behe’s new book The Edge of Evolution arrived via amazon.com today, so I suppose it is fair game. I have linked to a few early blog comments (see more from ERV), and Michael Ruse has a short newspaper comment out today. And several other reviews are coming out in the near future in Science, Discover, etc. None of them positive at all, but it’s amazing how much attention someone can get by sacrificing scientific rigour and inserting divine intervention instead.
I don’t have a full review of the book and I won’t for a bit since I am working on other things. But I want to get dibs on one peripheral but particularly shocking and egregious error that Behe makes in The Edge of Evolution. The error is simple but it points to what I have become convinced is the true core of the mishmash known as “intelligent design”: sloppiness and wishful thinking.

Most of The Edge of Evolution is engaged in trying to prove that protein-protein binding sites can’t evolve without intelligent guidance, using humans vs. malaria and humans vs. HIV as his primary examples. (Yes, at the end, on p. 237, Behe writes, “Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.” Well, at least he’s consistent. More on this in future posts I imagine.). Behe mostly doesn’t even address the criticisms of his previous arguments, doesn’t update his case, acknowledge previous errors, etc. He doesn’t explain why anyone should take him seriously when he claimed in Darwin’s Black Box that scientists had “no answers” on the evolutionary origin of the immune system and was then shown up in court and in print via a massive amount of research published in top journals that showed he was wrong (see PT and NCSE and especially Nature Immunology).
However, Behe does devote one chapter, chapter 5, to an update of one of his examples from Darwin’s Black Box. Chapter 5, “What Darwinism Can’t Do,” (pp. 84-102) is devoted to the eukaryotic flagellum/cilium. (Because this apparently still confuses many, please note that the eukaryotic cilium or flagellum is entirely different from the bacterial flagellum, which is entirely different from the archaeal flagellum. They are no more similar than insect wings and bird wings. See here for a summary of the differences.)
In chapter 5, Behe reviews the cilium as known from a standard lab organism, the single-celled green alga Chlamydomonas, aka Chlammy to her friends. Starting on page 87, Behe introduces a new twist to the cilium argument, which is that since the mid-1990s scientists have discovered some fascinating new details about how cilia are assembled in the cell. Essentially, a multiprotein system known as intraflagellar transport, or IFT, attaches to the cilium axonome (the 9+2 structure made of microtubules, which are made of tubulin), grabs the necessary protein subunits (like tubulin) from inside the cell, and “walks” them along the axoneme of the cilium out to the tip, where the subunits are deposited. The IFT complex then “walks” back to the bottom of the cilium to pick up more subunits.
It is more complex than this, of course…it is much easier to just look at a diagram to get a sense of what is going on. For example, from an online textbook on the lab nematode C. elegans:

(full resolution)
You can see that kinesin motor proteins walk the cargo out to the tip, and dynein motor proteins, which were handily brought along for the ride, walk the leftovers back. You can even see some spiffy videos on Joel Rosenbaum’s website at Yale.
Now, this is pretty cool stuff, and Behe plays it for all it’s worth. First, Behe points out all kinds of genetic diseases that occur in humans that are due to cilia malfunction, some of which are due to defects in IFT proteins. Clearly, not only is the cilium irreducibly complex, so is the IFT complex that assembles it! Behe entitles this section “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY SQUARED!” Watch out, evolution!
Behe goes for the jugular on p. 94:

IFT exponetially increases the difficulty of explaining the irreducibly complex cilium. It is clear from careful experimental work with all ciliated cells that have been examined, from alga to mice, that a functioning cilium requires a working IFT.12 The problem of the origin of the cilium is now intimately connected to the problem of the origin of IFT. Before its discovery we could be forgiven for overlooking the problem of how a cilium was built. Biologists could vaguely wave off the problem, knowing that some proteins fold by themselves and associate in the cell without help. Just as a century ago Haeckel thought it would be easy for life to originate, a few decades ago one could have been excused for thinking it was probably easy to put a cilium together; the piece could probably just glom together on their own. But now that the elegant complexity of IFT has been uncovered, we can ignore the question no longer.
[…endnote 12 is on p. 285, and is quoted at the bottom of this post in footnote 1 for completeness]
In the next paragraph Behe briefly dismisses a recent paper on the evolutionary origin of cilium in endnote 13 (Jekely and Arendt (2006), “Evolution of intraflagellar transport from coated vesicles and autogenous origin of the eukaryotic cilium.” Bioessays 28:191-198) and pretends that other work doesn’t exist. [See note 2] And never mind the minor point that dynein (for example) has cytoplasmic versions with diverse transport functions in the cell apart from intraflagellar transport, including involvement in mitosis, and the fact that dynein itself is the primary motor protein of cilial motility, and that dynein has widespread homologs in eukaryotes and prokaryotes. I mean, really, who could possibly care about discussing data that would be fundamental to any thorough discussion of the origins of the cilium?
But the problems I mention above are details. Expecting Behe to deal seriously with homology data is like expecting young-earth creationists to deal with 11,000 continuous years of tree rings: totally ridiculous. But I haven’t even gotten to the big problems yet.
The huge problem with Behe’s invocation of intraflagellar transport in his “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY SQUARED” section of chapter 5 is that he is completely wrong when he says that intraflagellar transport is universally required for cilium construction! Anyone can see this by reading this 2004 paper by Briggs et al. in Current Biology, which they cleverly entitled “More than one way to build a flagellum,” presumably so that people would find out that there is…wait for it…more than one way to build a flagellum.
It turns out that when you look at a number of recently-sequenced genomes, a pattern emerges: organisms with cilia have IFT genes, and organisms without cilia don’t. So far this is Behe’s expected pattern. However, as with most things in biology, there is an exception to the rule. Check out Figure 1 of Briggs et al.:


You will note that the third column in the Apicomplexans section shows that one of the parasitic apicomplexans completely lacks the IFT genes…yet makes a cilium anyway! This reminds me of something another critic of Behe once said, in a different context:

Contrary to claims about irreducible complexity, the entire ensemble of proteins is not needed. Music and harmony can arise from a smaller orchestra.
(Note: fans of Behe’s reply to Doolittle should read the PT post “Clotted rot for rotten clots”)
Apparently what is going on is that this particular apicomplexan assembles its cilia in the cytoplasm, and therefore has ditched the elaborate IFT complex that would otherwise be needed to transport building materials out to the far-removed end of the cilium. Not only does this one parasitic protozoan get away with this trick, apparently it also happens with Drosophila sperm. Behe would have known all this if he had only carefully read the Jekely and Arendt (2006) cilium evolution paper that he dismissed with a hand wave. As they write on page 193,

The [IFT] complex is only lacking from species that have secondarily lost their cilia, as Dictyostelium, yeasts and flowering plants, or from species with cilia that do not rely on IFT (in the parasite Plasmodium cilia assemble in the cytoplasm(48)). Cytoplasmic assembly of cilia is a derived feature that has independently evolved in Drosophila sperm.(49)
Now, Jekely and Arendt (2006) note just before this that “IFT is ancestrally and almost universally associated with cilia,” so apparently the last common ancestor of modern cilia had an IFT complex (and Jekely and Arendt base their paper on comparing IFT to homologous intracellular transport systems in eukaryotic cells). But it really doesn’t help the “irreducible complexity” argument much if Behe’s favorite system, the eukaryotic cilium, and the extra-favorite “irreducible complexity squared” system, intraflagellar transport, on which he bases a whole chapter, is in fact entirely reducible.
Surely, someone – Behe himself, or one of the “peer-reviewers” that the IDers will probably allege the book had, should have caught this. But if they had, Behe would have had to completely scrap chapter 5. In real peer-review, that’s the shakes, but in creationism/ID-land this sort of thing is unfortunately par for the course. In creationism/ID, one guy’s personal knowledge about a topic, usually a personal knowledge based at most on textbooks and not a thorough survey of the literature, is regularly taken to be the sum total of biological knowledge, and via this processes a whole bogus folk-creationist biology is built up about field after field. For example with fossils, thousands of creationists/IDers think there are no transitional fossils based on a few bogus misquotes of Stephen Jay Gould about punctuated equilibria, which they almost universally mistakenly think was about something other than small transitions between closely-related species; or bacterial flagella (see here – no IDer has yet acknowledged this mistake, which they are still perpetuating in print). This gets me back to my original point: a great deal of creationism/ID boils down to sloppy claims made on insufficient information, plus wishful thinking that blocks the impulse to double-check one’s claims against previous research. Once you become alerted to this feature of ID you will see it everywhere.
Oh, I almost forgot the best part: Which apicomplexan critter is it that builds cilia despite Behe’s declaration that “a functioning cilium requires a working IFT”? Why, it’s Plasmodium falciparum, aka malaria, aka Behe’s own biggest running example used throughout The Edge of Evolution. Yes, it’s the very critter about which Behe wrote on page 237,

“Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.”
But not, apparently, the parts which Behe thought were required for cilium construction. If there is an Intelligent Designer up there, I suspect He’s having a bit of a chuckle right now.
Footnotes
Note 1. Behe’s endnote 12 for chapter 5:

12. Berriman and coworkers write of trypanosomes: “The proteins of the flagellar axoneme appeared to be extremely well conserved. With the exception of tektin, there are homologs in the three genomes for all previously identified structure components as well as a full complement of flagellar motoros and both complex A and complex B of the intraflagellar transport system…. Thus, the 9+2 axoneme, which arose very early in eukaryotic evolution, appears to be constructed around a core set of proteins that are conserved in organisms possessing flagella and cilia” (Berriman, M., et al. 2005. The genome of the African trypanosome Trypanosoma brucei. Science 309: 416-22).
Note 2. Work like:

* David R. Mitchell (2004). “Speculations on the evolution of 9+2 organelles and the role of central pair microtubules.” Biology of the Cell. 96, 691–696.
* David R. Mitchell (2006). “The Evolution of Eukaryotic Cilia and Flagella as Motile and Sensory Organelles.” In: Origins and Evolution of Eukaryotic Endomembranes and Cytoskeleton, edited by Gáspár Jékely.
* Thomas Cavalier-Smith (1987). “The Origin of Eukaryote and Archaebacterial Cells.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 503, 17-54.
For Cavalier-Smith (1987), I particularly like Figure 5 and the caption on pp. 38-39. Although it needs an update since it is 20 years old, it still provides a good big-picture view of how cilium evolution is just a piece of the evolutionary origin of mitosis. Download jpgs of part 1, part 2, part 3.
You’ve never heard of this paper from the ID guys? Not surprising, they’ve never cited it. Cavalier-Smith pointed this out way back in his 1997 review of Darwin’s Black Box in TREE (see Cavalier-Smith, 1997, “The Blind Biochemist,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12(4), 162-163, April 1997), and I’ve never seen any IDer acknowledge the oversight. Stumbling on this review while looking up this other book review is literally what got me into this whole ID thing in the first place. I had originally thought, “Hmm, Behe might have a point about the lack of literature on the evolution of complex systems.” Then I read Cavalier-Smith’s review and realized I’d been snookered. The rest is history.
Note 3. This doesn’t go with anything, but for the record, Mike Gene, perhaps the ID guru who is most respected for usually having a clue about the biology he is talking about unlike virtually all of the rest of them, made the same mistake Behe made about IFT. See Mike Gene’s “ASSEMBLING THE EUKARYOTIC FLAGELLUM: Another example of IC?” and “THE NEGLECTED FLAGELLUM.”
Note 4. This is also not referenced in the main text, but the wikipedia intraflagellar tranport page also contains the “always required” mistake.
.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Post a Comment
 
Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
   

Comments:

  
Comment #182241
Posted by PvM on June 5, 2007 1:06 AM (e)
Well done

Comment #182242
Posted by Tara on June 5, 2007 1:08 AM (e)
Oh, man. That is classic….

Comment #182255
Posted by Nick (Matzke) on June 5, 2007 2:09 AM (e)
Forgot to add…the asterisks in the Briggs et al. Figure 1 indicate incomplete genome sequences as of 2004. Thus they put “nf” (not found) for those genomes where they couldn’t find a protein. Only complete genomes could get an unambiguous negative (“-“, minus sign).

Comment #182319
Posted by Frank J on June 5, 2007 5:27 AM (e)

Nick Matzke wrote:
The error is simple but it points to what I have become convinced is the true core of the mishmash known as “intelligent design”: sloppiness and wishful thinking.
Specifically, sloppiness and wishful thinking that ID authors know that the target audience will either not notice, or make excuses for.
Eleven years after “Darwin’s Black Box,” most fans rave about it with no mention whatever of the many devastating critiques that they certainly have noticed along the way. The biggest irony is that these are the same people who whine about “equal time.”

Comment #182321
Posted by Joel on June 5, 2007 5:40 AM (e)
Another excellent fisking of Behe!

Comment #182329
Posted by Blake Stacey, OM on June 5, 2007 6:23 AM (e)
Edit: “something other [than] small transitions between closely-related species”
This post has been duly added to the ever-growing list.

Comment #182343
Posted by TomS on June 5, 2007 7:14 AM (e)
Re your Note 4, some anonymous person has updated Wikipedia to say “most” not “all”.

Comment #182348
Posted by wamba on June 5, 2007 7:27 AM (e)

And several other reviews are coming out in the near future in Science, Discover, etc.
Makes me wonder why science-related journals and magazines have gotten into the business of reviewing books of religious apologetics.

Comment #182352
Posted by raven on June 5, 2007 8:20 AM (e)

wamba:
 Makes me wonder why science-related journals and magazines have gotten into the business of reviewing books of religious apologetics.
Not very perceptive are you? It is obvious and has been for a decade or two.
The creos stated goal is to overthrow science and the US government and head on back to the dark ages. Like all lunatic fringe ideologies, lies, misinformtion and propaganda are staples of the fake christian reality denying movement.
As scientists, it is to be hoped and expected that someone will point out the lies and misinformation. We owe a big thanks to Nick Matzke and others for doing so.
Besides which, in the highly unlikely event that the reality deniers succeed, the next step will be a traditional witch hunt for biologists, astronomers, geologists, and MDs. Being burnt at the stake or hung could ruin one’s whole career.
Reread your wedge document if you have forgotten what you were doing.

Comment #182353
Posted by Frank J on June 5, 2007 8:27 AM (e)

wamba wrote:
Makes me wonder why science-related journals and magazines have gotten into the business of reviewing books of religious apologetics.
Er, because they misrepresent science. And unlike, say, flat-earthers, IDers have fooled even many readers of sciece-related journals.

Comment #182361
Posted by David Stanton on June 5, 2007 8:54 AM (e)
Raven wrote:
“As scientists, it is to be hoped and expected that someone will point out the lies and misinformation. We owe a big thanks to Nick Matzke and others for doing so.”
Absolutely agree. It would be nice to just ignore this nonsense, but look where that has gotten us. I appreciate the careful manner in which Nick presents his case. In fact, I would call this the “best Behe takedown ever” (all due respect to ERV).
If Behe actually had any real point to make he would publish in scientific journals. Oh course we have one example of what happens when he tries that. No wonder he doesn’t want to do it. I guess you can hope to get away without doing a literature search if you just publish popular books, but of course someone might notice anyway.

Comment #182370
Posted by minimalist on June 5, 2007 9:34 AM (e)

Nick Matzke wrote:
Oh, I almost forgot the best part: Which apicomplexan critter is it that builds cilia despite Behe’s declaration that “a functioning cilium requires a working IFT”? Why, it’s Plasmodium falciparum, aka malaria, aka Behe’s own biggest running example used throughout The Edge of Evolution.
Oh. Man. That. Is. HILARIOUS!
Well spotted, Nick, well spotted indeed. What could Behe have been thinking? Was he really so delusional, or so dead-set on seeing only the parts he could cherry-pick, that he didn’t notice? Or was he hoping that the ID camp followers would never bother to read further, or look at rebuttals?
This so perfectly encapsulates Behe’s utter incompetence, delusion, or dishonesty, that I hope everyone hammers it home in every forum possible, wherever Behe is mentioned. It’s brief, to the point, and easily confirmed. Creationists will ignore it, of course, but it’ll just further demonstrate how much of a joke ID is to everyone else.

Comment #182374
Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on June 5, 2007 9:40 AM (e)
Extreeeeme case of Morton’s Demon.

Comment #182376
Posted by Larry Gilman on June 5, 2007 9:42 AM (e)

Matzke wrote:
… Behe writes, “Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.” Well, at least he’s consistent.
I don’t have Behe’s new book, but what he’s almost certainly implying is that malaria is Satanically designed—that it is a bioweapon created by a supernatural enemy. This is yet another reason why the argument from “bad” design (i.e., the argument that design that’s “bad” by human standards disproves ID) is a weak reed, even though one form of it has given this excellent website its name: Creationists can always attribute harmless natural oddities like the panda’s thumb to divine whimsey, not-so-harmless phenomena to prehistoric sabotage by demonic forces. And so they do. The idea of demonic sabotage of the natural order has, as far as I know, been little or not at all taken up by mainstream Christian theologians—it smacks of Manicheism and has no scriptural basis. But the IDers, whose theology is as twisted as their pseudoscience, are forced by their assumptions to cross the line.
The deep craziness of the inevitably resulting worldview needs no emphasis on this forum.
Larry

Comment #182379
Posted by harold on June 5, 2007 9:45 AM (e)
I want to thank Behe, too, for shooting himself in the foot so often and so extremely.
It helps that in addition to being a crackpot, he’s a bad salesman.
That malaria comment is unreal. His focus on the likes of bacteria and malaria parasites implies a “God directly designed pathogenic microorganisms to punish sinners by killing people at random” mentality. There is little other way to interpret the comment.
You can peddle snake oil about human origins to some degree. Telling someone “you are so special and magical that you must have been ‘designed’” has a certain appeal.
The argument that “Even though silly scientists say the bacterial flagellum evolved, what really happened is that The Designer pinned it on so that bacteria could really stick it to those saps who were unlucky enough to eat the spinach salad” has a lot less appeal.

Comment #182380
Posted by harold on June 5, 2007 9:46 AM (e)
I want to thank Behe, too, for shooting himself in the foot so often and so extremely.
It helps that in addition to being a crackpot, he’s a bad salesman.
That malaria comment is unreal. His focus on the likes of bacteria and malaria parasites implies a “God directly designed pathogenic microorganisms to punish sinners by killing people at random” mentality. There is little other way to interpret the comment.
You can peddle snake oil about human origins to some degree. Telling someone “you are so special and magical that you must have been ‘designed’” has a certain appeal.
The argument that “Even though silly scientists say the bacterial flagellum evolved, what really happened is that The Designer pinned it on so that bacteria could really stick it to those saps who were unlucky enough to eat the spinach salad” has a lot less appeal.

Comment #182384
Posted by Tm G on June 5, 2007 10:08 AM (e)
Unfortunately, people like Nick must waste time on this nonsense so we will all be informed of the particulars of what we know intuitively is BS. Unfortunately, the vast majority of our voting constituency WANTS to believe mountebanks like Behe and they WANT to have justification to re-inject religion into schools - Behe and his ilk know this, so let us not delude ourselves - Behe knows exactly what he is doing - he knows he is not writing something which can withstand scientific scrutiny - he knows that his work will be subject to withering and irrefutable criticism.
HE DOESN’T CARE. He is not writing for us. He is writing for ONE purpose - to delude voters and gullible public officials and to give them what they want - a credible-sounding bit of non-answer which is just good enough for them, with a loud collective voice, to shout down dissent from their views. This, my scientific colleagues, is proaganda - pure and simple. It is being implemented by a masterful prpaganda machine and it is acieving the dual purpose of feeding the popular belief WHILE also keeping good scientists occupied responding in arcane venues rather than churning out more great works like COSMOS which really fired the public’s imagination about science a generation ago.
 Nick, you are an insightful, eloquent and frank writer and, much as I love your exposes, I would like to see the NSCE focus on disseminating some real entertaining, readable science. Instead, the DI has our side on the defensive - they are calling the shots because they continue to publish distortions which we then must react to rather than pushing forward with good original work of our own. Science in the public view is now no longer telling the public about the world - scientists are now in the unenviable position of telling the world what it has been told by the DI, and what the world wants to believe, is not true. We, somehow, have been backed into a corner. THAT is the triumph of the DI as I see it. They don’t need to be correct. They only need to put us in the defender’s position - and they know it. That is why Behe is willing to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged scientists - this latest book is the sacrificial lamb to keep us busy while adding more christian soldiers to the march.
 Tom

Comment #182389
Posted by Glen Davidson on June 5, 2007 10:37 AM (e)
Very good fisking.
And I can see why his assumptions are taken as if they were reasonable, since they fall on their own “logic”. But I can’t let him get away with his attempts to make ID’s apologetic attempts to write the ground rules to favor themselves without commenting on the typical egregious dishonesty.

It turns out that when you look at a number of recently-sequenced genomes, a pattern emerges: organisms with cilia have IFT genes, and organisms without cilia don’t. So far this is Behe’s expected pattern.
Yes, this is his “expected pattern,” and he laughably fails with his prime example. But this is not, as we all know, any expected pattern from an intervening Creator. In fact (and this is one reason I’m writing now), exceptions and differences without any consistent phylogenetic pattern would be expected from a real creative power. I’m saying, “Watch out, they might start claiming this to be the ‘fatal flaw’ in the homologies that ‘supposedly support’ Darwinism“. Of course it’s not anything like that, it’s the sort of exception expected from normal evolutionary adaptations to varying circumstances, not a mix-up of “bacterial flagella”, “eukaryotic cilia”, and unknown other possibilities that a creator might very well come up with, and which evolution tends not to effect once it has a complex “machine” (scare quotes only because of IDiot word games) adequate to handle many purposes.
And since they have nothing except a constant whine about evolution, Behe’s “expected pattern” may very well change to, “well, we expect a designer to have a pattern, but to change it where circumstances warrant,” because, of course, they have no predictions other than those that try to make what we see into “design predictions” (thus complexity (with various modifiers of dubious meaning) becomes the mark of “design”, when it has never been diagnostic of design on its own).
This is why I think we ought to press them for inherent predictions of ID at every turn, for otherwise they’ll just turn to claiming this as the mark of “design” once they have learned something. Dembski more or less gave the game away on ARN, when he crowed about putting his stuff onto ARN to get the “Darwinists” to trim away the shit (sorry, but what else am I to call it?) that doesn’t stick to the wall. Behe’s not going to care for long that he’s been shown to be an ignorant sap once again (he’s bound to be somewhat inured to it now), he’ll just change his “expectations” and claim victory like they always do.

Behe wrote:
Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.
And so with this. Sure, it’s hard to even parse such a stupid statement, and it’s “consistent” all right in claiming that “complexity” itself indicates “design”.
But let’s discuss it anyhow. What is purposeful about the relationship of malaria, mosquitos, and humans (and other animals)? Bring in Dembski’s favorite little SETI analogy. We see a complex (rationally designed, a factor that he never manages to mention) machine which exists for an apparent purpose, and we conclude design. We don’t look at organisms (or machines) in competition for resources (or even as isolated specimens) and conclude purpose or design, for the whole is without both aspects. Indeed, we can conclude that humans have a purpose in warding off both mosquitos and malaria, however we cannot suppose that malaria and mosquitos have a purpose (except in the broadest, and unusual, senses). At least the honest theists who believe in the devil can come up with a kind of “purpose” in mosquitos and malaria, even if Satan’s work in producing both strains credibility if we model Satan upon our own tendencies.
It’s hard to accept human purpose for malaria’s existence, and of course Behe really wants to claim that humans do have purpose because of the Creator’s purpose (one could make the case, but it would be long). It might be easier to suppose that humans exist for P. falciparum’s purposes, except that then it’s hard to understand why humans are able to evolve sickle cells and other defenses which seriously reduce malaria’s scope for living, let alone to have the intelligence to utilize quinine (and chloroquine) and artemensin to hold malaria at bay for some time. Are we to suppose that this is to improve malaria in some unfathomable manner?
The fact of the matter is that all of these questions end up pointing to only one thing, the classic theist cop-out, an “inscrutable God”. We are not able to discern purpose in malaria’s existence, and he knows this. The trouble is that we can’t discern purpose in human existence (I didn’t say in human lives, life, and individual existence—it’s only “human existence” (in a certain, should be obvious, meaning) where I’m denying it), either, and Behe et al. want to claim that irreducible complexity somehow confers it. Of course he has to make P. falciparum into a “purposeful” arrangement of parts (come on now, O’Leary, you know life is not just machines like Behe claims. You said so) if he’s going to maintain the fiction that his “science” indicates the same for humans. He just hasn’t founded any of his crucial assumptions at all.
Yes I know, this is all too obvious, but it has to be said to keep them from getting away with their tiresome claims. We can’t let Behe hone his “predictions” so intricately so that they will at last “succeed”, without pointing out that none of his predictions inhere in his “theory” at all, no matter how often we have to point this out.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Comment #182391
Posted by raven on June 5, 2007 10:52 AM (e)

Matzke wrote:
… Behe writes, “Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.” Well, at least he’s consistent.
A lot of things wrong with Behe’s statement.
 1. Who is this intentional designer? There are thousands of candidates and answers. Zeus et al. Odin et al., Vishnu, Cthulhu, Allah, space aliens. Of course, we know their answer would be Jehova. But the actual evidence that it is Jehova rather than someone(s) else is the same as the actual evidence that malaria was intentionally designed. Zero.
2. This is just the old argument from incredulity/ignorance. “I can’t see how my foot evolved so god exists.” Obvious and old logical fallacy.
3. Bad example. Malaria is one of the top 3 single agent killers worldwide. It hits young children especially hard. In endemic areas, you get it and get over it, or get it and die. Is this clown really implying that god wants to randomly kill off a few million kids per year for some reason?

Comment #182396
Posted by raven on June 5, 2007 11:16 AM (e)

Tm G:
THAT is the triumph of the DI as I see it. They don’t need to be correct. They only need to put us in the defender’s position - and they know it.
It’s not quite that bad. The only way the creos can sell their pack of lies is to…..lie. Lie a lot and repeat those lies and make up new ones.
In the very long run, truth always wins out. They are and will make their religion, fake-fundie christianity look like primitive snake oil. I’m sure they’ve heard of the commandment, thou shalt not lie. Obviously, they don’t care.
Besides which, irreducible complexity is an old logical fallacy and it is sterile. Behe can recycle it forever with endless examples (HIV, TB, tapeworms, trichinosis, etc.) but it doesn’t lead anywhere scientificly.
Much rather sell the truth and add to it. While Behe is babbling on about intentionally, intelligently designed microbial killers, many of us are trying to understand them, treat them, cure them, and get rid of them forever. Smallpox is gone, polio is going, and what has the DI contributed to the world besides paying a bunch of quacks and conmen to make up lies?

Comment #182397
Posted by jasonmitchell on June 5, 2007 11:17 AM (e)
re Comment #182376 Satan designed parasites
It is also possible (although I am NOT accusing Behe of this as I don’t have enough information) that his comment is based in (or to justify) bigotry
 (is he pandering to a segment of his target audience? or does HE hold these beliefs? )
 - Malaria is DEVINELY designed to punish the “wicked” lesser races (in Africa - where malaria kills many not everyone is a xian)
Similar arguments were used to JUSTIFY BIGOTRY against Africans (they are the “Sons of Cain”) or JUSTFY BIGOTRY against homosexuals (AIDS is GODS PUNISHMENT)
this is a particularly dangerous belief, and the foundation/support of some hate groups’ philosophies (KKK) - correlation between fundies/hate groups/bigotry/global warming denial/lower education levels/evolution denial/republican “base” all adds up to some pretty scary stuff

Comment #182451
Posted by Larry A on June 5, 2007 1:11 PM (e)
I’ve been reading this blog since the Dover trial and have never commented before. But this is just too much. Can someone explain to me how Behe and his cohorts can wake up in the morning and look at himself in the mirror. He seems to be a smart man that must know that he is lying through his teeth. The only people in history that I can think of that can lie like he does with a straight face are evil and/or seriously sick. You know people like Hitler and other obvious sickos.

Comment #182458
Posted by Gary Hurd on June 5, 2007 1:42 PM (e)
So if malaria is designed, who (should that be Who?) designed it? And, since the sickel cell trait provided some protection to malaria, who designed that? And since there are three known variants of sickel cell, where they designed by a team, or a committee? Maybe subcontractors?
Great job Nick! Nail his ass to the wall.

Comment #182459
Posted by Nick (Matzke) on June 5, 2007 1:43 PM (e)
Come now, don’t get carried away. Remember Godwin’s Law.

Comment #182467
Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on June 5, 2007 2:59 PM (e)

Nick Matzke wrote:
which they cleverly entitled “More than one way to build a flagellum,” presumably so that people would find out that there is…wait for it…more than one way to build a flagellum.
What I like most about Nick’s posts is the awesome ninja/army style approach to his subject. First a swift disemboweling of the main target, then severing the head to make sure. No need to kick the body afterwards.
Very well done.

Nick Matzke wrote:
this particular apicomplexan assembles its cilia in the cytoplasm, and therefore has ditched the elaborate IFT complex that would otherwise be needed to transport building materials out to the far-removed end of the cilium
Which construction method humans would prefer btw, assemble centrally and push into place. Whatever happened with ‘intelligent’ in design?

Michael Behe wrote:
“irreducible complexity squared”
Unfortunately, 0*0 is still zero.
Wait, maybe we can help Behe by looking at ‘IC’ cubed, squared, …:
1. n = 0: 0 = 0.
 2. n: Assume 0^(n-1) = 0. 0^n = 0 * 0^(n-1) = 0 * 0 = 0. (So we didn’t even need the assumption.)
 => 0^n = 0, all n.
Hmm. No, won’t work, Behe will only plead for special creation: 0^N = 0 + something extra, for N sufficiently different from n.

Comment #182469
Posted by Dyticas on June 5, 2007 3:04 PM (e)
When Behe looks in the mirror he sees a book author and ID celebrity, which must look better to him than an underacheiving biochemist. He may not be evil, but his manipulation of facts for vanity and profit are beneath contempt. I would rather be an underachieving biochemist with some regard for the truth. As I am.

Comment #182470
Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on June 5, 2007 3:08 PM (e)
Uups. As everyone can see there is a glaring error in my proof by induction. I got lost in all the 0’s:
1. n = 1: 0 = 0.
There, that will do it.

Comment #182482
Posted by Fred on June 5, 2007 4:00 PM (e)
Great post; I can’t wait until Behe is on the stand again (in Virginia, maybe?) and has all this pointed out to him with his response on the record.

Comment #182490
Posted by steve s on June 5, 2007 4:28 PM (e)
I hope the phrase “…wait for it…” is on the way out.

Comment #182503
Posted by David B. Benson on June 5, 2007 5:43 PM (e)
raven — It was Her Noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Comment #182567
Posted by Aagcobb on June 5, 2007 10:50 PM (e)
Dyticas: “I would rather be an underachieving biochemist with some regard for the truth. As I am.”
But think what you could be. With the very small effort of recycling bad arguments creationists have made for decades, you could write a bestseller which would fly off the shelves of christian bookstores nationwide, appear on national television and bask in the glow of praise from Bill O’Reilly and Pat Robertson, Go on a national speaking tour of fundamentalist churches and get your wallet stuffed with love offerings, and sell audiotapes and DVDs out the whazoo! Telling people what they want to hear is a VERY lucrative business.

Comment #182638
Posted by Paul Burnett on June 7, 2007 10:03 PM (e)
Larry Gilman commented: “…what (Behe’s) almost certainly implying is that malaria is Satanically designed……it smacks of Manicheism and has no scriptural basis. But the IDers, whose theology is as twisted as their pseudoscience, are forced by their assumptions to cross the line.” (Sorry for the long quote, which I don’t know how to put in a box.)
Larry’ right. For those who care to go to the effort, fighting creationists by citing examples of their heresy (Manichaean and others) may be valid. Creationists sometimes cite an almost Zoroastrian duality of a good god opposed by a bad god, which is essentially the Manichaean heresy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism). Some creationist writings cite a “creator god” who can be seen as separate from the primary Judeo-Christian-Islamic god, who got his start in the godding business as a storm god. (Solomon’s Temple actually had a separate room reserved for YHWH to appear in in his aspect of a thundercloud.)
Intelligent design, with its public silence on creationism’s god, sometimes refers to more than one intelligent designer, and of course cannot answer the question of who or what designed the intelligent designer. Pointing out that this looks a lot like heresy might be a good way to drive a wedge (heh heh) between the IDers and the creationists.

Comment #182650
Posted by anomalous4 on June 7, 2007 11:39 PM (e)
Corey Powell did a pretty good job of shredding Behe’s latest piece of ¢®@p for the lay audience in Discover magazine this month, too. YA-A-A-A-A-A-AAAY!!!!!

Comment #182680
Posted by TomS on June 8, 2007 7:44 AM (e)
Regarding the comments by Paul Burnett and others on the theology of ID.
Langdon Gilkey, in his testimony in the Arkansas creationism trial, brought up the question of Gnosticism’s relationship to creationism.
What I find interesting is to draw the distinction between a “designer” and a “creator”. Design is operating within the limits of pre-existing material, redoing it so that it comes into agreement with the desires of the designer. This point was mentioned by Kant:

Thus the proof could at most establish a highest architect of the word, who would always be limited by the suitability of the material in which he works, but not a creator of the world, to whose idea everything is subject, which is far from sufficient for the great aim that one has in view, namely that of proving an all-sufficient original being.
Critique of Pure Reason A626/B654, tr. P. Guyer & A.W. Wood, Cambridge U. Press, 1998 (boldface as in this translation)
BTW, Paul, using the tag “blockquote” is what you are looking for to put something in a box.

Comment #182683
Posted by David Stanton on June 8, 2007 8:02 AM (e)
Don’t know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but Talkorigins also has a post of the month that calls Behe’s argument silly. Enjoy.

Comment #182686
Posted by Mark Farmer on June 8, 2007 8:59 AM (e)
Nick that was truly terrific. As one who works on the origins of protists and flagella I can authoritatively say that this dressing down of Behe is complete and accurate in every way.
It reminds me of the famous quote from Tom Cavalier-Smith’s original review of “Darwin’s Black Box” that you referenced. Cavalier-Smith wrote:
“[Behe] states that
‘if a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not even generate an attempt at an explanation it should be banished’ and ‘without details, discussion is doomed to be unscientific and fruitless’.
If he had applied these strictures to his panacea of ‘intelligent design’ we would have been spared this worthless book.”
Well said, both Tom and Nick!

Comment #182817
Posted by Pierce R. Butler on June 9, 2007 10:29 PM (e)
Behe claims new insights into malaria, attained by the use of ID theory. Good - we could save thousands of lives by better understanding of this organism.
As an “ethical” “scientist”, doesn’t he owe it to humanity and his god to do everything he can to follow up on this breakthrough?
Mere blog commenters may opine that providing Behe with a malaria lab would affect the fight against disease only slightly less than bulldozing an existing lab, but shouldn’t Behe be giving this his best shot regardless of such heckling from the rabble?
If he’s right, he could be the next Walter Reed or Jonas Salk. Or, he could be known as the man who found the key to malaria - and walked away leaving a later generation to stumble across it.
Should Behe have, ahem, other priorities, this presents an opportunity (arguably an obligation) for his colleagues at the Diss Institute to pursue malaria research with all available resources.
To do less implies a heartlessness which might not merit invocations of the almighty Godwin, but would still occupy a point in genocide space. Unless, of course, ID’s own partisans don’t take Behe’s analysis very seriously themselves. Their inaction implicitly concedes that ID has nothing to contribute medically, and belongs only in the crowded dimensions of quackspace.
Glen D wants “predictions”, but he’s burdened with low expectations. The human race needs medical breakthroughs - if Behe & friends can deliver, the world will cheer as they pick up their Nobels. (It might be, ah, premature to bring them to the attention of the Committees quite yet, thanks for asking…)
If ID proponents assert they have a better model for a major affliction of humankind, but fail to develop it, they should be challenged for this ethical lapse at every public venue, and twice on Sundays.

Comment #183137
Posted by zilch on June 14, 2007 10:30 AM (e)
“Is this clown really implying that god wants to randomly kill off a few million kids per year for some reason?”
Not randomly, raven. These are the kids He loves most of all, and He has thus gathered them to Himself so they won’t have to suffer on Earth.
It’s non-falsifiable all the way down.

Comment #184917
Posted by Henry J on June 27, 2007 6:45 PM (e)
I thought it was turtles all the way down…

Comment #187806
Posted by Jonadab The Drunk on July 14, 2007 7:59 AM (e)
I just started reading Darwin’s Black Box and its great to know the criticism before I continue. It would be right to point out new discoveries, but one can hardly account for malice on Behe’s part for pointing out the existing evidence at the time of publication. Maybe I’m just really really ridiculously good looking but didn’t Nick start out promising to solve the Irreducibly Complex design of the cilium, and end up disproving that “a functioning cilium requires a working IFT”.
I’m not trying to convince anyone but how could an organism benefit from becoming conscious of its own inevitable death? Taking into account that the fear of death permeates through most psychological disorders, and dominates ones lifestyle although proving vain despite which one is chosen? Also taking into account that every beast known to man is governed by instinct and whose mental capabilities are limited to its basic functions, while it is said that with whatever information you take to the grave, the human mind is capable of storing 10 Billion times that amount, despite living a meager 70 years of age.
There are other things like how in the vision of Ezekiel Jehovah is surrounded by a rainbow, and since scripture says that there is no darkness is relation to him at all, it would indicate that he knows what the spectrum of light is.
Also I notice critics exposing the malice behind IDers arguments. But what about Piltdown man which is hard evidence toward wishful thinking on the part of Evolutionist.
Just a friendly IDer reminder, and yes I do have time to kill its Saturday…
“This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. And who is there like me? Let him call out, that he may tell it and present it to me. From when I appointed the people of long ago, both the things coming and the things that will enter in let them tell on their part. Do not be in dread, you people, and do not become stupefied. Have I not from that time on caused you individually to hear and told it out? And you are my witnesses. Does there exist a God besides me? No, there is no Rock. I have recognized none.’” Isaiah 44:6-8

Comment #187819
Posted by Science Avenger on July 14, 2007 10:07 AM (e)

Jonadab said:
…how could an organism benefit from becoming conscious of its own inevitable death?
It makes planning more efficient, and gives one a sense of urgency. Knowing you are going to die one day means that if you desire to have children, for example, better to act sooner than to procrastinate.
It is also plausible that knowledge of one’s death is a negative side effect of the more positive attribute of consciousness. Just because a trait persists doesn’t make it evolutionarily advantageous.

Also taking into account that every beast known to man is governed by instinct and whose mental capabilities are limited to its basic functions…
Whereever did you get this idea? Chimps, dolphins, octopi, and other animals have demonstrated tool-making and problem-solving abilities similar to our own. The differences are of degree, not kind.

Also I notice critics exposing the malice behind IDers arguments. But what about Piltdown man which is hard evidence toward wishful thinking on the part of Evolutionist.
Piltdown man was rejected by science once the evidence of its fraudulent nature came to light. Contrast this to creationists/IDers, who continue to promote discredited arguments in spite of contrary evidence.

Just a friendly IDer reminder, and yes I do have time to kill its Saturday…
No problem, debunking creationist nonsense is a good way to get through a hangover.

Comment #190847
Posted by dora on July 28, 2007 5:46 PM (e)
even the wart adds something to the body
 
Trackback: Behe pwned again
Posted by Aetiology on June 5, 2007 1:52 PM
Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" is officially on the shelves now, and already it's DOA.

Trackback: Beating on Behe
Posted by Stranger Fruit on June 5, 2007 7:12 PM
Behe's latest piece of dreck (The Edge of Evolution) has appeared and it has already recieved quite the beatdown from Michael Ruse, Mark Chu-Carroll, PZ Myers, and Nick Matzke, with Nick's post being fairly damning regarding Behe's "ability" to do...


http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/of_cilia_and_si.html










Navigation
Main
Weekly Archive
Category: Cilium evolution
« Ken Ham is being sued…by his fellow creationists
» Dover: The Sequel?
Comments (42)
Post a Comment
TrackBacks (2)
Email
Printer-friendly version

Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Recent Comments
dora on July 28, 2007 5:46 PM
Science Avenger on July 14, 2007 10:07 AM
Jonadab The Drunk on July 14, 2007 7:59 AM
Henry J on June 27, 2007 6:45 PM
zilch on June 14, 2007 10:30 AM
Pierce R. Butler on June 9, 2007 10:29 PM
Mark Farmer on June 8, 2007 8:59 AM
David Stanton on June 8, 2007 8:02 AM
TomS on June 8, 2007 7:44 AM
anomalous4 on June 7, 2007 11:39 PM


Recent Trackbacks
Aetiology: Behe pwned again
Stranger Fruit: Beating on Behe


Site Traffic
Site Meter

Recommend this entry to a friend
 
Friend's email address:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




Banner


Of cilia and silliness (more on Behe)
Nick Matzke posted Entry 3170 on June 5, 2007 12:02 AM.
 Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3160

Well, my own personal copy of Michael Behe’s new book The Edge of Evolution arrived via amazon.com today, so I suppose it is fair game. I have linked to a few early blog comments (see more from ERV), and Michael Ruse has a short newspaper comment out today. And several other reviews are coming out in the near future in Science, Discover, etc. None of them positive at all, but it’s amazing how much attention someone can get by sacrificing scientific rigour and inserting divine intervention instead.
I don’t have a full review of the book and I won’t for a bit since I am working on other things. But I want to get dibs on one peripheral but particularly shocking and egregious error that Behe makes in The Edge of Evolution. The error is simple but it points to what I have become convinced is the true core of the mishmash known as “intelligent design”: sloppiness and wishful thinking.

Most of The Edge of Evolution is engaged in trying to prove that protein-protein binding sites can’t evolve without intelligent guidance, using humans vs. malaria and humans vs. HIV as his primary examples. (Yes, at the end, on p. 237, Behe writes, “Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.” Well, at least he’s consistent. More on this in future posts I imagine.). Behe mostly doesn’t even address the criticisms of his previous arguments, doesn’t update his case, acknowledge previous errors, etc. He doesn’t explain why anyone should take him seriously when he claimed in Darwin’s Black Box that scientists had “no answers” on the evolutionary origin of the immune system and was then shown up in court and in print via a massive amount of research published in top journals that showed he was wrong (see PT and NCSE and especially Nature Immunology).
However, Behe does devote one chapter, chapter 5, to an update of one of his examples from Darwin’s Black Box. Chapter 5, “What Darwinism Can’t Do,” (pp. 84-102) is devoted to the eukaryotic flagellum/cilium. (Because this apparently still confuses many, please note that the eukaryotic cilium or flagellum is entirely different from the bacterial flagellum, which is entirely different from the archaeal flagellum. They are no more similar than insect wings and bird wings. See here for a summary of the differences.)
In chapter 5, Behe reviews the cilium as known from a standard lab organism, the single-celled green alga Chlamydomonas, aka Chlammy to her friends. Starting on page 87, Behe introduces a new twist to the cilium argument, which is that since the mid-1990s scientists have discovered some fascinating new details about how cilia are assembled in the cell. Essentially, a multiprotein system known as intraflagellar transport, or IFT, attaches to the cilium axonome (the 9+2 structure made of microtubules, which are made of tubulin), grabs the necessary protein subunits (like tubulin) from inside the cell, and “walks” them along the axoneme of the cilium out to the tip, where the subunits are deposited. The IFT complex then “walks” back to the bottom of the cilium to pick up more subunits.
It is more complex than this, of course…it is much easier to just look at a diagram to get a sense of what is going on. For example, from an online textbook on the lab nematode C. elegans:

(full resolution)
You can see that kinesin motor proteins walk the cargo out to the tip, and dynein motor proteins, which were handily brought along for the ride, walk the leftovers back. You can even see some spiffy videos on Joel Rosenbaum’s website at Yale.
Now, this is pretty cool stuff, and Behe plays it for all it’s worth. First, Behe points out all kinds of genetic diseases that occur in humans that are due to cilia malfunction, some of which are due to defects in IFT proteins. Clearly, not only is the cilium irreducibly complex, so is the IFT complex that assembles it! Behe entitles this section “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY SQUARED!” Watch out, evolution!
Behe goes for the jugular on p. 94:

IFT exponetially increases the difficulty of explaining the irreducibly complex cilium. It is clear from careful experimental work with all ciliated cells that have been examined, from alga to mice, that a functioning cilium requires a working IFT.12 The problem of the origin of the cilium is now intimately connected to the problem of the origin of IFT. Before its discovery we could be forgiven for overlooking the problem of how a cilium was built. Biologists could vaguely wave off the problem, knowing that some proteins fold by themselves and associate in the cell without help. Just as a century ago Haeckel thought it would be easy for life to originate, a few decades ago one could have been excused for thinking it was probably easy to put a cilium together; the piece could probably just glom together on their own. But now that the elegant complexity of IFT has been uncovered, we can ignore the question no longer.
[…endnote 12 is on p. 285, and is quoted at the bottom of this post in footnote 1 for completeness]
In the next paragraph Behe briefly dismisses a recent paper on the evolutionary origin of cilium in endnote 13 (Jekely and Arendt (2006), “Evolution of intraflagellar transport from coated vesicles and autogenous origin of the eukaryotic cilium.” Bioessays 28:191-198) and pretends that other work doesn’t exist. [See note 2] And never mind the minor point that dynein (for example) has cytoplasmic versions with diverse transport functions in the cell apart from intraflagellar transport, including involvement in mitosis, and the fact that dynein itself is the primary motor protein of cilial motility, and that dynein has widespread homologs in eukaryotes and prokaryotes. I mean, really, who could possibly care about discussing data that would be fundamental to any thorough discussion of the origins of the cilium?
But the problems I mention above are details. Expecting Behe to deal seriously with homology data is like expecting young-earth creationists to deal with 11,000 continuous years of tree rings: totally ridiculous. But I haven’t even gotten to the big problems yet.
The huge problem with Behe’s invocation of intraflagellar transport in his “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY SQUARED” section of chapter 5 is that he is completely wrong when he says that intraflagellar transport is universally required for cilium construction! Anyone can see this by reading this 2004 paper by Briggs et al. in Current Biology, which they cleverly entitled “More than one way to build a flagellum,” presumably so that people would find out that there is…wait for it…more than one way to build a flagellum.
It turns out that when you look at a number of recently-sequenced genomes, a pattern emerges: organisms with cilia have IFT genes, and organisms without cilia don’t. So far this is Behe’s expected pattern. However, as with most things in biology, there is an exception to the rule. Check out Figure 1 of Briggs et al.:


You will note that the third column in the Apicomplexans section shows that one of the parasitic apicomplexans completely lacks the IFT genes…yet makes a cilium anyway! This reminds me of something another critic of Behe once said, in a different context:

Contrary to claims about irreducible complexity, the entire ensemble of proteins is not needed. Music and harmony can arise from a smaller orchestra.
(Note: fans of Behe’s reply to Doolittle should read the PT post “Clotted rot for rotten clots”)
Apparently what is going on is that this particular apicomplexan assembles its cilia in the cytoplasm, and therefore has ditched the elaborate IFT complex that would otherwise be needed to transport building materials out to the far-removed end of the cilium. Not only does this one parasitic protozoan get away with this trick, apparently it also happens with Drosophila sperm. Behe would have known all this if he had only carefully read the Jekely and Arendt (2006) cilium evolution paper that he dismissed with a hand wave. As they write on page 193,

The [IFT] complex is only lacking from species that have secondarily lost their cilia, as Dictyostelium, yeasts and flowering plants, or from species with cilia that do not rely on IFT (in the parasite Plasmodium cilia assemble in the cytoplasm(48)). Cytoplasmic assembly of cilia is a derived feature that has independently evolved in Drosophila sperm.(49)
Now, Jekely and Arendt (2006) note just before this that “IFT is ancestrally and almost universally associated with cilia,” so apparently the last common ancestor of modern cilia had an IFT complex (and Jekely and Arendt base their paper on comparing IFT to homologous intracellular transport systems in eukaryotic cells). But it really doesn’t help the “irreducible complexity” argument much if Behe’s favorite system, the eukaryotic cilium, and the extra-favorite “irreducible complexity squared” system, intraflagellar transport, on which he bases a whole chapter, is in fact entirely reducible.
Surely, someone – Behe himself, or one of the “peer-reviewers” that the IDers will probably allege the book had, should have caught this. But if they had, Behe would have had to completely scrap chapter 5. In real peer-review, that’s the shakes, but in creationism/ID-land this sort of thing is unfortunately par for the course. In creationism/ID, one guy’s personal knowledge about a topic, usually a personal knowledge based at most on textbooks and not a thorough survey of the literature, is regularly taken to be the sum total of biological knowledge, and via this processes a whole bogus folk-creationist biology is built up about field after field. For example with fossils, thousands of creationists/IDers think there are no transitional fossils based on a few bogus misquotes of Stephen Jay Gould about punctuated equilibria, which they almost universally mistakenly think was about something other than small transitions between closely-related species; or bacterial flagella (see here – no IDer has yet acknowledged this mistake, which they are still perpetuating in print). This gets me back to my original point: a great deal of creationism/ID boils down to sloppy claims made on insufficient information, plus wishful thinking that blocks the impulse to double-check one’s claims against previous research. Once you become alerted to this feature of ID you will see it everywhere.
Oh, I almost forgot the best part: Which apicomplexan critter is it that builds cilia despite Behe’s declaration that “a functioning cilium requires a working IFT”? Why, it’s Plasmodium falciparum, aka malaria, aka Behe’s own biggest running example used throughout The Edge of Evolution. Yes, it’s the very critter about which Behe wrote on page 237,

“Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.”
But not, apparently, the parts which Behe thought were required for cilium construction. If there is an Intelligent Designer up there, I suspect He’s having a bit of a chuckle right now.
Footnotes
Note 1. Behe’s endnote 12 for chapter 5:

12. Berriman and coworkers write of trypanosomes: “The proteins of the flagellar axoneme appeared to be extremely well conserved. With the exception of tektin, there are homologs in the three genomes for all previously identified structure components as well as a full complement of flagellar motoros and both complex A and complex B of the intraflagellar transport system…. Thus, the 9+2 axoneme, which arose very early in eukaryotic evolution, appears to be constructed around a core set of proteins that are conserved in organisms possessing flagella and cilia” (Berriman, M., et al. 2005. The genome of the African trypanosome Trypanosoma brucei. Science 309: 416-22).
Note 2. Work like:

* David R. Mitchell (2004). “Speculations on the evolution of 9+2 organelles and the role of central pair microtubules.” Biology of the Cell. 96, 691–696.
* David R. Mitchell (2006). “The Evolution of Eukaryotic Cilia and Flagella as Motile and Sensory Organelles.” In: Origins and Evolution of Eukaryotic Endomembranes and Cytoskeleton, edited by Gáspár Jékely.
* Thomas Cavalier-Smith (1987). “The Origin of Eukaryote and Archaebacterial Cells.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 503, 17-54.
For Cavalier-Smith (1987), I particularly like Figure 5 and the caption on pp. 38-39. Although it needs an update since it is 20 years old, it still provides a good big-picture view of how cilium evolution is just a piece of the evolutionary origin of mitosis. Download jpgs of part 1, part 2, part 3.
You’ve never heard of this paper from the ID guys? Not surprising, they’ve never cited it. Cavalier-Smith pointed this out way back in his 1997 review of Darwin’s Black Box in TREE (see Cavalier-Smith, 1997, “The Blind Biochemist,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12(4), 162-163, April 1997), and I’ve never seen any IDer acknowledge the oversight. Stumbling on this review while looking up this other book review is literally what got me into this whole ID thing in the first place. I had originally thought, “Hmm, Behe might have a point about the lack of literature on the evolution of complex systems.” Then I read Cavalier-Smith’s review and realized I’d been snookered. The rest is history.
Note 3. This doesn’t go with anything, but for the record, Mike Gene, perhaps the ID guru who is most respected for usually having a clue about the biology he is talking about unlike virtually all of the rest of them, made the same mistake Behe made about IFT. See Mike Gene’s “ASSEMBLING THE EUKARYOTIC FLAGELLUM: Another example of IC?” and “THE NEGLECTED FLAGELLUM.”
Note 4. This is also not referenced in the main text, but the wikipedia intraflagellar tranport page also contains the “always required” mistake.
.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Post a Comment
 
Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
   

Comments:

  
Comment #182241
Posted by PvM on June 5, 2007 1:06 AM (e)
Well done

Comment #182242
Posted by Tara on June 5, 2007 1:08 AM (e)
Oh, man. That is classic….

Comment #182255
Posted by Nick (Matzke) on June 5, 2007 2:09 AM (e)
Forgot to add…the asterisks in the Briggs et al. Figure 1 indicate incomplete genome sequences as of 2004. Thus they put “nf” (not found) for those genomes where they couldn’t find a protein. Only complete genomes could get an unambiguous negative (“-“, minus sign).

Comment #182319
Posted by Frank J on June 5, 2007 5:27 AM (e)

Nick Matzke wrote:
The error is simple but it points to what I have become convinced is the true core of the mishmash known as “intelligent design”: sloppiness and wishful thinking.
Specifically, sloppiness and wishful thinking that ID authors know that the target audience will either not notice, or make excuses for.
Eleven years after “Darwin’s Black Box,” most fans rave about it with no mention whatever of the many devastating critiques that they certainly have noticed along the way. The biggest irony is that these are the same people who whine about “equal time.”

Comment #182321
Posted by Joel on June 5, 2007 5:40 AM (e)
Another excellent fisking of Behe!

Comment #182329
Posted by Blake Stacey, OM on June 5, 2007 6:23 AM (e)
Edit: “something other [than] small transitions between closely-related species”
This post has been duly added to the ever-growing list.

Comment #182343
Posted by TomS on June 5, 2007 7:14 AM (e)
Re your Note 4, some anonymous person has updated Wikipedia to say “most” not “all”.

Comment #182348
Posted by wamba on June 5, 2007 7:27 AM (e)

And several other reviews are coming out in the near future in Science, Discover, etc.
Makes me wonder why science-related journals and magazines have gotten into the business of reviewing books of religious apologetics.

Comment #182352
Posted by raven on June 5, 2007 8:20 AM (e)

wamba:
 Makes me wonder why science-related journals and magazines have gotten into the business of reviewing books of religious apologetics.
Not very perceptive are you? It is obvious and has been for a decade or two.
The creos stated goal is to overthrow science and the US government and head on back to the dark ages. Like all lunatic fringe ideologies, lies, misinformtion and propaganda are staples of the fake christian reality denying movement.
As scientists, it is to be hoped and expected that someone will point out the lies and misinformation. We owe a big thanks to Nick Matzke and others for doing so.
Besides which, in the highly unlikely event that the reality deniers succeed, the next step will be a traditional witch hunt for biologists, astronomers, geologists, and MDs. Being burnt at the stake or hung could ruin one’s whole career.
Reread your wedge document if you have forgotten what you were doing.

Comment #182353
Posted by Frank J on June 5, 2007 8:27 AM (e)

wamba wrote:
Makes me wonder why science-related journals and magazines have gotten into the business of reviewing books of religious apologetics.
Er, because they misrepresent science. And unlike, say, flat-earthers, IDers have fooled even many readers of sciece-related journals.

Comment #182361
Posted by David Stanton on June 5, 2007 8:54 AM (e)
Raven wrote:
“As scientists, it is to be hoped and expected that someone will point out the lies and misinformation. We owe a big thanks to Nick Matzke and others for doing so.”
Absolutely agree. It would be nice to just ignore this nonsense, but look where that has gotten us. I appreciate the careful manner in which Nick presents his case. In fact, I would call this the “best Behe takedown ever” (all due respect to ERV).
If Behe actually had any real point to make he would publish in scientific journals. Oh course we have one example of what happens when he tries that. No wonder he doesn’t want to do it. I guess you can hope to get away without doing a literature search if you just publish popular books, but of course someone might notice anyway.

Comment #182370
Posted by minimalist on June 5, 2007 9:34 AM (e)

Nick Matzke wrote:
Oh, I almost forgot the best part: Which apicomplexan critter is it that builds cilia despite Behe’s declaration that “a functioning cilium requires a working IFT”? Why, it’s Plasmodium falciparum, aka malaria, aka Behe’s own biggest running example used throughout The Edge of Evolution.
Oh. Man. That. Is. HILARIOUS!
Well spotted, Nick, well spotted indeed. What could Behe have been thinking? Was he really so delusional, or so dead-set on seeing only the parts he could cherry-pick, that he didn’t notice? Or was he hoping that the ID camp followers would never bother to read further, or look at rebuttals?
This so perfectly encapsulates Behe’s utter incompetence, delusion, or dishonesty, that I hope everyone hammers it home in every forum possible, wherever Behe is mentioned. It’s brief, to the point, and easily confirmed. Creationists will ignore it, of course, but it’ll just further demonstrate how much of a joke ID is to everyone else.

Comment #182374
Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on June 5, 2007 9:40 AM (e)
Extreeeeme case of Morton’s Demon.

Comment #182376
Posted by Larry Gilman on June 5, 2007 9:42 AM (e)

Matzke wrote:
… Behe writes, “Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.” Well, at least he’s consistent.
I don’t have Behe’s new book, but what he’s almost certainly implying is that malaria is Satanically designed—that it is a bioweapon created by a supernatural enemy. This is yet another reason why the argument from “bad” design (i.e., the argument that design that’s “bad” by human standards disproves ID) is a weak reed, even though one form of it has given this excellent website its name: Creationists can always attribute harmless natural oddities like the panda’s thumb to divine whimsey, not-so-harmless phenomena to prehistoric sabotage by demonic forces. And so they do. The idea of demonic sabotage of the natural order has, as far as I know, been little or not at all taken up by mainstream Christian theologians—it smacks of Manicheism and has no scriptural basis. But the IDers, whose theology is as twisted as their pseudoscience, are forced by their assumptions to cross the line.
The deep craziness of the inevitably resulting worldview needs no emphasis on this forum.
Larry

Comment #182379
Posted by harold on June 5, 2007 9:45 AM (e)
I want to thank Behe, too, for shooting himself in the foot so often and so extremely.
It helps that in addition to being a crackpot, he’s a bad salesman.
That malaria comment is unreal. His focus on the likes of bacteria and malaria parasites implies a “God directly designed pathogenic microorganisms to punish sinners by killing people at random” mentality. There is little other way to interpret the comment.
You can peddle snake oil about human origins to some degree. Telling someone “you are so special and magical that you must have been ‘designed’” has a certain appeal.
The argument that “Even though silly scientists say the bacterial flagellum evolved, what really happened is that The Designer pinned it on so that bacteria could really stick it to those saps who were unlucky enough to eat the spinach salad” has a lot less appeal.

Comment #182380
Posted by harold on June 5, 2007 9:46 AM (e)
I want to thank Behe, too, for shooting himself in the foot so often and so extremely.
It helps that in addition to being a crackpot, he’s a bad salesman.
That malaria comment is unreal. His focus on the likes of bacteria and malaria parasites implies a “God directly designed pathogenic microorganisms to punish sinners by killing people at random” mentality. There is little other way to interpret the comment.
You can peddle snake oil about human origins to some degree. Telling someone “you are so special and magical that you must have been ‘designed’” has a certain appeal.
The argument that “Even though silly scientists say the bacterial flagellum evolved, what really happened is that The Designer pinned it on so that bacteria could really stick it to those saps who were unlucky enough to eat the spinach salad” has a lot less appeal.

Comment #182384
Posted by Tm G on June 5, 2007 10:08 AM (e)
Unfortunately, people like Nick must waste time on this nonsense so we will all be informed of the particulars of what we know intuitively is BS. Unfortunately, the vast majority of our voting constituency WANTS to believe mountebanks like Behe and they WANT to have justification to re-inject religion into schools - Behe and his ilk know this, so let us not delude ourselves - Behe knows exactly what he is doing - he knows he is not writing something which can withstand scientific scrutiny - he knows that his work will be subject to withering and irrefutable criticism.
HE DOESN’T CARE. He is not writing for us. He is writing for ONE purpose - to delude voters and gullible public officials and to give them what they want - a credible-sounding bit of non-answer which is just good enough for them, with a loud collective voice, to shout down dissent from their views. This, my scientific colleagues, is proaganda - pure and simple. It is being implemented by a masterful prpaganda machine and it is acieving the dual purpose of feeding the popular belief WHILE also keeping good scientists occupied responding in arcane venues rather than churning out more great works like COSMOS which really fired the public’s imagination about science a generation ago.
 Nick, you are an insightful, eloquent and frank writer and, much as I love your exposes, I would like to see the NSCE focus on disseminating some real entertaining, readable science. Instead, the DI has our side on the defensive - they are calling the shots because they continue to publish distortions which we then must react to rather than pushing forward with good original work of our own. Science in the public view is now no longer telling the public about the world - scientists are now in the unenviable position of telling the world what it has been told by the DI, and what the world wants to believe, is not true. We, somehow, have been backed into a corner. THAT is the triumph of the DI as I see it. They don’t need to be correct. They only need to put us in the defender’s position - and they know it. That is why Behe is willing to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged scientists - this latest book is the sacrificial lamb to keep us busy while adding more christian soldiers to the march.
 Tom

Comment #182389
Posted by Glen Davidson on June 5, 2007 10:37 AM (e)
Very good fisking.
And I can see why his assumptions are taken as if they were reasonable, since they fall on their own “logic”. But I can’t let him get away with his attempts to make ID’s apologetic attempts to write the ground rules to favor themselves without commenting on the typical egregious dishonesty.

It turns out that when you look at a number of recently-sequenced genomes, a pattern emerges: organisms with cilia have IFT genes, and organisms without cilia don’t. So far this is Behe’s expected pattern.
Yes, this is his “expected pattern,” and he laughably fails with his prime example. But this is not, as we all know, any expected pattern from an intervening Creator. In fact (and this is one reason I’m writing now), exceptions and differences without any consistent phylogenetic pattern would be expected from a real creative power. I’m saying, “Watch out, they might start claiming this to be the ‘fatal flaw’ in the homologies that ‘supposedly support’ Darwinism“. Of course it’s not anything like that, it’s the sort of exception expected from normal evolutionary adaptations to varying circumstances, not a mix-up of “bacterial flagella”, “eukaryotic cilia”, and unknown other possibilities that a creator might very well come up with, and which evolution tends not to effect once it has a complex “machine” (scare quotes only because of IDiot word games) adequate to handle many purposes.
And since they have nothing except a constant whine about evolution, Behe’s “expected pattern” may very well change to, “well, we expect a designer to have a pattern, but to change it where circumstances warrant,” because, of course, they have no predictions other than those that try to make what we see into “design predictions” (thus complexity (with various modifiers of dubious meaning) becomes the mark of “design”, when it has never been diagnostic of design on its own).
This is why I think we ought to press them for inherent predictions of ID at every turn, for otherwise they’ll just turn to claiming this as the mark of “design” once they have learned something. Dembski more or less gave the game away on ARN, when he crowed about putting his stuff onto ARN to get the “Darwinists” to trim away the shit (sorry, but what else am I to call it?) that doesn’t stick to the wall. Behe’s not going to care for long that he’s been shown to be an ignorant sap once again (he’s bound to be somewhat inured to it now), he’ll just change his “expectations” and claim victory like they always do.

Behe wrote:
Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.
And so with this. Sure, it’s hard to even parse such a stupid statement, and it’s “consistent” all right in claiming that “complexity” itself indicates “design”.
But let’s discuss it anyhow. What is purposeful about the relationship of malaria, mosquitos, and humans (and other animals)? Bring in Dembski’s favorite little SETI analogy. We see a complex (rationally designed, a factor that he never manages to mention) machine which exists for an apparent purpose, and we conclude design. We don’t look at organisms (or machines) in competition for resources (or even as isolated specimens) and conclude purpose or design, for the whole is without both aspects. Indeed, we can conclude that humans have a purpose in warding off both mosquitos and malaria, however we cannot suppose that malaria and mosquitos have a purpose (except in the broadest, and unusual, senses). At least the honest theists who believe in the devil can come up with a kind of “purpose” in mosquitos and malaria, even if Satan’s work in producing both strains credibility if we model Satan upon our own tendencies.
It’s hard to accept human purpose for malaria’s existence, and of course Behe really wants to claim that humans do have purpose because of the Creator’s purpose (one could make the case, but it would be long). It might be easier to suppose that humans exist for P. falciparum’s purposes, except that then it’s hard to understand why humans are able to evolve sickle cells and other defenses which seriously reduce malaria’s scope for living, let alone to have the intelligence to utilize quinine (and chloroquine) and artemensin to hold malaria at bay for some time. Are we to suppose that this is to improve malaria in some unfathomable manner?
The fact of the matter is that all of these questions end up pointing to only one thing, the classic theist cop-out, an “inscrutable God”. We are not able to discern purpose in malaria’s existence, and he knows this. The trouble is that we can’t discern purpose in human existence (I didn’t say in human lives, life, and individual existence—it’s only “human existence” (in a certain, should be obvious, meaning) where I’m denying it), either, and Behe et al. want to claim that irreducible complexity somehow confers it. Of course he has to make P. falciparum into a “purposeful” arrangement of parts (come on now, O’Leary, you know life is not just machines like Behe claims. You said so) if he’s going to maintain the fiction that his “science” indicates the same for humans. He just hasn’t founded any of his crucial assumptions at all.
Yes I know, this is all too obvious, but it has to be said to keep them from getting away with their tiresome claims. We can’t let Behe hone his “predictions” so intricately so that they will at last “succeed”, without pointing out that none of his predictions inhere in his “theory” at all, no matter how often we have to point this out.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Comment #182391
Posted by raven on June 5, 2007 10:52 AM (e)

Matzke wrote:
… Behe writes, “Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.” Well, at least he’s consistent.
A lot of things wrong with Behe’s statement.
 1. Who is this intentional designer? There are thousands of candidates and answers. Zeus et al. Odin et al., Vishnu, Cthulhu, Allah, space aliens. Of course, we know their answer would be Jehova. But the actual evidence that it is Jehova rather than someone(s) else is the same as the actual evidence that malaria was intentionally designed. Zero.
2. This is just the old argument from incredulity/ignorance. “I can’t see how my foot evolved so god exists.” Obvious and old logical fallacy.
3. Bad example. Malaria is one of the top 3 single agent killers worldwide. It hits young children especially hard. In endemic areas, you get it and get over it, or get it and die. Is this clown really implying that god wants to randomly kill off a few million kids per year for some reason?

Comment #182396
Posted by raven on June 5, 2007 11:16 AM (e)

Tm G:
THAT is the triumph of the DI as I see it. They don’t need to be correct. They only need to put us in the defender’s position - and they know it.
It’s not quite that bad. The only way the creos can sell their pack of lies is to…..lie. Lie a lot and repeat those lies and make up new ones.
In the very long run, truth always wins out. They are and will make their religion, fake-fundie christianity look like primitive snake oil. I’m sure they’ve heard of the commandment, thou shalt not lie. Obviously, they don’t care.
Besides which, irreducible complexity is an old logical fallacy and it is sterile. Behe can recycle it forever with endless examples (HIV, TB, tapeworms, trichinosis, etc.) but it doesn’t lead anywhere scientificly.
Much rather sell the truth and add to it. While Behe is babbling on about intentionally, intelligently designed microbial killers, many of us are trying to understand them, treat them, cure them, and get rid of them forever. Smallpox is gone, polio is going, and what has the DI contributed to the world besides paying a bunch of quacks and conmen to make up lies?

Comment #182397
Posted by jasonmitchell on June 5, 2007 11:17 AM (e)
re Comment #182376 Satan designed parasites
It is also possible (although I am NOT accusing Behe of this as I don’t have enough information) that his comment is based in (or to justify) bigotry
 (is he pandering to a segment of his target audience? or does HE hold these beliefs? )
 - Malaria is DEVINELY designed to punish the “wicked” lesser races (in Africa - where malaria kills many not everyone is a xian)
Similar arguments were used to JUSTIFY BIGOTRY against Africans (they are the “Sons of Cain”) or JUSTFY BIGOTRY against homosexuals (AIDS is GODS PUNISHMENT)
this is a particularly dangerous belief, and the foundation/support of some hate groups’ philosophies (KKK) - correlation between fundies/hate groups/bigotry/global warming denial/lower education levels/evolution denial/republican “base” all adds up to some pretty scary stuff

Comment #182451
Posted by Larry A on June 5, 2007 1:11 PM (e)
I’ve been reading this blog since the Dover trial and have never commented before. But this is just too much. Can someone explain to me how Behe and his cohorts can wake up in the morning and look at himself in the mirror. He seems to be a smart man that must know that he is lying through his teeth. The only people in history that I can think of that can lie like he does with a straight face are evil and/or seriously sick. You know people like Hitler and other obvious sickos.

Comment #182458
Posted by Gary Hurd on June 5, 2007 1:42 PM (e)
So if malaria is designed, who (should that be Who?) designed it? And, since the sickel cell trait provided some protection to malaria, who designed that? And since there are three known variants of sickel cell, where they designed by a team, or a committee? Maybe subcontractors?
Great job Nick! Nail his ass to the wall.

Comment #182459
Posted by Nick (Matzke) on June 5, 2007 1:43 PM (e)
Come now, don’t get carried away. Remember Godwin’s Law.

Comment #182467
Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on June 5, 2007 2:59 PM (e)

Nick Matzke wrote:
which they cleverly entitled “More than one way to build a flagellum,” presumably so that people would find out that there is…wait for it…more than one way to build a flagellum.
What I like most about Nick’s posts is the awesome ninja/army style approach to his subject. First a swift disemboweling of the main target, then severing the head to make sure. No need to kick the body afterwards.
Very well done.

Nick Matzke wrote:
this particular apicomplexan assembles its cilia in the cytoplasm, and therefore has ditched the elaborate IFT complex that would otherwise be needed to transport building materials out to the far-removed end of the cilium
Which construction method humans would prefer btw, assemble centrally and push into place. Whatever happened with ‘intelligent’ in design?

Michael Behe wrote:
“irreducible complexity squared”
Unfortunately, 0*0 is still zero.
Wait, maybe we can help Behe by looking at ‘IC’ cubed, squared, …:
1. n = 0: 0 = 0.
 2. n: Assume 0^(n-1) = 0. 0^n = 0 * 0^(n-1) = 0 * 0 = 0. (So we didn’t even need the assumption.)
 => 0^n = 0, all n.
Hmm. No, won’t work, Behe will only plead for special creation: 0^N = 0 + something extra, for N sufficiently different from n.

Comment #182469
Posted by Dyticas on June 5, 2007 3:04 PM (e)
When Behe looks in the mirror he sees a book author and ID celebrity, which must look better to him than an underacheiving biochemist. He may not be evil, but his manipulation of facts for vanity and profit are beneath contempt. I would rather be an underachieving biochemist with some regard for the truth. As I am.

Comment #182470
Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on June 5, 2007 3:08 PM (e)
Uups. As everyone can see there is a glaring error in my proof by induction. I got lost in all the 0’s:
1. n = 1: 0 = 0.
There, that will do it.

Comment #182482
Posted by Fred on June 5, 2007 4:00 PM (e)
Great post; I can’t wait until Behe is on the stand again (in Virginia, maybe?) and has all this pointed out to him with his response on the record.

Comment #182490
Posted by steve s on June 5, 2007 4:28 PM (e)
I hope the phrase “…wait for it…” is on the way out.

Comment #182503
Posted by David B. Benson on June 5, 2007 5:43 PM (e)
raven — It was Her Noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Comment #182567
Posted by Aagcobb on June 5, 2007 10:50 PM (e)
Dyticas: “I would rather be an underachieving biochemist with some regard for the truth. As I am.”
But think what you could be. With the very small effort of recycling bad arguments creationists have made for decades, you could write a bestseller which would fly off the shelves of christian bookstores nationwide, appear on national television and bask in the glow of praise from Bill O’Reilly and Pat Robertson, Go on a national speaking tour of fundamentalist churches and get your wallet stuffed with love offerings, and sell audiotapes and DVDs out the whazoo! Telling people what they want to hear is a VERY lucrative business.

Comment #182638
Posted by Paul Burnett on June 7, 2007 10:03 PM (e)
Larry Gilman commented: “…what (Behe’s) almost certainly implying is that malaria is Satanically designed……it smacks of Manicheism and has no scriptural basis. But the IDers, whose theology is as twisted as their pseudoscience, are forced by their assumptions to cross the line.” (Sorry for the long quote, which I don’t know how to put in a box.)
Larry’ right. For those who care to go to the effort, fighting creationists by citing examples of their heresy (Manichaean and others) may be valid. Creationists sometimes cite an almost Zoroastrian duality of a good god opposed by a bad god, which is essentially the Manichaean heresy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism). Some creationist writings cite a “creator god” who can be seen as separate from the primary Judeo-Christian-Islamic god, who got his start in the godding business as a storm god. (Solomon’s Temple actually had a separate room reserved for YHWH to appear in in his aspect of a thundercloud.)
Intelligent design, with its public silence on creationism’s god, sometimes refers to more than one intelligent designer, and of course cannot answer the question of who or what designed the intelligent designer. Pointing out that this looks a lot like heresy might be a good way to drive a wedge (heh heh) between the IDers and the creationists.

Comment #182650
Posted by anomalous4 on June 7, 2007 11:39 PM (e)
Corey Powell did a pretty good job of shredding Behe’s latest piece of ¢®@p for the lay audience in Discover magazine this month, too. YA-A-A-A-A-A-AAAY!!!!!

Comment #182680
Posted by TomS on June 8, 2007 7:44 AM (e)
Regarding the comments by Paul Burnett and others on the theology of ID.
Langdon Gilkey, in his testimony in the Arkansas creationism trial, brought up the question of Gnosticism’s relationship to creationism.
What I find interesting is to draw the distinction between a “designer” and a “creator”. Design is operating within the limits of pre-existing material, redoing it so that it comes into agreement with the desires of the designer. This point was mentioned by Kant:

Thus the proof could at most establish a highest architect of the word, who would always be limited by the suitability of the material in which he works, but not a creator of the world, to whose idea everything is subject, which is far from sufficient for the great aim that one has in view, namely that of proving an all-sufficient original being.
Critique of Pure Reason A626/B654, tr. P. Guyer & A.W. Wood, Cambridge U. Press, 1998 (boldface as in this translation)
BTW, Paul, using the tag “blockquote” is what you are looking for to put something in a box.

Comment #182683
Posted by David Stanton on June 8, 2007 8:02 AM (e)
Don’t know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but Talkorigins also has a post of the month that calls Behe’s argument silly. Enjoy.

Comment #182686
Posted by Mark Farmer on June 8, 2007 8:59 AM (e)
Nick that was truly terrific. As one who works on the origins of protists and flagella I can authoritatively say that this dressing down of Behe is complete and accurate in every way.
It reminds me of the famous quote from Tom Cavalier-Smith’s original review of “Darwin’s Black Box” that you referenced. Cavalier-Smith wrote:
“[Behe] states that
‘if a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not even generate an attempt at an explanation it should be banished’ and ‘without details, discussion is doomed to be unscientific and fruitless’.
If he had applied these strictures to his panacea of ‘intelligent design’ we would have been spared this worthless book.”
Well said, both Tom and Nick!

Comment #182817
Posted by Pierce R. Butler on June 9, 2007 10:29 PM (e)
Behe claims new insights into malaria, attained by the use of ID theory. Good - we could save thousands of lives by better understanding of this organism.
As an “ethical” “scientist”, doesn’t he owe it to humanity and his god to do everything he can to follow up on this breakthrough?
Mere blog commenters may opine that providing Behe with a malaria lab would affect the fight against disease only slightly less than bulldozing an existing lab, but shouldn’t Behe be giving this his best shot regardless of such heckling from the rabble?
If he’s right, he could be the next Walter Reed or Jonas Salk. Or, he could be known as the man who found the key to malaria - and walked away leaving a later generation to stumble across it.
Should Behe have, ahem, other priorities, this presents an opportunity (arguably an obligation) for his colleagues at the Diss Institute to pursue malaria research with all available resources.
To do less implies a heartlessness which might not merit invocations of the almighty Godwin, but would still occupy a point in genocide space. Unless, of course, ID’s own partisans don’t take Behe’s analysis very seriously themselves. Their inaction implicitly concedes that ID has nothing to contribute medically, and belongs only in the crowded dimensions of quackspace.
Glen D wants “predictions”, but he’s burdened with low expectations. The human race needs medical breakthroughs - if Behe & friends can deliver, the world will cheer as they pick up their Nobels. (It might be, ah, premature to bring them to the attention of the Committees quite yet, thanks for asking…)
If ID proponents assert they have a better model for a major affliction of humankind, but fail to develop it, they should be challenged for this ethical lapse at every public venue, and twice on Sundays.

Comment #183137
Posted by zilch on June 14, 2007 10:30 AM (e)
“Is this clown really implying that god wants to randomly kill off a few million kids per year for some reason?”
Not randomly, raven. These are the kids He loves most of all, and He has thus gathered them to Himself so they won’t have to suffer on Earth.
It’s non-falsifiable all the way down.

Comment #184917
Posted by Henry J on June 27, 2007 6:45 PM (e)
I thought it was turtles all the way down…

Comment #187806
Posted by Jonadab The Drunk on July 14, 2007 7:59 AM (e)
I just started reading Darwin’s Black Box and its great to know the criticism before I continue. It would be right to point out new discoveries, but one can hardly account for malice on Behe’s part for pointing out the existing evidence at the time of publication. Maybe I’m just really really ridiculously good looking but didn’t Nick start out promising to solve the Irreducibly Complex design of the cilium, and end up disproving that “a functioning cilium requires a working IFT”.
I’m not trying to convince anyone but how could an organism benefit from becoming conscious of its own inevitable death? Taking into account that the fear of death permeates through most psychological disorders, and dominates ones lifestyle although proving vain despite which one is chosen? Also taking into account that every beast known to man is governed by instinct and whose mental capabilities are limited to its basic functions, while it is said that with whatever information you take to the grave, the human mind is capable of storing 10 Billion times that amount, despite living a meager 70 years of age.
There are other things like how in the vision of Ezekiel Jehovah is surrounded by a rainbow, and since scripture says that there is no darkness is relation to him at all, it would indicate that he knows what the spectrum of light is.
Also I notice critics exposing the malice behind IDers arguments. But what about Piltdown man which is hard evidence toward wishful thinking on the part of Evolutionist.
Just a friendly IDer reminder, and yes I do have time to kill its Saturday…
“This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. And who is there like me? Let him call out, that he may tell it and present it to me. From when I appointed the people of long ago, both the things coming and the things that will enter in let them tell on their part. Do not be in dread, you people, and do not become stupefied. Have I not from that time on caused you individually to hear and told it out? And you are my witnesses. Does there exist a God besides me? No, there is no Rock. I have recognized none.’” Isaiah 44:6-8

Comment #187819
Posted by Science Avenger on July 14, 2007 10:07 AM (e)

Jonadab said:
…how could an organism benefit from becoming conscious of its own inevitable death?
It makes planning more efficient, and gives one a sense of urgency. Knowing you are going to die one day means that if you desire to have children, for example, better to act sooner than to procrastinate.
It is also plausible that knowledge of one’s death is a negative side effect of the more positive attribute of consciousness. Just because a trait persists doesn’t make it evolutionarily advantageous.

Also taking into account that every beast known to man is governed by instinct and whose mental capabilities are limited to its basic functions…
Whereever did you get this idea? Chimps, dolphins, octopi, and other animals have demonstrated tool-making and problem-solving abilities similar to our own. The differences are of degree, not kind.

Also I notice critics exposing the malice behind IDers arguments. But what about Piltdown man which is hard evidence toward wishful thinking on the part of Evolutionist.
Piltdown man was rejected by science once the evidence of its fraudulent nature came to light. Contrast this to creationists/IDers, who continue to promote discredited arguments in spite of contrary evidence.

Just a friendly IDer reminder, and yes I do have time to kill its Saturday…
No problem, debunking creationist nonsense is a good way to get through a hangover.

Comment #190847
Posted by dora on July 28, 2007 5:46 PM (e)
even the wart adds something to the body
 
Trackback: Behe pwned again
Posted by Aetiology on June 5, 2007 1:52 PM
Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" is officially on the shelves now, and already it's DOA.

Trackback: Beating on Behe
Posted by Stranger Fruit on June 5, 2007 7:12 PM
Behe's latest piece of dreck (The Edge of Evolution) has appeared and it has already recieved quite the beatdown from Michael Ruse, Mark Chu-Carroll, PZ Myers, and Nick Matzke, with Nick's post being fairly damning regarding Behe's "ability" to do...


http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/of_cilia_and_si.html







     
The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Search
 Don't forget to try the Keyword Index, An Index to Creationist Claims, and Outline too.

Google Search of the TalkOrigins Archive.




   










About 291 results (0.33 seconds)



























Clarence Darrow Misquoted by Creationists
Clarence Darrow, the defending attorney in the Scopes trial, is often claimed to have said, 'It is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins.



www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darrow.html



.











CH010: On being Bible-based


Jun 5, 2003 ... It is a form of religious bigotry; it declares that a particular religious interpretation applies not just to people of that religion, but to everybody ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH010.html



.










CH050: Primacy of Genesis


Aug 12, 2003 ... This claim is an instance of religious bigotry. Lots of religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Druidism, and many more, have no connection ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH050.html



.










CA005: Evolution and racism


Apr 29, 2001 ... Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html



.










Creationism is just as racist as evolution - The Panda's Thumb
Mar 24, 2009 ... Creationists, whether YECs or IDers, just can't help falling over themselves in their eagerness to tar the theory of evolution (and Darwin) as ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/creationism-is.html



.










The Talk.Origins Archive: 1997 Feedback
Incipient wings: what's the use? The sexism, racism and bigotry of science. Critically examining Archaeopteryx. Evolution and the need for spiritual redemption.



www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/1997.html



.










CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.


Feb 18, 2001 ... For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral. Probably the most effective ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html



.










CH100: Bible says it


Apr 4, 2003 ... This belief, when applied as a standard for others, is religious bigotry in its purest form. It shows contempt to others who believe that God's ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH100.html



.










CA325: Creationists publishing


Jun 23, 2003 ... Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http:// www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840 ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA325.html



.










Blowhard of the Month: David Warren - The Panda's Thumb
Jan 12, 2006 ... Explore that website and you will find the very worst sort of ignorant bigotry: screeds against gay marriage, global warming, and (big surprise) ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01/blowhard-of-the.html



.
12345678910


powered by

Custom Search
..    
    

Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links

 








































































http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html




     
The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Search
 Don't forget to try the Keyword Index, An Index to Creationist Claims, and Outline too.

Google Search of the TalkOrigins Archive.




   










About 291 results (0.33 seconds)



























Clarence Darrow Misquoted by Creationists
Clarence Darrow, the defending attorney in the Scopes trial, is often claimed to have said, 'It is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins.



www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darrow.html



.











CH010: On being Bible-based


Jun 5, 2003 ... It is a form of religious bigotry; it declares that a particular religious interpretation applies not just to people of that religion, but to everybody ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH010.html



.










CH050: Primacy of Genesis


Aug 12, 2003 ... This claim is an instance of religious bigotry. Lots of religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Druidism, and many more, have no connection ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH050.html



.










CA005: Evolution and racism


Apr 29, 2001 ... Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html



.










Creationism is just as racist as evolution - The Panda's Thumb
Mar 24, 2009 ... Creationists, whether YECs or IDers, just can't help falling over themselves in their eagerness to tar the theory of evolution (and Darwin) as ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/creationism-is.html



.










The Talk.Origins Archive: 1997 Feedback
Incipient wings: what's the use? The sexism, racism and bigotry of science. Critically examining Archaeopteryx. Evolution and the need for spiritual redemption.



www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/1997.html



.










CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.


Feb 18, 2001 ... For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral. Probably the most effective ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html



.










CH100: Bible says it


Apr 4, 2003 ... This belief, when applied as a standard for others, is religious bigotry in its purest form. It shows contempt to others who believe that God's ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH100.html



.










CA325: Creationists publishing


Jun 23, 2003 ... Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). http:// www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840 ...



www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA325.html



.










Blowhard of the Month: David Warren - The Panda's Thumb
Jan 12, 2006 ... Explore that website and you will find the very worst sort of ignorant bigotry: screeds against gay marriage, global warming, and (big surprise) ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01/blowhard-of-the.html



.
12345678910


powered by

Custom Search
..    
    

Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links

 








































































http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html












   

Contact Us Feed
Main

Archives

Forum

Wall

Sims

Links

About







About



“The Panda’s Thumb” is many things…
First, it is an example of jury-rigged evolutionary adaptation made famous by the late Stephen Jay Gould in an essay of the same name. Second, it is the legendary virtual bar serving the community of the legendary virtual University of Ediacara somewhere in the Ediacaran hills of southern Australia, growing out of the lore of the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup. And now it is a weblog giving another voice for the defenders of the integrity of science, the patrons of “The Panda’s Thumb”.
Much as in any tavern serving a university community, you can expect to hear a variety of levels of discussion, ranging from the picayune to the pedantic. The authors are people associated with the virtual University of Ediacara (and thus the talk.origins newsgroup), and various web sites critical of the antievolution movement, such as the TalkOrigins Archive, TalkDesign, and Antievolution.org.
So, here’s a virtual pub crawl that you might actually learn something from. We hope you find your time spent here pleasant and rewarding.
Panda’s Thumb Comment Integrity Policy
As a place to meet and share opinions, the Panda’s Thumb encourages a wide range of comments. In order to be clear about what patrons may expect concerning comment text they leave here, we state the following policies: As far as possible, the integrity of comments will be respected, with the following exceptions.
1. Illegal, offensive, and spam comments may be removed in their entirety. The management has the sole privilege of determining whether a comment requires removal and whether a repeat offender should be banned.
2. Superfluous comments may be removed without notice, as in talk between contributors concerning board layout, duplicate comments, or other meta-site issues.
3. Broken links or other formating problems may be revised by the management to improve the utility of a comment, at the management’s sole discretion.
4. Entry post authors and the management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to the Bathroom Wall. Repeat offenders may have their comments restricted to the Bathroom Wall or disemvoweled.
5. The management is not responsible for factors beyond their control that may interfere with comment integrity, such as software glitches, hardware failure, and problems with Internet connectivity.
6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.
Simply put, don’t make a jerk out of yourself. This policy may be revised as future conditions warrant.




About this Archive

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories
Announcements (48)
Ark Park (29)
Assault on Science (526)
Bathroom Wall (13)
Book Reviews (93) Explore Evolution (6)
The Edge of Evolution (19)
Wells' PIG (16)
Cambrian Explosion (4)
Conferences (26)
Darwin's Finches (3)
Designoids (9)
Education (16)
Education and Legal (205) Assault on Education (565) Florida (10)
Kansas (10)
Ohio (130)
Texas (27)
Improving science education (97)
Kitzmiller Ruling (65)
Eugenics (6)
Evolution (1013) Biological complexity (83)
Development (36)
EvoMath (32)
Irreducible Complexity (41) Blood clotting (4)
Cilium evolution (4)
Flagellum evolution (25)
Immune system (8)
Junk DNA (13)
Phylogenetics (12)
Transitional Fossils (42)
Evolution Education (54)
Expelled (72) Expelled Exposed (36)
Expelled Flunked (33)
Flyers/Pamphlets (3)
Genetically modified organisms (1)
Humor (173)
ID/Creationism (152) Bible as Science (59)
Creationism (135)
Evolution of Creationism (48)
Intelligent Design (491) Privileged Planet (23)
Scientific Vacuity (83)
The Wedge (11)
Quote Mines (13)
Icons (3) Peppered Moths (2)
Journal Club (36)
Lab Notes (2)
Legal Issues (145)
Manufactroversy (20)
Medicine and Evolution (24)
Metatalk (100)
MustRead (7)
News Roundup (39)
Origin of new genes and new information (8)
Prebiotic Chemistry (11)
Question of the Day (7)
Question of the Moment
Quote of the Day (14)
Religion and Politics (24) Science and Faith (75)
Science and Politics (21)
Research News (76)
Resources for Biologists (29)
Science and faith (25)
Shoptalk (39)
Slightly Off Topic (159)
Steve Steve (74)
Sticky (3)
Their Own Words (27)
Theological Issues with Intelligent Design (14)
War on Science (78)
What motivates creationism (36)

Archives
Select a Month... February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 

Author Archives
Select an Author... Afarensis Andrea Bottaro Arthur Hunt Dave Thomas Ed Brayton Ethan Rop Gary Hurd Guest Contributor Henry Neufeld Ian Musgrave Jason Rosenhouse Jeffrey Shallit Jim Foley John S. Wilkins Matt Inlay Matt Young Mike Dunford Nick Matzke PvM Richard B. Hoppe Richard Meisel Skip Steve Reuland Prof. Steve Steve Tara Smith Timothy Sandefur Wesley R. Elsberry Burt Humburg Matt Brauer Douglas Theobald Emily Thompson SA Smith Joe Felsenstein Jack Scanlan Jack Krebs John M. Lynch M. Wilson Sayres Mark Perakh Pete Dunkelberg PZ Myers Reed A. Cartwright Steve Matheson 

Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed

Powered by Movable Type 4.381


Site Meter

Crew Login




Powered by Movable Type Pro

This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

http://pandasthumb.org/about.html













   

Contact Us Feed
Main

Archives

Forum

Wall

Sims

Links

About







About



“The Panda’s Thumb” is many things…
First, it is an example of jury-rigged evolutionary adaptation made famous by the late Stephen Jay Gould in an essay of the same name. Second, it is the legendary virtual bar serving the community of the legendary virtual University of Ediacara somewhere in the Ediacaran hills of southern Australia, growing out of the lore of the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup. And now it is a weblog giving another voice for the defenders of the integrity of science, the patrons of “The Panda’s Thumb”.
Much as in any tavern serving a university community, you can expect to hear a variety of levels of discussion, ranging from the picayune to the pedantic. The authors are people associated with the virtual University of Ediacara (and thus the talk.origins newsgroup), and various web sites critical of the antievolution movement, such as the TalkOrigins Archive, TalkDesign, and Antievolution.org.
So, here’s a virtual pub crawl that you might actually learn something from. We hope you find your time spent here pleasant and rewarding.
Panda’s Thumb Comment Integrity Policy
As a place to meet and share opinions, the Panda’s Thumb encourages a wide range of comments. In order to be clear about what patrons may expect concerning comment text they leave here, we state the following policies: As far as possible, the integrity of comments will be respected, with the following exceptions.
1. Illegal, offensive, and spam comments may be removed in their entirety. The management has the sole privilege of determining whether a comment requires removal and whether a repeat offender should be banned.
2. Superfluous comments may be removed without notice, as in talk between contributors concerning board layout, duplicate comments, or other meta-site issues.
3. Broken links or other formating problems may be revised by the management to improve the utility of a comment, at the management’s sole discretion.
4. Entry post authors and the management may move comments that are deemed inappropriate to the topic of the entry post, excessively inflammatory, or otherwise disruptive of substantive commentary to the Bathroom Wall. Repeat offenders may have their comments restricted to the Bathroom Wall or disemvoweled.
5. The management is not responsible for factors beyond their control that may interfere with comment integrity, such as software glitches, hardware failure, and problems with Internet connectivity.
6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.
Simply put, don’t make a jerk out of yourself. This policy may be revised as future conditions warrant.




About this Archive

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories
Announcements (48)
Ark Park (29)
Assault on Science (526)
Bathroom Wall (13)
Book Reviews (93) Explore Evolution (6)
The Edge of Evolution (19)
Wells' PIG (16)
Cambrian Explosion (4)
Conferences (26)
Darwin's Finches (3)
Designoids (9)
Education (16)
Education and Legal (205) Assault on Education (565) Florida (10)
Kansas (10)
Ohio (130)
Texas (27)
Improving science education (97)
Kitzmiller Ruling (65)
Eugenics (6)
Evolution (1013) Biological complexity (83)
Development (36)
EvoMath (32)
Irreducible Complexity (41) Blood clotting (4)
Cilium evolution (4)
Flagellum evolution (25)
Immune system (8)
Junk DNA (13)
Phylogenetics (12)
Transitional Fossils (42)
Evolution Education (54)
Expelled (72) Expelled Exposed (36)
Expelled Flunked (33)
Flyers/Pamphlets (3)
Genetically modified organisms (1)
Humor (173)
ID/Creationism (152) Bible as Science (59)
Creationism (135)
Evolution of Creationism (48)
Intelligent Design (491) Privileged Planet (23)
Scientific Vacuity (83)
The Wedge (11)
Quote Mines (13)
Icons (3) Peppered Moths (2)
Journal Club (36)
Lab Notes (2)
Legal Issues (145)
Manufactroversy (20)
Medicine and Evolution (24)
Metatalk (100)
MustRead (7)
News Roundup (39)
Origin of new genes and new information (8)
Prebiotic Chemistry (11)
Question of the Day (7)
Question of the Moment
Quote of the Day (14)
Religion and Politics (24) Science and Faith (75)
Science and Politics (21)
Research News (76)
Resources for Biologists (29)
Science and faith (25)
Shoptalk (39)
Slightly Off Topic (159)
Steve Steve (74)
Sticky (3)
Their Own Words (27)
Theological Issues with Intelligent Design (14)
War on Science (78)
What motivates creationism (36)

Archives
Select a Month... February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 

Author Archives
Select an Author... Afarensis Andrea Bottaro Arthur Hunt Dave Thomas Ed Brayton Ethan Rop Gary Hurd Guest Contributor Henry Neufeld Ian Musgrave Jason Rosenhouse Jeffrey Shallit Jim Foley John S. Wilkins Matt Inlay Matt Young Mike Dunford Nick Matzke PvM Richard B. Hoppe Richard Meisel Skip Steve Reuland Prof. Steve Steve Tara Smith Timothy Sandefur Wesley R. Elsberry Burt Humburg Matt Brauer Douglas Theobald Emily Thompson SA Smith Joe Felsenstein Jack Scanlan Jack Krebs John M. Lynch M. Wilson Sayres Mark Perakh Pete Dunkelberg PZ Myers Reed A. Cartwright Steve Matheson 

Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed

Powered by Movable Type 4.381


Site Meter

Crew Login




Powered by Movable Type Pro

This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


http://pandasthumb.org/about.html




     
The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Search
 Don't forget to try the Keyword Index, An Index to Creationist Claims, and Outline too.

Google Search of the TalkOrigins Archive.




   










About 7,990 results (0.31 seconds)




























The Panda's Thumb


Back in October, one of us (JF) commented at Panda's Thumb on William Dembski's seminar presentation at the University of Chicago, Conservation of ...



www.pandasthumb.org/



.











About - The Panda's Thumb
“The Panda's Thumb” is many things… First, it is an example of jury-rigged evolutionary adaptation made famous by the late Stephen Jay Gould in an essay of ...



pandasthumb.org/about.html



.










Links - The Panda's Thumb
Table of Contents. Table of Contents; State Science Groups; Anatomy; Answering Creationists; Anthropology Blogs; Anthropology Journals; Biology and General ...



www.pandasthumb.org/links.html



.










The Bathroom Wall - The Panda's Thumb
This is where random thoughts and oddments that don't follow the other entries at the Panda's Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort ...



www.pandasthumb.org/bw/



.










Chinese pandas have canine distemper - The Panda's Thumb
Feb 13, 2015 ... Four pandas in a captive breeding population have died of canine distemper, one is “stable,” and four are “sick,” according to an article in ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/02/chinese-pandas.html



.










The Panda's Thumb: Archives
Announcements · Ark Park · Assault on Science · Bathroom Wall · Book Reviews · Explore Evolution · The Edge of Evolution · Wells' PIG · Cambrian Explosion ...



www.pandasthumb.org/archives/



.










Dembski's argument in Chicago -- New? Persuasive? - The Panda's ...
Oct 2, 2014 ... My argument here is not new (it has been given before at Panda's Thumb (here and also here and here). But with a new wave of publicity for ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/10/dembskis-argume.html



.











Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part II - The Panda's Thumb


Jun 19, 2013 ... Note: I am extremely busy this summer, finishing grad school and moving to a postdoc. But when I got this book, I realized I wouldn't be able to ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html



.










Understanding creationism: An insider's guide by a former young ...
May 28, 2014 ... A Masked Panda (7cad) | May 28, 2014 12:50 PM | Edit. Creationists accept certain aspects of variation, adaptation, and speciation, but they ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/05/understanding-c.html



.










Q&A in the WASP nest - The Panda's Thumb
Feb 24, 2015 ... By Steven Mahone. What would happen if a dyed-in-the-wool secularist was given the opportunity to speak with students from one of the most ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/02/qa-in-the-wasp.html



.
12345678910


powered by

Custom Search
..    
    

Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links

 








































































http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html















     
The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Search
 Don't forget to try the Keyword Index, An Index to Creationist Claims, and Outline too.

Google Search of the TalkOrigins Archive.




   










About 7,990 results (0.31 seconds)




























The Panda's Thumb


Back in October, one of us (JF) commented at Panda's Thumb on William Dembski's seminar presentation at the University of Chicago, Conservation of ...



www.pandasthumb.org/



.











About - The Panda's Thumb
“The Panda's Thumb” is many things… First, it is an example of jury-rigged evolutionary adaptation made famous by the late Stephen Jay Gould in an essay of ...



pandasthumb.org/about.html



.










Links - The Panda's Thumb
Table of Contents. Table of Contents; State Science Groups; Anatomy; Answering Creationists; Anthropology Blogs; Anthropology Journals; Biology and General ...



www.pandasthumb.org/links.html



.










The Bathroom Wall - The Panda's Thumb
This is where random thoughts and oddments that don't follow the other entries at the Panda's Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort ...



www.pandasthumb.org/bw/



.










Chinese pandas have canine distemper - The Panda's Thumb
Feb 13, 2015 ... Four pandas in a captive breeding population have died of canine distemper, one is “stable,” and four are “sick,” according to an article in ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/02/chinese-pandas.html



.










The Panda's Thumb: Archives
Announcements · Ark Park · Assault on Science · Bathroom Wall · Book Reviews · Explore Evolution · The Edge of Evolution · Wells' PIG · Cambrian Explosion ...



www.pandasthumb.org/archives/



.










Dembski's argument in Chicago -- New? Persuasive? - The Panda's ...
Oct 2, 2014 ... My argument here is not new (it has been given before at Panda's Thumb (here and also here and here). But with a new wave of publicity for ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/10/dembskis-argume.html



.











Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part II - The Panda's Thumb


Jun 19, 2013 ... Note: I am extremely busy this summer, finishing grad school and moving to a postdoc. But when I got this book, I realized I wouldn't be able to ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyers-hopeless-2.html



.










Understanding creationism: An insider's guide by a former young ...
May 28, 2014 ... A Masked Panda (7cad) | May 28, 2014 12:50 PM | Edit. Creationists accept certain aspects of variation, adaptation, and speciation, but they ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/05/understanding-c.html



.










Q&A in the WASP nest - The Panda's Thumb
Feb 24, 2015 ... By Steven Mahone. What would happen if a dyed-in-the-wool secularist was given the opportunity to speak with students from one of the most ...



pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/02/qa-in-the-wasp.html



.
12345678910


powered by

Custom Search
..    
    

Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links

 








































































http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html














talk.origins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.




The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.
 (March 2014)


Question book-new.svg

This article relies too much on references to primary sources.  (March 2014)


Question book-new.svg

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.  (March 2014)


talk.origins (often capitalised to Talk.Origins or abbreviated as t.o.) is a moderated Usenet discussion forum concerning the origins of life, and evolution. It remains a major venue for debate in the creation-evolution controversy, and its official purpose is to draw such debates out of the science newsgroups, such as sci.bio.evolution and sci.bio.paleontology.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Culture
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

History[edit]
The first post to talk.origins was a starter post by Mark Horton, dated 5 September 1986.[1]
In the early 1990s, a number of FAQs on various topics were being periodically posted to the newsgroup. In 1994, Brett J. Vickers established an anonymous FTP site to host the collected FAQs of the newsgroup. In 1995, Vickers started the TalkOrigins Archive web site as another means of hosting the talk.origins FAQs. It maintains an extensive FAQ on topics in evolutionary biology, geology and astronomy, with the aim of representing the views of mainstream science. It has spawned other websites, notably TalkDesign "a response to the intelligent design movement", Evowiki, and the Panda's Thumb weblog.
The group was originally created as the unmoderated newsgroup net.origins as a 'dumping ground' for all the various flame threads 'polluting' other newsgroups, then renamed to talk.origins as part of the Great Renaming. Subsequently, after discussion on the newsgroup, the group was voted to be moderated in 1997 by the normal USENET RFD/CFV process, in which only spam and excessive crossposting are censored. The moderator for the newsgroup is David Iain Greig[2] (and technically Jim Lippard as alternate/backup).
Culture[edit]
The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara,[3] the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy[4] which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.",[5] pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds".
Apart from the fun, the group includes rebuttals to creationist claims. There is an expectation that any claim is to be backed up by actual evidence, preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal. The group as a whole votes for a PoTM-award (Post of The Month), which makes it into the annals of TalkOrigins Archive.[6]
See also[edit]
National Center for Science Education (NCSE)
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Horton, Mark (5 September 1986). "starter message for talk.origins". Newsgroup: talk.origins. Usenet: 2518@cbosgd.UUCP. Retrieved 9 September 2009.
2.Jump up ^ Dave Greig's home page The Virtual University of Ediacara, Feb. 16, 2014
3.Jump up ^ "Ediacara University Home Page". Retrieved 20 September 2008.
4.Jump up ^ "The Evil Atheist Conspiracy". Retrieved 20 September 2008.
5.Jump up ^ Grumbine, Robert (5 May 2005). "Re: Chez Watt (was Re: I am a creationist)". Newsgroup: talk.origins. Usenet: 117k8aqod3nhr85@corp.supernews.com. Retrieved 9 September 2009.
6.Jump up ^ "TalkOrigins.org Post of the Month Archive". TalkOrigins Archive. 12 August 2007.
External links[edit]
The Talk.Origins Archive
The talk.origins homepage
The Virtual University of Ediacara
  


Categories: Newsgroups
Evolutionary biology








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
Nederlands
Română
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 January 2015, at 13:54.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk.origins












talk.origins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search




[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.




The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.
 (March 2014)


Question book-new.svg

This article relies too much on references to primary sources.  (March 2014)


Question book-new.svg

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.  (March 2014)


talk.origins (often capitalised to Talk.Origins or abbreviated as t.o.) is a moderated Usenet discussion forum concerning the origins of life, and evolution. It remains a major venue for debate in the creation-evolution controversy, and its official purpose is to draw such debates out of the science newsgroups, such as sci.bio.evolution and sci.bio.paleontology.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Culture
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

History[edit]
The first post to talk.origins was a starter post by Mark Horton, dated 5 September 1986.[1]
In the early 1990s, a number of FAQs on various topics were being periodically posted to the newsgroup. In 1994, Brett J. Vickers established an anonymous FTP site to host the collected FAQs of the newsgroup. In 1995, Vickers started the TalkOrigins Archive web site as another means of hosting the talk.origins FAQs. It maintains an extensive FAQ on topics in evolutionary biology, geology and astronomy, with the aim of representing the views of mainstream science. It has spawned other websites, notably TalkDesign "a response to the intelligent design movement", Evowiki, and the Panda's Thumb weblog.
The group was originally created as the unmoderated newsgroup net.origins as a 'dumping ground' for all the various flame threads 'polluting' other newsgroups, then renamed to talk.origins as part of the Great Renaming. Subsequently, after discussion on the newsgroup, the group was voted to be moderated in 1997 by the normal USENET RFD/CFV process, in which only spam and excessive crossposting are censored. The moderator for the newsgroup is David Iain Greig[2] (and technically Jim Lippard as alternate/backup).
Culture[edit]
The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara,[3] the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy[4] which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.",[5] pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds".
Apart from the fun, the group includes rebuttals to creationist claims. There is an expectation that any claim is to be backed up by actual evidence, preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal. The group as a whole votes for a PoTM-award (Post of The Month), which makes it into the annals of TalkOrigins Archive.[6]
See also[edit]
National Center for Science Education (NCSE)
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Horton, Mark (5 September 1986). "starter message for talk.origins". Newsgroup: talk.origins. Usenet: 2518@cbosgd.UUCP. Retrieved 9 September 2009.
2.Jump up ^ Dave Greig's home page The Virtual University of Ediacara, Feb. 16, 2014
3.Jump up ^ "Ediacara University Home Page". Retrieved 20 September 2008.
4.Jump up ^ "The Evil Atheist Conspiracy". Retrieved 20 September 2008.
5.Jump up ^ Grumbine, Robert (5 May 2005). "Re: Chez Watt (was Re: I am a creationist)". Newsgroup: talk.origins. Usenet: 117k8aqod3nhr85@corp.supernews.com. Retrieved 9 September 2009.
6.Jump up ^ "TalkOrigins.org Post of the Month Archive". TalkOrigins Archive. 12 August 2007.
External links[edit]
The Talk.Origins Archive
The talk.origins homepage
The Virtual University of Ediacara
  


Categories: Newsgroups
Evolutionary biology








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
Nederlands
Română
Edit links
This page was last modified on 19 January 2015, at 13:54.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk.origins
















Creation–evolution controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Creation-evolution controversy)
Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Creationism
Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" on the Sistine Chapel ceiling
History ·
 Neo-creationism
 
Types
Young Earth
Old Earth  (Day-age ·
 Gap ·
 Progressive ·
 Evolutionary)
 
 Intelligent design

Biblical cosmology

Book of Genesis  (Creation narrative ·
 Framework interpretation ·
 As an allegory)
 
 Omphalos hypothesis

Creation science

Baraminology ·
 Flood geology ·
 Creationist cosmologies ·
 Intelligent design
 
Creation–evolution controversy

History ·
 Creation myth ·
 Public education ·
 "Teach the Controversy"
 
Religious views


Creation
Jainism and non-creationism

Evolution
Theistic evolution
Buddhist ·
 Hindu ·
 Islamic ·
 Jewish ·
 Mormon
 

Category Category ·
 Portal Portal ·
 Wikipedia book Book
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   



 A satirical cartoon from 1882, parodying Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, on the publication of The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms (1881)
The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) involves a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. This debate rages most publicly in the United States, and to a lesser extent in Europe and elsewhere,[1] often portrayed as part of a culture war.[2]
The level of support for evolution is extremely high within the scientific community and in academia, with 95% of scientists supporting evolution.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Support for Abrahamic religions' accounts or other creationist alternatives is very low among scientists in general, and virtually nonexistent among scientists in the relevant fields.[9]
Christian fundamentalists dispute the evidence of common descent of humans and other animals as demonstrated in modern paleontology, genetics, histology and cladistics and those other sub-disciplines which are based upon the conclusions of modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and other related fields. They argue for the Abrahamic accounts of creation, framing them as reputable science ("creation science"). While the controversy has a long history,[10] today it is mainly over what constitutes good science education,[11][12] with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education.[13][14][15][16][17]
A 2014 Gallup survey reports, "More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades. Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process. However, the percentage who say God was not involved is rising."[18]
The debate is sometimes portrayed as being between science and religion, but 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[19]


Contents  [hide]
1 History 1.1 Contemporary reaction to Darwin
1.2 Creationism in theology 1.2.1 Development of creationism in the United States
1.2.2 British creationism

2 United States legal challenges and their consequences 2.1 Butler Act and Scopes monkey trial
2.2 Epperson v. Arkansas
2.3 Daniel v. Waters
2.4 Creation science 2.4.1 Court cases 2.4.1.1 McLean v. Arkansas
2.4.1.2 Edwards v. Aguillard

2.5 Intelligent design 2.5.1 Kansas evolution hearings
2.5.2 Dover trial
2.5.3 Texas Board of Education support for intelligent design
2.5.4 Recent developments

3 Viewpoints 3.1 Young Earth creationism
3.2 Old Earth creationism
3.3 Neo-creationism
3.4 Theistic evolution
3.5 Agnostic evolution
3.6 Materialistic evolution
4 Arguments relating to the definition and limits of science 4.1 Definitions
4.2 Limitations of scientific endeavor
4.3 Theory vs. fact
4.4 Falsifiability
4.5 Conflation of science and religion
4.6 Appeal to consequences
5 Disputes relating to science 5.1 Biology 5.1.1 Common descent 5.1.1.1 Human evolution
5.1.2 Macroevolution
5.1.3 Transitional fossils
5.2 Geology
5.3 Other sciences 5.3.1 Cosmology
5.3.2 Nuclear physics
5.4 Misrepresentations of science 5.4.1 Quote mining

6 Public policy issues 6.1 Science education
6.2 Freedom of speech
7 Issues relating to religion 7.1 Religion and historical scientists
8 Forums 8.1 Debates
8.2 Political lobbying
8.3 Media coverage
9 Outside the United States 9.1 Europe
9.2 Australia
9.3 Islamic countries
10 See also
11 References
12 Citations
13 Further reading
14 External links

History[edit]
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 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[by whom?] as a threat to the existing "fixed" social order, and both church and state repressed them.[20] Conditions gradually eased, and in 1844 Robert Chambers's controversial Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation popularised the idea of 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—groups opposed to the privileges of the established church—favoured its ideas of God acting through such laws.[21][22]
Contemporary reaction to Darwin[edit]
See also: Reactions to On the Origin of Species
“ 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 [23]




 A satirical image of Darwin as an ape from 1871 reflects part of the social controversy over whether humans and apes share a common lineage.
The publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 brought scientific credibility to evolution, and made it a respectable field of study.[24]
Despite the intense interest in the religious implications of Darwin's book, the Church of England's attention was largely diverted by theological controversy over higher criticism set out in Essays and Reviews (1860) 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.[25] Other Christians opposed 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.[26] 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 (1876). 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.[27] Gray said that investigation of physical causes was not 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."[28] 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. Darwin also took this position,[26] but prominent atheists including Edward Aveling and Ludwig Büchner also took up evolution and it was criticised, in the words of one reviewer, as "tantamount to atheism."[29][30][31][32] Following the lead of figures such as St. George Jackson Mivart and John Augustine Zahm, Roman Catholics in the United States became accepting of evolution itself while ambivalent towards natural selection and stressing humanity's divinely imbued soul.[33] The Catholic Church never condemned evolution, and initially the more conservative-leaning Catholic leadership in Rome held back, but gradually adopted a similar position.[33][34]
During the late 19th century evolutionary ideas were most strongly disputed by the premillennialists, who held to a prophesy of the imminent return of Christ based on a form of Biblical literalism, and were convinced that the Bible would be invalidated if any error in the Scriptures was conceded. However, hardly any of the critics of evolution at that time were as concerned about geology, freely granting scientists any time they needed before the Edenic creation to account for scientific observations, such as fossils and geological findings.[35] In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the fossil record.[36] Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Biblical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.[36] Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, or allowed that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.[37]
Science professors at liberal northeastern universities[which?] almost immediately embraced the theory of evolution and introduced it to their students. However, some people in parts of the south and west of the United States, which had been influenced by the preachings of Christian fundamentalist evangelicals, rejected the theory as immoral.[38]
Creationism in theology[edit]



 A simplified 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,[citation needed] but debate had started to develop over 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 creationism or gap creationism. The Neptunianist catastrophism, which had earlier proposed that a universal flood could explain all geological features, gave way to ideas of geological gradualism (introduced in 1795 by James Hutton) 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 (first described in the 1750s and put on a firm footing by Georges Cuvier in 1796) 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 regard science and theology as 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,[citation needed] and Roman Catholics came around to acceptance of human evolution subject to direct creation of the soul. In the United States the development of the racist Social Darwinian eugenics movement led a number of Catholics to reject evolution.[26] In this enterprise they received little aid from conservative Christians in Great Britain and Europe. In Britain this has been attributed[by whom?] to their minority status leading to a more tolerant, less militant theological tradition.[39]
Development of creationism in the United States[edit]
At first in the U.S., 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"—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 which had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of the 1920s and 1930s.[40] The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[41]
Up until the early mid-20th century[when?] mainline denominations within the United States showed little official resistance to evolution. 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 receiving secondary education increased rapidly, and parents who had fundamentalist tendencies or who opposed social ideas of what was called "survival of the fittest" had real concerns about what their children were learning about evolution.[26]
British creationism[edit]
The main British creationist movement in this[which?] period, the Evolution Protest Movement (EPM), formed in the 1930s[39] out of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain (founded in 1865 in response to the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 and of Essays and Reviews in 1860). The Victoria Institute had the stated objective of defending "the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture ... against the opposition of Science falsely so called." Although it did not officially oppose evolution, it attracted a number of scientists sceptical of Darwinism, including John William Dawson and Arnold Guyot.[42] It reached a high point of 1,246 members in 1897, but quickly plummeted to less than one third of that figure in the first two decades of the twentieth century.[42] Though it was anti-evolution at first, the institute joined the theistic evolution camp by the 1920s, which led to the development of the Evolution Protest Movement in reaction. Amateur ornithologist Douglas Dewar, the main driving force within the EPM, published a booklet entitled Man: A Special Creation (1936) and engaged in public speaking and debates with supporters of evolution. In the late 1930s he resisted 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, unwaveringly promoting gap creationism, and reducing the membership to lethargic inactivity. [43] As a result of being captured by young Earth creationists (YEC) in the 1970s[citation needed] it was renamed Creation Science Movement (CSM) in 1980, under the chairmanship of David Rosevear, who holds a Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry from the University of Bristol. By the mid-1980s the CSM had formally incorporated flood geology into its "Deed of Trust" (which all officers had to sign) and condemned gap creationism and day-age creationism as unscriptural.
United States legal challenges and their consequences[edit]
In 1925, Tennessee passed a statute called the Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in all schools in the state. Later that year, a similar law was passed in Mississippi, and likewise, Arkansas in 1927. In 1968, these "anti-monkey" laws were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States as unconstitutional, "because they established a religious doctrine violating both the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution."[44]
The modern struggle of religious fundamentalists accepting creationism, to get their rejection of evolution accepted as legitimate science within education institutions in the U.S., has been highlighted through a series of important court cases.
Butler Act and Scopes monkey trial[edit]
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.[45] 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 George William Hunter's A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (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 but 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).[46]
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."[47] 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).[48]
The interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution 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."[49] 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.[50][51][52][53]
Epperson v. Arkansas[edit]
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, Arkansas, 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."[54] 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."[55] But the Supreme Court decision also suggested that creationism could be taught in addition to evolution.[56]
Daniel v. Waters[edit]
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. 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[edit]
Main article: Creation science
As biologists grew more and more confident in evolution as the central defining principle of biology,[57][58] 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.[59] 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.[60]
In 1961, the first major modern creationist book was published: John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris' influential The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. The authors argued that creation was literally 6 days long, that humans lived concurrently with dinosaurs, and that God created each 'kind' of life individually.[61][62] On the strength of this, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at fundamentalist churches, colleges, and conferences.[61] Morris' Creation Science Research Center (CSRC) rushed publication of biology textbooks that promoted creationism.[63] 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.[64] During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the terms "scientific creationism" and "creation science."[65] The "flood geology" theory effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views."[66][67]
Court cases[edit]
McLean v. Arkansas[edit]
Main article: McLean v. Arkansas
In 1982, another case in Arkansas ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Act 590) was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause. Much of the transcript of the case was lost, including evidence from Francisco Ayala.
Edwards v. Aguillard[edit]
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 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 was not appealed to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals, creationists instead thinking that they had better chances with Edwards v. Aguillard. In 1987 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana act was also unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, it stated 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.[68]
Intelligent design[edit]



 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.[69]
Main article: Intelligent design
See also: Neo-creationism, Intelligent design movement, Teach the Controversy and Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns
In response to Edwards v. Aguillard, the neo-creationist intelligent design movement was formed around the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. It 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."[70] 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 bodies explicitly rejecting Intelligent design).
Kansas evolution hearings[edit]
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, May 5 to May 12, 2005. The Kansas State Board of Education eventually adopted the institute's Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plans over objections of the State Board Science Hearing Committee, and electioneering on behalf of conservative Republican Party candidates for the Board.[71] On August 1, 2006, four of the six 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,[72] and on February 13, 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."[73]
Dover trial[edit]
Main article: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Following the Edwards v. Aguillard decision by the United States Supreme Court, 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.[74] 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."[75]
The December 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial[76] supported the viewpoint of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and other science and education professional organizations that Teach the Controversy proponents seek to undermine the teaching of evolution[6][77] while promoting intelligent design,[78][79][80] and to advance an education policy for U.S. public schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula.[76][81]
Texas Board of Education support for intelligent design[edit]
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'."[82] The 2009 Texas Board of Education hearings were chronicled in the 2012 documentary The Revisionaries.
Recent developments[edit]
See also: Creation and evolution in public education and Intelligent design in politics
The scientific consensus on the origins and evolution of life continues to be challenged by creationist organizations and religious groups who desire to uphold some form of creationism (usually young Earth creationism, creation science, old Earth creationism or intelligent design) as an alternative. Most of these groups are literalist Christians who believe the biblical account is inerrant, and more than one sees the debate as part of the Christian mandate to evangelize.[83][84] 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.[85]
More recently, the intelligent design movement has attempted an anti-evolution position that avoids any direct appeal to religion. Scientists argue that intelligent design does not represent any research program within the mainstream scientific community, and is still essentially creationism.[9][86] Its leading proponent, the Discovery Institute, made widely publicised claims that it was a new science, although 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."[87] On August 1, 2005, U.S. President George W. 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."[11][88]
Viewpoints[edit]
In the controversy a number of divergent opinions can be recognised, regarding both the acceptance of scientific theories and religious practice.
Young Earth creationism[edit]
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 biblical literalism.
Old Earth creationism[edit]
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 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[edit]
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. They wish 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[edit]
Main article: Theistic evolution
See also: Naturalism (philosophy), Catholic Church and evolution 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; 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 F. 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[edit]
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.[89]
Materialistic evolution[edit]
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).[90] It is a view championed by 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[edit]
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.[91] 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.[92] Creationists claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded and that scientific work is paradigmatically close-minded.[93]
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.[94] Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form of pseudoscience.[95]
Definitions[edit]

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
—National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism[96]
Limitations of scientific endeavor[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (June 2008)
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[97]

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. What I believe in my heart must make sense in my mind. In other words, truth is not only a matter of offense, in that it makes certain assertions. It is also a matter of defense in that it must be able to make a cogent and sensible response to the counterpoints that are raised. Truth by definition excludes.
—Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message[98]
Theory vs. fact[edit]
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.[99] 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. In science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."[100]
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[101]
Falsifiability[edit]
Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience:[102][103] testable theories are scientific, but those that are untestable are not.[104] 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."[105]
In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping,"[106] 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.[107] 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)."[108]
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."[102] 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.[109]
In fact, Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.[110] 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."[111]
Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiability in science continues.[112] 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."[113][114]
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."[115]
Conflation of science and religion[edit]
See also: Objection to evolution on the basis that it is a religion
Creationists commonly argue against evolution on the grounds that "evolution is a religion; it is not a science,"[116] 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.[117][118] Those that oppose evolution frequently refer to supporters of evolution as "evolutionists" or "Darwinists."[116]
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.[119][120] 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.[121]
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.[122][123]
Appeal to consequences[edit]
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[124] and Henry M. Morris.[125]
Disputes relating to science[edit]
Part of a series on
Evolutionary biology

Diagrammatic representation of the divergence of modern taxonomic groups from their common ancestor.


Key topics[show]





Processes and outcomes[show]




















Natural history[show]















History of evolutionary theory[show]














Fields and applications[show]


























Social implications[show]






Portal icon Evolutionary biology portal ·
 Category Category ·
  Book ·
 Related topics
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
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,[126] 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[edit]


                             


 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[edit]
Main article: Common descent
See also: Evidence of common descent and Tree of life (biology)

[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?[127]
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), for all thirty million species.[128][129][130] Other creationists allow evolution of species, but say that it was specific "kinds" or baramin that were created. Thus all bear species may have developed from a common ancestor that was separately created.
Evidence of common descent includes evidence from genetics, fossil records, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution of species, comparative physiology and comparative biochemistry.
Human evolution[edit]
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 26 to 24 Ma, and that by the early Miocene, the adaptive radiation of many different hominoid forms was well underway.[131] 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.[132] 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).[133] Comparisons of DNA show that 99.4 percent of the coding regions are identical in chimpanzees and humans (95–96% overall[134][135]), which is taken as strong evidence of recent common ancestry.[136] 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[137]) or too similar to modern humans to designate them as distinct or transitional forms.[138] Creationists frequently disagree where the dividing lines would be.[139] 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.[54]
Macroevolution[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (June 2008)
Main article: Macroevolution
See also: Speciation
Many creationists 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 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. 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. When taken to court in an 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 (2009) giving evidence for evolution and macroevolution.
Transitional fossils[edit]
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.[140][141] 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 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 used 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 Hayward stated in Creation and Evolution (1985) 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."[142] The evolution of whales has been documented in considerable detail, with Ambulocetus, described as looking like a three-metre long mammalian crocodile, as one of the transitional fossils.[143]
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. 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 pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period. 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.[144]
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[edit]
Main article: Flood geology
See also: 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).[145][undue weight? – discuss][146] 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. 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.[5] 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. The fact that the various methods of dating give essentially identical or near identical readings is not addressed in creationism.
Other sciences[edit]
Cosmology[edit]
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 13.8 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.[147]
Nuclear physics[edit]
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, 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.[148]
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.[149][150]
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]":[151]
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[152]

Misrepresentations of science[edit]
The Discovery Institute has a "formal declaration" titled A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism which has many evangelicals, people from fields irrelevant to biology and geology and few biologists. Many of the biologists who signed have fields not directly related to evolution.[153] Some of the biologists signed were deceived into signing the "declaration." In response, there is Project Steve.
Quote mining[edit]
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.[58] 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.[154][155] 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.[154] Creationists often quote mine Darwin, especially with regard to the seeming improbability of the evolution of the eye, to give support to their views.[156]
The Panda's Thumb blog has some material on quote mining.[157]
Public policy issues[edit]
The creation–evolution controversy has grown in importance in recent years, particularly as a result of the Southern strategy of the Republican Party strategist Kevin Phillips, during the Nixon and Reagan administrations in the U.S. He saw that the African-American Civil Rights Movement had alienated many poor white southern voters of the Bible Belt and set out to capture this electorate through an alliance with the "New Right" Christian right movement.[158]
Science education[edit]
Main article: Creation and evolution in public education
See also: Teach the Controversy
Creationists promoted the idea that evolution is a theory in crisis[6][76] with scientists criticizing evolution[159] 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,[160] reply that there is no scientific controversy and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.[6][159]
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.[161]
Freedom of speech[edit]
Creationists have claimed that preventing them from teaching creationism violates their right of freedom of speech. Court cases (such as Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990) and Bishop v. Aronov (1991)) have upheld school districts' and universities' right to restrict teaching to a specified curriculum.
Issues relating to religion[edit]
See also: Relationship between religion and science, Catholic Church and evolution, Allegorical interpretations of Genesis and Evolutionary argument against naturalism
Religion and historical scientists[edit]
Creationists often argue that Christianity and literal belief in the Bible are either foundationally significant or directly responsible for scientific progress.[162] To that end, Institute for Creation Research founder Henry M. Morris has enumerated scientists such as astronomer and philosopher Galileo Galilei, 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.[163]
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.[164]
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. Geneticist and evolutionary biologist 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.[165] 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.[166]
The Relationship between religion and science 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.[167] 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[edit]
Debates[edit]
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.[168] 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."[169] 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."[169] (see Non-overlapping magisteria). 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."[170]
In September 2012, educator and television personality Bill Nye of Bill Nye the Science Guy fame spoke with the Associated Press and aired his fears about acceptance of creationist theory, believing that teaching children that creationism is the only true answer and without letting them understand the way science works will prevent any future innovation in the world of science.[171][172] In February 2014, Nye defended evolution in the classroom in a debate with creationist Ken Ham on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era.[173][174][175]
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.[169] 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[176]
Political lobbying[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (June 2008)
See also: Politics of creationism and Santorum Amendment
On both sides of the controversy a wide range of organizations are involved at a number of levels in lobbying in an attempt to influence political decisions relating to the teaching of evolution. 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.[177]
Media coverage[edit]
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 (2001) and Coral Ridge Ministries' Darwin's Deadly Legacy (2006)). 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[178]
Outside the United States[edit]



 Views on human evolution in various countries (2008)[179][180]
While the controversy has been prominent in the United States, it has flared up in other countries as well.[181][182][183]
Europe[edit]
Europeans have often regarded the creation–evolution controversy as an American matter.[182] In recent years the conflict has become an issue in other countries including Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Turkey and Serbia.[182][183][184][185][186]
On September 17, 2007, the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) 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 strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy."[187] The Council of Europe firmly rejected creationism.[188]
Australia[edit]
Under the former Queensland state government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in the 1980s Queensland allowed the teaching of creationism in secondary schools.[189] 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.[190] Public lectures have been given in rented rooms at universities, by visiting American speakers.[191][page needed] 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 the University of Melbourne, 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 Roberts had made false and misleading claims, they were not made in the course of trade or commerce, so the case failed.[192]
Islamic countries[edit]
See also: Islamic views on evolution
In recent times, the controversy has become more prominent in Islamic countries.[193] In Egypt, evolution is currently taught in schools, but Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.[181][194] Creation science has also been heavily promoted in Turkey and in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by Harun Yahya.[183] In Iran, traditional practice of Shia Islam isn't preoccupied with Qur'anic literalism as in case of Saudi Wahhabism but ijtihad, many influential Iranian Shi'ite scholars, including several who were closely involved in Iranian Revolution, are not opposed to evolutionary ideas in general, disagreeing that evolution necessarily conflicts with the Muslim mainstream.[194] Iranian pupils since 5th grade of elementary school learn only about evolution, thus portraying geologists and scientists in general as an authoritative voices of scientific knowledge.[194]
See also[edit]
Book icon Book: Evolution
Book: Creationism and Intelligent Design


Portal icon Science portal
Main article: Outline of the creation–evolution controversy
Anti-intellectualism
Clergy Letter Project
Creation and evolution in public education
Evolutionary origin of religions
Hindu views on evolution
History of the creation–evolution controversy
Jainism and non-creationism
Jewish views on evolution
Mormon views on evolution
Objections to evolution
Project Steve
Relationship between religion and science
Stereotypes of Americans
TalkOrigins
Teach the Controversy
Theology of creationism and evolution
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Curry, Andrew (February 27, 2009). "Creationist Beliefs Persist in Europe". Science (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 323 (5918): 1159. doi:10.1126/science.323.5918.1159. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 19251601. "News coverage of the creationism-versus-evolution debate tends to focus on the United States ... But in the past 5 years, political clashes over the issue have also occurred in countries all across Europe. ... 'This isn't just an American problem,' says Dittmar Graf of the Technical University of Dortmund, who organized the meeting."
2.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, pp. 247–263, Chapter 11: "Modern Culture Wars" Ruse 1999, p. 26: "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed [Conflict thesis] ... religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently been very significant factors in the forward movement of science."
3.Jump up ^ Myers, PZ (June 18, 2006). "Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?". Pharyngula (Blog). New York: ScienceBlogs LLC. Retrieved 2013-05-10.
4.Jump up ^ Skoog, Gerald (2007). "An NSTA Evolution Q&A". National Science Teachers Association. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
5.^ Jump up to: a b IAP Member Academies (June 21, 2006). "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution". IAP. Trieste, Italy: The World Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
6.^ Jump up to: a b c d "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-02-21. Retrieved 2014-07-31. "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."
7.Jump up ^ Pinholster, Ginger (February 19, 2006). "AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event" (Press release). St. Louis, MO: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archived from the original on 2006-04-21. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
8.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 83.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Larson 2004, p. 258: "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (June 29, 1987). "Keeping God Out of the Classroom" (PDF). Newsweek (New York: Newsweek LLC): 23–24. ISSN 0028-9604. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientist) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"
10.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, pp. 3–240
11.^ Jump up to: a b Peters, Ted; Hewlett, Martinez (December 22, 2005). "The Evolution Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What?" (PDF). Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary. Evolution Brief E2. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
12.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Context, p. 20.
13.Jump up ^ Slevin, Peter (March 14, 2005). "Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens". The Washington Post. p. A01. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
14.Jump up ^ Renka, Russell D. (November 16, 2005). "The Political Design of Intelligent Design". Renka's Home Page. Round Rock, TX. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
15.Jump up ^ Wilgoren, Jodi (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
16.Jump up ^ Forrest, Barbara (April 2002). "The Newest Evolution of Creationism". Natural History (Research Triangle Park, NC: Natural History Magazine, Inc.) 111 (3): 80. ISSN 0028-0712. Retrieved 2014-06-06.
17.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Introduction, pp. 7–9, also Whether ID Is Science, pp. 64–89, and Promoting Religion, p. 90.
18.Jump up ^ Newport, Frank (June 2, 2014). "In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins". Gallup.Com. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-02.
19.Jump up ^ NAS 2008, p. 12
20.Jump up ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 34–35
21.Jump up ^ van Wyhe, John (2006). "Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist". The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. John van Wyhe. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
22.Jump up ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 321–323, 503–505
23.Jump up ^ Dixon 2008, p. 77
24.Jump up ^ van Wyhe 2006
25.Jump up ^ Hale, Piers (July 2012). "Darwin's Other Bulldog: Charles Kingsley and the Popularisation of Evolution in Victorian England" (PDF). Science & Education (Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media) 21 (7): 977–1013. doi:10.1007/s11191-011-9414-8. ISSN 0926-7220. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
26.^ Jump up to: a b c d AAAS 2006
27.Jump up ^ Baxter, Craig; Darwin Correspondence Project (research collaborator). "Re: Design". Darwin Correspondence Project (Dramatisation script). Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "Dramatisation of the correspondence". Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
28.Jump up ^ Gray 1876
29.Jump up ^ Hodge 1874, p. 177
30.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, p. 14
31.Jump up ^ Burns et al. 1982, p. 965
32.Jump up ^ Huxley 1902
33.^ Jump up to: a b Witham 2002
34.Jump up ^ Barbour 1997, pp. 58, 65
35.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, pp. 13–15
36.^ Jump up to: a b Numbers 1992, p. 17
37.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, p. 18, noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation,[original research?] but these views rarely found expression in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788–1871), David Nevins Lord (1792–1880), and E. G. White (1829–1915). The observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807–1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807–1884); John William Dawson (1820–1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818–1907); George D. Armstrong (1813–1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797–1878); James Dwight Dana (1813–1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and Amherst College geologist, (1793–1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818–1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?–1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838–1922; Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist.
38.Jump up ^ Salhany 1986, p. 32
39.^ Jump up to: a b Numbers 2006, p. 161
40.Jump up ^ Buescher, John. "A History of Fundamentalism". Teachinghistory.org. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University; United States Department of Education. Retrieved 2011-08-15.
41.Jump up ^ Nagata, Judith (June 2001). "Beyond Theology: Toward an Anthropology of 'Fundamentalism'". American Anthropologist (Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association) 103 (2): 481–498. doi:10.1525/aa.2001.103.2.481. JSTOR 683478.
42.^ Jump up to: a b Numbers 2006, p. 162
43.Jump up ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 355–356
44.Jump up ^ Salhany 1986, p. 32–34
45.Jump up ^ Similar legislation was passed in two other states prior to the Scopes trial, in Oklahoma and Florida. The efforts to enact "Butler Acts" in other jurisdictions were abandoned after the Scopes trial. See: Pierce, J. Kingston (August 2000). "Scopes Trial". American History (Leesburg, VA: Weider History Group). ISSN 1076-8866. Retrieved 2014-08-27. Describes the Florida and Oklahoma acts.
Cole, Fay-Cooper (December 31, 2008) [Originally published January 1959]. "50 Years Ago: A Witness at the Scopes Trial". Scientific American. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. ISSN 0036-8733. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
46.Jump up ^ "Decision on Scopes' Appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee". University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law (Primary source). Kansas City, MO: Curators of the University of Missouri. January 17, 1927. Retrieved 2014-08-27. The statute required a minimum fine of $100, and the state Constitution required all fines over $50 to be assessed by a jury.
47.Jump up ^ The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was not, at the time of the Scopes decision in the 1920s, deemed applicable to the states. Thus, Scopes' constitutional defense on establishment grounds rested solely on the state constitution. See: Court Opinion of Scope's Trial 1927. See generally Incorporation doctrine and Everson v. Board of Education (seminal U.S. Supreme Court opinion finally applying the Establishment Clause against states in 1947).
Kerr, Orin (July 26, 2005). "State v. Scopes". The Volokh Conspiracy (Book review). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA School of Law. "The constitutional case was largely based on state constitutional law; this was before most of the Bill of Rights had been incorporated and applied to the states." Review of Edward J. Larson's book Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion (1997). Cantwell v. Connecticut. 1940 Supreme Court case stating that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore applicable against the states.
Cookson 2003, p. 132. Explains incorporation doctrine relative to First Amendment.
"BRIA 7 4 b The 14th Amendment and the 'Second Bill of Rights'". Constitutional Rights Foundation. Los Angeles, CA: Constitutional Rights Foundation. Retrieved 2014-08-27.

48.Jump up ^ The Court accordingly did not address the question of whether the teaching of creationism in the public schools was unconstitutional.
49.Jump up ^ Court Opinion of Scope's Trial 1927. The Court stated in its opinion that "England and Scotland maintained State churches as did some of the Colonies, and it was intended by this clause of the Constitution [the Religious Preference Clause] to prevent any such undertaking in Tennessee."
50.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Context, p. 19.
51.Jump up ^ Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" (PDF). Center for Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
52.Jump up ^ Flank, Lenny (March 2006). "The History of Creationism". TalkOrigins Archive (Post of the Month). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
53.Jump up ^ Elsberry, Wesley R. "The Scopes Trial: Frequently Rebutted Assertions". AntiEvolution.org. Palmetto, FL: Wesley R. Elsberry. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
54.^ Jump up to: a b Nelkin 2000, p. 242
55.Jump up ^ *Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (U.S. November 12, 1968).
56.Jump up ^ Larson 2003, p. 103
57.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, pp. 248, 250
58.^ Jump up to: a b Dobzhansky, Theodosius (March 1973). "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". The American Biology Teacher (McLean, VA: National Association of Biology Teachers) 35 (3): 125–129. doi:10.2307/4444260.
59.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, p. 251
60.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, p. 252
61.^ Jump up to: a b Larson 2004, p. 255
62.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, pp. xi, 200–208
63.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, pp. 284–285
64.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, pp. 284–286
65.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, pp. 255–256: "Fundamentalists no longer merely denounced Darwinism as false; they offered a scientific-sounding alternative of their own, which they called either 'scientific creationism (as distinct from religious creationism) or 'creation science' (as opposed to evolution science)."
66.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, pp. 254–255
67.Jump up ^ Numbers 1998, pp. 5–6
68.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Introduction, pp. 7–9.
69.Jump up ^ "Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. August 28, 2002. Retrieved 2009-04-07.
70.Jump up ^ "CSC - Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
71.Jump up ^ "Some question group's move with elections nearing". 6 News Lawrence (Lawrence, KS: 6News Lawrence; Lawrence Journal-World). July 7, 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-07-14.
72.Jump up ^ "Evolution's foes lose ground in Kansas". NBCNews.com. Associated Press. August 2, 2006. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
73.Jump up ^ "Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence". International Herald Tribune (New York: The New York Times Company). Associated Press. February 13, 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-05-25. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
74.Jump up ^ "Timeline: How Creationism Has 'Evolved'". People for the American Way. Washington, D.C.: People for the American Way. 2006. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
75.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.
76.^ Jump up to: a b c Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 89, support the view that "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."
77.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Disclaimer, p. 49: "In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."
78.Jump up ^ Mooney, Chris (December 2002). "Survival of the Slickest". The American Prospect (Washington, D.C.) 13 (22). Retrieved 2014-08-27. "ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists 'continue to investigate and critically analyze' aspects of Darwin's theory."
79.Jump up ^ Dembski, William A. (February 27, 2001). "Teaching Intelligent Design -- What Happened When? A Response to Eugenie Scott". Metanexus. New York: Metanexus Institute. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy." Dembski's response to Eugenie Scott's February 12, 2001, essay published by Metanexus, "The Big Tent and the Camel's Nose."
80.Jump up ^ Matzke, Nick (July 11, 2006). "No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists…". The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-05-05. Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.
81.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 134.
82.Jump up ^ Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit (April 3, 2009). "New Texas Standards Question Evolution, Fossil Record". Science (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 324 (5923): 25. doi:10.1126/science.324.5923.25a. ISSN 0036-8075. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
83.Jump up ^ Verderame, John (May 10, 2001). "Creation Evangelism: Cutting Through the Excess". Answers in Genesis. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis Ministries International. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
84.Jump up ^ Simon, Stephanie (February 11, 2006). "Their Own Version of a Big Bang". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
85.Jump up ^ Dewey 1994, p. 31, and Wiker 2003, summarizing Gould.
86.Jump up ^ Martz & McDaniel 1987
87.Jump up ^ "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Washington, D.C.: Biological Society of Washington. October 4, 2004. Archived from the original on 2007-09-26. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
88.Jump up ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth (August 3, 2005). "Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-02-03.
89.Jump up ^ Scott 2005, p. 65
90.Jump up ^ Scott 2005, pp. 65–66
91.Jump up ^ Johnson 1998; Hodge 1874, p. 177; Wiker 2003; Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 5. Peters and Hewlett argue that the atheism of many evolutionary supporters must be removed from the debate.
92.Jump up ^ Lenski, Richard E. (September 2000). "Evolution: Fact and Theory". actionbioscience. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Biological Sciences. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
93.Jump up ^ Johnson 1998
94.Jump up ^ Einstein, Albert (November 9, 1930). "Religion and Science". The New York Times Magazine: 1–4. ISSN 0028-7822. Retrieved 2007-01-30.
95.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (January–February 1997). "Is Science a Religion?". The Humanist (Washington, D.C.: American Humanist Association) 57 (1). ISSN 0018-7399. Archived from the original on 2002-08-22. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
96.Jump up ^ NAS 1999, p. 2
97.Jump up ^ NAS 1999, p. 1
98.Jump up ^ Zacharias 2000, p. 55
99.Jump up ^ Johnson 1993, p. 63 Tolson, Jay (September 5, 2005). "Religion in America: Intelligent Design on Trial". USNews.com. Archived from the original on 2006-06-21. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Moran, Laurence (1993). "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Selman v. Cobb County School District, 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).
Dawkins, Richard (December 3, 2004). Richard Dawkins on the Argument for Evolution. Interview with Bill Moyers. Now with Bill Moyers. PBS. Retrieved 2006-01-29.
100.Jump up ^ "Theory". Merriam-Webster (Definition). Chicago, IL: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
101.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (May 1981). "Evolution as Fact and Theory". Discover (Waukesha, WI: Kalmbach Publishing) 2 (5): 34–37. ISSN 0274-7529. Retrieved 2007-01-17.
102.^ Jump up to: a b Numbers 2006, p. 274: "To solve the age-old problem of distinguishing science from metaphysics or pseudoscience, Popper invoked the criterion of falsifiability as a substitute for the less rigorous test of verifiability."
103.Jump up ^ Hansson, Sven Ove (2012) [First published September 3, 2008]. "Science and Pseudo-Science". In Zalta, Edward N. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "Popper described the demarcation problem as the 'key to most of the fundamental problems in the philosophy of science.' He refuted verifiability as a criterion for a scientific theory or hypothesis to be scientific, rather than pseudoscientific or metaphysical. Instead he proposed as a criterion that the theory be falsifiable, or more precisely that 'statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations'."
"Popper presented this proposal as a way to draw the line between statements belonging to the empirical sciences and 'all other statements – whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudoscientific'. It was both an alternative to the logical positivists’ verification criteria and a criterion for distinguishing between science and pseudoscience."
104.Jump up ^ Number 1992, p. 247 Wilkins, John S. (1997). "Evolution and Philosophy: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
105.Jump up ^ Popper 1976, pp. 168, 172, quoted in Kofahl, Robert E. (May 22, 1981). "Popper on Darwinism". Science (Letter) (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 212 (4497): 873. doi:10.1126/science.11643641. ISSN 0036-8075.
106.Jump up ^ Unknown sociologist quoted in Numbers 1992, p. 247
107.Jump up ^ Kofahl, Robert E. (June 1989). "The Hierarchy of Conceptual Levels For Scientific Thought And Research". Creation Research Society Quarterly (Abstract) (Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society) 26 (1). Retrieved 2007-01-29, as quoted by Numbers 1992, p. 247
108.Jump up ^ Lewin, Roger (January 8, 1982). "Where Is the Science in Creation Science?". Science (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 215 (4529): 142–144, 146. Bibcode:1982Sci...215..142L. doi:10.1126/science.215.4529.142. "Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory," wrote Gish in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981). "This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)."
109.Jump up ^ Kofahl 1981
110.Jump up ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (November 2, 2005). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA211.1: Popper on natural selection's testability". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2012-06-05.
111.Jump up ^ Popper, Karl (December 1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers) 32 (3-4): 339–355. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1978.tb01321.x. ISSN 1746-8361. Retrieved 2014-08-27. Massimo Pigliucci (September–October 2004). "Did Popper Refute Evolution?" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer (Amherst, NY: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry). ISSN 0194-6730. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
112.Jump up ^ Ruse 1999, pp. 13–37, which discusses conflicting ideas about science among Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and their disciples.
113.Jump up ^ As quoted by Wallis 2005, p. 32. Also see Dawkins 1986 and Dawkins 1995
114.Jump up ^ Wallis, Claudia (August 7, 2005). "The Evolution Wars". Time. Retrieved 2007-01-31, p. 6. Richard Dawkins quoting J. B. S. Haldane.
115.Jump up ^ Dorman, Clark (January 30, 1996). "McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education". TalkOrigins Archive (Transcription). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2007-01-31.
116.^ Jump up to: a b Ham 1987
117.Jump up ^ Dembski 1998
118.Jump up ^ Morris, Henry M. (February 2001). "Evolution Is Religion—Not Science" (PDF). Impact (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research) (332): i–iv. OCLC 8153605. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
119.Jump up ^ Morris 1974
120.Jump up ^ Wiker, Benjamin D. (July–August 2003). "Part II: The Christian Critics — Does Science Point to God?". Crisis Magazine (Washington, D.C.: Morley Publishing Group). Retrieved 2014-08-27.
121.Jump up ^ Scott 2005
122.Jump up ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (February 15, 2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA611: Evolution sacrosanct?". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
123.Jump up ^ Kutschera, Ulrich; Niklas, Karl J. (June 2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften (Springer Science+Business Media) 91 (6): 255–276. Bibcode:2004NW.....91..255K. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. ISSN 0028-1042. PMID 15241603.
124.Jump up ^ Ham, Ken (November 1983). "Creation Evangelism (Part II of Relevance of Creation)". Ex Nihilo (Creation Science Foundation) 6 (2): 17. ISSN 0819-1530. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "Why has the Lord raised up Creation Science ministries worldwide? Why is it necessary to have such organizations? One thing we have come to realise in Creation Science is that 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."
"[...]"
"It is also worth noting the comment in the book, ‘By Their Blood-Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century’ (Most Media) by James and Marti Helfi, on page 49 and 50: ‘New philosophies and theologies from the West also helped to erode Chinese confidence in Christianity. A new wave of so-called missionaries from mainline Protestant denominations came teaching evolution and a non-supernatural view of the Bible. Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Northern Baptist schools were especially hard hit. Bertrand Russell came from England preaching atheism and socialism. Destructive books brought by such teachers further undermined orthodox Christianity. The Chinese Intelligentsia who had been schooled by Orthodox Evangelical Missionaries were thus softened for the advent of Marxism.’ Evolution is destroying the Church and society, and Christians need to be awakened to that fact!" [emphasis in the original]
125.Jump up ^ Curtis, Gary N. "Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences". The Fallacy Files. Greencastle, IN: Gary Curtis. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "…I want to list seventeen summary statements which, if true, provide abundant reason why the reader should reject evolution and accept special creation as his basic world-view. …"
"13. Belief in special creation has a salutary influence on mankind, since it encourages responsible obedience to the Creator and considerate recognition of those who were created by Him. …"
"16. Belief in evolution and animal kinship leads normally to selfishness, aggressiveness, and fighting between groups, as well as animalistic attitudes and behaviour by individuals." — Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (Creation-Life Publishers, 1972), pp. vi–viii
126.Jump up ^ Johnson 1993, p. 69. Johnson cites three pages spent in Isaac Asimov's New Guide to Science that take creationists to task, while only spending one half page on evidence of evolution.
127.Jump up ^ Timmer, John (May 7, 2008). "Evolution: what's the real controversy?". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
128.Jump up ^ Wise, Kurt. "The Discontinuity of Life". Answers in Genesis. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
129.Jump up ^ Luskin, Casy (May 12, 2009), "A Primer on the Tree of Life", Evolution News & Views (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute), retrieved 2014-08-06
130.Jump up ^ Morris, Henry M. (May 2002). "Evolution Versus the People" (PDF). Back to Genesis (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research) (161): a–c. OCLC 26390403. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
131.Jump up ^ Stringer & Andrews 2005
132.Jump up ^ Relethford 2004
133.Jump up ^ "Toumaï the Human Ancestor". All Things Considered (NPR). July 10, 2002. Archived from the original on 2002-08-05. Retrieved 2009-02-21.
134.Jump up ^ Britten, Roy J. (October 15, 2002). "Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels". PNAS (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences) 99 (21): 13633–13635. Bibcode:2002PNAS...9913633B. doi:10.1073/pnas.172510699. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 129726. PMID 12368483. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
135.Jump up ^ Varki, Ajit; Altheide, Tasha K. (December 2005). "Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack" (PDF). Genome Research (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press) 15 (12): 1746–1758. doi:10.1101/gr.3737405. ISSN 1549-5469. PMID 16339373. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
136.Jump up ^ Hecht, Jeff (May 19, 2003). "Chimps are human, gene study implies". New Scientist (Reed Business Information). ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-08-27. Wildman, Derek E.; Uddin, Monica; Guozhen Liu et al. (June 10, 2003). "Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo". PNAS (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences) 100 (12): 7181–7188. doi:10.1073/pnas.1232172100. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 165850. PMID 12766228. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
137.Jump up ^ Foley, Jim (April 30, 2003). "Was Java Man a gibbon?". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
138.Jump up ^ Isaak 2007: See disputes over the classification of Neanderthals.
139.Jump up ^ Foley, Jim (October 28, 2005). "Comparison of all skulls". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
140.Jump up ^ Morris 1985, pp. 78–90
141.Jump up ^ Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York & International Bible Students Association 1985, pp. 57–59
142.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (May 1994). "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past". Natural History (Research Triangle Park, NC: Natural History Magazine, Inc.) 103 (4): 8–15. ISSN 0028-0712. Retrieved 2014-08-27. Gould quotes from Hayward 1985.
143.Jump up ^ Fordyce, R. Ewan; Barnes, Lawrence G. (May 1994). "The Evolutionary History of Whales and Dolphins". Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences (Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews) 22: 419–455. Bibcode:1994AREPS..22..419F. doi:10.1146/annurev.ea.22.050194.002223. ISSN 1545-4495.
144.Jump up ^ Hoagland, Dodson & Hauck 2001, p. 298
145.Jump up ^ Sarfati, Jonathan (December 2003). "Biblical chronogenealogies". TJ (Acacia Ridge, Queensland: Creation Science Foundation) 17 (3): 14–18. ISSN 1446-2648. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
146.Jump up ^ Hasel, Gerhard F. (1980). "The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11". Origins (Loma Linda, CA: Geoscience Research Institute) 7 (2): 53–70. ISSN 0093-7495. Retrieved 2012-06-05.
147.Jump up ^ del Peloso, E. F.; da Silva, L.; de Mello, G. F. Porto (April 2005). "The age of the Galactic thin disk from Th/Eu nucleocosmochronology". Astronomy and Astrophysics (Les Ulis: EDP Sciences; European Southern Observatory) 434 (1): 275–300. arXiv:astro-ph/0411698. Bibcode:2005A&A...434..275D. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20047060. ISSN 0004-6361.
148.Jump up ^ Humphreys, D. Russell (October 2002). "Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World" (PDF). Impact (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research) (352): i–iv. OCLC 8153605. Retrieved 2014-05-08.
149.Jump up ^ Henke, Kevin R. (June 20, 2010). "Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion 'Dates': Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27. Original version: March 17, 2005; Revisions: November 24, 2005; July 25, 2006 and June 20, 2010.
150.Jump up ^ Meert, Joseph G. (February 6, 2003). "R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research". Gondwana Research. Gainesville, FL: Joseph Meert. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
151.Jump up ^ Dating methods discussed were potassium–argon dating, argon–argon dating, rubidium-strontium dating, samarium-neodymium dating, lutetium–hafnium, rhenium-osmium dating, and uranium-lead dating.
152.Jump up ^ Wiens, Roger C. (2002) [First edition 1994]. "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective". American Scientific Affiliation. Ipswich, MA: American Scientific Affiliation. pp. 20–21. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
153.Jump up ^ Chang, Kenneth (February 21, 2006). "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
154.^ Jump up to: a b Pieret, John, ed. (October 31, 2006). "The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2007-01-23.
155.Jump up ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (September 27, 2003). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA113: Quote mining". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2007-12-27. Dunford, Mike (July 2, 2007). "A new (mis)take on an old paper". The Questionable Authority (Blog). ScienceBlogs LLC. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Myers, PZ (September 11, 2004). "I'm shocked, shocked to find that quote mining is going on in there!". Pharyngula.org (Blog). Morris, MN: PZ Myers. Archived from the original on 2004-09-16. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
156.Jump up ^ Stear, John (May 16, 2005). "The incomprehensible creationist - the Darwin 'eye' quote revisited". No Answers in Genesis!. Melbourne: Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
157.Jump up ^ "The Panda's Thumb: Quote Mines Archives". The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
158.Jump up ^ Phillips 2006
159.^ Jump up to: a b Annas, George J. (May 25, 2006). "Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom". The New England Journal of Medicine (Waltham, MA: Massachusetts Medical Society) 354 (21): 2277–2281. doi:10.1056/NEJMlim055660. ISSN 0028-4793. PMID 16723620. Retrieved 2012-07-01. "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned."
160.Jump up ^ See: List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 83.
The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. The four-day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7,733 signatories from scientists opposing ID.
AAAS 2002. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
More than 70,000 Australian scientists "...urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."
National Center for Science Education: List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences.
161.Jump up ^ Via, Sara (Lecturer); Holman, Emmett (Respondent) (April 20, 2006). The Origin of Species: What Do We Really Know? (Speech). AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion. Washington, D.C. Archived from the original on 2006-04-21. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
162.Jump up ^ Woods 2005, pp. 67–114, Chapter five: "The Church and Science"
163.Jump up ^ * Morris, Henry M. (January 1982). "Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past". Acts & Facts (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research) 11 (1). ISSN 1094-8562. Retrieved 2007-01-20.
164.Jump up ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (November 25, 2005). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA114: Creationist scientists". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
165.Jump up ^ Ayala, Francisco J. (January–February 1977). "'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'". Journal of Heredity (Oxford University Press; American Genetic Association) 68 (1): 3, 9. ISSN 0022-1503. Ayala stated that "Dobzhansky was a religious man."
166.Jump up ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (February 22, 2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA114.22: Pasteur and creationism". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
167.Jump up ^ Robinson, Bruce A. (February 11, 2014) [Originally published November 28, 1999]. "Conflicts & occasional agreements in 'truth' between science and religion". ReligiousTolerance.org. Kingston, Ontario: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
168.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (May 15, 2006). "Why I Won't Debate Creationists". RichardDawkins.net. Washington, D.C.: Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Archived from the original on 2007-07-13. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
169.^ Jump up to: a b c Shermer, Michael (May 10, 2004). "Then a Miracle Occurs: An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith". eSkeptic (The Skeptics Society). ISSN 1556-5696. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
170.Jump up ^ Pigliucci 2002, p. 102
171.Jump up ^ Luvan, Dylan (September 24, 2012). "Bill Nye warns: Creation views threaten US science". Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
172.Jump up ^ "Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children" on YouTube
173.Jump up ^ Boyle, Alan (February 5, 2014). "Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate". NBC News. Retrieved 2014-02-06.
174.Jump up ^ Kopplin, Zack (February 4, 2014). "Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists". The Guardian (London: Guardian Media Group). Retrieved 2014-02-06.
175.Jump up ^ "Bill Nye debates Ken Ham FULL - Comments Enabled" on YouTube
176.Jump up ^ Shermer 2002, p. 153
177.Jump up ^ "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
178.Jump up ^ Humes, Edward (February 18, 2007). "Unintelligent designs on Darwin". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Pittsburgh, PA: Tribune-Review Publishing Company). Retrieved 2014-08-27.
179.Jump up ^ Le Page, Michael (April 19, 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist (Reed Business Information) 198 (2652): 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
180.Jump up ^ Hecht, Jeff (August 19, 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?". New Scientist (Reed Business Information) 191 (2565): 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
181.^ Jump up to: a b Pitock, Todd (June 21, 2007). "Science and Islam in Conflict". Discover (Waukesha, WI: Kalmbach Publishing) 28 (6): 36–45. ISSN 0274-7529. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
182.^ Jump up to: a b c Katz, Gregory (February 16, 2008). "Clash Over Creationism Is Evolving In Europe's Schools". The Tampa Tribune (Tampa, FL: Tampa Media Group, Inc.). Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
183.^ Jump up to: a b c Edis, Taner (November–December 1999). "Cloning Creationism in Turkey". Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education) 19 (6): 30–35. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
184.Jump up ^ "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension". BBC News (London: BBC). September 9, 2004. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
185.Jump up ^ Highfield, Roger (October 2, 2007). "Creationists rewrite natural history". The Daily Telegraph (London: Telegraph Media Group). Retrieved 2008-02-17.
186.Jump up ^ Blancke, Stefaan (December 2010). "Creationism in the Netherlands". Zygon (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell) 45 (4): 791–816. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01134.x. ISSN 0591-2385. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
187.Jump up ^ "Recognition for Our Noodly Friend". New Scientist (Feedback) (Reed Business Information) 196 (2629): 112. November 10, 2007. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(07)62868-1. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
188.Jump up ^ "'Evolution abroad'". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. March 4, 2011. Retrieved 2014-05-02.
189.Jump up ^ Numbers 1998
190.Jump up ^ Hennessy, Carly (May 30, 2010). "Creationism to be taught in Queensland classrooms". Herald Sun (Melbourne: The Herald and Weekly Times). Retrieved 2010-07-22.
191.Jump up ^ Plimer 1994
192.Jump up ^ Campbell, Richard (producer); Smith, Robyn (researcher); Plimer, Ian (July 17, 2007). "'Telling Lies for God'? One Man's Crusade". Quantum. Transcript. Retrieved 2008-02-05.
193.Jump up ^ "In the beginning". The Economist (London: The Economist Newspaper Limited). April 19, 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-25. This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.
194.^ Jump up to: a b c Burton, Elise K. (May–June 2010). "Teaching Evolution in Muslim States:Iran and Saudi Arabia Compared". Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education) 30 (3): 25–29. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-01-13.
Citations[edit]
Barbour, Ian G. (1997) [Originally published 1990 as Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures, 1989–1991, Volume 1]. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (Revised and expanded ed.). San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-060938-9. LCCN 97006294. OCLC 36417827.
Burns, Edward M.; Ralph, Philip Lee; Lerner, Robert E.; Standish, Meacham (1982). World Civilizations: Their History and Their Culture (Sixth ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-95077-8. LCCN 81018858. OCLC 7998534.
Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. Illustrations by Liz Pyle (1st American ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-465-01606-5. LCCN 85004960. OCLC 802616493.
Dawkins, Richard (1995). River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Illustrations by Lalla Ward. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8. LCCN 94037146. OCLC 31376584.
Dembski, William A. (1998). The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-62387-1. LCCN 98003020. OCLC 38551103.
Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London; New York: Michael Joseph; Viking Penguin. ISBN 0-7181-3430-3. LCCN 92196964. OCLC 26502431.
Dewey, John (1994). "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy". In Gardner, Martin. Great Essays in Science. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-853-8. LCCN 93035453. OCLC 28846489.
Dixon, Thomas (2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929551-7. LCCN 2008023565. OCLC 269622437.
Gray, Asa (1876). Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism. New York: D. Appleton & Company. LCCN 04005631. OCLC 774014. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Ham, Ken (1987). "Evolution is Religion". the Lie: Evolution. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. ISBN 0-89051-158-6. LCCN 00108776. OCLC 228478705. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
Hayward, Alan (1985). Creation and Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies. London: Triangle. ISBN 028104158X. LCCN 85170017. OCLC 733091884.
Hoagland, Mahlon B.; Dodson, Bert; Hauck, Judith (2001). Exploring the Way Life Works: The Science of Biology. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. ISBN 0-7637-1688-X. LCCN 00067790. OCLC 45487537.
Hodge, Charles (1874). "What is Darwinism?". New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Company. LCCN 06012878. OCLC 1004320. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Huls, Jessica; Baker, Catherine (2006). Miller, James B., ed. A Study Guide for The Evolution Dialogues: Science, Christianity, and the Quest for Understanding (PDF) (Study guide). Feedback by Stephen Kolderup. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science: Program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion. OCLC 526547019. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1902) [Originally published 1894]. "An Episcopal Trilogy [1887]". Science and Christian Tradition: Essays V. New York: D. Appleton & Company. pp. 126–159. ISBN 978-1-4179-7372-9. LCCN 41030619. OCLC 634917253. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Isaak, Mark (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook (Rev. ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24926-4. LCCN 2006047492. OCLC 69241583.
Johnson, Phillip E. (1993). Darwin on Trial (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1324-1. LCCN 93029217. OCLC 28889094.
Johnson, Phillip E. (1998) [Originally published 1995]. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1929-0. LCCN 95012620. OCLC 705966918.
Larson, Edward J. (2003). Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515470-3. LCCN 2003269591. OCLC 52478644.
Larson, Edward J. (2004). Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. New York: Modern Library. ISBN 0-679-64288-9. LCCN 2003064888. OCLC 53483597.
Morris, Henry M., ed. (1974). Scientific Creationism. Prepared by the technical staff and consultants of the Institute for Creation Research. San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers. ISBN 0-89-051004-0. LCCN 74014160. OCLC 1556752.
Morris, Henry M., ed. (1985). Scientific Creationism. Prepared by the technical staff and consultants of the Institute for Creation Research (2nd ed.). El Cajon, CA: Master Books. ISBN 0-89-051003-2. LCCN 92248659. OCLC 37546530.
National Academy of Sciences (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-06406-6. LCCN 99006259. OCLC 43803228. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
National Academy of Sciences; Institute of Medicine (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN 978-0-309-10586-6. LCCN 2007015904. OCLC 123539346. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
Nelkin, Dorothy (2000) [Originally published 1982; New York: W. W. Norton & Company]. The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools. Lincoln, NE: toExcel Press. ISBN 0-595-00194-7. OCLC 45207227.
Numbers, Ronald L. (1992). The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (1st ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-679-40104-0. LCCN 91029562. OCLC 24318343.
Numbers, Ronald L. (1998). Darwinism Comes to America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-19312-1. LCCN 98016212. OCLC 38747194.
Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0. LCCN 2006043675. OCLC 69734583.
Phillips, Kevin (2006). American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-03486-X. LCCN 2005056361. OCLC 64565613.
Pigliucci, Massimo (2002). Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 0-87893-659-9. LCCN 2002005190. OCLC 49530100.
Plimer, Ian (1994). Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism. Milsons Point, NSW: Random House Australia. ISBN 0-09-182852-X. LCCN 94237744. OCLC 32608689.
Popper, Karl (1976) ["First published as 'Autobiography of Karl Popper' in The Philosophy of Karl Popper ... by the Open Court Publishing Co., Illinois, 1974."]. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (Rev. ed.). London: Fontana. ISBN 0-00634-116-0. LCCN 78300832. OCLC 2927208.
Relethford, John H. (2004) [Originally published 2003]. Reflections of Our Past: How Human History is Revealed in Our Genes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3958-8. LCCN 2006272323. OCLC 52350687.
Ruse, Michael (1999). Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-46706-X. LCCN 98041969. OCLC 39887080.
Salhany, Roger E. (1986). The Origin of Rights. Toronto: Carswell. ISBN 0-459-38750-2. LCCN 86177651. OCLC 13735694.
Scott, Eugenie (2005) [Originally published 2004; Westport, CT: Greenwood Press]. Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Foreword by Niles Eldredge (1st pbk. ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24650-0. LCCN 2005048649. OCLC 60420899.
Shermer, Michael (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. Foreword by Stephen Jay Gould (Rev. and expanded ed.). New York: A. W. H. Freeman and Company/Owl Books. ISBN 0-8050-7089-3. LCCN 2002068784. OCLC 49874665.
Stringer, Chris; Andrews, Peter (2005). The Complete World of Human Evolution. London; New York: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05132-1. LCCN 2004110563. OCLC 57484734.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York; International Bible Students Association (1985). Life—How did it get here?: By evolution or by creation? (1st ed.). Brooklyn, NY: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. LCCN 85195595. OCLC 12673992.
Witham, Larry A. (2002). "From Broadway to Biophilia". Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515045-7. LCCN 2002022028. OCLC 49031009.
Woods, Thomas E., Jr. (2005). How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing. ISBN 0-89526-038-7. LCCN 2005007380. OCLC 58720707.
Zacharias, Ravi K. (2000). Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message. Nashville, TN: Word Publishing. ISBN 0-8499-1437-X. LCCN 00039920. OCLC 44026449.
Further reading[edit]
BooksBurian, Richard M. (1994). "Dobzhansky on Evolutionary Dynamics: Some Questions about His Russian Background". In Adams, Mark B. The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky: Essays on His Life and Thought in Russia and America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03479-6. LCCN 93042144. OCLC 29478000.
Butler, Samuel (1911) [Originally published 1879]. Evolution, Old and New; Or, the theories of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck, as compared with that of Charles Darwin (New (the Third) ed.). London: A. C. Fifield. OCLC 54166072. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Darwin, Charles (1996). Beer, Gillian, ed. On the Origin of Species. The World's Classics. Introduction by Gillian Beer. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-281783-3. LCCN 95008377. OCLC 7136063.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1982) [Originally published 1937]. Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia Classics in Evolution Series; Columbia Biological Series, no. 11. Introduction by Stephen Jay Gould. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-05475-0. LCCN 82004278. OCLC 8346156.
Haught, John F. (2010). Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life (1st ed.). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-23285-6. LCCN 2009033748. OCLC 430056870.
Henig, Robin Marantz (2000). The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, The Father of Genetics. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-97765-7. LCCN 00024341. OCLC 43648512.
Mayr, Ernst (1985). The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. ISBN 0-67-436445-7. LCCN 81013204. OCLC 7875904.
Miller, James B., ed. (2001). An Evolving Dialogue: Theological and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-349-7. LCCN 00054513. OCLC 45668855.
Morris, Henry M. (1963). The Twilight of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. ISBN 0-8010-5862-7. LCCN 63021471. OCLC 500684639.
Sagan, Carl (1995). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1st ed.). New York: Random House. ISBN 0-39-453512-X. LCCN 95034076. OCLC 367445582.
Smith, Maynard (1969). "The status of neo-Darwinism". In Waddington, C. H. Towards a Theoretical Biology. 2. Sketches. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. LCCN 68019881. OCLC 769099892. An International Union of Biological Sciences Symposium, August 1967.
Strobel, Lee, ed. (2004). The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God (1st ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-24144-8. LCCN 2003023566. OCLC 53398125.
JournalsHull, David L. (October 1999). "The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper". Biology and Philosophy (Kluwer Academic Publishers) 14 (4): 481–504. doi:10.1023/A:1006554919188. ISSN 0169-3867. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Morris, Steven L. (September–December 2005). "Creationism and the Laws of Thermodynamics". Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education) 25 (5–6): 31–32. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Pennock, Robert T. (September 2003). "Creationism and intelligent design". Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics (Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews) 4: 143–163. doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400. ISSN 1545-293X. PMID 14527300.
Popper, Karl (August 21, 1980). "Evolution". New Scientist (Letter to the editor) (Reed Business Information) 87 (1215): 611. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Scott, Eugenie (October 1997). "Antievolution and creationism in the United States". Annual Review of Anthropology (Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews) 26: 263–289. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.263. ISSN 0084-6570.
WebIsaak, Mark, ed. (2006). "An Index to Creationist Claims". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Tippett, Krista (host); Moore, James (February 5, 2009). "Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin". Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett (Transcript). NPR. Retrieved 2014-07-25.
External links[edit]
 Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Introduction to Paleoanthropology
"Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism" – by Molleen Matsumura and Louise Mead, National Center for Science Education
  


Categories: Creationism
Evolution and religion
Intelligent design controversies















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Български
Català
فارسی
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Bahasa Melayu
Português
Română
Slovenščina
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 27 March 2015, at 19:07.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy












Creation–evolution controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Creation-evolution controversy)
Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Creationism
Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" on the Sistine Chapel ceiling
History ·
 Neo-creationism
 
Types
Young Earth
Old Earth  (Day-age ·
 Gap ·
 Progressive ·
 Evolutionary)
 
 Intelligent design

Biblical cosmology

Book of Genesis  (Creation narrative ·
 Framework interpretation ·
 As an allegory)
 
 Omphalos hypothesis

Creation science

Baraminology ·
 Flood geology ·
 Creationist cosmologies ·
 Intelligent design
 
Creation–evolution controversy

History ·
 Creation myth ·
 Public education ·
 "Teach the Controversy"
 
Religious views


Creation
Jainism and non-creationism

Evolution
Theistic evolution
Buddhist ·
 Hindu ·
 Islamic ·
 Jewish ·
 Mormon
 

Category Category ·
 Portal Portal ·
 Wikipedia book Book
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   



 A satirical cartoon from 1882, parodying Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, on the publication of The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms (1881)
The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) involves a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. This debate rages most publicly in the United States, and to a lesser extent in Europe and elsewhere,[1] often portrayed as part of a culture war.[2]
The level of support for evolution is extremely high within the scientific community and in academia, with 95% of scientists supporting evolution.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Support for Abrahamic religions' accounts or other creationist alternatives is very low among scientists in general, and virtually nonexistent among scientists in the relevant fields.[9]
Christian fundamentalists dispute the evidence of common descent of humans and other animals as demonstrated in modern paleontology, genetics, histology and cladistics and those other sub-disciplines which are based upon the conclusions of modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and other related fields. They argue for the Abrahamic accounts of creation, framing them as reputable science ("creation science"). While the controversy has a long history,[10] today it is mainly over what constitutes good science education,[11][12] with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education.[13][14][15][16][17]
A 2014 Gallup survey reports, "More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades. Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process. However, the percentage who say God was not involved is rising."[18]
The debate is sometimes portrayed as being between science and religion, but 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[19]


Contents  [hide]
1 History 1.1 Contemporary reaction to Darwin
1.2 Creationism in theology 1.2.1 Development of creationism in the United States
1.2.2 British creationism

2 United States legal challenges and their consequences 2.1 Butler Act and Scopes monkey trial
2.2 Epperson v. Arkansas
2.3 Daniel v. Waters
2.4 Creation science 2.4.1 Court cases 2.4.1.1 McLean v. Arkansas
2.4.1.2 Edwards v. Aguillard

2.5 Intelligent design 2.5.1 Kansas evolution hearings
2.5.2 Dover trial
2.5.3 Texas Board of Education support for intelligent design
2.5.4 Recent developments

3 Viewpoints 3.1 Young Earth creationism
3.2 Old Earth creationism
3.3 Neo-creationism
3.4 Theistic evolution
3.5 Agnostic evolution
3.6 Materialistic evolution
4 Arguments relating to the definition and limits of science 4.1 Definitions
4.2 Limitations of scientific endeavor
4.3 Theory vs. fact
4.4 Falsifiability
4.5 Conflation of science and religion
4.6 Appeal to consequences
5 Disputes relating to science 5.1 Biology 5.1.1 Common descent 5.1.1.1 Human evolution
5.1.2 Macroevolution
5.1.3 Transitional fossils
5.2 Geology
5.3 Other sciences 5.3.1 Cosmology
5.3.2 Nuclear physics
5.4 Misrepresentations of science 5.4.1 Quote mining

6 Public policy issues 6.1 Science education
6.2 Freedom of speech
7 Issues relating to religion 7.1 Religion and historical scientists
8 Forums 8.1 Debates
8.2 Political lobbying
8.3 Media coverage
9 Outside the United States 9.1 Europe
9.2 Australia
9.3 Islamic countries
10 See also
11 References
12 Citations
13 Further reading
14 External links

History[edit]
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 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[by whom?] as a threat to the existing "fixed" social order, and both church and state repressed them.[20] Conditions gradually eased, and in 1844 Robert Chambers's controversial Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation popularised the idea of 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—groups opposed to the privileges of the established church—favoured its ideas of God acting through such laws.[21][22]
Contemporary reaction to Darwin[edit]
See also: Reactions to On the Origin of Species
“ 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 [23]




 A satirical image of Darwin as an ape from 1871 reflects part of the social controversy over whether humans and apes share a common lineage.
The publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 brought scientific credibility to evolution, and made it a respectable field of study.[24]
Despite the intense interest in the religious implications of Darwin's book, the Church of England's attention was largely diverted by theological controversy over higher criticism set out in Essays and Reviews (1860) 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.[25] Other Christians opposed 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.[26] 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 (1876). 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.[27] Gray said that investigation of physical causes was not 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."[28] 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. Darwin also took this position,[26] but prominent atheists including Edward Aveling and Ludwig Büchner also took up evolution and it was criticised, in the words of one reviewer, as "tantamount to atheism."[29][30][31][32] Following the lead of figures such as St. George Jackson Mivart and John Augustine Zahm, Roman Catholics in the United States became accepting of evolution itself while ambivalent towards natural selection and stressing humanity's divinely imbued soul.[33] The Catholic Church never condemned evolution, and initially the more conservative-leaning Catholic leadership in Rome held back, but gradually adopted a similar position.[33][34]
During the late 19th century evolutionary ideas were most strongly disputed by the premillennialists, who held to a prophesy of the imminent return of Christ based on a form of Biblical literalism, and were convinced that the Bible would be invalidated if any error in the Scriptures was conceded. However, hardly any of the critics of evolution at that time were as concerned about geology, freely granting scientists any time they needed before the Edenic creation to account for scientific observations, such as fossils and geological findings.[35] In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the fossil record.[36] Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Biblical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.[36] Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, or allowed that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.[37]
Science professors at liberal northeastern universities[which?] almost immediately embraced the theory of evolution and introduced it to their students. However, some people in parts of the south and west of the United States, which had been influenced by the preachings of Christian fundamentalist evangelicals, rejected the theory as immoral.[38]
Creationism in theology[edit]



 A simplified 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,[citation needed] but debate had started to develop over 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 creationism or gap creationism. The Neptunianist catastrophism, which had earlier proposed that a universal flood could explain all geological features, gave way to ideas of geological gradualism (introduced in 1795 by James Hutton) 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 (first described in the 1750s and put on a firm footing by Georges Cuvier in 1796) 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 regard science and theology as 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,[citation needed] and Roman Catholics came around to acceptance of human evolution subject to direct creation of the soul. In the United States the development of the racist Social Darwinian eugenics movement led a number of Catholics to reject evolution.[26] In this enterprise they received little aid from conservative Christians in Great Britain and Europe. In Britain this has been attributed[by whom?] to their minority status leading to a more tolerant, less militant theological tradition.[39]
Development of creationism in the United States[edit]
At first in the U.S., 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"—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 which had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of the 1920s and 1930s.[40] The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[41]
Up until the early mid-20th century[when?] mainline denominations within the United States showed little official resistance to evolution. 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 receiving secondary education increased rapidly, and parents who had fundamentalist tendencies or who opposed social ideas of what was called "survival of the fittest" had real concerns about what their children were learning about evolution.[26]
British creationism[edit]
The main British creationist movement in this[which?] period, the Evolution Protest Movement (EPM), formed in the 1930s[39] out of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain (founded in 1865 in response to the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 and of Essays and Reviews in 1860). The Victoria Institute had the stated objective of defending "the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture ... against the opposition of Science falsely so called." Although it did not officially oppose evolution, it attracted a number of scientists sceptical of Darwinism, including John William Dawson and Arnold Guyot.[42] It reached a high point of 1,246 members in 1897, but quickly plummeted to less than one third of that figure in the first two decades of the twentieth century.[42] Though it was anti-evolution at first, the institute joined the theistic evolution camp by the 1920s, which led to the development of the Evolution Protest Movement in reaction. Amateur ornithologist Douglas Dewar, the main driving force within the EPM, published a booklet entitled Man: A Special Creation (1936) and engaged in public speaking and debates with supporters of evolution. In the late 1930s he resisted 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, unwaveringly promoting gap creationism, and reducing the membership to lethargic inactivity. [43] As a result of being captured by young Earth creationists (YEC) in the 1970s[citation needed] it was renamed Creation Science Movement (CSM) in 1980, under the chairmanship of David Rosevear, who holds a Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry from the University of Bristol. By the mid-1980s the CSM had formally incorporated flood geology into its "Deed of Trust" (which all officers had to sign) and condemned gap creationism and day-age creationism as unscriptural.
United States legal challenges and their consequences[edit]
In 1925, Tennessee passed a statute called the Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in all schools in the state. Later that year, a similar law was passed in Mississippi, and likewise, Arkansas in 1927. In 1968, these "anti-monkey" laws were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States as unconstitutional, "because they established a religious doctrine violating both the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution."[44]
The modern struggle of religious fundamentalists accepting creationism, to get their rejection of evolution accepted as legitimate science within education institutions in the U.S., has been highlighted through a series of important court cases.
Butler Act and Scopes monkey trial[edit]
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.[45] 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 George William Hunter's A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (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 but 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).[46]
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."[47] 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).[48]
The interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution 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."[49] 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.[50][51][52][53]
Epperson v. Arkansas[edit]
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, Arkansas, 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."[54] 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."[55] But the Supreme Court decision also suggested that creationism could be taught in addition to evolution.[56]
Daniel v. Waters[edit]
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. 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[edit]
Main article: Creation science
As biologists grew more and more confident in evolution as the central defining principle of biology,[57][58] 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.[59] 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.[60]
In 1961, the first major modern creationist book was published: John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris' influential The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. The authors argued that creation was literally 6 days long, that humans lived concurrently with dinosaurs, and that God created each 'kind' of life individually.[61][62] On the strength of this, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at fundamentalist churches, colleges, and conferences.[61] Morris' Creation Science Research Center (CSRC) rushed publication of biology textbooks that promoted creationism.[63] 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.[64] During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the terms "scientific creationism" and "creation science."[65] The "flood geology" theory effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views."[66][67]
Court cases[edit]
McLean v. Arkansas[edit]
Main article: McLean v. Arkansas
In 1982, another case in Arkansas ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Act 590) was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause. Much of the transcript of the case was lost, including evidence from Francisco Ayala.
Edwards v. Aguillard[edit]
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 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 was not appealed to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals, creationists instead thinking that they had better chances with Edwards v. Aguillard. In 1987 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana act was also unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, it stated 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.[68]
Intelligent design[edit]



 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.[69]
Main article: Intelligent design
See also: Neo-creationism, Intelligent design movement, Teach the Controversy and Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns
In response to Edwards v. Aguillard, the neo-creationist intelligent design movement was formed around the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. It 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."[70] 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 bodies explicitly rejecting Intelligent design).
Kansas evolution hearings[edit]
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, May 5 to May 12, 2005. The Kansas State Board of Education eventually adopted the institute's Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plans over objections of the State Board Science Hearing Committee, and electioneering on behalf of conservative Republican Party candidates for the Board.[71] On August 1, 2006, four of the six 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,[72] and on February 13, 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."[73]
Dover trial[edit]
Main article: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Following the Edwards v. Aguillard decision by the United States Supreme Court, 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.[74] 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."[75]
The December 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial[76] supported the viewpoint of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and other science and education professional organizations that Teach the Controversy proponents seek to undermine the teaching of evolution[6][77] while promoting intelligent design,[78][79][80] and to advance an education policy for U.S. public schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula.[76][81]
Texas Board of Education support for intelligent design[edit]
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'."[82] The 2009 Texas Board of Education hearings were chronicled in the 2012 documentary The Revisionaries.
Recent developments[edit]
See also: Creation and evolution in public education and Intelligent design in politics
The scientific consensus on the origins and evolution of life continues to be challenged by creationist organizations and religious groups who desire to uphold some form of creationism (usually young Earth creationism, creation science, old Earth creationism or intelligent design) as an alternative. Most of these groups are literalist Christians who believe the biblical account is inerrant, and more than one sees the debate as part of the Christian mandate to evangelize.[83][84] 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.[85]
More recently, the intelligent design movement has attempted an anti-evolution position that avoids any direct appeal to religion. Scientists argue that intelligent design does not represent any research program within the mainstream scientific community, and is still essentially creationism.[9][86] Its leading proponent, the Discovery Institute, made widely publicised claims that it was a new science, although 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."[87] On August 1, 2005, U.S. President George W. 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."[11][88]
Viewpoints[edit]
In the controversy a number of divergent opinions can be recognised, regarding both the acceptance of scientific theories and religious practice.
Young Earth creationism[edit]
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 biblical literalism.
Old Earth creationism[edit]
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 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[edit]
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. They wish 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[edit]
Main article: Theistic evolution
See also: Naturalism (philosophy), Catholic Church and evolution 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; 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 F. 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[edit]
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.[89]
Materialistic evolution[edit]
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).[90] It is a view championed by 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[edit]
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.[91] 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.[92] Creationists claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded and that scientific work is paradigmatically close-minded.[93]
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.[94] Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form of pseudoscience.[95]
Definitions[edit]

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
—National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism[96]
Limitations of scientific endeavor[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (June 2008)
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[97]

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. What I believe in my heart must make sense in my mind. In other words, truth is not only a matter of offense, in that it makes certain assertions. It is also a matter of defense in that it must be able to make a cogent and sensible response to the counterpoints that are raised. Truth by definition excludes.
—Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message[98]
Theory vs. fact[edit]
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.[99] 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. In science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."[100]
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[101]
Falsifiability[edit]
Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience:[102][103] testable theories are scientific, but those that are untestable are not.[104] 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."[105]
In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping,"[106] 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.[107] 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)."[108]
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."[102] 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.[109]
In fact, Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.[110] 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."[111]
Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiability in science continues.[112] 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."[113][114]
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."[115]
Conflation of science and religion[edit]
See also: Objection to evolution on the basis that it is a religion
Creationists commonly argue against evolution on the grounds that "evolution is a religion; it is not a science,"[116] 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.[117][118] Those that oppose evolution frequently refer to supporters of evolution as "evolutionists" or "Darwinists."[116]
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.[119][120] 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.[121]
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.[122][123]
Appeal to consequences[edit]
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[124] and Henry M. Morris.[125]
Disputes relating to science[edit]
Part of a series on
Evolutionary biology

Diagrammatic representation of the divergence of modern taxonomic groups from their common ancestor.


Key topics[show]





Processes and outcomes[show]




















Natural history[show]















History of evolutionary theory[show]














Fields and applications[show]


























Social implications[show]






Portal icon Evolutionary biology portal ·
 Category Category ·
  Book ·
 Related topics
 
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
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,[126] 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[edit]


                             


 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[edit]
Main article: Common descent
See also: Evidence of common descent and Tree of life (biology)

[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?[127]
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), for all thirty million species.[128][129][130] Other creationists allow evolution of species, but say that it was specific "kinds" or baramin that were created. Thus all bear species may have developed from a common ancestor that was separately created.
Evidence of common descent includes evidence from genetics, fossil records, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution of species, comparative physiology and comparative biochemistry.
Human evolution[edit]
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 26 to 24 Ma, and that by the early Miocene, the adaptive radiation of many different hominoid forms was well underway.[131] 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.[132] 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).[133] Comparisons of DNA show that 99.4 percent of the coding regions are identical in chimpanzees and humans (95–96% overall[134][135]), which is taken as strong evidence of recent common ancestry.[136] 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[137]) or too similar to modern humans to designate them as distinct or transitional forms.[138] Creationists frequently disagree where the dividing lines would be.[139] 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.[54]
Macroevolution[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (June 2008)
Main article: Macroevolution
See also: Speciation
Many creationists 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 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. 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. When taken to court in an 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 (2009) giving evidence for evolution and macroevolution.
Transitional fossils[edit]
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.[140][141] 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 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 used 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 Hayward stated in Creation and Evolution (1985) 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."[142] The evolution of whales has been documented in considerable detail, with Ambulocetus, described as looking like a three-metre long mammalian crocodile, as one of the transitional fossils.[143]
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. 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 pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period. 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.[144]
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[edit]
Main article: Flood geology
See also: 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).[145][undue weight? – discuss][146] 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. 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.[5] 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. The fact that the various methods of dating give essentially identical or near identical readings is not addressed in creationism.
Other sciences[edit]
Cosmology[edit]
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 13.8 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.[147]
Nuclear physics[edit]
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, 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.[148]
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.[149][150]
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]":[151]
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[152]

Misrepresentations of science[edit]
The Discovery Institute has a "formal declaration" titled A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism which has many evangelicals, people from fields irrelevant to biology and geology and few biologists. Many of the biologists who signed have fields not directly related to evolution.[153] Some of the biologists signed were deceived into signing the "declaration." In response, there is Project Steve.
Quote mining[edit]
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.[58] 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.[154][155] 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.[154] Creationists often quote mine Darwin, especially with regard to the seeming improbability of the evolution of the eye, to give support to their views.[156]
The Panda's Thumb blog has some material on quote mining.[157]
Public policy issues[edit]
The creation–evolution controversy has grown in importance in recent years, particularly as a result of the Southern strategy of the Republican Party strategist Kevin Phillips, during the Nixon and Reagan administrations in the U.S. He saw that the African-American Civil Rights Movement had alienated many poor white southern voters of the Bible Belt and set out to capture this electorate through an alliance with the "New Right" Christian right movement.[158]
Science education[edit]
Main article: Creation and evolution in public education
See also: Teach the Controversy
Creationists promoted the idea that evolution is a theory in crisis[6][76] with scientists criticizing evolution[159] 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,[160] reply that there is no scientific controversy and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.[6][159]
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.[161]
Freedom of speech[edit]
Creationists have claimed that preventing them from teaching creationism violates their right of freedom of speech. Court cases (such as Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990) and Bishop v. Aronov (1991)) have upheld school districts' and universities' right to restrict teaching to a specified curriculum.
Issues relating to religion[edit]
See also: Relationship between religion and science, Catholic Church and evolution, Allegorical interpretations of Genesis and Evolutionary argument against naturalism
Religion and historical scientists[edit]
Creationists often argue that Christianity and literal belief in the Bible are either foundationally significant or directly responsible for scientific progress.[162] To that end, Institute for Creation Research founder Henry M. Morris has enumerated scientists such as astronomer and philosopher Galileo Galilei, 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.[163]
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.[164]
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. Geneticist and evolutionary biologist 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.[165] 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.[166]
The Relationship between religion and science 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.[167] 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[edit]
Debates[edit]
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.[168] 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."[169] 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."[169] (see Non-overlapping magisteria). 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."[170]
In September 2012, educator and television personality Bill Nye of Bill Nye the Science Guy fame spoke with the Associated Press and aired his fears about acceptance of creationist theory, believing that teaching children that creationism is the only true answer and without letting them understand the way science works will prevent any future innovation in the world of science.[171][172] In February 2014, Nye defended evolution in the classroom in a debate with creationist Ken Ham on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era.[173][174][175]
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.[169] 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[176]
Political lobbying[edit]
[icon] This section requires expansion. (June 2008)
See also: Politics of creationism and Santorum Amendment
On both sides of the controversy a wide range of organizations are involved at a number of levels in lobbying in an attempt to influence political decisions relating to the teaching of evolution. 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.[177]
Media coverage[edit]
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 (2001) and Coral Ridge Ministries' Darwin's Deadly Legacy (2006)). 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[178]
Outside the United States[edit]



 Views on human evolution in various countries (2008)[179][180]
While the controversy has been prominent in the United States, it has flared up in other countries as well.[181][182][183]
Europe[edit]
Europeans have often regarded the creation–evolution controversy as an American matter.[182] In recent years the conflict has become an issue in other countries including Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Turkey and Serbia.[182][183][184][185][186]
On September 17, 2007, the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) 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 strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy."[187] The Council of Europe firmly rejected creationism.[188]
Australia[edit]
Under the former Queensland state government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in the 1980s Queensland allowed the teaching of creationism in secondary schools.[189] 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.[190] Public lectures have been given in rented rooms at universities, by visiting American speakers.[191][page needed] 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 the University of Melbourne, 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 Roberts had made false and misleading claims, they were not made in the course of trade or commerce, so the case failed.[192]
Islamic countries[edit]
See also: Islamic views on evolution
In recent times, the controversy has become more prominent in Islamic countries.[193] In Egypt, evolution is currently taught in schools, but Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.[181][194] Creation science has also been heavily promoted in Turkey and in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by Harun Yahya.[183] In Iran, traditional practice of Shia Islam isn't preoccupied with Qur'anic literalism as in case of Saudi Wahhabism but ijtihad, many influential Iranian Shi'ite scholars, including several who were closely involved in Iranian Revolution, are not opposed to evolutionary ideas in general, disagreeing that evolution necessarily conflicts with the Muslim mainstream.[194] Iranian pupils since 5th grade of elementary school learn only about evolution, thus portraying geologists and scientists in general as an authoritative voices of scientific knowledge.[194]
See also[edit]
Book icon Book: Evolution
Book: Creationism and Intelligent Design


Portal icon Science portal
Main article: Outline of the creation–evolution controversy
Anti-intellectualism
Clergy Letter Project
Creation and evolution in public education
Evolutionary origin of religions
Hindu views on evolution
History of the creation–evolution controversy
Jainism and non-creationism
Jewish views on evolution
Mormon views on evolution
Objections to evolution
Project Steve
Relationship between religion and science
Stereotypes of Americans
TalkOrigins
Teach the Controversy
Theology of creationism and evolution
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Curry, Andrew (February 27, 2009). "Creationist Beliefs Persist in Europe". Science (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 323 (5918): 1159. doi:10.1126/science.323.5918.1159. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 19251601. "News coverage of the creationism-versus-evolution debate tends to focus on the United States ... But in the past 5 years, political clashes over the issue have also occurred in countries all across Europe. ... 'This isn't just an American problem,' says Dittmar Graf of the Technical University of Dortmund, who organized the meeting."
2.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, pp. 247–263, Chapter 11: "Modern Culture Wars" Ruse 1999, p. 26: "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed [Conflict thesis] ... religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently been very significant factors in the forward movement of science."
3.Jump up ^ Myers, PZ (June 18, 2006). "Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?". Pharyngula (Blog). New York: ScienceBlogs LLC. Retrieved 2013-05-10.
4.Jump up ^ Skoog, Gerald (2007). "An NSTA Evolution Q&A". National Science Teachers Association. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
5.^ Jump up to: a b IAP Member Academies (June 21, 2006). "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution". IAP. Trieste, Italy: The World Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
6.^ Jump up to: a b c d "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-02-21. Retrieved 2014-07-31. "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."
7.Jump up ^ Pinholster, Ginger (February 19, 2006). "AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event" (Press release). St. Louis, MO: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archived from the original on 2006-04-21. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
8.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 83.
9.^ Jump up to: a b Larson 2004, p. 258: "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (June 29, 1987). "Keeping God Out of the Classroom" (PDF). Newsweek (New York: Newsweek LLC): 23–24. ISSN 0028-9604. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientist) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"
10.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, pp. 3–240
11.^ Jump up to: a b Peters, Ted; Hewlett, Martinez (December 22, 2005). "The Evolution Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What?" (PDF). Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary. Evolution Brief E2. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
12.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Context, p. 20.
13.Jump up ^ Slevin, Peter (March 14, 2005). "Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens". The Washington Post. p. A01. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
14.Jump up ^ Renka, Russell D. (November 16, 2005). "The Political Design of Intelligent Design". Renka's Home Page. Round Rock, TX. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
15.Jump up ^ Wilgoren, Jodi (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
16.Jump up ^ Forrest, Barbara (April 2002). "The Newest Evolution of Creationism". Natural History (Research Triangle Park, NC: Natural History Magazine, Inc.) 111 (3): 80. ISSN 0028-0712. Retrieved 2014-06-06.
17.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Introduction, pp. 7–9, also Whether ID Is Science, pp. 64–89, and Promoting Religion, p. 90.
18.Jump up ^ Newport, Frank (June 2, 2014). "In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins". Gallup.Com. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-02.
19.Jump up ^ NAS 2008, p. 12
20.Jump up ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 34–35
21.Jump up ^ van Wyhe, John (2006). "Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist". The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. John van Wyhe. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
22.Jump up ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 321–323, 503–505
23.Jump up ^ Dixon 2008, p. 77
24.Jump up ^ van Wyhe 2006
25.Jump up ^ Hale, Piers (July 2012). "Darwin's Other Bulldog: Charles Kingsley and the Popularisation of Evolution in Victorian England" (PDF). Science & Education (Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media) 21 (7): 977–1013. doi:10.1007/s11191-011-9414-8. ISSN 0926-7220. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
26.^ Jump up to: a b c d AAAS 2006
27.Jump up ^ Baxter, Craig; Darwin Correspondence Project (research collaborator). "Re: Design". Darwin Correspondence Project (Dramatisation script). Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "Dramatisation of the correspondence". Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
28.Jump up ^ Gray 1876
29.Jump up ^ Hodge 1874, p. 177
30.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, p. 14
31.Jump up ^ Burns et al. 1982, p. 965
32.Jump up ^ Huxley 1902
33.^ Jump up to: a b Witham 2002
34.Jump up ^ Barbour 1997, pp. 58, 65
35.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, pp. 13–15
36.^ Jump up to: a b Numbers 1992, p. 17
37.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, p. 18, noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation,[original research?] but these views rarely found expression in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788–1871), David Nevins Lord (1792–1880), and E. G. White (1829–1915). The observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807–1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807–1884); John William Dawson (1820–1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818–1907); George D. Armstrong (1813–1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797–1878); James Dwight Dana (1813–1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and Amherst College geologist, (1793–1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818–1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?–1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838–1922; Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist.
38.Jump up ^ Salhany 1986, p. 32
39.^ Jump up to: a b Numbers 2006, p. 161
40.Jump up ^ Buescher, John. "A History of Fundamentalism". Teachinghistory.org. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University; United States Department of Education. Retrieved 2011-08-15.
41.Jump up ^ Nagata, Judith (June 2001). "Beyond Theology: Toward an Anthropology of 'Fundamentalism'". American Anthropologist (Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association) 103 (2): 481–498. doi:10.1525/aa.2001.103.2.481. JSTOR 683478.
42.^ Jump up to: a b Numbers 2006, p. 162
43.Jump up ^ Numbers 2006, pp. 355–356
44.Jump up ^ Salhany 1986, p. 32–34
45.Jump up ^ Similar legislation was passed in two other states prior to the Scopes trial, in Oklahoma and Florida. The efforts to enact "Butler Acts" in other jurisdictions were abandoned after the Scopes trial. See: Pierce, J. Kingston (August 2000). "Scopes Trial". American History (Leesburg, VA: Weider History Group). ISSN 1076-8866. Retrieved 2014-08-27. Describes the Florida and Oklahoma acts.
Cole, Fay-Cooper (December 31, 2008) [Originally published January 1959]. "50 Years Ago: A Witness at the Scopes Trial". Scientific American. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. ISSN 0036-8733. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
46.Jump up ^ "Decision on Scopes' Appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee". University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law (Primary source). Kansas City, MO: Curators of the University of Missouri. January 17, 1927. Retrieved 2014-08-27. The statute required a minimum fine of $100, and the state Constitution required all fines over $50 to be assessed by a jury.
47.Jump up ^ The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was not, at the time of the Scopes decision in the 1920s, deemed applicable to the states. Thus, Scopes' constitutional defense on establishment grounds rested solely on the state constitution. See: Court Opinion of Scope's Trial 1927. See generally Incorporation doctrine and Everson v. Board of Education (seminal U.S. Supreme Court opinion finally applying the Establishment Clause against states in 1947).
Kerr, Orin (July 26, 2005). "State v. Scopes". The Volokh Conspiracy (Book review). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA School of Law. "The constitutional case was largely based on state constitutional law; this was before most of the Bill of Rights had been incorporated and applied to the states." Review of Edward J. Larson's book Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion (1997). Cantwell v. Connecticut. 1940 Supreme Court case stating that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore applicable against the states.
Cookson 2003, p. 132. Explains incorporation doctrine relative to First Amendment.
"BRIA 7 4 b The 14th Amendment and the 'Second Bill of Rights'". Constitutional Rights Foundation. Los Angeles, CA: Constitutional Rights Foundation. Retrieved 2014-08-27.

48.Jump up ^ The Court accordingly did not address the question of whether the teaching of creationism in the public schools was unconstitutional.
49.Jump up ^ Court Opinion of Scope's Trial 1927. The Court stated in its opinion that "England and Scotland maintained State churches as did some of the Colonies, and it was intended by this clause of the Constitution [the Religious Preference Clause] to prevent any such undertaking in Tennessee."
50.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Context, p. 19.
51.Jump up ^ Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" (PDF). Center for Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
52.Jump up ^ Flank, Lenny (March 2006). "The History of Creationism". TalkOrigins Archive (Post of the Month). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
53.Jump up ^ Elsberry, Wesley R. "The Scopes Trial: Frequently Rebutted Assertions". AntiEvolution.org. Palmetto, FL: Wesley R. Elsberry. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
54.^ Jump up to: a b Nelkin 2000, p. 242
55.Jump up ^ *Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (U.S. November 12, 1968).
56.Jump up ^ Larson 2003, p. 103
57.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, pp. 248, 250
58.^ Jump up to: a b Dobzhansky, Theodosius (March 1973). "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". The American Biology Teacher (McLean, VA: National Association of Biology Teachers) 35 (3): 125–129. doi:10.2307/4444260.
59.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, p. 251
60.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, p. 252
61.^ Jump up to: a b Larson 2004, p. 255
62.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, pp. xi, 200–208
63.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, pp. 284–285
64.Jump up ^ Numbers 1992, pp. 284–286
65.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, pp. 255–256: "Fundamentalists no longer merely denounced Darwinism as false; they offered a scientific-sounding alternative of their own, which they called either 'scientific creationism (as distinct from religious creationism) or 'creation science' (as opposed to evolution science)."
66.Jump up ^ Larson 2004, pp. 254–255
67.Jump up ^ Numbers 1998, pp. 5–6
68.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Introduction, pp. 7–9.
69.Jump up ^ "Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. August 28, 2002. Retrieved 2009-04-07.
70.Jump up ^ "CSC - Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
71.Jump up ^ "Some question group's move with elections nearing". 6 News Lawrence (Lawrence, KS: 6News Lawrence; Lawrence Journal-World). July 7, 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-07-14.
72.Jump up ^ "Evolution's foes lose ground in Kansas". NBCNews.com. Associated Press. August 2, 2006. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
73.Jump up ^ "Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence". International Herald Tribune (New York: The New York Times Company). Associated Press. February 13, 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-05-25. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
74.Jump up ^ "Timeline: How Creationism Has 'Evolved'". People for the American Way. Washington, D.C.: People for the American Way. 2006. Retrieved 2012-05-01.
75.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.
76.^ Jump up to: a b c Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 89, support the view that "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."
77.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Disclaimer, p. 49: "In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."
78.Jump up ^ Mooney, Chris (December 2002). "Survival of the Slickest". The American Prospect (Washington, D.C.) 13 (22). Retrieved 2014-08-27. "ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists 'continue to investigate and critically analyze' aspects of Darwin's theory."
79.Jump up ^ Dembski, William A. (February 27, 2001). "Teaching Intelligent Design -- What Happened When? A Response to Eugenie Scott". Metanexus. New York: Metanexus Institute. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy." Dembski's response to Eugenie Scott's February 12, 2001, essay published by Metanexus, "The Big Tent and the Camel's Nose."
80.Jump up ^ Matzke, Nick (July 11, 2006). "No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists…". The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-05-05. Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.
81.Jump up ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 134.
82.Jump up ^ Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit (April 3, 2009). "New Texas Standards Question Evolution, Fossil Record". Science (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 324 (5923): 25. doi:10.1126/science.324.5923.25a. ISSN 0036-8075. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
83.Jump up ^ Verderame, John (May 10, 2001). "Creation Evangelism: Cutting Through the Excess". Answers in Genesis. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis Ministries International. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
84.Jump up ^ Simon, Stephanie (February 11, 2006). "Their Own Version of a Big Bang". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
85.Jump up ^ Dewey 1994, p. 31, and Wiker 2003, summarizing Gould.
86.Jump up ^ Martz & McDaniel 1987
87.Jump up ^ "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Washington, D.C.: Biological Society of Washington. October 4, 2004. Archived from the original on 2007-09-26. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
88.Jump up ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth (August 3, 2005). "Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-02-03.
89.Jump up ^ Scott 2005, p. 65
90.Jump up ^ Scott 2005, pp. 65–66
91.Jump up ^ Johnson 1998; Hodge 1874, p. 177; Wiker 2003; Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 5. Peters and Hewlett argue that the atheism of many evolutionary supporters must be removed from the debate.
92.Jump up ^ Lenski, Richard E. (September 2000). "Evolution: Fact and Theory". actionbioscience. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Biological Sciences. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
93.Jump up ^ Johnson 1998
94.Jump up ^ Einstein, Albert (November 9, 1930). "Religion and Science". The New York Times Magazine: 1–4. ISSN 0028-7822. Retrieved 2007-01-30.
95.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (January–February 1997). "Is Science a Religion?". The Humanist (Washington, D.C.: American Humanist Association) 57 (1). ISSN 0018-7399. Archived from the original on 2002-08-22. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
96.Jump up ^ NAS 1999, p. 2
97.Jump up ^ NAS 1999, p. 1
98.Jump up ^ Zacharias 2000, p. 55
99.Jump up ^ Johnson 1993, p. 63 Tolson, Jay (September 5, 2005). "Religion in America: Intelligent Design on Trial". USNews.com. Archived from the original on 2006-06-21. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Moran, Laurence (1993). "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Selman v. Cobb County School District, 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).
Dawkins, Richard (December 3, 2004). Richard Dawkins on the Argument for Evolution. Interview with Bill Moyers. Now with Bill Moyers. PBS. Retrieved 2006-01-29.
100.Jump up ^ "Theory". Merriam-Webster (Definition). Chicago, IL: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
101.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (May 1981). "Evolution as Fact and Theory". Discover (Waukesha, WI: Kalmbach Publishing) 2 (5): 34–37. ISSN 0274-7529. Retrieved 2007-01-17.
102.^ Jump up to: a b Numbers 2006, p. 274: "To solve the age-old problem of distinguishing science from metaphysics or pseudoscience, Popper invoked the criterion of falsifiability as a substitute for the less rigorous test of verifiability."
103.Jump up ^ Hansson, Sven Ove (2012) [First published September 3, 2008]. "Science and Pseudo-Science". In Zalta, Edward N. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "Popper described the demarcation problem as the 'key to most of the fundamental problems in the philosophy of science.' He refuted verifiability as a criterion for a scientific theory or hypothesis to be scientific, rather than pseudoscientific or metaphysical. Instead he proposed as a criterion that the theory be falsifiable, or more precisely that 'statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations'."
"Popper presented this proposal as a way to draw the line between statements belonging to the empirical sciences and 'all other statements – whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudoscientific'. It was both an alternative to the logical positivists’ verification criteria and a criterion for distinguishing between science and pseudoscience."
104.Jump up ^ Number 1992, p. 247 Wilkins, John S. (1997). "Evolution and Philosophy: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
105.Jump up ^ Popper 1976, pp. 168, 172, quoted in Kofahl, Robert E. (May 22, 1981). "Popper on Darwinism". Science (Letter) (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 212 (4497): 873. doi:10.1126/science.11643641. ISSN 0036-8075.
106.Jump up ^ Unknown sociologist quoted in Numbers 1992, p. 247
107.Jump up ^ Kofahl, Robert E. (June 1989). "The Hierarchy of Conceptual Levels For Scientific Thought And Research". Creation Research Society Quarterly (Abstract) (Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society) 26 (1). Retrieved 2007-01-29, as quoted by Numbers 1992, p. 247
108.Jump up ^ Lewin, Roger (January 8, 1982). "Where Is the Science in Creation Science?". Science (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 215 (4529): 142–144, 146. Bibcode:1982Sci...215..142L. doi:10.1126/science.215.4529.142. "Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory," wrote Gish in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981). "This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)."
109.Jump up ^ Kofahl 1981
110.Jump up ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (November 2, 2005). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA211.1: Popper on natural selection's testability". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2012-06-05.
111.Jump up ^ Popper, Karl (December 1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers) 32 (3-4): 339–355. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1978.tb01321.x. ISSN 1746-8361. Retrieved 2014-08-27. Massimo Pigliucci (September–October 2004). "Did Popper Refute Evolution?" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer (Amherst, NY: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry). ISSN 0194-6730. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
112.Jump up ^ Ruse 1999, pp. 13–37, which discusses conflicting ideas about science among Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and their disciples.
113.Jump up ^ As quoted by Wallis 2005, p. 32. Also see Dawkins 1986 and Dawkins 1995
114.Jump up ^ Wallis, Claudia (August 7, 2005). "The Evolution Wars". Time. Retrieved 2007-01-31, p. 6. Richard Dawkins quoting J. B. S. Haldane.
115.Jump up ^ Dorman, Clark (January 30, 1996). "McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education". TalkOrigins Archive (Transcription). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2007-01-31.
116.^ Jump up to: a b Ham 1987
117.Jump up ^ Dembski 1998
118.Jump up ^ Morris, Henry M. (February 2001). "Evolution Is Religion—Not Science" (PDF). Impact (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research) (332): i–iv. OCLC 8153605. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
119.Jump up ^ Morris 1974
120.Jump up ^ Wiker, Benjamin D. (July–August 2003). "Part II: The Christian Critics — Does Science Point to God?". Crisis Magazine (Washington, D.C.: Morley Publishing Group). Retrieved 2014-08-27.
121.Jump up ^ Scott 2005
122.Jump up ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (February 15, 2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA611: Evolution sacrosanct?". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
123.Jump up ^ Kutschera, Ulrich; Niklas, Karl J. (June 2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften (Springer Science+Business Media) 91 (6): 255–276. Bibcode:2004NW.....91..255K. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. ISSN 0028-1042. PMID 15241603.
124.Jump up ^ Ham, Ken (November 1983). "Creation Evangelism (Part II of Relevance of Creation)". Ex Nihilo (Creation Science Foundation) 6 (2): 17. ISSN 0819-1530. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "Why has the Lord raised up Creation Science ministries worldwide? Why is it necessary to have such organizations? One thing we have come to realise in Creation Science is that 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."
"[...]"
"It is also worth noting the comment in the book, ‘By Their Blood-Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century’ (Most Media) by James and Marti Helfi, on page 49 and 50: ‘New philosophies and theologies from the West also helped to erode Chinese confidence in Christianity. A new wave of so-called missionaries from mainline Protestant denominations came teaching evolution and a non-supernatural view of the Bible. Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Northern Baptist schools were especially hard hit. Bertrand Russell came from England preaching atheism and socialism. Destructive books brought by such teachers further undermined orthodox Christianity. The Chinese Intelligentsia who had been schooled by Orthodox Evangelical Missionaries were thus softened for the advent of Marxism.’ Evolution is destroying the Church and society, and Christians need to be awakened to that fact!" [emphasis in the original]
125.Jump up ^ Curtis, Gary N. "Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences". The Fallacy Files. Greencastle, IN: Gary Curtis. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "…I want to list seventeen summary statements which, if true, provide abundant reason why the reader should reject evolution and accept special creation as his basic world-view. …"
"13. Belief in special creation has a salutary influence on mankind, since it encourages responsible obedience to the Creator and considerate recognition of those who were created by Him. …"
"16. Belief in evolution and animal kinship leads normally to selfishness, aggressiveness, and fighting between groups, as well as animalistic attitudes and behaviour by individuals." — Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (Creation-Life Publishers, 1972), pp. vi–viii
126.Jump up ^ Johnson 1993, p. 69. Johnson cites three pages spent in Isaac Asimov's New Guide to Science that take creationists to task, while only spending one half page on evidence of evolution.
127.Jump up ^ Timmer, John (May 7, 2008). "Evolution: what's the real controversy?". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
128.Jump up ^ Wise, Kurt. "The Discontinuity of Life". Answers in Genesis. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
129.Jump up ^ Luskin, Casy (May 12, 2009), "A Primer on the Tree of Life", Evolution News & Views (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute), retrieved 2014-08-06
130.Jump up ^ Morris, Henry M. (May 2002). "Evolution Versus the People" (PDF). Back to Genesis (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research) (161): a–c. OCLC 26390403. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
131.Jump up ^ Stringer & Andrews 2005
132.Jump up ^ Relethford 2004
133.Jump up ^ "Toumaï the Human Ancestor". All Things Considered (NPR). July 10, 2002. Archived from the original on 2002-08-05. Retrieved 2009-02-21.
134.Jump up ^ Britten, Roy J. (October 15, 2002). "Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels". PNAS (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences) 99 (21): 13633–13635. Bibcode:2002PNAS...9913633B. doi:10.1073/pnas.172510699. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 129726. PMID 12368483. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
135.Jump up ^ Varki, Ajit; Altheide, Tasha K. (December 2005). "Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack" (PDF). Genome Research (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press) 15 (12): 1746–1758. doi:10.1101/gr.3737405. ISSN 1549-5469. PMID 16339373. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
136.Jump up ^ Hecht, Jeff (May 19, 2003). "Chimps are human, gene study implies". New Scientist (Reed Business Information). ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-08-27. Wildman, Derek E.; Uddin, Monica; Guozhen Liu et al. (June 10, 2003). "Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo". PNAS (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences) 100 (12): 7181–7188. doi:10.1073/pnas.1232172100. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 165850. PMID 12766228. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
137.Jump up ^ Foley, Jim (April 30, 2003). "Was Java Man a gibbon?". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
138.Jump up ^ Isaak 2007: See disputes over the classification of Neanderthals.
139.Jump up ^ Foley, Jim (October 28, 2005). "Comparison of all skulls". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
140.Jump up ^ Morris 1985, pp. 78–90
141.Jump up ^ Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York & International Bible Students Association 1985, pp. 57–59
142.Jump up ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (May 1994). "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past". Natural History (Research Triangle Park, NC: Natural History Magazine, Inc.) 103 (4): 8–15. ISSN 0028-0712. Retrieved 2014-08-27. Gould quotes from Hayward 1985.
143.Jump up ^ Fordyce, R. Ewan; Barnes, Lawrence G. (May 1994). "The Evolutionary History of Whales and Dolphins". Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences (Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews) 22: 419–455. Bibcode:1994AREPS..22..419F. doi:10.1146/annurev.ea.22.050194.002223. ISSN 1545-4495.
144.Jump up ^ Hoagland, Dodson & Hauck 2001, p. 298
145.Jump up ^ Sarfati, Jonathan (December 2003). "Biblical chronogenealogies". TJ (Acacia Ridge, Queensland: Creation Science Foundation) 17 (3): 14–18. ISSN 1446-2648. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
146.Jump up ^ Hasel, Gerhard F. (1980). "The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11". Origins (Loma Linda, CA: Geoscience Research Institute) 7 (2): 53–70. ISSN 0093-7495. Retrieved 2012-06-05.
147.Jump up ^ del Peloso, E. F.; da Silva, L.; de Mello, G. F. Porto (April 2005). "The age of the Galactic thin disk from Th/Eu nucleocosmochronology". Astronomy and Astrophysics (Les Ulis: EDP Sciences; European Southern Observatory) 434 (1): 275–300. arXiv:astro-ph/0411698. Bibcode:2005A&A...434..275D. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20047060. ISSN 0004-6361.
148.Jump up ^ Humphreys, D. Russell (October 2002). "Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World" (PDF). Impact (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research) (352): i–iv. OCLC 8153605. Retrieved 2014-05-08.
149.Jump up ^ Henke, Kevin R. (June 20, 2010). "Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion 'Dates': Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27. Original version: March 17, 2005; Revisions: November 24, 2005; July 25, 2006 and June 20, 2010.
150.Jump up ^ Meert, Joseph G. (February 6, 2003). "R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research". Gondwana Research. Gainesville, FL: Joseph Meert. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
151.Jump up ^ Dating methods discussed were potassium–argon dating, argon–argon dating, rubidium-strontium dating, samarium-neodymium dating, lutetium–hafnium, rhenium-osmium dating, and uranium-lead dating.
152.Jump up ^ Wiens, Roger C. (2002) [First edition 1994]. "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective". American Scientific Affiliation. Ipswich, MA: American Scientific Affiliation. pp. 20–21. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
153.Jump up ^ Chang, Kenneth (February 21, 2006). "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-02-11.
154.^ Jump up to: a b Pieret, John, ed. (October 31, 2006). "The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2007-01-23.
155.Jump up ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (September 27, 2003). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA113: Quote mining". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2007-12-27. Dunford, Mike (July 2, 2007). "A new (mis)take on an old paper". The Questionable Authority (Blog). ScienceBlogs LLC. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Myers, PZ (September 11, 2004). "I'm shocked, shocked to find that quote mining is going on in there!". Pharyngula.org (Blog). Morris, MN: PZ Myers. Archived from the original on 2004-09-16. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
156.Jump up ^ Stear, John (May 16, 2005). "The incomprehensible creationist - the Darwin 'eye' quote revisited". No Answers in Genesis!. Melbourne: Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
157.Jump up ^ "The Panda's Thumb: Quote Mines Archives". The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
158.Jump up ^ Phillips 2006
159.^ Jump up to: a b Annas, George J. (May 25, 2006). "Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom". The New England Journal of Medicine (Waltham, MA: Massachusetts Medical Society) 354 (21): 2277–2281. doi:10.1056/NEJMlim055660. ISSN 0028-4793. PMID 16723620. Retrieved 2012-07-01. "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned."
160.Jump up ^ See: List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 83.
The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. The four-day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7,733 signatories from scientists opposing ID.
AAAS 2002. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
More than 70,000 Australian scientists "...urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."
National Center for Science Education: List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences.
161.Jump up ^ Via, Sara (Lecturer); Holman, Emmett (Respondent) (April 20, 2006). The Origin of Species: What Do We Really Know? (Speech). AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion. Washington, D.C. Archived from the original on 2006-04-21. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
162.Jump up ^ Woods 2005, pp. 67–114, Chapter five: "The Church and Science"
163.Jump up ^ * Morris, Henry M. (January 1982). "Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past". Acts & Facts (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research) 11 (1). ISSN 1094-8562. Retrieved 2007-01-20.
164.Jump up ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (November 25, 2005). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA114: Creationist scientists". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
165.Jump up ^ Ayala, Francisco J. (January–February 1977). "'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'". Journal of Heredity (Oxford University Press; American Genetic Association) 68 (1): 3, 9. ISSN 0022-1503. Ayala stated that "Dobzhansky was a religious man."
166.Jump up ^ Isaak, Mark, ed. (February 22, 2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA114.22: Pasteur and creationism". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
167.Jump up ^ Robinson, Bruce A. (February 11, 2014) [Originally published November 28, 1999]. "Conflicts & occasional agreements in 'truth' between science and religion". ReligiousTolerance.org. Kingston, Ontario: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
168.Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard (May 15, 2006). "Why I Won't Debate Creationists". RichardDawkins.net. Washington, D.C.: Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Archived from the original on 2007-07-13. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
169.^ Jump up to: a b c Shermer, Michael (May 10, 2004). "Then a Miracle Occurs: An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith". eSkeptic (The Skeptics Society). ISSN 1556-5696. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
170.Jump up ^ Pigliucci 2002, p. 102
171.Jump up ^ Luvan, Dylan (September 24, 2012). "Bill Nye warns: Creation views threaten US science". Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
172.Jump up ^ "Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children" on YouTube
173.Jump up ^ Boyle, Alan (February 5, 2014). "Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate". NBC News. Retrieved 2014-02-06.
174.Jump up ^ Kopplin, Zack (February 4, 2014). "Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists". The Guardian (London: Guardian Media Group). Retrieved 2014-02-06.
175.Jump up ^ "Bill Nye debates Ken Ham FULL - Comments Enabled" on YouTube
176.Jump up ^ Shermer 2002, p. 153
177.Jump up ^ "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
178.Jump up ^ Humes, Edward (February 18, 2007). "Unintelligent designs on Darwin". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Pittsburgh, PA: Tribune-Review Publishing Company). Retrieved 2014-08-27.
179.Jump up ^ Le Page, Michael (April 19, 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist (Reed Business Information) 198 (2652): 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
180.Jump up ^ Hecht, Jeff (August 19, 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?". New Scientist (Reed Business Information) 191 (2565): 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
181.^ Jump up to: a b Pitock, Todd (June 21, 2007). "Science and Islam in Conflict". Discover (Waukesha, WI: Kalmbach Publishing) 28 (6): 36–45. ISSN 0274-7529. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
182.^ Jump up to: a b c Katz, Gregory (February 16, 2008). "Clash Over Creationism Is Evolving In Europe's Schools". The Tampa Tribune (Tampa, FL: Tampa Media Group, Inc.). Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
183.^ Jump up to: a b c Edis, Taner (November–December 1999). "Cloning Creationism in Turkey". Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education) 19 (6): 30–35. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
184.Jump up ^ "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension". BBC News (London: BBC). September 9, 2004. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
185.Jump up ^ Highfield, Roger (October 2, 2007). "Creationists rewrite natural history". The Daily Telegraph (London: Telegraph Media Group). Retrieved 2008-02-17.
186.Jump up ^ Blancke, Stefaan (December 2010). "Creationism in the Netherlands". Zygon (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell) 45 (4): 791–816. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01134.x. ISSN 0591-2385. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
187.Jump up ^ "Recognition for Our Noodly Friend". New Scientist (Feedback) (Reed Business Information) 196 (2629): 112. November 10, 2007. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(07)62868-1. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
188.Jump up ^ "'Evolution abroad'". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. March 4, 2011. Retrieved 2014-05-02.
189.Jump up ^ Numbers 1998
190.Jump up ^ Hennessy, Carly (May 30, 2010). "Creationism to be taught in Queensland classrooms". Herald Sun (Melbourne: The Herald and Weekly Times). Retrieved 2010-07-22.
191.Jump up ^ Plimer 1994
192.Jump up ^ Campbell, Richard (producer); Smith, Robyn (researcher); Plimer, Ian (July 17, 2007). "'Telling Lies for God'? One Man's Crusade". Quantum. Transcript. Retrieved 2008-02-05.
193.Jump up ^ "In the beginning". The Economist (London: The Economist Newspaper Limited). April 19, 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-25. This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.
194.^ Jump up to: a b c Burton, Elise K. (May–June 2010). "Teaching Evolution in Muslim States:Iran and Saudi Arabia Compared". Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education) 30 (3): 25–29. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-01-13.
Citations[edit]
Barbour, Ian G. (1997) [Originally published 1990 as Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures, 1989–1991, Volume 1]. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (Revised and expanded ed.). San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-060938-9. LCCN 97006294. OCLC 36417827.
Burns, Edward M.; Ralph, Philip Lee; Lerner, Robert E.; Standish, Meacham (1982). World Civilizations: Their History and Their Culture (Sixth ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-95077-8. LCCN 81018858. OCLC 7998534.
Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. Illustrations by Liz Pyle (1st American ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-465-01606-5. LCCN 85004960. OCLC 802616493.
Dawkins, Richard (1995). River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Illustrations by Lalla Ward. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8. LCCN 94037146. OCLC 31376584.
Dembski, William A. (1998). The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-62387-1. LCCN 98003020. OCLC 38551103.
Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London; New York: Michael Joseph; Viking Penguin. ISBN 0-7181-3430-3. LCCN 92196964. OCLC 26502431.
Dewey, John (1994). "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy". In Gardner, Martin. Great Essays in Science. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-853-8. LCCN 93035453. OCLC 28846489.
Dixon, Thomas (2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929551-7. LCCN 2008023565. OCLC 269622437.
Gray, Asa (1876). Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism. New York: D. Appleton & Company. LCCN 04005631. OCLC 774014. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Ham, Ken (1987). "Evolution is Religion". the Lie: Evolution. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. ISBN 0-89051-158-6. LCCN 00108776. OCLC 228478705. Retrieved 2007-03-24.
Hayward, Alan (1985). Creation and Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies. London: Triangle. ISBN 028104158X. LCCN 85170017. OCLC 733091884.
Hoagland, Mahlon B.; Dodson, Bert; Hauck, Judith (2001). Exploring the Way Life Works: The Science of Biology. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. ISBN 0-7637-1688-X. LCCN 00067790. OCLC 45487537.
Hodge, Charles (1874). "What is Darwinism?". New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Company. LCCN 06012878. OCLC 1004320. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Huls, Jessica; Baker, Catherine (2006). Miller, James B., ed. A Study Guide for The Evolution Dialogues: Science, Christianity, and the Quest for Understanding (PDF) (Study guide). Feedback by Stephen Kolderup. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science: Program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion. OCLC 526547019. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1902) [Originally published 1894]. "An Episcopal Trilogy [1887]". Science and Christian Tradition: Essays V. New York: D. Appleton & Company. pp. 126–159. ISBN 978-1-4179-7372-9. LCCN 41030619. OCLC 634917253. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Isaak, Mark (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook (Rev. ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24926-4. LCCN 2006047492. OCLC 69241583.
Johnson, Phillip E. (1993). Darwin on Trial (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1324-1. LCCN 93029217. OCLC 28889094.
Johnson, Phillip E. (1998) [Originally published 1995]. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1929-0. LCCN 95012620. OCLC 705966918.
Larson, Edward J. (2003). Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515470-3. LCCN 2003269591. OCLC 52478644.
Larson, Edward J. (2004). Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. New York: Modern Library. ISBN 0-679-64288-9. LCCN 2003064888. OCLC 53483597.
Morris, Henry M., ed. (1974). Scientific Creationism. Prepared by the technical staff and consultants of the Institute for Creation Research. San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers. ISBN 0-89-051004-0. LCCN 74014160. OCLC 1556752.
Morris, Henry M., ed. (1985). Scientific Creationism. Prepared by the technical staff and consultants of the Institute for Creation Research (2nd ed.). El Cajon, CA: Master Books. ISBN 0-89-051003-2. LCCN 92248659. OCLC 37546530.
National Academy of Sciences (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-06406-6. LCCN 99006259. OCLC 43803228. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
National Academy of Sciences; Institute of Medicine (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN 978-0-309-10586-6. LCCN 2007015904. OCLC 123539346. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
Nelkin, Dorothy (2000) [Originally published 1982; New York: W. W. Norton & Company]. The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools. Lincoln, NE: toExcel Press. ISBN 0-595-00194-7. OCLC 45207227.
Numbers, Ronald L. (1992). The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (1st ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-679-40104-0. LCCN 91029562. OCLC 24318343.
Numbers, Ronald L. (1998). Darwinism Comes to America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-19312-1. LCCN 98016212. OCLC 38747194.
Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0. LCCN 2006043675. OCLC 69734583.
Phillips, Kevin (2006). American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-03486-X. LCCN 2005056361. OCLC 64565613.
Pigliucci, Massimo (2002). Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 0-87893-659-9. LCCN 2002005190. OCLC 49530100.
Plimer, Ian (1994). Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism. Milsons Point, NSW: Random House Australia. ISBN 0-09-182852-X. LCCN 94237744. OCLC 32608689.
Popper, Karl (1976) ["First published as 'Autobiography of Karl Popper' in The Philosophy of Karl Popper ... by the Open Court Publishing Co., Illinois, 1974."]. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (Rev. ed.). London: Fontana. ISBN 0-00634-116-0. LCCN 78300832. OCLC 2927208.
Relethford, John H. (2004) [Originally published 2003]. Reflections of Our Past: How Human History is Revealed in Our Genes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3958-8. LCCN 2006272323. OCLC 52350687.
Ruse, Michael (1999). Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-46706-X. LCCN 98041969. OCLC 39887080.
Salhany, Roger E. (1986). The Origin of Rights. Toronto: Carswell. ISBN 0-459-38750-2. LCCN 86177651. OCLC 13735694.
Scott, Eugenie (2005) [Originally published 2004; Westport, CT: Greenwood Press]. Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Foreword by Niles Eldredge (1st pbk. ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24650-0. LCCN 2005048649. OCLC 60420899.
Shermer, Michael (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. Foreword by Stephen Jay Gould (Rev. and expanded ed.). New York: A. W. H. Freeman and Company/Owl Books. ISBN 0-8050-7089-3. LCCN 2002068784. OCLC 49874665.
Stringer, Chris; Andrews, Peter (2005). The Complete World of Human Evolution. London; New York: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05132-1. LCCN 2004110563. OCLC 57484734.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York; International Bible Students Association (1985). Life—How did it get here?: By evolution or by creation? (1st ed.). Brooklyn, NY: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. LCCN 85195595. OCLC 12673992.
Witham, Larry A. (2002). "From Broadway to Biophilia". Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515045-7. LCCN 2002022028. OCLC 49031009.
Woods, Thomas E., Jr. (2005). How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing. ISBN 0-89526-038-7. LCCN 2005007380. OCLC 58720707.
Zacharias, Ravi K. (2000). Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message. Nashville, TN: Word Publishing. ISBN 0-8499-1437-X. LCCN 00039920. OCLC 44026449.
Further reading[edit]
BooksBurian, Richard M. (1994). "Dobzhansky on Evolutionary Dynamics: Some Questions about His Russian Background". In Adams, Mark B. The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky: Essays on His Life and Thought in Russia and America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03479-6. LCCN 93042144. OCLC 29478000.
Butler, Samuel (1911) [Originally published 1879]. Evolution, Old and New; Or, the theories of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck, as compared with that of Charles Darwin (New (the Third) ed.). London: A. C. Fifield. OCLC 54166072. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Darwin, Charles (1996). Beer, Gillian, ed. On the Origin of Species. The World's Classics. Introduction by Gillian Beer. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-281783-3. LCCN 95008377. OCLC 7136063.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1982) [Originally published 1937]. Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia Classics in Evolution Series; Columbia Biological Series, no. 11. Introduction by Stephen Jay Gould. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-05475-0. LCCN 82004278. OCLC 8346156.
Haught, John F. (2010). Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life (1st ed.). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-23285-6. LCCN 2009033748. OCLC 430056870.
Henig, Robin Marantz (2000). The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, The Father of Genetics. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-97765-7. LCCN 00024341. OCLC 43648512.
Mayr, Ernst (1985). The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. ISBN 0-67-436445-7. LCCN 81013204. OCLC 7875904.
Miller, James B., ed. (2001). An Evolving Dialogue: Theological and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-349-7. LCCN 00054513. OCLC 45668855.
Morris, Henry M. (1963). The Twilight of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. ISBN 0-8010-5862-7. LCCN 63021471. OCLC 500684639.
Sagan, Carl (1995). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1st ed.). New York: Random House. ISBN 0-39-453512-X. LCCN 95034076. OCLC 367445582.
Smith, Maynard (1969). "The status of neo-Darwinism". In Waddington, C. H. Towards a Theoretical Biology. 2. Sketches. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. LCCN 68019881. OCLC 769099892. An International Union of Biological Sciences Symposium, August 1967.
Strobel, Lee, ed. (2004). The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God (1st ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-24144-8. LCCN 2003023566. OCLC 53398125.
JournalsHull, David L. (October 1999). "The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper". Biology and Philosophy (Kluwer Academic Publishers) 14 (4): 481–504. doi:10.1023/A:1006554919188. ISSN 0169-3867. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Morris, Steven L. (September–December 2005). "Creationism and the Laws of Thermodynamics". Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education) 25 (5–6): 31–32. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Pennock, Robert T. (September 2003). "Creationism and intelligent design". Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics (Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews) 4: 143–163. doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400. ISSN 1545-293X. PMID 14527300.
Popper, Karl (August 21, 1980). "Evolution". New Scientist (Letter to the editor) (Reed Business Information) 87 (1215): 611. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Scott, Eugenie (October 1997). "Antievolution and creationism in the United States". Annual Review of Anthropology (Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews) 26: 263–289. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.263. ISSN 0084-6570.
WebIsaak, Mark, ed. (2006). "An Index to Creationist Claims". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
Tippett, Krista (host); Moore, James (February 5, 2009). "Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin". Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett (Transcript). NPR. Retrieved 2014-07-25.
External links[edit]
 Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Introduction to Paleoanthropology
"Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism" – by Molleen Matsumura and Louise Mead, National Center for Science Education
  


Categories: Creationism
Evolution and religion
Intelligent design controversies















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Български
Català
فارسی
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Bahasa Melayu
Português
Română
Slovenščina
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 27 March 2015, at 19:07.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy