Difference between revisions of "Creationism"

Revision as of 01:33, June 8, 2007

Creationism is the belief that the Earth and everything in it was created by God or some other supreme being. Those that hold the views of Creationism are referred to as Creationists.^[1] Young earth creationists scientists also believe that the first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe and they also claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. ^[2][3][4]

Within creationism, there are various ideas. Young Earth Creationism is the "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."^[5] Old Earth Creationism agrees with Young Earth Creationism that God creating the universe, the Earth and all forms of life; but asserts that God took more time than the Bible literally states.

Creationism (especially the most literal forms) conflicts with the Theory of evolution.^[6] Not all Christian denominations embrace creationism with the literal Genesis interpretations. Many non-Christian sects believe in a form of creationism, including American Indian religions, Hindus, and the Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions.

Creationist categories

There are multiple different overarching categories and subcategories within the realm of Creationism, this list is not meant to be exhaustive but to deal with only the notable ones.

• Biblical Young Earth Creationists generally accept a literal or nearly literal interpretation of Genesis and insist that the world is around 6000 years old. Traditionally, Judaism supported young earth creationism.^[7] In addition, a majority of the early church fathers supported the young earth creationist view.^[8]
• Old Earth Creationists do not take the Bible's creation account literally in regard to the days of creation, and agree with the idea that the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years but generally do not accept the idea that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Old Earth Creationists generally interpret the Bible by suggesting that the days in chapter one of Genesis were not 24 hour days or by inserting gaps between various verses in the Bible. There is no general agreement among Old Earth Creationists on whether or not there was a global flood. Dr. Norman Geisler wrote that "both young- and old-earthers who are evangelical hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race." ^[9]

• The Omphalos argument first expounded in a book titled Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse (1857), argues that the universe was created young but with the appearance of age, much as Adam must have appeared to be fully grown even when he was but a single day in chronological age. The theological objection to this argument is found in Romans 1:20 when Paul declares that the nature of God can be discerned by observing the universe, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead...". If the Omphalos argument is true, then not only is our evidence of the universe's great age untrustworthy, but the God revealed by examining this cosmic deception is untrustworthy as well.

Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms

Dr. Norman Geisler stated that "Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and genetically distinct forms of life." ^[10] Accordingly, creationists point out that there are over one hundred million identified and catalogued fossils currently in the world's museums.^[11] Creationist insists that if macroevolution happened, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record that show the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links". If creationism is true then there should be a lack of transitional forms or at the very least there should be merely a handful of disputed transitional fossils.

Charles Darwin himself stated that the evolutionary theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth." ^[12] However, Darwin wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory." ^[13] Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because "only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...".^[14] Darwin's theory of evolution required that transitional forms exist. As Charles Darwin became older, however, he became increasingly concerned about this lack of evidence in regards to the fossil record. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”^[15]

Scientist Dr.Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:

"It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.^[16]

Creationist scientists state that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.^[17][18] Noted anthropologist Edmund Ronald Leach stated, "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so."^[19]

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…" wrote David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma.^[20]

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection (the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago), observed:

"[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.

One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.^[21] In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."^[22]

This is the basis for there being two major divisions of evolutionary theory, punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. Gould is the best known proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, Richard Dawkins is a advocate of gradualism.

The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way: "Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils."^[23]

One of the more famous alleged transitional fossils claimed by evolutionists is Archaeopteryx. Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds and an evolutionist himself, has stated the following regarding Archaeopteryx:

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”^[24]

Creationist scientists have a number of arguments against Archaeopteryx being a transitional fossil find.^{[25][26][27][28]}

A second famous alleged transitional fossil claimed by evolutionists is Tiktaalik. Creationists have a number of arguments regarding the fossil find of Tiktaalik not being a transitional find. ^[29][30][31]

The Fossil Record and the Creationist Position

Creationist can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the macroevolutionary position exists and also show that the fossil record supports creationism:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley (Professor of Zoology at Oxford University), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97 ^[32][33]

"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19. ^[34][35]

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. ^[36]

For more fossil record quotes please see: Fossil record quotes

Little Consensus Regarding an Evolutionary Process

There is little consensus among scientists about how macroevolution is said to have happened as can be seen below:

"“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007 ^[37][38]

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." (Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)^[39][40]

"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." - Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14 ^[41]

Mutations and the Life Sciences in General

Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote: "The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." ^[42] Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection and genetic drift created every species of life that we see on earth today after life first came about on earth. ^[43] Creationist scientists believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution. ^{[44][45][46][47][48]} Furthermore, creationist scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the evolutionary model. ^[49][50]

Creationist scientists do believe in speciation and also believe that it happens much faster than the evolutionary theory would expect. ^[51][52][53] Creationist scientists classify the various kinds of animals and plants (which they view as being genetically unrelated) using the discipline of baraminology. ^[54]

Lastly, creationists and intelligent design theorists do not believe that the origin of first life is credible though naturalistic means and that it occurred supernaturally. ^{[55][56][57][58][59]}

Creationism, Macroevolutionary Theory, and Experimental Data

Noted creationist Dr. Henry Morris in order to show that the macroevolutionary position is not verified by experimental data quoted a leading evolutionist regarding this matter.

Dr. Morris wrote the following:

"Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action." - The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. ^[60]

Implausibility of Materialist Explanations

Dr. Norman Geisler wrote concerning young earth creationist and old earth creationist the following: "Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to naturalism, which they see as the philosophical presupposition of evolution." ^[61]

A "just so story" is a term used in scholarly works in the fields of anthropology, biological sciences, and social sciences for an explanation which is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. ^{[62][63][64][65][66]} Opponents of the macroevolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin. ^{[67] [68]}

Darwin in his Origin of the Species wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he wrote the following:

"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale." ^[69]

Creationist often quote the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin who admitted the following:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31 ^[70]

Creationist scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati wrote regarding the implausibility of evolutionary explanations:

...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!^[71]

Dr. Safarti continues:

The same logic applies to the dinosaur-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all! ^[72]

Creationists commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes: the bacterial flagellum^[73], homing^[74], the origin of flight in the animal kingdom^[75], migration^[76], the whale^[77][78][79], the Venus flytrap^[80], the Bombardier beetle^[81], the woodpecker^[82] and various symbiotic relationships found in nature.^[83][84]

Lastly, creationists often quote biochemist Michael Behe who wrote the following:

"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster." - Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186^[85]

Statements of Design

Creationist often cite the work of intelligent design proponents who assert the biological world has the strong appearance of being created as can been below:

"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic materialist, who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are." - Evolution And Christian Faith by Phillip E. Johnson ^[86]

"During the last forty years, molecular biology has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist Richard Dawkins has allowed, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age." - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D.^[87]

Scientific Journals

Advocates of the macroevolutionary position have often claimed that those who oppose the macroevolution position don't publish their opposition to the macroevolutionary position in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals which favor the creationist position).^[88][89][90] Believers in the Abrahamic faiths believe that the the natural world has been designed by God. Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position.^[91]

Controversy

Creationism and Intelligent Design

Believers in the Abrahamic faiths believe that the the natural world has been designed by God. Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position.^[92] Believers in the Abrahamic faiths have points of agreement and disagreement with the intelligent design movement. They agree that the natural world has an intelligent cause and was designed but some also believe that the intelligent design movement divorces the Creator from creation by not explicitly stating that the cause of creation is a supernatural being and also failing to state explicitly who that supenatural being is.^[93]

There is considerable disagreement on whether or not Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas.

For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is Young Earth Creationist Paul Nelson, while Michael Behe, another major proponent, accepts common descent. William Dembski has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same^[94]. Dembski has also asserted that Intelligent Design is the Logos in terms of information theory^[95], while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity (possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatible with life.

Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the Dover trial, Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican and a US Federal District Judge, ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. The opinion met with wide accolades, but some criticism that it borrowed too heavily from the ACLU's briefs. ^[96] Nonetheless, it has been embraced by the legal community, and has quickly become the subject of renewed scholarship on the scope of the First Amendment.^[97]

Popularity and Scientific Community Consensus

Roughly 47% of the United States population believes man was created by God pretty much in his present form less than 10,000 years ago (which is one tenet of Young Earth Creationism) and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years. ^[98][99] A 1997 Gallup poll indicated that 55% of United States scientists believed that man developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that God had no part in the process, 40% believed in theistic evolution, and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years. ^{[100] [101]} According to creationist scientists community, there is widespread discrimination against creationist scientists.^[102] This is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.^[103] In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the United States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God.^[104] Given this state of affairs, a future paradigm shift from the macroevolutionary position to a creationist position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.

Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The history of science shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, bloodletting was practiced from antiquity and still had many practioners up until the late 1800s.^[105] In his essay, A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready? , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgement was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy." ^[106] Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, David Eddy professor of health policy and management at Duke University, told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."^[107] Next, alchemy was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Roger Bacon, and Gottfried Leibniz.^[108][109] Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts, ^{[110][111][112]} the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.

In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970's the scientific communities consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.^[113] Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.^[114] In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct. ^[115] Many creationists believe that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.^[116][117]

Adherents and Opponents of Creationism

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of Creationism most commonly found among members of the Abrahamic faiths, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Most young earth creationists believe that most of the book of Genesis (including the creation accounts) is a straightforward narrative meant to be understood literally.^[118]

Traditionally, Judaism supported young earth creationism.^[119] In addition, a majority of the early church fathers supported the young earth creationist view.^[120] While Young Earth Creationism is prominent in many conservative Protestant denominations, theologically liberal Protestant and Jewish denominations generally reject it.^{[121][122][123]} The Roman Catholic Church has a cautiously positive view of the theory of evolution. ^[124][125] Orthodox Judaism currently has diverse opinions regarding young earth creationism.^[126] Ultra-Orthodox Judaism accepts young earth creationism.^[127] Islam has a variety of opinions regarding creationism and the theory of evolution. ^[128]Atheists do not believe in young earth creationism and a vast majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position since World War II have been atheists.^[129][130] While agnostics do not believe in young earth creationism there have been some notable statements of skepticism regarding the theory of evolution from agnostics.^[131][132] On the other hand, Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley were both staunch proponents of the theory of evolution and they both stated that they were agnostics. ^[133][134]

See also

• History of creationism
• Lists of Creationists

External links

Young Earth Creationist Organizations

• Answers In Genesis - Get Answers
• Creation Ministries International
• Institute for Creation Research
• TrueOrigins.org
• Center for Scientific Creation
• CreationWiki - Although not completely Young Earth, CreationWiki is a mainly Young Earth Creationist Wiki.
• AllAboutCreation.org
• The Revolution Against Evolution

Old Earth Creationists

Reasons To Believe, an Old Earth Creationist Ministry

References and Footnotes

1. ↑ "creationist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist>.
2. ↑ Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science
3. ↑ Thompson, Bert, So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!, 2001 (Apologetics Press)
4. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html
5. ↑ American Heritage Dictionary
6. ↑ [1]
7. ↑ [2]
8. ↑ [3]
9. ↑ http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm
10. ↑ http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm
11. ↑ http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos06.htm
12. ↑ http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm
13. ↑ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html
14. ↑ http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html
15. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html
16. ↑ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html
17. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp
18. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3001
19. ↑ http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241
20. ↑ http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088
21. ↑ http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2080
22. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/punct.asp
23. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
24. ↑ [4]
25. ↑ [5]
26. ↑ [6]
27. ↑ [7]
28. ↑ [8]
29. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4250
30. ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/2962/
31. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp
32. ↑ http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html
33. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html
34. ↑ http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html
35. ↑ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm
36. ↑ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html
37. ↑ http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/
38. ↑ http://mac10.umc.pitt.edu/m/FMPro?-db=ma&-lay=a&-format=d.html&id=2807&-Find
39. ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html
40. ↑ [9]
41. ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html
42. ↑ http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html
43. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855
44. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp
45. ↑ http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp
46. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1855
47. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831
48. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp
49. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html
50. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/Lerner_resp.asp
51. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#kinds
52. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/207
53. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/
54. ↑ http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html
55. ↑ http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html
56. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp
57. ↑ http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
58. ↑ http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html
59. ↑ http://www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesislinks.html
60. ↑ http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
61. ↑ http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm
62. ↑ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Just+so+story%22+anthropology&btnG=Search
63. ↑ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Just+so+stories%22+anthropology&btnG=Search
64. ↑ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Just+so+story%22+biology&btnG=Search
65. ↑ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Just+so+stories%22+biology&btnG=Search
66. ↑ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Just+so+stories%22+and+%22social+sciences%22&btnG=Search
67. ↑ http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/
68. ↑ http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/
69. ↑ http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
70. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp#r1
71. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
72. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
73. ↑ http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331
74. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/ants.asp
75. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp
76. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/migration.asp
77. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp
78. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp
79. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp
80. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4340
81. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp
82. ↑ http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm
83. ↑ http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html
84. ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/146/
85. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719
86. ↑ http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html
87. ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm
88. ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
89. ↑ http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html
90. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/
91. ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
92. ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640
93. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement
94. ↑ What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki
95. ↑ [10] Signs of Intelligence: A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999
96. ↑ [11]
97. ↑ Richard B. Katskee, "Religion in Public Schools," 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006)
98. ↑ http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp
99. ↑ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401262.html
100. ↑ Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, The Gallup Poll NOV 6-9 1997. Retreived 07 June 2007.
101. ↑ Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere, Kenneth Chang, ABCNews.com, 1999.
102. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp
103. ↑ http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html
104. ↑ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html
105. ↑ http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/Text/5d.html
106. ↑ http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2000journals/may2000/editorial.htm
107. ↑ [12]
108. ↑ http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html
109. ↑ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon
110. ↑ http://www.jstor.org/view/03697827/ap020019/02a00050/0
111. ↑ http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm
112. ↑ http://www.easst.net/review/dec1998/bastos
113. ↑ http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BLions87.htm
114. ↑ http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCobra94.htm
115. ↑ http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm
116. ↑ http://www.tektonics.org/TK-GEN.html
117. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp
118. ↑ Grigg, Russell, Should Genesis be taken literally? Creation 16(1):38–41, December 1993.
119. ↑ James-Griffiths, James,Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition Creation 26(2):53–55, March 2004.
120. ↑ Bradshaw, Robert I., Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1.
121. ↑ Morris, Henry, Old-Earth Creationism Back to Genesis April 1997.
122. ↑ What Conservative Protestants Believe (beliefnet).
123. ↑ Jarvik, Elaine, Beliefs on Darwin's evolution vary from religion to religion Deseret Morning News 19 January 2006.
124. ↑ http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-11-pope-evolution-creation_N.htm
125. ↑ Heneghan, Tom, Catholics and Evolution: Interview with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn (beliefnet).
126. ↑ Rabbinical Council of America, Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.
127. ↑ Winnick, Pamela R.,Evolutionary War Toledo City Paper, March 7 2002.
128. ↑ http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/muslim_responses_to_evolution.htm
129. ↑ Batten, Don, A Who’s Who of evolutionists Creation 20(1):32 December 1997.
130. ↑ http://www.creationists.org/nas.html
131. ↑ Woodward, Thomas E., Doubts About Darwin (Apologetics Press).
132. ↑ Agnostic Philosopher Caught in Conspiracy to Question Darwinism Evolution News & Views, (Discovery Institute).
133. ↑ http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1025
134. ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/desmond171.htm