| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | The '''creation-evolution controversy''' is an ongoing dispute most prevalent in regions of the [[United States]]. While the controversy has a long history,<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=3-240}}</ref> today it primarily concerns what should be taught as [[science]] in [[public schools]], and what is good science.<ref>{{hnb|Peters & Hewlett|2005|Ref=CITEREFPetersHewlett2005|p=1}}</ref> In the United States, the teaching of [[biology|biological]] [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] in the public schools is a significant area of contention, while the teaching of alternatives such as [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]] are other aspects of the dispute. | + | The '''creation vs. evolution debate''' is an ongoing dispute most prevalent in regions of the [[United States]]. While the creation vs. evolution debate has a long history,<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=3-240}}</ref> today it primarily concerns what should be taught as [[science]] in [[public schools]], and what is good science.<ref>{{hnb|Peters & Hewlett|2005|Ref=CITEREFPetersHewlett2005|p=1}}</ref> In the United States, the teaching of [[biology|biological]] [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] in the public schools is a significant area of contention, while the teaching of alternatives such as [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]] are other aspects of the dispute. |
| | | | |
| | In the first case, [[evolutionists]] argue that Creation Science and intelligent design should not be taught in the public schools because they are fundamentally [[religion|religious]] in nature and not science. Evolutionists claim they are thinly-disguised schemes to introduce religion to the classroom. In the United States, recent court decisions have affirmed this position, consistently barring the introduction of Creation Science and intelligent design into public science curricula. | | In the first case, [[evolutionists]] argue that Creation Science and intelligent design should not be taught in the public schools because they are fundamentally [[religion|religious]] in nature and not science. Evolutionists claim they are thinly-disguised schemes to introduce religion to the classroom. In the United States, recent court decisions have affirmed this position, consistently barring the introduction of Creation Science and intelligent design into public science curricula. |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| | Creationists argue that evolution is anti-theist [[ideology]] dressed up as science,<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=2}}</ref> and that religion, in the form of [[Secular Humanism]], is already in the classroom. | | Creationists argue that evolution is anti-theist [[ideology]] dressed up as science,<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=2}}</ref> and that religion, in the form of [[Secular Humanism]], is already in the classroom. |
| | | | |
| − | == History of the Creation/evolution controversy == | + | == History of the creation vs. evolution debate == |
| | | | |
| − | ===Creation/evolution controversy in the age of Darwin=== | + | ===Creation vs. evolution debate in the age of Darwin=== |
| | The creation-evolution controversy has a long history, beginning with challenges made by various [[Darwin]]ian promoters to [[Bible|biblical]] accounts of creation. In response to theories promulgated by outspoken proponents of these theories, such as "Darwin's Bulldog" [[Thomas Henry Huxley]], some religious persons and organizations questioned the legitimacy of scientific ideas that were being used to call into question the veracity of the creation account in [[Genesis]]. | | The creation-evolution controversy has a long history, beginning with challenges made by various [[Darwin]]ian promoters to [[Bible|biblical]] accounts of creation. In response to theories promulgated by outspoken proponents of these theories, such as "Darwin's Bulldog" [[Thomas Henry Huxley]], some religious persons and organizations questioned the legitimacy of scientific ideas that were being used to call into question the veracity of the creation account in [[Genesis]]. |
| | | | |
| Line 37: |
Line 37: |
| | [[Henry Morris]] and [[John C. Whitcomb]] Jr.'s influential ''[[The Genesis Flood (book)|The Genesis Flood]]'', which argued that creation was literally six days long, humans lived concurrently with [[dinosaur]]s, and that [[God]] created each kind of life, was published in 1961.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255}},{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=xi,200-208}}</ref> With publication, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] churches, colleges, and conferences.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255}}</ref> Morris setup up the [[Creation Science Research Center]] (CSRC), an organization dominated by [[Baptist]]s, as an adjunct to the [[Christian Heritage College]].<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284}}</ref> The CSRC rushed publication of biology text books that promoted creationism, and also published other books such as [[Kelly Segrave]]'s sensational ''Sons of God Return'' that dealt with UFOlogy, [[flood geology]], and demonology.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284-285}}</ref> These efforts were against the recommendations of Morris, who urged a more cautious and scientific approach.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284}}</ref> Ultimately, the CSRC broke up, and Morris founded the [[ICR|Institute for Creation Research]]. Morris promised that the ICR, unlike the CSRC, would be controlled and operated by scientists.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=286}}</ref>. During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the terms ''scientific creationism'' and ''creation science''.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255-256}}</ref> The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views".<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=254-255}}, {{hnb|Numbers|1998|p=5-6}}</ref> Previously, ''Creationism'' was a generic term describing a philosophical perspective that presupposed the existence of God.<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=11}}</ref> | | [[Henry Morris]] and [[John C. Whitcomb]] Jr.'s influential ''[[The Genesis Flood (book)|The Genesis Flood]]'', which argued that creation was literally six days long, humans lived concurrently with [[dinosaur]]s, and that [[God]] created each kind of life, was published in 1961.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255}},{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=xi,200-208}}</ref> With publication, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] churches, colleges, and conferences.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255}}</ref> Morris setup up the [[Creation Science Research Center]] (CSRC), an organization dominated by [[Baptist]]s, as an adjunct to the [[Christian Heritage College]].<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284}}</ref> The CSRC rushed publication of biology text books that promoted creationism, and also published other books such as [[Kelly Segrave]]'s sensational ''Sons of God Return'' that dealt with UFOlogy, [[flood geology]], and demonology.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284-285}}</ref> These efforts were against the recommendations of Morris, who urged a more cautious and scientific approach.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284}}</ref> Ultimately, the CSRC broke up, and Morris founded the [[ICR|Institute for Creation Research]]. Morris promised that the ICR, unlike the CSRC, would be controlled and operated by scientists.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=286}}</ref>. During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the terms ''scientific creationism'' and ''creation science''.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255-256}}</ref> The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views".<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=254-255}}, {{hnb|Numbers|1998|p=5-6}}</ref> Previously, ''Creationism'' was a generic term describing a philosophical perspective that presupposed the existence of God.<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=11}}</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | ==The current controversy== | + | ==The current creation vs. evolution debate== |
| | | | |
| | === Smithsonian-Sternberg affair === | | === Smithsonian-Sternberg affair === |
| Line 52: |
Line 52: |
| | * 2005 '''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''': Ruled that [[intelligent design]] was religious in nature and therefore could not be taught in the public schools in Dover [[Pennsylvania]]. | | * 2005 '''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''': Ruled that [[intelligent design]] was religious in nature and therefore could not be taught in the public schools in Dover [[Pennsylvania]]. |
| | | | |
| − | == Timeline of the Creation/evolution controversy == | + | == Timeline of the creation vs evolution debate == |
| | * 1859 - Charles Darwin published ''[[The Origin of Species]]'' regarding the theory of evolution. The theory's most radical tenet, "[[natural selection]]," attempted to replace the generally accepted idea of [[baraminology|Created Kinds]]. | | * 1859 - Charles Darwin published ''[[The Origin of Species]]'' regarding the theory of evolution. The theory's most radical tenet, "[[natural selection]]," attempted to replace the generally accepted idea of [[baraminology|Created Kinds]]. |
| | * 1860 - Liberal theologians published ''Essays and Reviews'' supporting Darwin. A debate of Darwin's theory was arranged at the [[Oxford]] Museum, with "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley among its defenders and [[Samuel Wilberforce]], the Bishop of Oxford leading its critics. | | * 1860 - Liberal theologians published ''Essays and Reviews'' supporting Darwin. A debate of Darwin's theory was arranged at the [[Oxford]] Museum, with "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley among its defenders and [[Samuel Wilberforce]], the Bishop of Oxford leading its critics. |