Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Creation

2008-11-09T13:40:27Z

HomerJay:

[[Image:Hitler7.JPG|right|300px|thumb|Adolf Hitler fought for Creation.]]

#REDIRECT [[Date of creation]]

Arguments for a recent creation

2008-11-09T13:40:11Z

HomerJay:

[[Image:Hitler7.JPG|right|300px|thumb|Adolf Hitler wanted Arguments for a recent creation.]]

'''Arguments for a recent creation''' involve carefully crafted scientific and theological reasoning with the hope that an individual will come to the conclusion that [[God]] exists, God created everything we see, and that he did ''not'' do it through evolutionary processes.

==Scientific reasons==

[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]
"Many scientific arguments can be used to show that the evidence is more consistent with a recent creation than an [http://creationwiki.org/Old_Earth old Earth]. Some arguments put forward in support of a recent creation simply put an upper limit on the age of the [http://creationwiki.org/Earth Earth], [http://creationwiki.org/Solar_system solar system], or [http://creationwiki.org/Universe universe], which are inconsistent with an ancient creation."<ref name="cwye">[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Young_earth&oldid=80836 Young earth - CreationWiki] ''(quotes taken from the March 28, 2007, version of the article)''</ref> The following is a list of various scientific reasons in no particular order.
# "The old-earth idea was developed historically, not from letting the physical facts speak for themselves but by imposing anti-biblical philosophical assumptions onto the geological observations. See the following [http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm]..."
#[[William R. Corliss]] is a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> Mr. Corliss has cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].<ref>
* http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm
* http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184
</ref>
# "The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in ''[http://www.answersingenesis.org/p/10-3-090 The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods]''."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited)."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "...distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents..."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
#"[[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] challenge the old earth uniformitarian geology [[paradigm]]."<ref>
* http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf
* http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm
* http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm
* http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
# '''Geomagnetic field decay'''
#:"Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth. If the decay is projected back 20,000 years, the heat produced by the electric current that generates the Earth's magnetic field would have liquefied the Earth. Naturally this would make life impossible. The best model for the Earth's magnetic field and observed data places the age of Earth at 6,000 – 8,700 years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for ''billions of years'' are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than '''20,000 years''' old.15"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of existence if they ever had any."<ref name="nwcn">[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]</ref>
# '''Pleochroic halos'''
#:"Radioactive inclusions in rock often cause concentric spheres of discoloration due to the damage caused by alpha particles as they are emitted by the radioactive substance. Pleochroic halos are the scars of radioactive decay, particularly alpha decay. These scars appear as spheres (rings when views in cross-section) in the rock surrounding a decaying radioactive atom. The size of the halo is a signature of the energy of the emission and therefore the element and isotope involved. Creationists use these halos in several ways to suggest problems with the standard uniformitarian model."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Helium diffusion'''
#:"One type of nuclear decay is the emission of Helium nuclei known as an alpha emission. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a by-product of their radioactivity. This helium seeps out of (sic) zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the ''Journal of Geophysical Research'' showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain ''1.5 billion years'' worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only '''6,000''' (± 2000) '''years'''.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Helioseismology'''
#:"The core of the sun produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Accelerated Nuclear Decay'''
#:"The main assumption of radiometric dating is that the decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay is worthless. However, if radioactive decay has been happening for Billions of years then there is insufficient argon diffusion, insufficient lead diffusion, insufficient helium in the air, and too much Helium in Rocks. Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE group indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay has taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited '''within months''' of one another, not ''hundreds of millions of years'' apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply '''accelerated nuclear decay''' and very rapid formation of associated minerals."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.'''
#:"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than '''a few hundred million years old''', it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least ''10 billion years'' old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies."<ref name="icrye">[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]</ref>
# '''Comets.'''
#:"According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about ''five billion'' years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than '''10,000 years'''.4"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"The origin of the comets in our solar system is a great mystery from an old universe perspective as they degrade rapidly. While evolutionary astronomers once thought the Oort cloud could account for all comets, the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain their existence."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Not enough mud on the sea floor.'''
#:"Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than '''12 million years'''. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged ''three billion years''. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time '''about 5,000 years ago'''."<ref name="icrye" /> (some emphasis added, but not all)
#:"Present erosion rate could produce all the existing ocean sediment in only 15 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, 1994, p.90.</ref>
# '''Not enough sodium in the sea.'''
#:"Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, ''three billion years''. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only '''62 million years'''.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Many strata are too tightly bent.'''
#:"In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for ''hundreds of millions of years'' before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred '''less than thousands of years''' after deposition."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Biological material decays too fast.'''
#:"Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized ''200,000 years'' down to possibly as low as '''6,000 years'''.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than '''10,000 years''', yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older... Bacteria allegedly ''250 million years'' old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.'''
#:"With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be ''millions or billions of years'' old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it... These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only '''thousands''', not billions, of years old."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Not enough Stone Age skeletons.'''
#:"Evolutionary anthropologists now say that ''Homo sapiens'' existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only '''a few hundred years''' in many areas."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Agriculture is too recent.'''
#:"The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for ''185,000 years'' during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture '''for a very short time''' after the Flood, if at all."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''History is too short.'''
#:"According to evolutionists, Stone Age ''Homo sapiens'' existed for ''190,000 years'' before beginning to make written records about '''4,000 to 5,000 years''' ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''"Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not stable and will not last."'''<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Slusher, H. S. 1980. ''Age of the Cosmos''. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 65-72.</ref>
# '''Recession of the moon from the earth'''
#:"The moon is moving away from the earth gradually due to tidal activity. This movement is too fast for the earth-moon system to be 4.6 billion years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Huse, S. M. 1993. ''The Collapse of Evolution''. Baker Books. pp. 41-42.</ref>
# '''Polonium Halos'''
#:"Robert Gentry's work showed that the Earth's granite was never in a molten condition, because polonium halos survive only in solid rock and the half-life of polonium is much too short to survive a multimillion-year cooling time. His results seem to indicate that the Earth was created instantaneously, in a cool condition. If true, it is clear evidence for creation and a young earth."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Human population growth'''
#:"If humans had been around more than a few thousand years, they would have populated the earth more quickly."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, 1994, pp. 70-71.</ref>
# '''Rapid Oil Formation'''
#:"It has been claimed that oil was formed over 100 millions of years from organic remains, but recent experiments have shown that oil can be produced under the right conditions in a matter of minutes."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"Experiments by the U.S. Bureau of mines showed that petroleum (oil) can be produced from organic material in only 20 minutes."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hayden R. Appell, Y.C. Fu, Sam Friedman, et al, “Converting Organic Wastes to Oil,” RL-7560 (Washington, D.C., United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1971.)</ref>
#:"British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982</ref>
#:"Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p.</ref>
# '''Rapid Wood Petrification'''
#:"Petrified wood was believed to required thousands or even millions of years, but a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"A mineralized sodium silicate solution for the application to wood has a composition causing it to penetrate the wood and jell within the wood so as to give the wood the non-burning characteristics of petrified wood."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>US Patent & Trademark Office, [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,612,050.PN.&OS=PN/4,612,050&RS=PN/4,612,050 Patent No. 4,612,050]</ref>
# '''Tree rings'''
#:"Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, can't be traced back more than some thousands of years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, H. M. 1961. The Genesis Flood. pp. 392-393.</ref>
# '''Only recently known civilizations'''
#:"Earliest known civilizations are only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, 1994, p. 70.</ref>
# '''Niagara falls'''
#:"Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, 1994, pp. 48-49.</ref>
# '''Mississippi river delta'''
#:"Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Mehlert, A. W. "Another Look at the Age and History of the Mississippi River." pp. 121-123. Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988.</ref>
# '''Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio'''
#:"This ratio should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point yet."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, 1994, pp. 73-74.</ref>
# '''Erosion rate of the continents'''
#:"Continental mass divided by erosion rate would wash all the continents into the ocean in about 14 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, 1994, pp. 88-90.</ref>

==Biblical and theological reasons==
# The [[Bible]] unambiguously records that the entire time from the start of the universe to the appearance of [[human being|humans]] was six ordinary days (see [[creation week]]).
# Every old-Earth view incorporates millions of years of [[death]] and suffering by living things prior to the creation of humans. The Bible says that death is the result of [[sin]] ({{Bible ref|Romans|6:23}}) and that death is "the last enemy" ({{Bible ref|1_Corinthians|15:26}}), yet according to old-Earth views, God described this death-riddled creation as "very good".
# The [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible do not allow for the first humans existing longer ago than about 4,000 B.C.

==See also==
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, J. D., 1994, The Young Earth, Master Books

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Young_earth Young earth - CreationWiki]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

Creation vs. evolution debate

2008-11-09T13:39:50Z

HomerJay:

[[Image:Hitler7.JPG|right|300px|thumb|Adolf Hitler wanted Creation-evolution controversy.]]

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.

In the first case, [[evolutionists]] argue that Creation Science and intelligent design should not be taught in the public schools because it is 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.

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 ==

===Creation/evolution controversy 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]].

Darwin's 1859 book, ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'', was a bombshell that revolutionized the way [[naturalist]]s viewed the world. The book was heavily promoted by [[atheist]]s and [[agnostic]]s and its promotion attracted attention and controversy, and many [[theologian]]s reacted to Darwin's theories. For example, in his 1874 work ''What is Darwinism?'' the theologian [[Charles Hodge]] argued that Darwin's theories were tantamount to [[atheism]].<ref>{{hnb|Hodge|1874|p=177}}</ref><ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref>

The controversy was fueled by one of Darwin's most vigorous promoters, Thomas Henry Huxley, who opined that Christianity is "a compound of some of the best and some of the worst elements of [[Paganism]] and [[Judaism]], moulded in practice by the innate character of certain people of the Western World".<ref>{{hnb|Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish|1982|Ref=CITEREFBurnsRalphLernerStandish1982|p=965}}, {{hnb|Huxley|1902}}</ref> Perhaps the most uncompromising of the evolutionary philosophers was the [[Germany|German]], [[Ernst Heinrick Haeckel]], a [[professor]] of biology, who dogmatically affirmed that nothing spiritual exists.<ref>{{hnb|Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish|1982|Ref=CITEREFBurnsRalphLernerStandish1982|p=965}}</ref>

A watershed in the [[Protestantism|Protestant]] objections to evolution occurred after about 1875.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref> Previously, citing [[Louis Agassiz]] and other scientific luminaries, Protestant contributors to religious quarterlies dismissed Darwin's theories as unscientific.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref> After 1875, it became clear that the majority of naturalists embraced evolution, and a sizable minority of these Protestant contributors rejected Darwin's theory because it called into question the veracity of [Scripture]]s.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref> Even so, virtually none of these dissenters insisted on a young Earth.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref>

The greatest concern for creationists at the turn of the [[twentieth century]] was the issue of human ancestry.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=15}}</ref>

{{cquote|I do not wish to meddle with any man's family matters, or quarrel with any one about his relatives. If a man prefers to look for his kindred in the zoological gardens, it is no concern of mine; if he wants to believe that the founder of his family was an ape, a gorilla, a mud-turtle, or a moner, he may do so; but when he insists that I shall trace my lineage in that direction, I say ''No Sir!''...I prefer that my genealogical table shall end as it now does, with "Cainan, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=15}}, quoting H.L Hastings' tract in ''Was Moses Mistaken? or, Creation and Evolution'' (1896). See also Lk 3:37-38.</ref>}}

Creationists during this period were largely [[premillennialism|premillennialists]], whose belief in [[Christ]]'s return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref> However, they were not as concerned about [[geology]], freely granting scientists [[Gap Theory|any time they needed]] before the [[Garden of Eden|Edenic]] creation to account for scientific observations, such as [[fossil]]s and geological findings.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14-15}}</ref> In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the fossil record.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Likewise, few attached geological significance to the [[Great Flood|biblical flood]], unlike subsequent creationists.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or allowed that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=18}}, Noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many or most Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views were rarely expressed in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David Nevins Lord (1792-1880). However, 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 respected 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 who published ''The Other Side of Evolution Its Effects and Fallacy''</ref>

=== Scopes trial ===

Initial reactions in the United States to Darwin's theory were largely not political. According to Darwin Biographer Mr. James Moore, Darwin's colleague [[Alfred Russel Wallace]] conducted a tour "trumpeting Darwin's cause in America" in 1886–1887.<ref>{{hnb|Tippett|2006}} Darwian biographer Mr. James Moore's characterization of Wallace's tour, as he was being interviewed by Krista Tippet on ''Speaking of Faith''.</ref> Wallace's explanations were generally accepted without many problems, but attitudes changed after the [[First World War]].<ref>{{hnb|Tippett|2006}}</ref> The controversy became political when public schools began using textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys, in what was believed to be accordance with Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. In response, the State of [[Tennessee]] passed a law (the [[Butler Act]] of 1925) prohibiting the teaching of any theory of the origins of humans that contradicted the teachings of the Bible. This law was tested in the highly publicized [[Scopes trial]] of 1925. The law was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and remained on the books until 1967 when it was repealed.

=== Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) textbooks ===

By the mid-twentieth century, most neo-Darwinists either repudiated or dismissed earlier [[Lamarck]]ian and theistic theories of evolution.<ref name=Larson253>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=253}}</ref> Neo-darwinists including [[paleontology|paleontologist]] [[George Simpson]] and Julian Huxley evangelized for Darwinism<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=250}}, describing the religious zeal of Simpson and Huxley.</ref> and urged that the public schools teach the "fact of evolution".<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=248,250}}</ref> Their desires were fulfilled in the 1960s, with the introduction of federally supported Biological Sciences Curriculum Study ([http://www.bscs.org/ BSCS]) biology text books that promoted evolution as an organizing principle.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=246,252}}</ref>

Meanwhile, [[public opinion poll]]s suggested that most Americans either believed that God specially created human beings or guided evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=251}}</ref> Membership in [[church]]es favoring increasingly literal interpretations of Scripture continued to rise, with the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] and [[Lutheran]] Church–[[Missouri]] Synod outpacing all other denominations.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=251}}</ref> With growth, these churches became better equipped to carry a creationist message, with their own [[college]]s, [[school]]s, publishing houses, and broadcast [[media]].<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>

With decreasing church membership among evolutionary scientists, the role of opposing the anti-BSCS textbook movement passed from prominent scientists in liberal churches to secular scientists less equipped to reach Christian audiences.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref> Anti-evolutionary forces were able to reduce the number of school districts utilizing BSCS biology text books, but courts continued to prevent religious instruction in public schools.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>

=== Institute for Creation Research ===
[[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==

=== Smithsonian-Sternberg affair ===

The [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair]] occurred after [[Richard Sternberg]] managed the [[peer review]] process of a paper published by intelligent design researcher [[Stephen Meyer]]. Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the [[Smithsonian Institution]] in retaliation.

=== Court cases ===
Major court cases in the creation-evolution controversy are disputes about what can be taught in the schools. After about 1968, they have prohibited attempts to teach creation science or intelligent design in American public schools on the basis of the principle of [[Bill of rights|Separation of Church and State]].

* 1925 '''Scopes Trial''': A staged trial in [[Tennessee]], engineered by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] and town promoters, challenging the Butler Act which prohibited the teaching of human evolution. The willing defendant was found guilty of "teaching" evolution, though he was a gym teacher. The conviction was later overturned on a technicality.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}, {{hnb|Coulter|2006}}</ref>
* 1968 '''Epperson v. Arkansas''': Ruled that a 1928 [[Arkansas]] law prohibiting teaching that man descended from animals in the public schools was unconstitutional.
* 1982 '''McLean v. Arkansas''': Ruled that the teaching of Creation-science violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
* 1987 '''Edwards v. Aguillard''': Ruled against Creation-science in [[Louisiana]].
* 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 ==
* 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.
* 1925 - The Scopes Trial tested the new Butler Act, which made it illegal to teach that man descended from animals in public schools. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100; prosecution lawyer [[William Jennings Bryan]] offered to pay it, but the decision was later set aside on a technicality after appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
* 1958 - The federally-supported [[National Science Foundation]] started the [http://www.bscs.org/ Biological Sciences Curriculum Study] publishes textbooks which emphasize evolution as an organizing principle.
* 1961 - ''The Genesis Flood'' by Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr. reinvigorated the creationist movement.
* 1968 - A U.S. Supreme Court issues its [[Epperson v. Arkansas]] decision repealing laws that prohibited the teaching of evolution and required the teaching of a creationism on the grounds that it violated the the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
* 1974 - [[Karl Popper]] classifies Darwin's theory of evolution as a metaphysical research program.<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1974}} as reprinted in {{hnb|Balashov & Rosenberg|Ref=CITEREFBalashovRosenberg2002|p=302}}, see [http://books.google.com/books?id=tAkXVaNq5GAC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=popper+metaphysical+research&source=web&ots=0nhuwofKbm&sig=XCjz0MaNM1F7ai7Ek2aO03HkTOg Facsimile on Google books]</ref>
* 2004 - Intelligent Design researcher Stephen C. Meyer publishes a paper, ''The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories'' in the peer-reviewed journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', leading to the [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair]]
* 2005 - U.S. Representative Mark Souder's office issues a report concurring with the U.S. Office of Special Council's conclusion that Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian Institution in retaliation for his role in publishing Stephen C. Meyer's paper. See [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair]].
* 2007 - [[Pope Benedict XVI]] publishes ''Creation and Evolution'', where he writes "[It] is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."<ref>Creation and Evolution, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007, Sankt Ulrich Publishing. See also [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_re_eu/pope_evolution;_ylt=A0WTUejOaB1G9GUBBgKs0NUE]</ref>
* 2008 - [[Ben Stein]] releases the documentary ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' which exposes the suppression of [[intelligent design]] in the classroom by evolutionist establishment.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Aviezer
| Given = Nathan
| Year = 1990
| Title = In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science
| Publisher = Ktav Pub Inc.
| ID = ISBN 0881253286
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Balashov
| Given1 = Yuri (Editor)
| Surname2 = Rosenberg
| Given2 = Alexander (Editor)
| Year = 2002
| Title = Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings
| Publisher = Routledge
| ID = ISBN 0415257824
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Barry
| Given = Alvin L.
| Authorlink = Alvin L. Barry
| Year = 2001
| Title = What about....Creation and Evolution
| Journal = Unchanging Truth in Changing Times: The Complete Collection of the What About Pamphlets
| Pages = 60-61
| Publisher = The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod The Office of the President
| URL = https://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/Unchanging_Truth.pdf
}}Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Burns
| Given1 = Edward M.
| Surname2 = Ralph
| Given2 = Philip Lee
| Surname3 = Lerner
| Given3 = Robert E.
| Surname4 = Standish
| Given4 = Meacham
| Year = 1982
| Title = World Civilizations Their History and Their Culture
| Edition = Sixth
| Publisher = W.W. Norton & Company
| ID = ISBN 0-393-95077-8
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Coulter
| Given= Ann
| Year= 2006
| Title= Godless: The Church of Liberalism
| Publisher = Crown Forum.
| ID= ISBN 978-1400054206
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname= Dawkins
| Given = Richard
| Authorlink = Richard Dawkins
| Year = 2006
| Title = The God Delusion
| Publisher = Bantam Books
| ID = ISBN 0-618-68000-4
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Dennett
| Given = Daniel
| Authorlink = Daniel Dennett
| Year = 1995
| Title = Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
| Publisher = Simon & Schuster
| ID = ISBN 978-0684802909
| Pages = 592
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Desmond
| Given1 = Adrian
| Surname2 = Moore
| Given2 = James
| Authorlink2 = James Moore (biographer)
| Year = 1991
| Title = Darwin
| Publisher = London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group
| ID = ISBN 0-7181-3430-3}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Faid
| Given = Robert W.
| Authorlink = Robert W. Faid
| Year = 1991
| Title = A Scientific Approach to Christianity
| Publisher = New Leaf Press (AR)
| ID = ISBN 0-89221-186-5
| Pages = 196
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = GCAG
| Given = General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States
| Authorlink = General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States
| Year = 1977
| Date = 1977-08-17
| Title = The Doctrine of Creation
| publisher = Gospel Publishing House
| URL = http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4177_creation.pdf
}} Retrieved on 2007-01-14
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Ghedotti
| Given = Michael J.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-03-11
| Title = Evolutionary Biology at Regis, a Jesuit Catholic School
| Publisher = regis.edu
| URL = http://academic.regis.edu/mghedott/evolut.htm
}} Retrieved on 2007-02-05
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Hayward
| Given = James L.
| Year = 1998
| Title = The Creation/Evolution Controversy : an Annotated Bibliography
| Publisher = Scarecrow Press/Salem Press
| Pages = 253
| ID = ISBN 0-8108-3386-7
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Hennigan
| first = Tom
| title = An Initial Investigation into the Baraminology of Snakes
| journal = Creation Research Society Quarterly
| pages = 153-160
| year = 2005
| date = December 2005
| url = http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_3/CRSQ%2012-05%20Snakes%20article.pdf
}}Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Hodge
| Given = Charles
| Authorlink = Charles Hodge
| Title = What is Darwinism?
| Year = 1874
| Publisher = Scribner, Armstrong, and Company
| ID = ASIN B0006AEEMO
| URL = http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-8.txt
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Hovind
| Given = Kent
| Authorlink = Kent Hovind
| Year = 2006
| Title = Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
| Publisher = Creation Science Evangelism
| URL = http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Huxley
| Given = Thomas H.
| Authorlink = Thomas Huxley
| Year = 1902
| Title = An Episcopal Trilogy 1887
| Journal = Collected Essays Science and Christian Tradition
| Volume = V
| Pages = 126-159
| URL = http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15905/15905-8.txt
| Publisher = Kessinger Publishing
| ID = ISBN 978-1417973729 }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Huxley
| Given1 = Thomas H.
| Authorlink1 = Thomas Huxley
| Surname2 = Huxley
| Given2 = Leonard
| Authorlink2 = Leonard Huxley (writer)
| Year = 1975
| Title = Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley
| Volume = 1
| URL = http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5084
| Publisher = Ams Pr Inc
| ID = ISBN 0404149804 }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Johnson
| Given = Phillip E.
| Authorlink = Phillip E. Johnson
| Year = 1998
| Title = Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education
| Publisher = IntervaVsity Press
| ID = ISBN 0-8308-1929-0
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Johnson
| Given = Phillip E.
| Authorlink = Phillip E. Johnson
| Year = 1993
| Title = Darwin on Trial
| Edition = 2nd
| Publisher = InterVarsity Press
| ID = ISBN 0-8308-1324-1
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Kofahl
| Given = Robert E.
| Year = 1989
| Date = June, 1989
| Title = The Hierarchy of Conceptual Levels For Scientific Thought And Research
| Journal = CRS Quarterly
| Volume = 26
| Number = 1
| Publisher = The Creation Research Society
}} See [http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum26_1.html abstract] Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Larson
| Given1 = Edward J.
| Authorlink1 = Edward John Larson
| Surname2 = Witham
| Given2 = Larry
| Year = 1998
| Title = Leading scientists still reject God
| Journal = Nature
| Page = 313
| Publisher = Macmillan Publishers Ltd
| URL = http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Larson
| Given = Edward J.
| Authorlink = Edward John Larson
| Year = 2004
| Title = Evolution
| Publisher = Modern Library
| ID = ISBN 0-679-64288-9
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Larson
| Given = Edward J.
| Authorlink = Edward John Larson
| Year = 2006
| Title = Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial And America's Continuing Debate over Science And Religion
| Publisher = Basic Books
| ID = ISBN 978-0465075102
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Lenski
| Given = Richard E.
| Year = 2000
| Title = Evolution: Fact and Theory
| Publisher = AcitionBioscience.org
| URL = http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Martz
| Given1 = Larry
| Surname2 = McDaniel
| Given2 = Ann
| Year = 1987
| Date = 1987-06-29
| Title = Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)
| Journal = Newsweek
| Pages = 23-24
| Volume = CIX
| Number = 26
| Publisher = Newsweek Inc.
| ID = ISSN 0028-9604
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Morris
| Given = Henry M.
| Authorlink = Henry M. Morris
| Year = 2001
| Title = Back to Genesis: How Not to Defend Evolution
| Publisher = Institute for Creation Research
| URL = http://www.icr.org/pdf/btg/btg-153.pdf
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Morris
| Given = Henry M.
| Authorlink = Henry M. Morris
| Year = 1982
| Date = 1982-01-01
| Title = Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past
| Journal = Impact
| Volume = 103
| Publisher = Institute for Creation Research
| URL = http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Myers
| Given = PZ
| Authorlink = PZ Myers
| Year = 2006
| date = 2006-06-18
| Title = Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?
| Publisher = scienceblogs.com
| URL = http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Nelkin
| Given = Dorothy
| Authorlink = Dorothy Nelkin
| Year = 1982
| Title = The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools
| Publisher = Norton
| Pages = 242
| ID = ISBN 0393016358
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Numbers
| Given = Ronald L.
| year = 1992
| title = Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism
| publisher = Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
| pages = 224
| id = isbn 0-679-40104-0
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Numbers
| Given = Ronald L.
| Year = 1998
| Date = 1998-11-15
| Title = Darwinism Comes to America
| Publisher = Harvard University Press
| Pages = 224
| ID = ISBN 0674193121
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Peters
| Given1 = Ted
| Surname2 = Hewlett
| Given2 = Martinez
| Year = 2005
| Date = 2005-12-22
| Title = The Evolution Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What?
| Publisher = Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary
| URL = http://www.plts.edu/docs/EvolutionBrief2.pdf
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Popper
| Given = Karl
| Authorlink = Karl Popper
| Year = 1974
| Title = Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Programme
| Journal = The Philosophy of Karl Popper
| Publisher = Open Court Publishing Co.
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Popper
| Given= Karl
| Authorlink= Karl Popper
| Year= 1976
| Title = Unended Quest: An Intellecutal Autobiography
| Publisher = Open Court Publishing Co.
| ID= ISBN 0-87548-366-6
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Tippett
| Given = Krista
| Authorlink= Krista Tippet
| Year= 2006
| date= 2006-07-20
| Title = Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin
| Publisher= American Public Media
| URL= http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml
}} Also available as [http://download.publicradio.org/podcast/speakingoffaith/20060720_darwin.mp3 Audio in mp3 format]. Retrieved on 2007-05-08

[[Category:Creationism]]

Creation science

2008-11-09T13:39:36Z

HomerJay:

[[Image:Hitler7.JPG|right|300px|thumb|Adolf Hitler hated Creation science.]]

'''Creation science''' is [[science]] which sets out to show that [[supernatural]] [[creation]] of the material [[universe]] by [[God]] is consistent and compatible with the available scientific evidence. Most advocates of creation science believe the [[young earth creationism|earth is approximately 6,000 years]] old. In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe. They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the [[origin of life]] and that the [[Evolution|theory of evolution]] cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref> Many scientists in the field of creation science, such as the scientists at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[Answers in Genesis]], assert that the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge | Bible contains an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed]]. In addition, [[Christianity]] profoundly influenced the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].

== Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information ==
:''Main article: [[Intelligent design]]''
[[Image:Foto Gitt.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Werner Gitt]]]]
Scientists in the area of creation science and [[intelligent design]] advocates state the [[genetic code]], genetic programs, and biological [[information]] argue for an intelligent cause in regards to the origins question.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118</ref>

Dr. Werner Gitt, former director and Professor of Information Systems at the prestigious German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), wrote that human beings are the most complex [[information]] processing systems on earth. Dr. Gitt estimated that the human body processes thousands of times more information than all the world's libraries contain.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html</ref>

Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:

#In his work ''In the Beginning Was Information'' Dr. Gitt stated that “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1484094</ref>
#Dr. Gitt argued that the [[density]] and complexity of [[DNA]] information is millions of times larger than mankind's current technology and this means a supremely intelligent being was the author of this information.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref> Similarly, Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] in his 1996 essay ''The [[Origin of life|Origin of Life]] and the Death of [[Materialism]]'', wrote that "the information storage density of DNA, thanks in part to nucleosome spooling, is several trillion times that of our most advanced [[computer chip]]s.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>
#Gitt stated that the author of the information encoded into the DNA [[molecule]], who constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells was supremely intelligent.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
#Dr. Gitt asserted that because information is a nonmaterial entity and does not originate from matter, the author of biological information must be nonmaterial ([[spirit]]).<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
[[Image:Waltbrown.gif‎|left|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Walt Brown]]]]
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] concurs in regards to the [[supernatural]] origin of biological information and states that the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref> Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref>

To support his creation science view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs, Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
{{cquote|No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742</ref><ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958</ref>}}

==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==
Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims or as a science, on the pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "[[science]]".<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref> However, Dr. [[Walt Brown]] argues that the field of creation science is scientific.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref> Also, creation scientists state the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to the worldviews and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
Also, [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

Although a belief in God does not automatically imply a belief in creation science, it is interesting to note that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 40% of scientists believed there is a God,<ref> http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html</ref> while a similar survey found that 93% of members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God,<ref> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref> revealing the widespread [[liberal]] bias in some so-called "impartial" organizations of scientists.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
==External Links==
*[http://www.creationscience.com/ In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood] the website of Dr. [[Walt Brown]]
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]
*[http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ Creation Science]
*[http://creationontheweb.com/ Creation On the Web] The website of [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ NorthWest Creation Network]

==Notes and References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]