Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Evolution

2014-09-01T18:43:54Z

MWest:

[[Image:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|226px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref> See also: [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and [[Causes of evolutionary belief]] ]]
The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[religion]] and [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following [[definition of evolution]]: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations..."<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, Definition for "evolution"]</ref> Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]].

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] (see also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]])<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>

In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. <ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html</ref> In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9851</ref>

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> In 2010, the Gallup organization reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx</ref> In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:
{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm</ref>}}

The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.<ref>Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC]]</ref><ref>Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]</ref> Although not a [[creation science|creation scientist]], Swedish [[genetics|geneticist]] Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."<ref>[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]</ref>
[[File:Fish fossil Nat Park Svs.jpg|thumb|Fish fossil, National Park Svs.]]
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|300px|left|When [[Richard Dawkins]] was a young man, he recognized the [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the [[creation]] versus evolution controversy. The [[fossil]] record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.<ref>
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]
* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]
</ref> In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were catalogued and identified in the world's museums.<ref>[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]</ref> Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]]."<ref>Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831</ref>

In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.<ref>
* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]
* [http://www.icr.org/article/280/ More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists Exerpted from the New Book by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney]
</ref>
The theory of evolution was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'', in 1859. In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]]."<ref>http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109</ref>Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].(see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin) ]<ref>
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323
</ref> Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.<ref>[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]</ref> The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. <ref>
*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?]
*[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html Charles Darwin - The Truth]</ref> Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or "survival of the fittest".

The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.<ref>Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref>

Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution incorporated that later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.

As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.<ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001</ref> The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].<ref>Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995</ref>

== Intuition, Darwinism and questioning evolution ==

In January of 2012, the ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref><ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]</ref> A January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref>

In May of 2011, [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign|Question evolution! campaign]] which is a [[grassroots]] campaign encouraging students and others to "question the evolutionary [[pseudoscience]] peddled to them". The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot answer. (see: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]).<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref>

== Theory of Evolution - Mutations and the Life Sciences in General ==

''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote concerning the theory of evolution: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."<ref>NorthWest Creation Network, [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]</ref> Concerning various [[theories of evolution]], most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of Life|life first came about on earth]] although [[Theory of evolution and little consensus|there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred]].<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]</ref>

[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref> Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have "stabilized".<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref> Grassé regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."<ref>[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref>

In addition, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.<ref>
* Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]
* Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]
</ref> Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.<ref>
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html Life Sciences]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,[http://creation.com/Whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-Lawrence-S-Lerner Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?]
</ref> [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.<ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]</ref> An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.<ref>
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?]
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3835 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 6, Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?]
</ref> Creation scientists provide sound reasons why [[homology|the homology argument is not a valid argument]]. 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 evolutionist believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>

Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].<ref>
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of "Evolution"]
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]
</ref> Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word "evolution":
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]</ref><ref>The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as "The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet" but it is very poorly done.</ref>}}

=== Biological diversity - evolution contrasted with biblical creation science ===

Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:
{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate</ref>}}

=== Prominent evolutionists have indicated that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary model ===

Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref> This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.<ref>[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref>

== Evolution - Implications of Genetic Code and Processing of Biological Information ==
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489</ref>]]
:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''
Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.<ref name="waltbrown-scientificcreation">Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]</ref><ref>
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp Information Theory Questions and Answers]
* [[William Dembski]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118 Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information]</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[code|codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.<ref name="waltbrown-scientificcreation" /> 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 name="waltbrown-scientificcreation" />

To support his 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>
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742 Notes and References: Codes, Programs, and Information]
* PubMed Central (PMC), [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors]
</ref>}}

In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.<ref>Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]</ref> The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.

== Theory of evolution and little scientific consensus ==

''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]

There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:
{{cquote|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)<ref>
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]
* Simon Conway Morris, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&_user=681891&_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000037419&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=681891&md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; 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 [[molecule]]s or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007<ref>
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/ Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends, There Is No Theory of Evolution, February 20, 2007]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"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 Equilibrium|Theory of Punctuated Equilibria]]," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14<ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]</ref>}}

[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:
{{cquote|Through use and abuse of hidden [[postulate]]s, of bold, often ill-founded [[extrapolation]]s, a [[pseudoscience]] has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of [[biology]] and is leading astray many [[biochemistry|biochemists]] and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case....

Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that [[theory|theoreticians]] put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their [[sectarianism]], purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8<ref>http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm</ref>}}
===Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis===

''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]

== Evolutionary Theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎ ==
[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]
:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]
A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Haeckel]]. Noted evolutionist and [[Stephen Gould]], who held a [[agnostic|agnostic]] worldview<ref>http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/</ref> and promoted the notion of [[Non-Overlapping Magisteria|non-overlapping magesteria]], wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':
{{cquote|"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"<ref name="haeckel">[http://www.creationism.org/wakefield/haeckel.htm "Another Evolution Fraud Exposed"] - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.</ref>}}

An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the [[NY Times]] refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical [[Atheism]]."<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF</ref>

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".<ref name="haeckel" />

== Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms ==

''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]

As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged [[fossils]] in the world's museums.<ref>[http://www.halos.com/printer.htm?page=/book/ctm-07-e.htm Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue]</ref> If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links".
[[File:Darwin.jpg|alt=charles darwin's theory of evolution|right|thumb|225px|[[Charles 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.”<ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]</ref> ]]
Charles Darwin admitted that his 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."<ref>[http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE]</ref> 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."<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]</ref> 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...".<ref>[[Charles Darwin]], ''Origin of the Species'', [http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD]</ref> As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. 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.”<ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]</ref>

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:
{{cquote|"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|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.<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]</ref>}}

Creationists assert 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.<ref>
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp Fossils Questions and Answers]
* [[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]
</ref> Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, "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."<ref>Sir Edmund Leech, [http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241 Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20]</ref>

David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and [[Geophysics]] at the University of Oklahoma wrote that "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…".<ref>Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13]</ref>

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:
{{cquote|"[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 the theory of evolution was the late [[Harvard]] paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:
{{cquote|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...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.<ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html References and Notes: Fossil Gaps]</ref>}}

For more information please see:

*[[Evolution and the fossil record]]

* [[Paleoanthropology]] or [[Human evolution]]

*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]

=== The Fossil Record quotes ===
[[Creationism|Creationists]] can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:
{{cquote|"...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<ref>Christian Answers Network, [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html The Fossil Record - References]</ref><ref>Dr. [[Walt Brown]], [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html Notes and References: Fossil Gaps]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"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.<ref>Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html Early Man]</ref><ref>[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm Solly Zuckerman: Biography]</ref>}}
{{cquote|"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.<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.]</ref>}}

For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes] and [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Additional fossil record quotes]

== Paleoanthropology ==
''For more information please see'': [[Paleoanthropology]] and [[Human evolution]]
[[Image:Nebraska Man.jpg|thumb|alt=human evolution|150px|right|[[Nebraska man]] was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.]]
[[Paleoanthropology]] is an interdisciplinary branch of [[anthropology]] that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and [[artifact]]s.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058075/paleoanthropology Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology]</ref> Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at [[Yale]] University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at [[Harvard]] University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.<ref>[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those Fossils Are A Problem]</ref>

Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book ''Origins'' in the journal ''American Scientist'':
{{cquote|...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.<ref name="thoughtsonEvo">Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals]</ref>}}

Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:
{{cquote|I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory" - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.<ref name="thoughtsonEvo" />}}

Evolutionist and Harvard professor [[Richard Lewontin]] wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."<ref>Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=153 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']</ref> In the September 2005 issue of [[National Geographic]], Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."<ref>Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=126&article=1555 ''The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins'']</ref><ref name="bonesrightplaces">[[National Geographic]] (online edition), Joel Achenbach, [http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_who.html PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?]</ref> In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".<ref name="bonesrightplaces" />

Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.<ref>Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=823 "Human Evolution" An Update]</ref><ref>Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]</ref>}}

Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.<ref>
*[http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/127 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']</ref>

== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==

In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared:
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.

As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.

Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.

Mutations do produce “[[microevolution]],” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.

As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]

Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.<ref>http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116</ref>}}

In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.

...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.<ref>http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html</ref>}}

== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==

[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]

[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the evolutionary [[paradigm]].

Some of their key resources on this matter are:

*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]

*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]

*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]

== Punctuated Equilibrium ==

''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]

[[Image:StephenGould.jpg|left|thumbnail|170px|[[Stephen Jay Gould]] ]]
Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]] was developed and its chief proponents were [[Stephen Gould]], Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley. According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium "asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis".<ref>http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge</ref> Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.<ref>http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html</ref><ref>[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]</ref> The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented. In 1930, Austin H. Clark, an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called [[zoogenesis]] which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.<ref>http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation</ref> Prior to publishing his work entitled ''The New Evolution: Zoogenesis'', Clark wrote in a journal article published in the ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' that "so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other."<ref>http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation#endRef4</ref>

In 1995, there was an essay in the ''New York Review of Books'' by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-Darwinists]], and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:
{{cquote|The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."<ref>http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html</ref><ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf</ref>}}

Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”<ref>http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html</ref><ref>[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]</ref>

Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|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!<ref>[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]</ref>}}

== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==

Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]], argue for [[atheism]] and evolution with a religious fervor.

Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]</ref> Please see: [http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]and [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] and [[Atheism is a religion]].

=== Atheism is a religion and its legal implications as far as the teaching of evolution ===
[[File:Paul gosselin.JPG|thumbnail|right|275px|The Canadian [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Paul Gosselin]] points out that evolution is a [[secular]] origins [[myth]].<ref>[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm Myths of Origin and the Theory of Evolution]</ref> ]]
[[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.<ref>http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf</ref>

John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent wrote:
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]</ref>}}

See also:

*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]
*[[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]

=== Evolution as a secular origins myth ===

Evolution is a secular origins myth of [[atheism|atheists]], [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and members of other [[liberal Christianity|theologically liberal]] religious sects (theologically [[liberal]] religious sects often dismiss out of hand various [[supernatural]] events in history due to their hostility towards [[God]] and the supernatural). See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]

== Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position==
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
Individuals who are against the evolutionary 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.<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/</ref>
<ref>http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/</ref>

A well known example of a "just so story" is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he stated:
{{cquote|"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."<ref>http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html</ref>}}

Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:
{{cquote|"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill 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<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias</ref>}}

Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:
{{cquote|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|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!<ref>http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur</ref>}}
[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]

Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:
*various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/5044</ref><ref>http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/146/</ref>
*[[flagellum|bacterial flagellum]]<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331</ref>
*[[homing]]<ref>[http://creation.com/wings-on-the-wind Wings on the wind
How do migrating birds know exactly when, and where, to go?]</ref>
*the origin of flight in the animal kingdom<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp</ref>
* human [[brain]]<ref>http://creation.com/the-brain-brainier-than-believed-before</ref><ref>http://creation.com/the-human-bodygods-masterpiece</ref><ref>http://creation.com/mind-by-design-peter-line-interview</ref>
*[[migration]]<ref>http://creation.com/the-magnificent-migrating-monarch</ref>
*the [[whale]]<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution</ref><ref>http://creation.com/whale-explodes-fossil-theory</ref>
*the [[Venus flytrap]]<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/4340</ref>
*the [[Bombardier beetle]]<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp</ref>
*the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]<ref>http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm</ref>

Lastly, biochemist [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:
{{cquote|"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty 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<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719</ref>}}

== Statements of Design ==
:''See main article: [[Intelligent design]]''

[[Phillip E. Johnson]] cites [[Francis Crick]] in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:
{{cquote|"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 [[materialism|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]]<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html</ref>}}

Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:
{{cquote|"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.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>}}
[[File:Darwin monkey cartoon.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

== Detractors of Evolution and the Scientific Journals ==
Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals which favor the creationist position).<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref><ref>http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref><ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3873/</ref> Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref>

== Unqualified to be a scientific theory==

[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the 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> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that 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>

The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.<ref>L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349</ref>}}

The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref>

== Evolution is a Religion and Not Science ==

''See also:'' [[Evolution is a religion]]

[[Michael Ruse]], the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”<ref>[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]</ref> In the leading American science science journal ''Science'', Michael Ruse published an article in 2003 entitled ''Is Evolution a Secular Religion?''<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Is Evolution a Secular Religion?] by Dr. [[Michael Ruse]], ''Science'', March 7, 2003</ref>

Creationist opponents of evolution commonly point out that evolution is a religion and not science.<ref> *[http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution The religious nature of evolution] by Dr. [[Carl Wieland]]
*[http://creation.com/evolution-religious Religious Nature of Evolution and its Attack on Christianity]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/455/ Evolution is a religion - not science] by Dr. [[Henry Morris]]
*[http://creation.com/evolution-as-religion Evolution as religion]</ref>

For more information, please see: [[Evolution is a religion]]

== Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology ==
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]]

''See also:'' [[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]

[[Stephen Wolfram]] in his book ''A New Kind of Science'' has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, "increasingly been applied outside of biology."<ref>http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1</ref>

===Lysenkoism===
Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/</ref> Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref> Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]].<ref>http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html</ref> Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.<ref>http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html</ref> Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong]] caused famines and the death of millions.<ref>http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/</ref>

===Medical Science===
The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of [[medicine|medical science]]. According to Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]] the list of [[vestigial organs]] in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp</ref> Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:
{{cquote|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...

One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]

‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp</ref>}}

===Astronomy===
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.<ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy</ref> Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the "evolution of the universe".<ref>
* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MoIzN....Q....Z
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995deun.book.....S
</ref> Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/3836</ref> Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:
{{cquote|““...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref name="creationsciencenotes43">[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html Strange Planets] - Creationscience.com</ref>}}
{{cquote|"Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.<ref name="creationsciencenotes43" />}}
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.<ref name="creationsciencenotes60">[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html Star Births? Stellar Evolution?] - Creationscience.com</ref>}}

{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.<ref name="creationsciencenotes61">[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html Galaxies] - Creationscience.com</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concering the [[Milky Way]] galaxy:

:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe [[paradigm]] explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref name="creationsciencenotes43" /><ref name="creationsciencenotes60" /><ref name="creationsciencenotes61" />

===Origin of Life===
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life''.<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.<ref>
* [http://creation.com/the-origin-of-life-a-problem-for-evolution Origin of life - a problem for evolution]
* http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9057170/Oparin,%20Aleksandr
</ref> However, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].

== Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery ==

See:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery]]

== Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution ==
:''See main articles: [[Young Earth Creationism]], [[Geologic system]]''
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.<ref name="sarfati3837">Sarfati, 1999, [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth Chapter 8, How old is the earth?]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy</ref> [[William R. Corliss]] was 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 cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].<ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref> [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref name="sarfati3837" /> Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young Earth Creationism]]).

See also:

*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]

*[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]

*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the earth and the universe]

== Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position ==

''See also:'' [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief|Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]

[[Image:Lion6.jpg|thumb|210px|right|Until the 1970s the scientific consensus was wrong on how [[lion]]s killed their prey.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> The [[Bible]] was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref>]]
A 1997 [[Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that humans 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|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.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere], Kenneth Chang, ''ABCNews.com'', 1999.</ref> As noted earlier, in 2007, "[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/2732</ref>

Poll results regarding the amount of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view. Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp</ref>
On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840</ref><ref>http://www.expelledthemovie.com/</ref>
Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.<ref>[http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx Scientists and belief]</ref> 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.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref> Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|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 practitioners up until the late 1800s.<ref>[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]</ref> 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 judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."<ref>''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.</ref>
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."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]</ref> Next, [[Alchemy|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]].<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,<ref>[http://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/ Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts]</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref>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 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> 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.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm</ref><ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm</ref> In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref> Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]</ref><ref>http://creation.com/content/view/1718/</ref> In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].

For more information see: [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]

== Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution ==

''For more information please see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]]''
‎

There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to [[Social Darwinism]], [[Nazism]] and [[Communism]] and has also been a source of racism.<ref>
* http://www.icr.org/article/454/
* http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n1p04.htm
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3031/
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/
* http://creation.com/content/view/1804/
* http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution
* http://www.icr.org/article/55/
</ref>

=== Belief in evolution and sexual immorality ===

''See also:'' [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem]] and [[Bestiality and Germany]] and [[Bestiality and Sweden]]
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International ]]

In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:
{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.

The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of [[abortion]].

In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’<ref>[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]</ref>}}

Also, according to [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the [[sexual revolution]].<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094</ref>

See also:

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

=== Evolution and Nazism ===
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]

''See also:'' [[World War I and Darwinism]]

The staunch evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] admitted the following:
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html</ref>}}

[[Adolf Hitler]] wrote the following [[Evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] material in his work ''[[Mein Kampf]]'':
{{cquote|If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.<ref>http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/15/a-church-apology-to-darwin/</ref>}}

[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] also wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref>}}

Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:
{{cquote|“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches.”<ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen</ref>}}

Dr. [[Josef Mengele]]'s evolutionary thinking was in accordance with [[Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]] theories that [[Adolph Hitler]] and a number of [[German]] academics found appealing.<ref>[http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/herero-genocide Herero Genecide]</ref> Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the "unworthy life" branch of evolutionary thought.<ref>[http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link The Darwin–Hitler connection]</ref> Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with [[Nazi]] death camps and the [[Holocaust]].<ref>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm</ref> Mengele obtained a infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at [[Auschwitz]]-Birkenau.<ref>http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm</ref>

B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding [[Nazism]] and the theory of evolution:
{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … [[Jew]]s, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp</ref>}}

[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine:
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent...

There is indeed [[history|historical]] precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science."<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref>}}
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal [[atheism|atheist]] [[Joseph Stalin]] was greatly influenced by the work of [[Charles Darwin]].<ref>http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism</ref>]]
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century [[Communism|Communists]].<ref>http://creation.com/content/view/1804/</ref><ref>http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution</ref> Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, ""Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history." Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism</ref>

=== Darwinism and communism ===

Governments under the banner of [[atheism|atheistic]] [[communism]] have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>
*[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]
*[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?]
*[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

=== Darwinism and racism ===

''See also:'' [[Evolutionary racism]]

Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of [[racism]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp</ref> Charles Darwin and [[Thomas Huxley]] contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref> Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref> For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.<ref>Charles Darwin, ''The Descent of Man'', Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man</ref>}}
[[File:Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg|thumb|[[Ota Benga]] in the Bronx Zoo]]
John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal ''Science'', the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:
{{cquote|After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The [[Africa]]n was inferior — he represented the missing link between [[ape]] and Teuton."<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/55/</ref>}}

Harvard University's [[Stephen Jay Gould]] stated, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref> Recent [[racism]] directed at [[Michelle Obama]] was the result of [[evolutionary racism]].<ref>http://creation.com/obama-racism-row</ref>

==== Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history ====

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the ''Psychology Today'' website called ''The Scientific Fundamentalist''.

In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website:
{{cquote|It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.<ref>http://www.scribd.com/doc/55558908/Why-Are-Black-Women-Rated-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-But-Black-Men-Are-Rated-Better-Looking-Than-Other-Men</ref>}}

Kanazawa has a "Savanna principle" hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/38933</ref>

=== Darwinism and bestiality ===
[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]

''See also:'' [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The pro-evolution magazine the ''[[Scientific American]]'' speciously made this unwarranted speculation via their blog on the aberrant practice of bestiality:
{{cquote|After all, we are animals....

In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding — and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective — that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.<ref>Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality By Jesse Bering, March 24, 2010</ref>}}

Liberals [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality|are more likely to believe]] in evolutionary pseudoscience. Concerning the aberrant practice of [[homosexuality]], the licentious [[liberal]] community [[Views on Homosexuality|has more favorable views]] on [[homosexuality]] than [[conservative]]s plus has a history of inflating the number of people who are homosexuals.<ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/content.asp?id=2099 How Bad Science Helped Launch the 'Gay' Revolution] By Robert H. Knight</ref> As far as the [[Causes of Homosexuality|causes of homosexuality]], the [[liberal]] community commonly ignores the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] and errantly asserts that homosexuality is an immutable sexual orientation despite the fact that researchers [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|have found cultures where homosexuality does not exist]].<ref>[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead - Chapter 6]</ref> Thus, it is not surprising the ''Scientific American'' engaged in the above cited speculation concerning [[bestiality]].

In areas of the [[Western World]] where there is a significant amount of [[atheism|atheists]] and evolutionary belief, there have been notable problems related to [[bestiality]] (see: [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Geographic areas where bestiality is posing a notable problem]]).

See also:

*[[Bestiality and Germany]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden]]

*[[Denmark and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain]]

*[[Washington state and bestiality]]

=== Darwinism and brutality in war ===

Historian Jacques Barzun observed how Darwinism caused the horrendous brutality of the wars leading up to [[WWI]]: "Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens — all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate."<ref>http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/making-a-monkey-out-of-darwin.html</ref>

===Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science ===

See: [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]

=== Common behavior of online evolutionists ===
In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html</ref> Given that ''Wired Magazine'' and [[Vox Day]] declared for [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women| various reasons that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men]], it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter. In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].

In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote:
{{cquote|Scienceblogger [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys Chad Orzel described] the commentators on [[PZ Myers]] ' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as "screechy monkeys."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys</ref>}}

In addition, there is a widespread problem with [[Atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullying]] on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and [[creationism|creationist]] YouTube channels. [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video Creationist YouTube video] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.

==Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates==
[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Duane Gish]]]]
:''For additional information please see the article: [[Atheism and Debate]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]

Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]]. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a ''Wall Street Journal'' reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.<ref>Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, [http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science]</ref><ref>[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]</ref>
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”
Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”<ref>[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]</ref><ref>[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]</ref>

Generally speaking, [[Atheism and Debate|leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists]] because [[creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/811/</ref> Also, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]]. Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."<ref>http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate</ref>

==Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality ==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>]]
:''See also: [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]] and
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism]]'' and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]]

As alluded to earlier, in the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> {{cquote|The CBS News reported the following:
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref>}}

Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda.

Despite the aforementioned lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and the aforementioned counter evidential nature of the evolutionary paradigm, atheists and liberals persist in advocating the evolutionary paradigm. The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolutionary paradigm is not surprising given the that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

=== Evolutionary belief, irreligion, extraterrestial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience ===

See: [[Irreligion and superstition]]

=== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ===

''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]

[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for creation science and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner:
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}}

The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref>

Although he is not a [[creationism|creationist]], the atheist [[philosophy|philosopher]] John Gray admitted in 2008 in ''The Guardian'':
{{cquote|A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into [[pseudoscience|pseudo-science]]. [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]]'s notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society The atheist delusion, John Gray, The Guardian, Friday 14 March 2008]</ref>}}

For more information please see: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]

=== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins ===

In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).

The [[Discovery Institute]] provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"

DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Ho,ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:

Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.

Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/4589</ref>}}

In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]

=== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist===
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,<ref name="stumped">[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).</ref>
[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]</ref> However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.<ref> [http://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]</ref>
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provide any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.

===Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ===

As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').<ref>http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=240771</ref> The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with "a strong inclination towards [[atheism]]."<ref>Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.</ref>In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].<ref>[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]</ref> Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that "organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]]."<ref name="SD">http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html</ref> [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]]. <ref>[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]</ref>}}

When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]".<ref>http://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia</ref>

=== Supppession of scientific inquiry concerning alternative theories of origins ===

see also: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]] (for more information please see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]).

=== Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ===

Please see: [[Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity]] [[Atheism and deception]]

== Causes of evolutionary belief ==

''See also:'' [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]

A number of articles have been written concerning the reasons why evolutionists commonly hold their evolutionary views:

*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-is-evolution-is-pushed-in-america.html Why is evolution pushed by dogmatic evolutionists?]

*[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution Why do people believe in evolution?]

*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/evolutionary-gut-feelings-belief-in.html Evolutionary gut feelings, "Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling"] (Cites study in ''Live Science'' article)

See also:

*[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to belief in evolution] (cites Australian National University study)

== Evolutionary biology careers ==

See: [[Evolutionary biology careers]]

== Creation vs. Evolution Videos ==
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]

== Creation vs. evolution news ==

*[[Creation vs. evolution news]]

== Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists ==

See: [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]

== Further Reading (including free on-line versions) ==

*[http://www.amazon.com/Top-Evidences-God-Creation-ebook/dp/B00E4DS2J0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380144491&sr=8-1&keywords=jason+browning Top 15 Evidences for God and Creation] by Jason Browning
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996<ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref> ISBN 9780890511121
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy'', Inquiry Press (Midland, MI), 1976. ISBN 978-0-918-112-02-6<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref> ISBN 0-8308-1324-1
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref> ISBN 080105852X

=== Social effects of the theory of evolution ===

*[http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Absolute-Cynical-Observations-Postmodern/dp/2980777447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1384179653&sr=8-3&keywords=flight+from+absolutes Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] by [[Paul Gosselin]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77k9QDQBi54 Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] - Paul Gosselin discusses his book (video)

=== Other biblical creation related publications ===

''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]

Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:

*[[Creation magazine]]

*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed

*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed

== See also ==

*[[Evolution articles]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Essay: Atheism and evolution essays|Atheism and evolution essays]]
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]
*[[Origin of life]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Creation]]
*[[Atheism and deception]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[Human evolution]]
*[[Arguments for a recent creation]]
*[[Atheism and Evolution]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]
*[[Evolutionism]]
*[[Evolution quotes]]
*[[General theory of evolution]]

==External Links and other links ==

*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]
*[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]
*[http://creation.com Creation Ministries International] - Over 7,000 articles on the creation vs. evolution issue
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation vs. evolution news]

'''Other resources:'''

*[http://creation.com/creation-answers Evidence and arguments against evolution]
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53 The Nine Great 'Proofs' for Evolution: and Why They Are All False!]
*[http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Evolution]
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm Human evolutionary theory]
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm Theory of evolution]
*[http://www.windmillministries.org/theory-of-evolution Theory of evolution] by [[Windmill Ministries]]
*[http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/ Intelligent Design vs. Evolution]

'''Social effects of Darwinism:'''

*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/eth_ev_pg.htm Problems with Ethics in an Evolutionary / Materialistic World-View]

'''Anti-Darwinism/creationist, French/English website:'''

*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Samizdat]

{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

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

{{DEFAULTSORT: Evolution, theory of}}
[[Category: Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Life Sciences]]
[[Category: Biology]]

Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2014-08-31T01:24:06Z

MWest:

[[File:Moon2.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|"Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age."<ref>[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]</ref> see: [http://creation.com/the-moon-the-light-that-rules-the-night Recession of the moon from the earth] ]]
It takes only one counterexample to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]]. Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in a court of law. If each of the following 45 counterexamples to an Old Earth has merely a 10% chance of being valid, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%. In other words, '''''the Earth must be young with a likelihood of 99.9%'''''.<ref>The same analysis can be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 proofs of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]] (Please see: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ''Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe'']).</ref>
<ref>The same analysis can be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 proofs of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]]).</ref>

The motivation for [[atheist]]s to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from [[God]]'s immediate presence, and to turn them away from [[Jesus Christ]]. Also, atheists are motivated, and biased, by the fact that their [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] theories require the world to be an implausible billions of years old.

== Counterexamples ==
The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:

=== History ===

# The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C. and certainly younger than 4000 B.C., the approximate date of origin for the Earth based on a literal reading of the [[Bible]].

=== Astronomy ===
# The oldest star in the universe is only 6000 light years away from Earth, precisely as predicted by the [[Bible]] and a Youth Earth model.<ref>http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/6012/the-oldest-star-in-the-known-universe</ref>
# The [[moon|Moon's]] orbit is a very strong counterexample: the moon is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate<ref>[http://creation.com/the-moon-the-light-that-rules-the-night Recession of the moon from the earth]</ref><ref>"Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year." [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).</ref> that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today. Additionally, the [[moon]]'s orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability,<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref> which further disproves the theory of an [[Old Earth]].
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
# The expansion of the universe is accelerating, which would not occur if the [[Big Bang]] were billions of years ago; the acceleration suggests that the Big Bang (or creation) was recent.<ref>Some insist there is hokey, unseen "[[dark energy]]" and "[[dark matter]]" to try to explain the acceleration.</ref>
# The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.</ref>
# At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.<ref>[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"]</ref>
# The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these is too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.

=== Biology ===

# Blue-eyed people are known to be only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Moreover, the number of blue-eyed people is disappearing, further suggesting that humans have not been long in existence.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html</ref>
# "[http://creation.com/bugs-in-brine DNA in “ancient” fossils]. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years."<ref>[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]</ref>
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>''See, e.g.'', David G. Savage, "The Long Decline in SAT Scores," Educational Leadership 290 (Jan. 1978). [http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197801_savage.pdf]</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence would measure at ridiculous heights, if humans were even tens of thousands of years old.
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.<ref>For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref>[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|"[http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers Living fossils] — [[jellyfish]], graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real."<ref>[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]</ref>]]
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]]<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/animals-face-extinction-threat-as-conservation-efforts-slow-report-says.html One in five species are at risk of extinction]</ref> and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
# "[http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers Living fossils] — [[jellyfish]], graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real."<ref>[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]</ref>
#<span id="Biology 6"></span> The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying ([[CNN]]'s [[Anderson Cooper]] began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);<ref name="Graying">http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-18/living/17299704_1_hair-taylor-hicks-american-idol</ref> many celebrities (such as [[American Idol]] winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)<ref name="Graying"/> and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)<ref>"There's a man, close-cropped gray hair, looks older than 35": Sports Illustrated's description of Cal Ripken at 35. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163438/index.htm#ixzz12ONbgydd] By age 50 he was bald too.</ref> increasingly experience premature graying or balding.
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have calculated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this demonstrates that chimpanzees descended from a large initial population while humans descend from a much smaller one, which indeed we know to have been two people.
# Frequent occurrences of numerous deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&id=7884786</ref>
# The separation between salt and freshwater fish, coupled with their inability to survive in the opposing environment, shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Furthermore, the separation of land and aquatic life and a similar inability for the organisms to survive in the other environment shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Biodiversity on Earth is declining too rapidly to be consistent with a long-term (Old Earth) equilibrium, with the Living Planet Index (LPI) showing "a global decline of 27% between 1970 and 2005. The terrestrial index declined by 25%, freshwater by 29% (this index is calculated to 2003 due to the lack of data available for latter years), and marine by 28%."<ref>http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/lpi,1162,AR.html</ref>
# The [[Bible]] makes references to the [[dinosaurs]]. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago. <ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/93-dinosaurs-and-the-bible</ref>

=== Geology ===

Geological counterexamples to an Old Earth include:
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|250px|"[[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] — where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a “flat gap”. E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the [[Grand Canyon]] (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time)."<ref>[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]</ref>. See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] ]]
# The interior of the earth is as hot as the sun -- far hotter than atheists thought -- and such heat would have dissipated and the radioactivity decayed if the earth were old.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22297915</ref>
# The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years;<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3693932/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/earths-magnetic-field-weakening/</ref> extrapolating backwards does not permit an Old Earth.
# [[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] — where one rock stratum sits on top of another rock stratum but with supposedly millions of years of geological time missing, yet the contact plane lacks any significant erosion; that is, it is a “flat gap.” E.g. Coconino sandstone / Hermit shale in the [[Grand Canyon]] (supposedly a 10 million year gap in time).<ref>[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]</ref> See: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth].
# The frequency of large [[earthquakes]] (more than 6.99 on the Richter scale) doubles roughly every 40 years,<ref>http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/</ref> rendering long-term stability impossible. Large earthquakes have increased by more than 20% in only the last decade.<ref>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php Meanwhile, there is a claim that the global risk of big earthquakes has not increased over the last hundred years [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Peter M. Shearer, Philip B. Stark: ''Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased''] [http://www.pnas.org PNAS], Dec 19, 2011, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118525109</ref> "Researchers are left scratching their heads, trying to understand possible reasons for the uptick in seismic activity in Oklahoma."<ref>http://journalrecord.com/2014/06/16/stc-mining-in-ok-eqs-energy/#ixzz3BKBRvmOW</ref>
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref>
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.
# The massive [[Great Lakes]] and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume; the third largest saltwater lake, Oroumieh Lake, could completely evaporate within the next five years.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_environmental_disaster</ref>
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].
# The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2010872/japan_quake_changed_earths_rotation/</ref> extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref>
# The lack of erosion between rock layers.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref>
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.
# The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.
# The relatively recent separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass -- denied for 100 years by [[atheist]]s before they accepted it -- suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.
# Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, which have baffled Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as "self-moving rocks."<ref>http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/18/rafting-for-rocks?s_cid=rss:rafting-for-rocks</ref>
# Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; "between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades," sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-beach-erosion</ref>
# Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,<ref>http://www.app.com/article/20110319/NJNEWS/103190327/Global-warming-rising-seas-threaten-New-Jersey-expert-says</ref> which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.
# The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html</ref>
# Erosion of rock is far faster than atheist geology previously thought [http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/01/scienceshot-fastest-mountain-erosion-record]. Secular science now admits that mountains don't last long but strangely silent on the obvious implication. Also in the same article: extra soil created by erosion scrubs greenhouse gas CO<sub>2</sub> from atmosphere.

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] also provides scores of anomalies which challenge the [[Old Earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref> An accomplished author,<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
Corliss has written 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> ''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging."<ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

=== Science & Discovery ===
# A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.<ref>Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the "discoveries" are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.</ref>

=== Biblical testimony ===

The Bible contains multiples pieces of evidence showing its authenticity including [[Bible history]], [[Biblical archaeology|Bible archaeology]] and [[Bible prophecy]]. Competent and honest [[Bible exegesis]] indicates the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Should Genesis be taken literally?]</ref>

''See also:'' [http://creation.com/history-questions-and-answers How reliable is biblical chronology?]

== Recommended books ==

*[[William R. Corliss]], Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1989. ISBN 915554-23-2
*William R. Corliss Neglected Geological Anomalies, 1990. ISBN 915554-24-0
*William R. CorlissInner Earth: A Search for Anomalies (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1991. ISBN 915554-25-9
*William R. Corliss, Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1988. ISBN 915554-22-4

== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.preteristcentral.com/Debunking%20Old%20Earth%20Creationism%20&%20a%20Regional%20Flood.html Debunking the Old Earth Theory]

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

== See also ==
{{Counterexamples}}
*[[Radiometric dating]]
[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[Category:geology]]

Feminism

2014-08-31T01:23:06Z

MWest:

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|thumb|200px|''Woman with a guitar'' by [[Georges Braque]], 1913.]]
'''Feminism''' originally was an expression used by [[suffragettes]] -who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref>- to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole.

Specifically, a modern feminist denies or downplays differences between men and women, opposes the encouragement of homemaking and child-rearing for women, and seeks to participate in predominantly male activities, possibly including sexual intercourse with women. Most modern feminists:

* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do<ref>"[T]he wearing of pantsuits is often a useful feminism signifier, depending on the culture of the law firm." [http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2640]</ref><ref>"I was part of a growing tribe of pesky women called feminists by friends and enemies alike. We women stormed out the door in our imitation men's suits ...." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* do not want gender equality; they want power for the female left<ref> [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/feb11/11-02-11.html Phyllis Schlafly, "Feminism Has Become a Hot Topic"]</ref>
* in movies, portray the men as inherently evil, dumb or incompetent, and the women as inherently good, smart or competent (note that this conflicts with gender equality)
* pretend that there are no meaningful differences between men and women when that advances [[liberal]] causes (e.g., women and men equally in military combat, to weaken the U.S. military), but reject equality when that results in more money to women (e.g., [[VAWA]] funding of women's groups)
* oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes)
* view traditional [[marriage]] as unacceptably patriarchal
* belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html</ref><ref> "Being a [[housewife]] is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of [[radical feminism]] is to change that." - Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981. [http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744100744.shtml "You Don't Know Feminism"] </ref>
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women
* advocate for [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying<ref>"(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller. http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref>
* believe marriage implies female servitude when it is in fact a mutual bond
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (Eg: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* often condemn the God-given order of gender roles, as laid out in the Holy [[Bible]]
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-talk-boxer-maamjun19,0,5804401.story</ref> object to other female-only names, such as "temptress"
* take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun "he" when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like 'fireman' and 'stewardess.'
* support the [[homosexual agenda]]
* push propaganda that implies that women weren't allowed to be granted an education until the 1960s, and all education beforehand was granted solely to "rich white males."

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s and the Women's Liberation (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Second Wave Feminism had its roots from [[Betty Friedan]] and [[Simone de Beauvoir]], who both advocated for the abolition of the career of housewife with the false implication that it was comparable to a Nazi concentration camp or a parasite.

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]], which proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts ordered the issuance of homosexual marriage licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court ordered taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (also called "[[Third-Wave]]" feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the [[Critical legal studies|American legal structure]]. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives.

Leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

One of the major features of feminism prior to the 1990s was opposition to women being treated as [[sex objects]]. However, feminists today support women being sex objects, viewing it as a means of empowerment over the traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] family structure and [[conservative values]]. Continuing this same promotion of [[liberalism]] and [[anti-Christian]] values, feminists today treat [[Women's rights and Islam|Islam's cruel treatment of women]] as a matter of "personal choice".

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized{{who}} for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. President.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for American Thinker, links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and [[Marxism|Marx]], is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the state."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', American Thinker], November 29, 2009</ref>

==Quotations==

See [[Quotations about Feminism]]

==See also==
*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
*[[Communism and feminism]]
*[[Feminist myths]]
*[[Feminist nitpicking]]

{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.

[[Category: Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]