Conservapedia

Difference between revisions of "Creation vs. evolution debate"
 
(114 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
The '''creation-evolution controversy''' is a recurring dispute a debate most prevalent in regions of the [[United States]] where it is often portrayed as part of the [[culture war]]s.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=247-263}} Chapter titled ''Modern Culture Wars''.  See also {{hnb|Ruse|1999|p=26}}, who writes "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed...religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently been very significant factors in the forward movement of science."</ref>  While the controversy has a long history,<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=3-240}}</ref> today it primarily concerns what should be taught as [[science]] in schools, and what is good science.<ref>{{hnb|Peters & Hewlett|2005|Ref=CITEREFPetersHewlett2005|p=1}}</ref>  In the [[United States]], the teaching of biological [[evolution]] in the public schools is a significant area of contention, while the teaching of alternatives such as [[creation science]] and intelligent design [[intelligent design|(ID)]] are other aspects of the dispute.
+
The '''Creation vs. Evolution debate''' is an ongoing dispute most prevalent in regions of the [[United States]].
 +
It concerns the question of how man, as well as animals and plants, came to exist in their present form; whether they were created as they currently are by the [[intelligent design]] of a Creator, or they [[evolution|evolved]] though [[natural selection]] from primitive lifeforms. Believers in Evolutionism usually support other [[atheist]] theories concerning the origin of the [[universe]], [[Earth]], and [[life]].  
  
−
In the first case, evolutionists argue that creationism should not be taught in the public schools because it is fundementally regligious in nature and not science. Creationists argue that evolution should not be taught because it is bad science or because it is an anti-theist ideology dressed up as science.<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=2}}</ref> In the second case, concerned parents, educators, scientists, and other interested parties argue that creation science and intelligent design are not scientific; rather, they are viewed as thinly disguised schemes to introduce religion to the classroom. In the United States, recent court decisions have affirmed this position, consistently barring the introduction of creation science and intelligent design into public science curricula
+
The [[creation]] vs. [[evolution]] debate has a long history,<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=3-240}}</ref> and today is carried out in the [[mass media]], churches, and the [[Internet]]. A major focus of the debate concerns what should be taught as [[science]] in [[public schools]].<ref>{{hnb|Peters & Hewlett|2005|Ref=CITEREFPetersHewlett2005|p=1}}</ref>
−
== History of the Creation/evolution controversy ==
 
  
−
===Creation/evolution controversy in the age of Darwin===
+
== The debate ==
−
The creation-evolution controversy has a long history, beginning with challenges made by various Darwinian promoters to biblical accounts of creation.  In response to theories promulgated by outspoken proponents of these theories, such as Darwin's Bulldog Thomas Henry Huxley, some religious persons and organizations questioned the legitimacy scientific ideas that were being used to call into question the veracity of the creation account in Genesis. 
 
  
−
A watershed in the [[Protestant]] objections to evolution occured after about [[1875]].<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref>  Previously, citing [[Louis Agassiz]] and other scientific luminaries, Protestant contributors to religious quarterlies dismissed Darwin's theories as unscientific<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref>  After 1875, it became clear that the majority of naturalists embraced evolution, and a sizable minority of these protestant contributors rejected Darwin's theory because it called into question the veracity of Scriptures.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref>  Even so, virtually none of these dissenters insisted on a young Earth.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref>
+
Although the debate ostensibly focuses on the origin of living things (i.e. did they evolve from other living things or were they separately created), the debate also encompasses related issues such as the origins of the universe, galaxies, stars, the solar system, Earth, the geologic record, and life itself.
  
−
Darwin's book was a bombshell that revolutionized the way naturalists viewed the world.  The book was heavily promoted by athiests and agnositics and its promotion attracted attention and controversy, and many theologians reacted to Darwin's theories.  For example, in his 1874 work ''What is Darwinism?'' the theologian [[Charles Hodge]] argued that Darwin's theories were tantamount to [[atheism]].<ref>{{hnb|Hodge|1874|p=177}}, {{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref>
+
In the United States, the teaching of [[biology|biological]] [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] in the public schools is a significant area of contention, while the teaching of alternatives such as [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]] are other aspects of the dispute, although the leading creationist and Intelligent Design organisations oppose efforts to make creation or Intelligent Design a compulsory part of school curricula.<ref>{{hnb|See, for example, Sarfati|2008}}</ref>
  
−
The controversy was fueled by one of Darwin's most vigorous promoters, [[Thomas Henry Huxley]], who opined that [[Christianity]] is "a compound of some of the best and some of the worst elements of [[Paganism]] and [[Judaism]], moulded in practice by the innate character of certain people of the [[Western World]]."<ref>{{hnb|Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish|1982|Ref=CITEREFBurnsRalphLernerStandish1982|p=965}}, {{hnb|Huxley|1902}}</ref>  Perhaps the most uncompromising of the evolutionary philosophers was the German, [[Ernst Haeckel|Ernst Heinrick Haeckel]], a professor of biology, who dogmatically affirmed that nothing spiritual exists.<ref>{{hnb|Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish|1982|Ref=CITEREFBurnsRalphLernerStandish1982|p=965}}</ref>
+
In the first case, [[evolutionists]] argue that Creation Science and intelligent design should not be taught in the public schools because they are fundamentally [[religion|religious]] in nature and not science. Evolutionists claim they are thinly-disguised schemes to introduce religion to the classroom.
  
−
A watershed in the [[Protestant]] objections to evolution occured after about [[1875]].<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref> Previously, citing [[Louis Agassiz]] and other scientific luminaries, Protestant contributors to religious quarterlies dismissed Darwin's theories as unscientific.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref>  After 1875, it became clear that the majority of naturalists embraced evolution, and a sizable minority of these protestant contributors rejected Darwin's theory because it called into question the veracity of Scriptures.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref>  Even so, virtually none of these dissenters insisted on a young Earth.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref>
+
Creationists argue that evolution is anti-theist [[ideology]] dressed up as science,<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=2}}</ref> and that religion, in the form of [[Secular Humanism]], is already in the classroom.
  
−
The greatest concern for creationists at the turn of the twentieth century was the issue of human ancestry.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=15}}</ref>
+
In the United States, various court decisions have concluded that religious views of creation cannot be taught in schools, and a recent court decision concluded that Intelligent Design proponents have a religious motive, and therefore barred the introduction of intelligent design into public science curricula.
 +
However, the court failed to consider whether or not proponents of evolution have a religious motive.
  
−
{{cquote|I do not wish to meddle with any man's family matters, or quarrel with any one about his relatives.  If a man prefers to look for his kindred in the zoological gardens, it is no concern of mine; if he wants to believe that the founder of his family was an ape, a gorilla, a mud-turtle, or a moner, he may do so; but when he insists that I shall trace my [[family tree|lineage]] in that direction, I say ''No Sir!''...I prefer that my genealogical table shall end as it now does, with "Cainan, which was the son of [[Seth]], which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=15}}, quoting H.L Hastings' tract in ''Was Moses Mistaken? or, Creation and Evolution'' (1896)</ref>}}
+
Evolution does hold ground in the observations we can all make around us. One example of micro-evolution occurring everyday is the mutation of bacteria. Following the principle of Occam's razor, evolution is the most logical conclusion, as compared to a god or deity controlling every mutation occurring every day.
  
−
Creationists during this period were largely [[Premillennialism|premillennialists]], whose belief in Christ's return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref> However, they were not as concerned about geology, freely granting scientists any time they needed before the [[garden of eden|Edenic creation]] to account for scientific observations, such as fossils and geological findings.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14-15}}</ref> In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or [[cleric]]s rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the [[fossil|fossil record]].<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Bibilical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or allowed that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=18}}, Noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many or most christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views were rarely expressed in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David Nevins Lord (1792-1880). However, the observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807-1884); John William Dawson (1820-1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818-1907); George D. Armstrong (1813-1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797-1878); James Dwight Dana (1813-1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and respected Amherst College geologist, (1793-1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818-1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?-1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838-1922); Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist who published ''The Other Side of Evolution Its Effects and Fallacy''</ref>
+
== History of the creation vs. evolution debate ==
 +
 
 +
=== Before Darwin ===
 +
 
 +
Even before evolution itself became a subject of widespread debate, the creationary view was already under attack from the new field of geology.
 +
People such as [[James Hutton]] and [[Charles Lyell]] promoted a model of geology which was at odds with the biblical account.
 +
These men proposed what has become known as "[[uniformitarianism]]", a view that the geological record can be explained in terms of what we see happening today.
 +
By doing so, they ruled out the biblical account by fiat, as they rejected that geological formations could have been caused by catastrophic events such as [[Great Flood|Noah's flood]].
 +
 
 +
===Creation vs. evolution debate in the age of Darwin===
 +
The creation-evolution controversy has a long history, beginning with challenges made by various [[Darwin]]ian promoters to [[Bible|biblical]] accounts of creation. In response to theories promulgated by outspoken proponents of these theories, such as "Darwin's Bulldog" [[Thomas Henry Huxley]], some religious persons and organizations questioned the legitimacy of scientific ideas that were being used to call into question the veracity of the creation account in [[Genesis]].
 +
 
 +
Darwin's 1859 book, ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'', was a bombshell that revolutionized the way [[naturalist]]s viewed the world. The book was heavily promoted by [[atheist]]s and [[agnostic]]s and its promotion attracted attention and controversy, and many [[theologian]]s reacted to Darwin's theories. For example, in his 1874 work ''What is Darwinism?'' the theologian [[Charles Hodge]] argued that Darwin's theories were tantamount to [[atheism]].<ref>{{hnb|Hodge|1874|p=177}}</ref><ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
The controversy was fueled by one of Darwin's most vigorous promoters, Thomas Henry Huxley, who opined that Christianity is "a compound of some of the best and some of the worst elements of [[Paganism]] and [[Judaism]], moulded in practice by the innate character of certain people of the Western World".<ref>{{hnb|Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish|1982|Ref=CITEREFBurnsRalphLernerStandish1982|p=965}}, {{hnb|Huxley|1902}}</ref> Perhaps the most uncompromising of the evolutionary philosophers was the [[Germany|German]], [[Ernst Heinrick Haeckel]], a [[professor]] of biology, who dogmatically affirmed that nothing spiritual exists.<ref>{{hnb|Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish|1982|Ref=CITEREFBurnsRalphLernerStandish1982|p=965}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
A watershed in the [[Protestantism|Protestant]] objections to evolution occurred after about 1875.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref> Previously, citing [[Louis Agassiz]] and other scientific luminaries, Protestant contributors to religious quarterlies dismissed Darwin's theories as unscientific.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref> After 1875, it became clear that the majority of naturalists embraced evolution, and a sizable minority of these Protestant contributors rejected Darwin's theory because it called into question the veracity of [[Scripture]]s.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref> Even so, virtually none of these dissenters insisted on a young Earth, as that position had already been ceded.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
The greatest concern for creationists at the turn of the [[twentieth century]] was the issue of human ancestry.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=15}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
{{cquote|I do not wish to meddle with any man's family matters, or quarrel with any one about his relatives. If a man prefers to look for his kindred in the zoological gardens, it is no concern of mine; if he wants to believe that the founder of his family was an ape, a gorilla, a mud-turtle, or a moner, he may do so; but when he insists that I shall trace my lineage in that direction, I say ''No Sir!''...I prefer that my genealogical table shall end as it now does, with "Cainan, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=15}}, quoting H.L Hastings' tract in ''Was Moses Mistaken? or, Creation and Evolution'' (1896). See also Lk 3:37-38.</ref>}}
 +
 
 +
Creationists during this period were largely [[premillennialism|premillennialists]], whose belief in [[Christ]]'s return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref> However, they were not as concerned about [[geology]], freely granting scientists [[Gap Theory|any time they needed]] before the [[Garden of Eden|Edenic]] creation to account for scientific observations, such as [[fossil]]s and geological findings.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14-15}}</ref> In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the fossil record.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Likewise, few attached geological significance to the [[Great Flood|biblical flood]], unlike subsequent creationists.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or allowed that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=18}}, Noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many or most Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views were rarely expressed in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David Nevins Lord (1792-1880). However, the observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807-1884); John William Dawson (1820-1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818-1907); George D. Armstrong (1813-1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797-1878); James Dwight Dana (1813-1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and respected Amherst College geologist, (1793-1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818-1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?-1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838-1922); Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist who published ''The Other Side of Evolution Its Effects and Fallacy''</ref>
  
 
=== Scopes trial ===
 
=== Scopes trial ===
−
Initial reactions in the [[United States of America]] matched the developments in Britain, and when [[Alfred Russel Wallace|Wallace]] went there for a lecture tour in 1886–1887 his explanations of "[[Darwinism]]" were welcomed without any problems, but attitudes changed after the [[First World War]].<ref name=moore06>{{hnb|Moore|2006}}</ref> The controversy became political when [[public schools]] began teaching that man evolved from monkeys in accordance with [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s theory of [[Natural Selection]]. In response, the State of [[Tennessee]] passed a law (the [[Butler Act]] of 1925) prohibiting the teaching of any theory of the origins of humans that contradicted the teachings of the Bible. This law was tested in the highly publicized [[Scopes Trial]] of 1925. The law was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and remained on the books until 1967 when it was repealed.  However, the next year, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in ''Epperson v. Arkansas'' 393 U.S. 97 (1968) that such bans contravened the Constitution's Establishment Clause.
+
<!-- This section needs to be reworked per Coulter's Church of Liberialism and Larson's Summer For The Gods, illustrating that this was a charade of a trial anyway, designed and invented by liberials to attract attention. -->
 +
Initial reactions in the United States to Darwin's theory were largely not political. According to Darwin Biographer Mr. James Moore, Darwin's colleague [[Alfred Russel Wallace]] conducted a tour "trumpeting Darwin's cause in America" in 1886–1887.<ref>{{hnb|Tippett|2006}} Darwian biographer Mr. James Moore's characterization of Wallace's tour, as he was being interviewed by Krista Tippet on ''Speaking of Faith''.</ref> Wallace's explanations were generally accepted without many problems, but attitudes changed after the [[First World War]].<ref>{{hnb|Tippett|2006}}</ref> The controversy became political when public schools began using textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys, in what was believed to be accordance with Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. In response, the State of [[Tennessee]] passed a law (the [[Butler Act]] of 1925) prohibiting the teaching of any theory of the origins of humans that contradicted the teachings of the Bible. This law was tested in the highly publicized [[Scopes trial]] of 1925. The law was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and remained on the books until 1967 when it was repealed.
  
 
=== Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) textbooks ===
 
=== Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) textbooks ===
  
−
By the mid-twentieth century, most neo-Darwinists either repudiated or dismissed earlier [[Lamarckism|Lamarckian]] and theistic theories of evolution.<ref name=Larson253>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=253}}</ref> Neo-darwinists including paleontologist [[George Simpson]] and Julian Huxley evangelized for Darwinism<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=250}}, describing the religious zeal of Simpson and Huxley.</ref> and urged that the public schools teach the "fact of evolution".<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=248,250}}</ref> Their desires were fulfilled in the 1960s, with the introduction of federally supported Biological Sciences Curriculum Study ([http://www.bscs.org/ BSCS]) biology text books that promoted evolution as an organizing principle.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=246,252}}</ref>
+
By the mid-twentieth century, most neo-Darwinists either repudiated or dismissed earlier [[Lamarck]]ian and theistic theories of evolution.<ref name=Larson253>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=253}}</ref> Neo-darwinists including [[paleontology|paleontologist]] [[George Simpson]] and Julian Huxley evangelized for Darwinism<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=250}}, describing the religious zeal of Simpson and Huxley.</ref> and urged that the public schools teach the "fact of evolution".<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=248,250}}</ref> Their desires were fulfilled in the 1960s, with the introduction of federally supported Biological Sciences Curriculum Study ([http://www.bscs.org/ BSCS]) biology text books that promoted evolution as an organizing principle.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=246,252}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
Meanwhile, [[public opinion poll]]s suggested that most Americans either believed that God specially created human beings or guided evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=251}}</ref> Membership in [[church]]es favoring increasingly literal interpretations of Scripture continued to rise, with the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] and [[Lutheran]] Church–[[Missouri]] Synod outpacing all other denominations.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=251}}</ref> With growth, these churches became better equipped to carry a creationist message, with their own [[college]]s, [[school]]s, publishing houses, and broadcast [[media]].<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
With decreasing church membership among evolutionary scientists, the role of opposing the anti-BSCS textbook movement passed from prominent scientists in liberal churches to secular scientists less equipped to reach Christian audiences.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref> Anti-evolutionary forces were able to reduce the number of school districts utilizing BSCS biology text books, but courts continued to prevent religious instruction in public schools.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
=== Institute for Creation Research ===
 +
[[Henry Morris]] and [[John C. Whitcomb]] Jr.'s influential ''[[The Genesis Flood (book)|The Genesis Flood]]'', which argued that creation was literally six days long, humans lived concurrently with [[dinosaur]]s, and that [[God]] created each kind of life, was published in 1961.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255}},{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=xi,200-208}}</ref> With publication, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] churches, colleges, and conferences.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255}}</ref> Morris setup up the [[Creation Science Research Center]] (CSRC), an organization dominated by [[Baptist]]s, as an adjunct to the [[Christian Heritage College]].<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284}}</ref> The CSRC rushed publication of biology text books that promoted creationism, and also published other books such as [[Kelly Segrave]]'s sensational ''Sons of God Return'' that dealt with UFOlogy, [[flood geology]], and demonology.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284-285}}</ref> These efforts were against the recommendations of Morris, who urged a more cautious and scientific approach.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284}}</ref> Ultimately, the CSRC broke up, and Morris founded the [[ICR|Institute for Creation Research]]. Morris promised that the ICR, unlike the CSRC, would be controlled and operated by scientists.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=286}}</ref> During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the terms ''scientific creationism'' and ''creation science''.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255-256}}</ref> The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views".<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=254-255}}, {{hnb|Numbers|1998|p=5-6}}</ref> Previously, ''Creationism'' was a generic term describing a philosophical perspective that presupposed the existence of God.<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=11}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
==The current creation vs. evolution debate==
 +
 
 +
=== Smithsonian-Sternberg affair ===
 +
 
 +
The [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair]] occurred after [[Richard Sternberg]] managed the [[peer review]] process of a paper published by intelligent design researcher [[Stephen Meyer]]. Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the [[Smithsonian Institution]] in retaliation.
 +
 
 +
=== Court cases ===
 +
Major court cases in the creation-evolution controversy are disputes about what can be taught in the schools. After about 1968, they have prohibited attempts to teach creation science or intelligent design in American public schools on the basis of the principle of [[Bill of rights|Separation of Church and State]].
 +
 
 +
* 1925 '''Scopes Trial''': A staged trial in [[Tennessee]], engineered by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] and town promoters, challenging the Butler Act which prohibited the teaching of human evolution. The willing defendant was found guilty of "teaching" evolution, though he was a gym teacher. The conviction was later overturned on a technicality.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}, {{hnb|Coulter|2006}}</ref>
 +
* 1968 '''Epperson v. Arkansas''': Ruled that a 1928 [[Arkansas]] law prohibiting teaching that man descended from animals in the public schools was unconstitutional.
 +
* 1982 '''McLean v. Arkansas''': Ruled that the teaching of Creation-science violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
 +
* 1987 '''Edwards v. Aguillard''': Ruled against Creation-science in [[Louisiana]].
 +
* 2005 '''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''': Ruled that [[intelligent design]] was religious in nature and therefore could not be taught in the public schools in Dover [[Pennsylvania]].
  
−
Meanwhile, public opinion polls suggested that most Americans either believed that God specially created human beings or guided evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=251}}</ref> Membership in churches favoring increasingly literal interpretations of Scripture continued to rise, with the Southern Baptist Convention and Luthern Church–Missouri Synod outpacing all other denominations.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=251}}</ref> With growth, these churches became better equipped to carry a creationist message, with their own colleges, schools, publishing houses, and broadcast media.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>  
+
== Timeline of the creation vs evolution debate ==
 +
* 1859 - Charles Darwin published ''[[The Origin of Species]]'' regarding the theory of evolution. The theory's most radical tenet, "[[natural selection]]," attempted to replace the generally accepted idea of [[baraminology|Created Kinds]].
 +
* 1860 - Liberal theologians published ''Essays and Reviews'' supporting Darwin. A debate of Darwin's theory was arranged at the [[Oxford]] Museum, with "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley among its defenders and [[Samuel Wilberforce]], the Bishop of Oxford leading its critics.
 +
* 1925 - The Scopes Trial tested the new Butler Act, which made it illegal to teach that man descended from animals in public schools. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100; prosecution lawyer [[William Jennings Bryan]] offered to pay it, but the decision was later set aside on a technicality after appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
 +
* 1958 - The federally-supported [[National Science Foundation]] started the [http://www.bscs.org/ Biological Sciences Curriculum Study] publishes textbooks which emphasize evolution as an organizing principle.
 +
* 1961 - ''The Genesis Flood'' by Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr. reinvigorated the creationist movement.
 +
* 1968 - A U.S. Supreme Court issues its [[Epperson v. Arkansas]] decision repealing laws that prohibited the teaching of evolution and required the teaching of a creationism on the grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
 +
* 1974 - [[Karl Popper]] classifies Darwin's theory of evolution as a metaphysical research program.<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1974}} as reprinted in {{hnb|Balashov & Rosenberg|Ref=CITEREFBalashovRosenberg2002|p=302}}, see [https://books.google.com/books?id=tAkXVaNq5GAC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=popper+metaphysical+research&source=web&ots=0nhuwofKbm&sig=XCjz0MaNM1F7ai7Ek2aO03HkTOg Facsimile on Google books]</ref>
 +
* 2004 - Intelligent Design researcher Stephen C. Meyer publishes a paper, ''The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories'' in the peer-reviewed journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', leading to the [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair]]
 +
* 2005 - U.S. Representative Mark Souder's office issues a report concurring with the U.S. Office of Special Council's conclusion that Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian Institution in retaliation for his role in publishing Stephen C. Meyer's paper. See [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair]].
 +
* 2007 - [[Pope Benedict XVI]] publishes ''Creation and Evolution'', where he writes "[It] is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."<ref>Creation and Evolution, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007, Sankt Ulrich Publishing. See also [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_re_eu/pope_evolution;_ylt=A0WTUejOaB1G9GUBBgKs0NUE]</ref>
 +
* 2008 - [[Ben Stein]] releases the documentary ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' which exposes the suppression of [[intelligent design]] in the classroom by evolutionist establishment.
 +
*2017 - The documentary ''Is Genesis History?'' is released which features experts and scientists who try to connect the history of the world to the records of [[Genesis]].<ref>https://www.fathomevents.com/events/is-genesis-history</ref>
 +
== See also ==
  
−
With decreasing church membership among evolutionary scientists, the role of opposing the anti-BSCS textbook movement passed from prominent scientists in liberal churches to secular scientists less equipped to reach Christian audiences.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>  Anti-evolutionary forces were able to reduce the number of school districts utilizing BSCS biology text books, but courts continued to prevent religious instruction in public schools.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>
+
*[[Revolution Against Evolution website]]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
−
<references />
+
{{reflist|2}}
  
 
== Sources ==
 
== Sources ==
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
−
  | Surname     = Aviezer
+
  | Surname = Aviezer
 
  | Given      = Nathan
 
  | Given      = Nathan
 
  | Year        = 1990
 
  | Year        = 1990
Line 43: Line 101:
 
  | Publisher  = Ktav Pub Inc.
 
  | Publisher  = Ktav Pub Inc.
 
  | ID          = ISBN 0881253286
 
  | ID          = ISBN 0881253286
 +
}}
 +
*{{Harvard reference
 +
| Surname1    = Balashov
 +
| Given1      = Yuri (Editor)
 +
| Surname2    = Rosenberg
 +
| Given2      = Alexander (Editor)
 +
| Year        = 2002
 +
| Title      = Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings
 +
| Publisher  = Routledge
 +
| ID          = ISBN 0415257824
 
  }}
 
  }}
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
Line 55: Line 123:
 
  | URL        = https://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/Unchanging_Truth.pdf
 
  | URL        = https://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/Unchanging_Truth.pdf
 
}}Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
}}Retrieved on 2007-05-08
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| Surname    = Bates
 
−
| Given      = Stephen
 
−
| Year        = 2006
 
−
| Date        = 2006-03-21
 
−
| Title      = Archbishop: Stop Teaching Creationism
 
−
| Journal    = The Guardian
 
−
| Publisher  = Guardian News and Media Limited
 
−
| URL        = http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html
 
−
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| Surname    = BBC
 
−
| Given      = BBC
 
−
| Year        = 2006
 
−
| Date        = 2006-03-21
 
−
| Title      = Fears over teaching creationism
 
−
| Journal    = BBC
 
−
| Publisher  = http://news.bbc.co.uk
 
−
| URL        = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4828238.stm
 
−
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| last=Bumiller
 
−
| first=Elisabeth
 
−
| year=2005
 
−
| title=Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution
 
−
| periodical=The New York Times
 
−
| issue=2005-08-03
 
−
| url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html?ex=1280721600&en=8bbf73d2f5204260&ei=5088&partner=r
 
−
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
  | Surname1    = Burns     
 
  | Surname1    = Burns     
Line 100: Line 139:
 
  }}
 
  }}
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
−
  | Surname     = CISE
+
  | Surname = Coulter
−
  | Given       = Committe for Integrity in Science Education
+
  | Given= Ann
−
  | Year       = 1989
+
  | Year= 2006
−
| Date        = February 1989
+
  | Title= Godless: The Church of Liberalism
−
  | Title       = Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy:  A view from the American Scientific Affliation
+
  | Publisher = Crown Forum.
−
  | Publisher   = American Scientific Affiliation
+
  | ID= ISBN 978-1400054206
−
  | ID         = ISBN 1881479005
 
−
| Pages      = 64
 
−
}} [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/climate2.pdf on-line link] to condensed version retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| Surname    = Corey
 
−
| Given      = Michael
 
−
| Year        = 1995
 
−
| Title      = The Natural History of Creation: Biblical Evolutionism and the Return of Natural Theology 
 
−
| Publisher  = University Press of America
 
−
| Pages      = 446
 
 
  }}
 
  }}
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
−
  | Surname     = Dawkins
+
  | Surname= Dawkins
−
| Given      = Richard
 
−
| Authorlink  = Richard Dawkins
 
−
| Year        = 1986
 
−
| Title      = The Blind Watchmaker
 
−
| Publisher  = W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
 
−
| ID          = ISBN  0-393-31570-3
 
−
}}
 
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| Surname    = Dawkins
 
−
| Given      = Richard
 
−
| Authorlink  = Richard Dawkins
 
−
| Year        = 1995
 
−
| Title      = River Out of Eden
 
−
| Publisher  = Basic Books
 
−
| ID          = ISBN 0-465-06990-8
 
−
}}
 
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
  | Surname    = Dawkins
 
−
  | Given      = Richard
 
−
  | Authorlink  = Richard Dawkins
 
−
  | Title      = Is Science a Religion?
 
−
  | Journal    = Humanist
 
−
  | Year        = 1997
 
−
  | Date        = January/February 1997
 
−
  | url        = http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html
 
−
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| Surname    = Dawkins
 
 
  | Given      = Richard
 
  | Given      = Richard
 
  | Authorlink  = Richard Dawkins
 
  | Authorlink  = Richard Dawkins
Line 174: Line 175:
 
  | Publisher  = London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group
 
  | Publisher  = London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group
 
  | ID          = ISBN 0-7181-3430-3}}
 
  | ID          = ISBN 0-7181-3430-3}}
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| Surname    = Dewey
 
−
| Given      = John
 
−
| Authorlink  = John Dewey
 
−
| Editor      = Martin Gardner
 
−
| Year        = 1994
 
−
| Title      = Great Essays in Science
 
−
| Chapter    = The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy
 
−
| Publisher  = Prometheus Books
 
−
| ID          = ISBN 0-87975-853-8
 
−
}}
 
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
  | Surname    = Einstein
 
−
  | Given      = Albert
 
−
  | Authorlink  = Albert Einstein
 
−
  | Title      = Religion and Science
 
−
  | Journal    = New York Times Magazine
 
−
  | Year        = 1930
 
−
  | Date        = 1930-11-09
 
−
  | Pages      = 1-4
 
−
  | url        = http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
 
−
}} Retrieved on 2007-01-30
 
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| Surname    = Engber
 
−
| Given      = Daniel
 
−
| Authorlink  = Daniel Engber
 
−
| Year        = 2005
 
−
| Date        = 2005-05-10
 
−
| Title      = Creationism vs. Intelligent Design: Is there a difference?
 
−
| Publisher  = Slate / Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive
 
−
| URL        = http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/
 
−
}} Retrieved on 2007-01-29
 
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
  | Surname    = Faid
 
  | Surname    = Faid
Line 262: Line 231:
 
  | Publisher  = Scribner, Armstrong, and Company
 
  | Publisher  = Scribner, Armstrong, and Company
 
  | ID          = ASIN B0006AEEMO  
 
  | ID          = ASIN B0006AEEMO  
−
  | URL        = http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-8.txt
+
  | URL        = https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-8.txt
 
  }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
  }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
Line 282: Line 251:
 
  | Volume      = V
 
  | Volume      = V
 
  | Pages      = 126-159
 
  | Pages      = 126-159
−
  | URL        = http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15905/15905-8.txt  
+
  | URL        = https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15905/15905-8.txt  
 
  | Publisher  = Kessinger Publishing  
 
  | Publisher  = Kessinger Publishing  
 
  | ID          = ISBN 978-1417973729 }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
  | ID          = ISBN 978-1417973729 }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
Line 295: Line 264:
 
  | Title        = Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley  
 
  | Title        = Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley  
 
  | Volume      = 1
 
  | Volume      = 1
−
  | URL          = http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5084  
+
  | URL          = https://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5084  
 
  | Publisher    = Ams Pr Inc
 
  | Publisher    = Ams Pr Inc
 
  | ID          = ISBN 0404149804 }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
  | ID          = ISBN 0404149804 }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| Surname    = IAP
 
−
| Given      = Interacademy Panel
 
−
| Year        = 2006
 
−
| Date        = 2006-06-21
 
−
| Title      = IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
 
−
| publisher  = interacademies.net
 
−
| URL        = http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf 
 
−
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
  | Surname    = Johnson  
 
  | Surname    = Johnson  
Line 340: Line 300:
 
  | Surname1    = Larson
 
  | Surname1    = Larson
 
  | Given1      = Edward J.
 
  | Given1      = Edward J.
−
  | Authorlink1 = Edward J. Larson
+
  | Authorlink1 = Edward John Larson
 
  | Surname2    = Witham
 
  | Surname2    = Witham
 
  | Given2      = Larry
 
  | Given2      = Larry
Line 353: Line 313:
 
  | Surname    = Larson
 
  | Surname    = Larson
 
  | Given      = Edward J.
 
  | Given      = Edward J.
−
  | Authorlink  = Edward J. Larson
+
  | Authorlink  = Edward John Larson
 
  | Year        = 2004
 
  | Year        = 2004
 
  | Title      = Evolution
 
  | Title      = Evolution
 
  | Publisher  = Modern Library
 
  | Publisher  = Modern Library
 
  | ID          = ISBN 0-679-64288-9
 
  | ID          = ISBN 0-679-64288-9
 +
}}
 +
*{{Harvard reference
 +
| Surname    = Larson
 +
| Given      = Edward J.
 +
| Authorlink  = Edward John Larson
 +
| Year        = 2006
 +
| Title      = Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial And America's Continuing Debate over Science And Religion
 +
| Publisher  = Basic Books
 +
| ID          = ISBN 978-0465075102
 
  }}  
 
  }}  
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
Line 382: Line 351:
 
  | ID          = ISSN 0028-9604
 
  | ID          = ISSN 0028-9604
 
  }}  
 
  }}  
−
*{{Harvard reference
 
−
| Surname    = Matsumura
 
−
| Given      = Molleen
 
−
| Authorlink  = Molleen Matsumura
 
−
| Publisher  = National Center for Science Education
 
−
| Year        = 1998
 
−
| Title      = What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution?
 
−
| Journal    = Reports of the National Center About Evolution
 
−
| Volume      = 18
 
−
| Number      = 2
 
−
| Pages      = 8-9
 
−
| URL = http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Image:Masumura_1998.pdf
 
−
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
  | Surname    = Morris
 
  | Surname    = Morris
Line 402: Line 358:
 
  | Title      = Back to Genesis:  How Not to Defend Evolution
 
  | Title      = Back to Genesis:  How Not to Defend Evolution
 
  | Publisher  = Institute for Creation Research
 
  | Publisher  = Institute for Creation Research
−
  | URL        = http://www.icr.org/pdf/btg/btg-153.pdf
+
  | URL        = https://www.icr.org/pdf/btg/btg-153.pdf
 
  }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
  }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
Line 414: Line 370:
 
  | Volume      = 103
 
  | Volume      = 103
 
  | Publisher  = Institute for Creation Research
 
  | Publisher  = Institute for Creation Research
−
  | URL        = http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185
+
  | URL        = https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185
 
  }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
  }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
Line 463: Line 419:
 
  | Date        = 2005-12-22
 
  | Date        = 2005-12-22
 
  | Title      = The Evolution Controversy:  Who's Fighting with Whom about What?
 
  | Title      = The Evolution Controversy:  Who's Fighting with Whom about What?
−
  | Publisher  = Pacific Luthern Theological Semiary
+
  | Publisher  = Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary
−
  | URL        = http://www.plts.edu/docs/EvolutionBrief2.pdf
+
  | URL        = http://www.plts.edu/docs/ite_evol_fighting.pdf
 
  }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
  }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 
*{{Harvard reference
 
*{{Harvard reference
Line 470: Line 426:
 
  | Given      = Karl
 
  | Given      = Karl
 
  | Authorlink  = Karl Popper
 
  | Authorlink  = Karl Popper
−
  | Year        = 1976
+
  | Year        = 1974
−
  | Title      = Unended Quest: An Intellecutal Autobiography
+
  | Title      = Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Programme
 +
  | Journal    = The Philosophy of Karl Popper
 
  | Publisher  = Open Court Publishing Co.
 
  | Publisher  = Open Court Publishing Co.
−
| ID          = ISBN 0-87548-366-6
 
 
  }}
 
  }}
 +
*{{Harvard reference
 +
| Surname = Popper
 +
| Given= Karl
 +
| Authorlink= Karl Popper
 +
| Year= 1976
 +
| Title = Unended Quest: An Intellecutal Autobiography
 +
| Publisher = Open Court Publishing Co.
 +
| ID= ISBN 0-87548-366-6
 +
}}
 +
*{{Harvard reference
 +
| Surname = Sarfati
 +
| Given= Jonathan
 +
| Authorlink= Jonathan Sarfati
 +
| Year= 2008
 +
| Title = Creation and Evolutionism
 +
| Publisher = Creation Ministries International
 +
| URL = https://creation.com/science-creation-and-evolutionism-refutation-of-nas#public Science
 +
}}
 +
*{{Harvard reference
 +
| Surname = Tippett
 +
| Given = Krista
 +
| Authorlink= Krista Tippet
 +
| Year= 2006
 +
| date= 2006-07-20
 +
| Title = Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin
 +
| Publisher= American Public Media
 +
| URL= http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml
 +
}} Also available as [http://download.publicradio.org/podcast/speakingoffaith/20060720_darwin.mp3 Audio in mp3 format]. Retrieved on 2007-05-08
 +
 +
[[Category:Creationism]]
 +
[[Category:Evolution]]
 +
[[Category:Origins Debate]]
 +
[[Category:Fundamentalism]]

Latest revision as of 10:47, November 5, 2022

The Creation vs. Evolution debate is an ongoing dispute most prevalent in regions of the United States. It concerns the question of how man, as well as animals and plants, came to exist in their present form; whether they were created as they currently are by the intelligent design of a Creator, or they evolved though natural selection from primitive lifeforms. Believers in Evolutionism usually support other atheist theories concerning the origin of the universe, Earth, and life.

The creation vs. evolution debate has a long history,[1] and today is carried out in the mass media, churches, and the Internet. A major focus of the debate concerns what should be taught as science in public schools.[2]

The debate

Although the debate ostensibly focuses on the origin of living things (i.e. did they evolve from other living things or were they separately created), the debate also encompasses related issues such as the origins of the universe, galaxies, stars, the solar system, Earth, the geologic record, and life itself.

In the United States, the teaching of biological evolution in the public schools is a significant area of contention, while the teaching of alternatives such as creation science and intelligent design are other aspects of the dispute, although the leading creationist and Intelligent Design organisations oppose efforts to make creation or Intelligent Design a compulsory part of school curricula.[3]

In the first case, evolutionists argue that Creation Science and intelligent design should not be taught in the public schools because they are fundamentally religious in nature and not science. Evolutionists claim they are thinly-disguised schemes to introduce religion to the classroom.

Creationists argue that evolution is anti-theist ideology dressed up as science,[4] and that religion, in the form of Secular Humanism, is already in the classroom.

In the United States, various court decisions have concluded that religious views of creation cannot be taught in schools, and a recent court decision concluded that Intelligent Design proponents have a religious motive, and therefore barred the introduction of intelligent design into public science curricula. However, the court failed to consider whether or not proponents of evolution have a religious motive.

Evolution does hold ground in the observations we can all make around us. One example of micro-evolution occurring everyday is the mutation of bacteria. Following the principle of Occam's razor, evolution is the most logical conclusion, as compared to a god or deity controlling every mutation occurring every day.

History of the creation vs. evolution debate

Before Darwin

Even before evolution itself became a subject of widespread debate, the creationary view was already under attack from the new field of geology. People such as James Hutton and Charles Lyell promoted a model of geology which was at odds with the biblical account. These men proposed what has become known as "uniformitarianism", a view that the geological record can be explained in terms of what we see happening today. By doing so, they ruled out the biblical account by fiat, as they rejected that geological formations could have been caused by catastrophic events such as Noah's flood.

Creation vs. evolution debate in the age of Darwin

The creation-evolution controversy has a long history, beginning with challenges made by various Darwinian promoters to biblical accounts of creation. In response to theories promulgated by outspoken proponents of these theories, such as "Darwin's Bulldog" Thomas Henry Huxley, some religious persons and organizations questioned the legitimacy of scientific ideas that were being used to call into question the veracity of the creation account in Genesis.

Darwin's 1859 book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, was a bombshell that revolutionized the way naturalists viewed the world. The book was heavily promoted by atheists and agnostics and its promotion attracted attention and controversy, and many theologians reacted to Darwin's theories. For example, in his 1874 work What is Darwinism? the theologian Charles Hodge argued that Darwin's theories were tantamount to atheism.[5][6]

The controversy was fueled by one of Darwin's most vigorous promoters, Thomas Henry Huxley, who opined that Christianity is "a compound of some of the best and some of the worst elements of Paganism and Judaism, moulded in practice by the innate character of certain people of the Western World".[7] Perhaps the most uncompromising of the evolutionary philosophers was the German, Ernst Heinrick Haeckel, a professor of biology, who dogmatically affirmed that nothing spiritual exists.[8]

A watershed in the Protestant objections to evolution occurred after about 1875.[9] Previously, citing Louis Agassiz and other scientific luminaries, Protestant contributors to religious quarterlies dismissed Darwin's theories as unscientific.[10] After 1875, it became clear that the majority of naturalists embraced evolution, and a sizable minority of these Protestant contributors rejected Darwin's theory because it called into question the veracity of Scriptures.[11] Even so, virtually none of these dissenters insisted on a young Earth, as that position had already been ceded.[12]

The greatest concern for creationists at the turn of the twentieth century was the issue of human ancestry.[13]


“ I do not wish to meddle with any man's family matters, or quarrel with any one about his relatives. If a man prefers to look for his kindred in the zoological gardens, it is no concern of mine; if he wants to believe that the founder of his family was an ape, a gorilla, a mud-turtle, or a moner, he may do so; but when he insists that I shall trace my lineage in that direction, I say No Sir!...I prefer that my genealogical table shall end as it now does, with "Cainan, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."[14] ”

Creationists during this period were largely premillennialists, whose belief in Christ's return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.[15] However, they were not as concerned about geology, freely granting scientists any time they needed before the Edenic creation to account for scientific observations, such as fossils and geological findings.[16] In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the fossil record.[17] Likewise, few attached geological significance to the biblical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.[18] Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or allowed that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.[19]

Scopes trial

Initial reactions in the United States to Darwin's theory were largely not political. According to Darwin Biographer Mr. James Moore, Darwin's colleague Alfred Russel Wallace conducted a tour "trumpeting Darwin's cause in America" in 1886–1887.[20] Wallace's explanations were generally accepted without many problems, but attitudes changed after the First World War.[21] The controversy became political when public schools began using textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys, in what was believed to be accordance with Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. In response, the State of Tennessee passed a law (the Butler Act of 1925) prohibiting the teaching of any theory of the origins of humans that contradicted the teachings of the Bible. This law was tested in the highly publicized Scopes trial of 1925. The law was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and remained on the books until 1967 when it was repealed.

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) textbooks

By the mid-twentieth century, most neo-Darwinists either repudiated or dismissed earlier Lamarckian and theistic theories of evolution.[22] Neo-darwinists including paleontologist George Simpson and Julian Huxley evangelized for Darwinism[23] and urged that the public schools teach the "fact of evolution".[24] Their desires were fulfilled in the 1960s, with the introduction of federally supported Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) biology text books that promoted evolution as an organizing principle.[25]

Meanwhile, public opinion polls suggested that most Americans either believed that God specially created human beings or guided evolution.[26] Membership in churches favoring increasingly literal interpretations of Scripture continued to rise, with the Southern Baptist Convention and Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod outpacing all other denominations.[27] With growth, these churches became better equipped to carry a creationist message, with their own colleges, schools, publishing houses, and broadcast media.[28]

With decreasing church membership among evolutionary scientists, the role of opposing the anti-BSCS textbook movement passed from prominent scientists in liberal churches to secular scientists less equipped to reach Christian audiences.[29] Anti-evolutionary forces were able to reduce the number of school districts utilizing BSCS biology text books, but courts continued to prevent religious instruction in public schools.[30]

Institute for Creation Research

Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr.'s influential The Genesis Flood, which argued that creation was literally six days long, humans lived concurrently with dinosaurs, and that God created each kind of life, was published in 1961.[31] With publication, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at fundamentalist churches, colleges, and conferences.[32] Morris setup up the Creation Science Research Center (CSRC), an organization dominated by Baptists, as an adjunct to the Christian Heritage College.[33] The CSRC rushed publication of biology text books that promoted creationism, and also published other books such as Kelly Segrave's sensational Sons of God Return that dealt with UFOlogy, flood geology, and demonology.[34] These efforts were against the recommendations of Morris, who urged a more cautious and scientific approach.[35] Ultimately, the CSRC broke up, and Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research. Morris promised that the ICR, unlike the CSRC, would be controlled and operated by scientists.[36] During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the terms scientific creationism and creation science.[37] The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views".[38] Previously, Creationism was a generic term describing a philosophical perspective that presupposed the existence of God.[39]

The current creation vs. evolution debate

Smithsonian-Sternberg affair

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

Court cases

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

  • 1925 Scopes Trial: A staged trial in Tennessee, engineered by the American Civil Liberties Union and town promoters, challenging the Butler Act which prohibited the teaching of human evolution. The willing defendant was found guilty of "teaching" evolution, though he was a gym teacher. The conviction was later overturned on a technicality.[40]
  • 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas: Ruled that a 1928 Arkansas law prohibiting teaching that man descended from animals in the public schools was unconstitutional.
  • 1982 McLean v. Arkansas: Ruled that the teaching of Creation-science violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
  • 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard: Ruled against Creation-science in Louisiana.
  • 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Ruled that intelligent design was religious in nature and therefore could not be taught in the public schools in Dover Pennsylvania.

Timeline of the creation vs evolution debate

  • 1859 - Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species regarding the theory of evolution. The theory's most radical tenet, "natural selection," attempted to replace the generally accepted idea of Created Kinds.
  • 1860 - Liberal theologians published Essays and Reviews supporting Darwin. A debate of Darwin's theory was arranged at the Oxford Museum, with "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley among its defenders and Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford leading its critics.
  • 1925 - The Scopes Trial tested the new Butler Act, which made it illegal to teach that man descended from animals in public schools. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100; prosecution lawyer William Jennings Bryan offered to pay it, but the decision was later set aside on a technicality after appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
  • 1958 - The federally-supported National Science Foundation started the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study publishes textbooks which emphasize evolution as an organizing principle.
  • 1961 - The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr. reinvigorated the creationist movement.
  • 1968 - A U.S. Supreme Court issues its Epperson v. Arkansas decision repealing laws that prohibited the teaching of evolution and required the teaching of a creationism on the grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  • 1974 - Karl Popper classifies Darwin's theory of evolution as a metaphysical research program.[41]
  • 2004 - Intelligent Design researcher Stephen C. Meyer publishes a paper, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, leading to the Smithsonian-Sternberg affair
  • 2005 - U.S. Representative Mark Souder's office issues a report concurring with the U.S. Office of Special Council's conclusion that Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian Institution in retaliation for his role in publishing Stephen C. Meyer's paper. See Smithsonian-Sternberg affair.
  • 2007 - Pope Benedict XVI publishes Creation and Evolution, where he writes "[It] is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."[42]
  • 2008 - Ben Stein releases the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which exposes the suppression of intelligent design in the classroom by evolutionist establishment.
  • 2017 - The documentary Is Genesis History? is released which features experts and scientists who try to connect the history of the world to the records of Genesis.[43]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 3-240
  2. ↑ Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 1
  3. ↑ See, for example, Sarfati 2008
  4. ↑ Hayward 1998, p. 2
  5. ↑ Hodge 1874, p. 177
  6. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 14
  7. ↑ Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 965, Huxley 1902
  8. ↑ Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 965
  9. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 13
  10. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 13
  11. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 13
  12. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 14
  13. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 15
  14. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 15, quoting H.L Hastings' tract in Was Moses Mistaken? or, Creation and Evolution (1896). See also Lk 3:37-38.
  15. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 14
  16. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 14-15
  17. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 17
  18. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 17
  19. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 18, Noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many or most Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views were rarely expressed in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David Nevins Lord (1792-1880). However, the observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807-1884); John William Dawson (1820-1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818-1907); George D. Armstrong (1813-1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797-1878); James Dwight Dana (1813-1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and respected Amherst College geologist, (1793-1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818-1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?-1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838-1922); Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist who published The Other Side of Evolution Its Effects and Fallacy
  20. ↑ Tippett 2006 Darwian biographer Mr. James Moore's characterization of Wallace's tour, as he was being interviewed by Krista Tippet on Speaking of Faith.
  21. ↑ Tippett 2006
  22. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 253
  23. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 250, describing the religious zeal of Simpson and Huxley.
  24. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 248,250
  25. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 246,252
  26. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 251
  27. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 251
  28. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 252
  29. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 252
  30. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 252
  31. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 255, Numbers 1992, p. xi,200-208
  32. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 255
  33. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 284
  34. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 284-285
  35. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 284
  36. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 286
  37. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 255-256
  38. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 254-255, Numbers 1998, p. 5-6
  39. ↑ Hayward 1998, p. 11
  40. ↑ Larson 2006, Coulter 2006
  41. ↑ Popper 1974 as reprinted in Balashov & Rosenberg, p. 302, see Facsimile on Google books
  42. ↑ Creation and Evolution, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007, Sankt Ulrich Publishing. See also [1]
  43. ↑ https://www.fathomevents.com/events/is-genesis-history

Sources

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creation_vs._evolution_debate&oldid=1898837"