Conservapedia

Creation vs. evolution debate

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HeartOfGold (talk | contribs) at 05:16, May 9, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

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 wars.[1] While the controversy has a long history,[2] today it primarily concerns what should be taught as science in schools, and what is good science.[3] 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 (ID) are other aspects of the dispute.

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.[4] 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

History of the Creation/evolution controversy

Creation/evolution controversy in the age of Darwin

The creation-evolution controversy has a long history, beginning with challenges made by various 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.[5] Previously, citing Louis Agassiz and other scientific luminaries, Protestant contributors to religious quarterlies dismissed Darwin's theories as unscientific[6] 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.[7] Even so, virtually none of these dissenters insisted on a young Earth.[8]

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.[9]

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."[10] 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.[11]

A watershed in the Protestant objections to evolution occured after about 1875.[12] Previously, citing Louis Agassiz and other scientific luminaries, Protestant contributors to religious quarterlies dismissed Darwin's theories as unscientific.[13] 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.[14] Even so, virtually none of these dissenters insisted on a young Earth.[15]

The greatest concern for creationists at the turn of the twentieth century was the issue of human ancestry.[16]


“ 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."[17] ”

Creationists during this period were largely premillennialists, whose belief in Christ's return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.[18] 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.[19] In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the fossil record.[20] Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Bibilical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.[21] 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.[22]

References

  1. ↑ Larson 2004, p. 247-263 Chapter titled Modern Culture Wars. See also 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."
  2. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 3-240
  3. ↑ Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 1
  4. ↑ Hayward 1998, p. 2
  5. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 13
  6. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 13
  7. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 13
  8. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 14
  9. ↑ Hodge 1874, p. 177, Numbers 1992, p. 14
  10. ↑ Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 965, Huxley 1902
  11. ↑ Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 965
  12. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 13
  13. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 13
  14. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 13
  15. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 14
  16. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 15
  17. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 15, quoting H.L Hastings' tract in Was Moses Mistaken? or, Creation and Evolution (1896)
  18. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 14
  19. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 14-15
  20. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 17
  21. ↑ Numbers 1992, p. 17
  22. ↑ 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

Sources

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creation_vs._evolution_debate&oldid=150795"