Creation-evolution controversy
1115768
225549127
2008-07-14T07:14:17Z
Hrafn
3939239
Unsourced & fallacious
{{creationism2}} {{evolution3}}
The '''creation-evolution controversy''' (also termed the '''creation vs. evolution debate''' or the '''origins debate''') is a recurring [[politics|political dispute]] about the origins of [[Age of the Earth|the Earth]], [[human evolution|humanity]], [[origin of life|life]], and [[Big Bang|the universe]],<ref>See {{harvnb|Hovind|2006}}, for example.</ref> between those who espouse the validity and superiority of a particular religiously-based [[creation myth]] and the [[scientific consensus]], particularly in the field of [[evolutionary biology]], but also in the fields of [[geology]], [[palaeontology]], [[thermodynamics]], [[nuclear physics]] and [[cosmology]].<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html ''An Index to Creationist Claims''] , Mark Isaak, [[Talkorigins Archive]],Copyright © 2006.</ref>
This debate is most prevalent in generally conservative regions of the [[United States]]. It is often portrayed as part of the [[culture war]]s.<ref>{{harvnb|Larson|2004|p=247-263}} Chapter titled ''Modern Culture Wars''. See also {{harvnb|Ruse|1999|p=26}}, who writes "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of [[conflict thesis|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>{{harvnb|Numbers|1992|p=3-240}}</ref> today it is mainly over what constitutes good [[science]],<ref>''See: ''<br>
*{{harvnb|Peters & Hewlett|2005|Ref=CITEREFPetersHewlett2005|p=1}};
*[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 20]]</ref> with the [[politics of creationism]] primarily focusing on the teaching of [[creation and evolution in public education]].<ref>''See: ''
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html ''Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens''], Peter Slevin, [[Washington Post]], Monday, March 14, 2005, Page A01;
*[http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/Renka/Renka_papers/intell_design.htm ''The Political Design of Intelligent Design''], Russell D. Renka, November 16, 2005;
*[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5262 ''Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive''], Jody Wilgoren, [[The New York Times]], April 21, 2005
*[http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/NaturalHistory_200204_Forrest.html ''The Newest Evolution of Creationism''], [[Barbara Forrest]], [[Natural History (magazine)|Natural History]], April, 2002, page 80;
*Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, pages 7-9, also pages 64-90</ref>
The debate also focuses on issues such as the definition of science (and of what constitutes scientific research and evidence), science education (and whether the teaching of the scientific consensus view should be 'balanced' by also teaching fringe theories), [[free speech]], [[separation of Church and State]], and theology (particularly how different Christian denominations interpret the [[Book of Genesis]]).
Within the [[scientific community]] and [[academia]] the [[level of support for evolution]] is essentially universal,<ref>{{harvnb|Myers|2006}}; {{harvnb|NSTA|2007}}; {{harvnb|IAP|2006}}; {{harvnb|AAAS|2006}}; and {{harvnb|Pinholster|2006}}; [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 83 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83]]</ref> while support for [[biblical literalism|biblically-literal]] accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields.<ref>{{harvnb|Larson|2004|p=258}} "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of [[creation science]]; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." See also {{Harvnb|Martz & McDaniel|1987|Ref=CITEREFMartzMcDaniel1987|p=23}}, a Newsweek article which states "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."</ref>
The debate is sometimes portrayed as being between science and religion. However, as the [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]] states:
{{cquote|Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.|20px|20px|''Science, Evolution, and Creationism''|National Academy of Sciences<ref>{{cite book
| last = Committee on Revising Science and Creationism
| first = A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Science, Evolution, and Creationism
| publisher = [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]]
| date = 2008
| location =
| pages = p 12
| url = http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
| doi =
| id =
| isbn = 0-309-10586-2}}</ref>}}
== History of the controversy ==
{{main|History of the creation-evolution controversy}}
{{seealso|History of evolutionary thought|}}
=== Ancient creation-evolution controversies ===
[[Lactantius]] (c.250 - c.330) in his Divine Institutes refutes rudimentary evolutionary thought by discrediting [[abiogenesis]], specifically in regards to the origin of [[Man]]. "... [M]en were not born from the ground throughout the world...but one man ([[Adam (Bible)|Adam]]) was formed by God and from that one man all the earth was filled with the human race, as again took place after the Deluge ([[Noah's Flood]])."<ref>''The Divine Institutes'' 6.10-11, trans. W. Fletcher, in ''The Ante-Nicene Fathers 7''.</ref>
=== Creation-evolution controversy in the age of Darwin ===
{{seealso|Reaction to Darwin's theory}}
[[Image:Darwin ape.jpg|right|thumb|A satirical image of [[Charles Darwin]] as an ape from 1871 reflects part of the social controversy over whether humans and apes share a [[human evolution|common lineage]].]]
The creation-evolution controversy originated in Europe and North America in the late eighteenth century when discoveries in [[geology]] led to various theories of an ancient earth, and [[fossil]]s showing past extinctions prompted early ideas of [[evolutionism]], notably [[Lamarckism]]. In England these ideas of continuing change were seen as a threat to the fixed social order, and were harshly repressed.<ref>{{Harvnb|Desmond & Moore|1991|Ref=CITEREFDesmondMoore1991|p= 34-35}}</ref> Conditions eased, and in 1844 the controversial ''[[Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation|Vestiges]]'' popularised [[transmutation of species]]. The scientific establishment dismissed it scornfully and the [[Church of England]] reacted with fury, but many [[Unitarian]]s, [[Quaker]]s and [[Baptist]]s opposed to the privileges of the [[Established church]] favoured its ideas of God acting through laws. Publication of [[Charles Darwin]]'s ''[[the Origin of Species|On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection]]'' in 1859 brought scientific credibility to [[evolution]], and made it more respectable.<ref>''See":<br>
*{{Harvnb|van Wyhe|2006}};
*{{Harvnb|Desmond & Moore|1991|Ref=CITEREFDesmondMoore1991|p=321-323, 503-505}}.</ref>
There was intense interest in the religious implications of Darwin's book, but the Church of England's attention was largely diverted by theological controversy over ''[[higher criticism]]'' set out in ''[[Essays and Reviews]]'' by [[Liberal Christianity|liberal Christian]] authors, some of whom expressed support for Darwin, as did many [[nonconformist]]s. The Reverend [[Charles Kingsley]] openly supported the idea of God working through evolution. However, many Christians were opposed to the idea and even some of Darwin's close friends and supporters including [[Charles Lyell]] and [[Asa Gray]] could not accept some of his ideas.<ref name="aaas">[http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/images_Doser/Publications/evol_dialogue_study_guide.pdf AAAS Evolution Dialogues: Science, Ethics and Religion] study guide (pdf)</ref> [[Thomas Huxley]], who strongly promoted Darwin's ideas while campaigning to end the dominance of science by the [[clergy]], coined the term ''[[agnosticism|agnostic]]'' to describe his position that God’s existence is unknowable, and Darwin also took this position,<ref name="aaas" /> but evolution was also taken up by prominent [[atheism|atheists]] including [[Edward Aveling]] and [[Ludwig Büchner]] and criticised, in the words of one reviewer, as "tantamount to atheism."<ref>''See:<br>
*{{Harvnb|Hodge|1874|p=177}};
*{{harvnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}};
*{{Harvnb|Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish|1982|Ref=CITEREFBurnsRalphLernerStandish1982|p=965}};
*{{Harvnb|Huxley|1902}}
</ref> By the end of the century [[Roman Catholics]] guided by [[Pope Leo XIII]] accepted human evolution from animal ancestors while affirming that the human soul was directly created by God.<ref name="aaas" />
Creationists during this period were largely [[Premillennialism|premillennialists]], whose belief in [[Jesus Christ|Christ's]] return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.<ref>{{harvnb|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]] to account for scientific observations, such as fossils and geological findings.<ref>{{harvnb|Numbers|1992|p=14-15}}</ref> In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or [[cleric]]s rejected the antiquity of the earth or the progressive nature of the [[fossil|fossil record]].<ref name="Numbers_1992_p17">{{harvnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Biblical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.<ref name="Numbers_1992_p17" /> Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually willing either to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or to allow that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.<ref>{{harvnb|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>
=== Creationism===
{{main|History of creationism}}
{{seealso|Creation and evolution in public education}}
In the [[United States of America]] Creationism was widely accepted and was even considered a foundational truth, but there was no official resistance to evolution by mainline denominations.<ref name="aaas" /> Around the start of the 20th century some [[evangelicalism|evangelical]] scholars had ideas accommodating evolution, such as [[Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield|B. B. Warfield]] who saw it as a natural law expressing God’s will. However, development of the [[eugenics]] movement led many Catholics to reject evolution.<ref name="aaas" /> In this enterprise they received little aid from conservative Christians in Britain and Europe. In Britain this has been attributed to their minority status leading to a more tolerant, less militant theological tradition. The main British Creationist movement in this period was the [[Evolution Protest Movement]], formed in the 1930s.<ref>Numbers(2006) p161</ref>
====The Butler Act and the Scopes monkey trial====
{{main|Scopes trial}}
[[Image:Scopes trial.jpg|left|thumb|200px|[[Clarence Darrow]] and [[William Jennings Bryan]] chat in court during the [[Scopes trial]].]]
In the aftermath of [[World War I]], the [[Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy]] brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the campaigning of [[William Jennings Bryan]] several [[U.S. state|state]]s introduced legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution. By [[1925]], such legislation was being considered in 15 states, and passed in some states, such as Tennessee. The [[American Civil Liberties Union]] offered to defend anyone who wanted to bring a test case against one of these laws. [[John T. Scopes]] accepted, and he confessed to teaching his [[Tennessee]] class evolution in defiance of the [[Butler Act]]. The textbook in question was ''Hunter's Civic Biology'' (1914). The trial was widely publicized by [[H. L. Mencken]] among others, and is commonly referred to as the [[Scopes Monkey Trial]]. Scopes was convicted; however, the widespread publicity galvanized proponents of evolution. When the case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court overturned the decision on a technicality (the judge had assessed the fine when the jury had been required to). Although it overturned the conviction, the Court decided that the law was not in violation of the First Amendment. The Court held,
<blockquote>
"We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory." Scopes v. State 289 S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927).
</blockquote>
The interpretation of the [[Establishment clause]] up to that time was that Congress could not establish a particular religion as the ''State'' religion. Consequently, the Court held that the ban on the teaching of evolution did not violate the Establishment clause, because it did not establish one religion as the "State religion." As a result of the holding, the teaching of evolution remained illegal in Tennessee, and continued campaigning succeeded in removing evolution from school textbooks throughout the United States.<ref>''See:<br>
*[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 19 of 139]];
*[http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals.] (pdf) A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007;
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar06.html TalkOrigins Archive: Post of the Month: March 2006], The History of Creationism by Lenny Flank.</ref>
==== Daniel v. Waters ====
{{main|Daniel v. Waters}}
Daniel v. Waters was a [[1975]] legal case in which the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit]] struck down [[Tennessee]]'s law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of [[evolution]] and [[creationism]] in [[public school]] [[science]] classes because it violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[US Constitution]]. Following this ruling, creationism was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed [[creation science]], and several states passed Acts requiring that this be given equal time with teaching of evolution.
=== Creation Science ===
{{main|Creation Science}}
As biologists grew more and more confident in evolution as the central defining principle of biology,<ref>{{Harvnb|Larson|2004|p=248,250}}, see also {{harvnb|Dobzhansky|1973}}</ref> American membership in churches favoring increasingly literal interpretations of Scripture rose, with the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] and [[Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod]] outpacing all other denominations.<ref>{{Harvnb|Larson|2004|p=251}}</ref> With growth, these churches became better equipped to promulgate a creationist message, with their own colleges, schools, publishing houses, and broadcast media.<ref>{{Harvnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>
In 1961, the first major modern creationist book was published: [[Henry M. Morris]] and [[John C. Whitcomb|John C. Whitcomb Jr.'s]] ''[[The Genesis Flood]].'' Morris and Whitcomb argued that creation was literally 6 days long, that humans lived concurrently with dinosaurs, and that God created each 'kind' of life individually.<ref>{{Harvnb|Larson|2004|p=255}},{{Harvnb|Numbers|1992|p=xi,200-208}}</ref> On the strength of this, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at fundamentalist churches, colleges, and conferences.<ref>{{Harvnb|Larson|2004|p=255}}</ref> Morris' Creation Science Research Center (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]] against Morris' objections.<ref>{{Harvnb|Numbers|1992|p=284-285}}</ref> Ultimately, the CSRC broke up
over a divide between sensationalism and a more intellectual approach, and Morris founded the [[Institute for Creation Research]], which was promised to be controlled and operated by scientists.<ref>{{Harvnb|Numbers|1992|p=284-6}}</ref> During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the scientific sounding terms ''scientific creationism'' and ''creation science''.<ref>Quoting {{harvnb|Larson|2004|p=255-256}}: "Fundamentalists no longer merely denounced Darwinism as false; they offered a scientific-sounding alternative of their own, which they called either 'scientific creationism (as distinct from religious creationism) or 'creation science' (as opposed to evolution science."</ref> The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views".<ref>{{Harvnb|Larson|2004|p=254-255}}, {{Harvnb|Numbers|1998|p=5-6}}</ref>
==== Court cases ====
===== Epperson v. Arkansas =====
{{main|Epperson v. Arkansas}}
In 1928, [[Arkansas]] adopted a law which prohibited any public school or university from teaching "the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals" and from using any textbook which taught the same, prohibiting the teaching of [[evolution]] in the public schools. During the forty years the Arkansas law was in effect, no one was ever prosecuted for violating it. In the mid-1960s the secretary of the Arkansas Education Association sought to challenge the law as a violation of the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]]. In 1968 the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] invalidated the statute, ruling it unconstitutional because it violated the [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment]]. Mandates that [[creation science]] be taught were not ruled unconstitutional by the Court until the 1987 case ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]''.
===== McLean v. Arkansas =====
{{main|McLean v. Arkansas}}
In 1982 another case in [[Arkansas]] ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" was unconstitutional because it violated the [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment|establishment clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]]. Much of the transcript of the case was lost, including [[evidence (law)|evidence]] from [[Francisco J. Ayala|Francisco Ayala]].
===== Edwards v. Aguillard =====
{{main|Edwards v. Aguillard}}
In the early 1980s, the [[Louisiana]] legislature passed a law titled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act". The Act did not require teaching either [[creationism]] or [[evolution]], but did require that when evolutionary science was taught, the "creation science" had to be taught as well. Creationists had lobbied aggressively for the law, arguing that the Act was about academic freedom for teachers, an argument adopted by the state in support of the Act. Lower courts ruled that the State's actual purpose was to promote the religious doctrine of "[[creation science]]," but the State appealed to the Supreme Court. The similar case in McLean v. Arkansas had also decided against creationism. Mclean v. Arkansas however was not appealed to the federal level, creationists instead thinking that they had better chances with Edwards v. Aguillard. In 1987 the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] ruled that the Act was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction" leaving open the door for a handful of proponents of creation science to evolve their arguments into the iteration of creationism that came to be known as [[intelligent design]].<ref>[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/1:Introduction#C. Federal Jurisprudential Legal Landscape|Ruling]], [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] pp 7-9.</ref>
=== Intelligent Design ===
[[Image:The Creation of Adam.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture used banners based on "[[The Creation of Adam]]" from the [[Sistine Chapel ceiling|Sistine Chapel]]. Later it used a less religious image, then was renamed the [[Center for Science and Culture]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8325_evolving_banners_at_the_discov_8_29_2002.asp |title=NCSE Resource |accessdate=2007-10-07 |date=2002-08-29 |work=Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute }}</ref>]]
{{main|Intelligent design}}
{{seealso|Neo-creationism|Intelligent design movement|Teach the Controversy|Critical Analysis of Evolution|}}
In response to [[Edwards v. Aguillard]], the [[Neo-creationism|Neo-Creationist]] [[intelligent design movement]] was formed around the [[Discovery Institute]]'s [[Center for Science and Culture]]. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community, and makes the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as [[natural selection]]."{{Fact|date=June 2008}} It has been viewed as a "scientific" approach to creationism by the creationists, but has widely been accused of not being scientific by the science community.
==== Controversy in recent times ====
{{see also|Politics of creationism|Intelligent design in politics}}
The controversy continues to this day, with the [[mainstream]] [[scientific consensus]] on the origins and evolution of life challenged by creationist organizations and religious groups who desire to uphold some form of creationism (usually [[young earth creationism]], [[creation science]], [[old earth creationism]] or [[intelligent design]]) as an alternative. Most of these groups are explicitly Christian, and more than one sees the debate as part of the Christian mandate to [[evangelism|evangelize]].<ref>{{harvnb|Verderame|2007}},{{harvnb|Simon|2006}}</ref> Some see science and religion as being diametrically opposed views which cannot be reconciled. More accommodating viewpoints, held by many mainstream churches and many scientists, consider science and religion to be separate categories of thought, which ask fundamentally different questions about reality and posit different avenues for investigating it.<ref>{{Harvnb|Dewey|1994|p=31}}, and {{Harvnb|Wiker|2003}}, summarizing Gould.</ref> Public opinion in regards to the concepts of Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design is fluctuating.
More recently, the [[Intelligent Design movement]] has taken an anti-evolution position which avoids any direct appeal to religion. Scientists argue that [[Intelligent design]] does not represent any research program within the mainstream scientific community, and is essentially creationism.<ref>{{harvnb|Larson|2004|p=258}} "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." See also {{Harvnb|Martz & McDaniel|1987|Ref=CITEREFMartzMcDaniel1987|p=23}}, a Newsweek article which states "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."</ref> Its leading proponent, the [[Discovery Institute]], made widely publicised claims that it was a new science, though the only paper arguing for it published in a scientific journal was accepted in questionable circumstances and quickly disavowed in the [[Sternberg peer review controversy]], with the Biological Society of Washington stating that it did not meet the journal's scientific standards, was a "significant departure" from the journal's normal subject area and was published at the former editor's sole discretion, "contrary to typical editorial practices".<ref>[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html ''Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington'']</ref> [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] commented endorsing the teaching of Intelligent design alongside evolution "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about."<ref>{{harvnb|Bumiller|2005}}, {{harvnb|Peters & Hewlett|2005|Ref=CITEREFPetersHewlett2005|p=3}}</ref>
==== Kansas evolution hearings ====
{{main|Kansas evolution hearings}}
In the push by intelligent design advocates to introduce intelligent design in public school science classrooms, the hub of the [[intelligent design movement]], the [[Discovery Institute]], arranged to conduct hearings to review the evidence for evolution in the light of its [[Critical Analysis of Evolution]] lesson plans. The Kansas Evolution Hearings were a series of hearings held in [[Topeka, Kansas|Topeka]], [[Kansas]] May 5 to May 12, 2005. The Kansas State Board of Education eventually adopted the institute's Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plans over objections of the State Board Science Hearing Committee, and electioneering on behalf of conservative Republican candidates for the Board.<ref>[http://www.6newslawrence.com/news/2006/jul/07/many_question_groups_move_elections_nearing/ Some question group's move with elections nearing] 6News Lawrence, Lawrence Journal-World. July 7, 2006.</ref> On [[August 1]], [[2006]], 4 of the 6 conservative Republicans who approved the [[Critical Analysis of Evolution]] classroom standards lost their seats in a primary election. The moderate Republican and Democrats gaining seats vowed to overturn the 2005 school science standards and adopt those recommended by a State Board Science Hearing Committee that were rejected by the previous board, <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137751/ Evolution’s foes lose ground in Kansas] MSNBC, August 2, 2006.</ref> and on [[February 13]], [[2007]], the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. The definition of [[science]] was once again limited to "the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe."<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/13/america/NA-GEN-US-Kansas-Evolution-History.php Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence] The Associated Press, via the International Herald Tribune, February 13, 2007.</ref>
==== The Dover Trial ====
{{main|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District}}
Following the [[Edwards v. Aguillard]] trial in the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in which the Court ruled that a [[Louisiana]] law requiring that [[creation science]] be taught in public schools whenever [[evolution]] was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion, creationists renewed their efforts to introduce creationism into public school science classes. This effort resulted in [[intelligent design]], which sought to avoid legal prohibitions by leaving the source of creation an unnamed and undefined [[intelligent designer]], as opposed to [[God]].<ref>[http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=20418&print=yes&units=all The "Evolution" of Creationism] Timeline: how creationism has "evolved". [[People for the American Way]].</ref> This ultimately resulted in the "Dover Trial," Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which went to trial on [[September 26]], [[2005]] and was decided on [[December 20]], [[2005]] in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design be taught in public school science classrooms was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The 139 page [[:s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|opinion of ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'']] was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research.
== Viewpoints ==
=== Young Earth creationism ===
{{main|Young Earth creationism}}
{{seealso|Creation science|Flood geology}}
Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by [[God]] within the last 10,000 years, literally as described in [[Creation according to Genesis|Genesis]], within the approximate timeframe of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the [[Ussher chronology]]). Young Earth creationists often believe that the [[Universe]] has a similar age as the Earth. [[Creationist cosmologies]] are attempts by some creationist thinkers to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other Young-Earth timeframes. This belief generally has a basis in a [[Biblical literalism|literal]] and [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrant]] interpretation of the Bible.
=== Old Earth creationism ===
{{main|Old Earth creationism}}
{{seealso|Gap creationism|Day-Age Creationism|Progressive creationism}}
Old Earth creationism holds that the [[universe|physical universe]] was created by God, but that the creation event of Genesis is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally believes that the [[age of the Universe]] and the [[age of the Earth]] are as described by [[astronomers]] and [[geologists]], but that details of the [[evolutionary theory]] are questionable. Old Earth creationists interpret the [[Creation according to Genesis|creation accounts of Genesis]] in a number of ways, that each differ from the six, consecutive, 24-hour day creation of the [[Biblical literalism|literalist]] Young Earth Creationist view.
=== Neo-Creationism ===
{{main|Neo-Creationism}}
{{seealso|Intelligent design}}
Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Their goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the [[scientific community]]. It aims to re-frame the debate over the [[origin of life|origins of life]] in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public. Neo-creationists may be either Young Earth or Old Earth Creationists, and hold a range of underlying theological viewpoints (e.g. on the interpretation of the Bible). Neo-Creationism currently exists in the form of the [[intelligent design movement]], which has a [[intelligent design movement#The 'big tent' strategy|'big tent' strategy]] making it inclusive of many Young Earth Creationists (such as [[Paul Nelson (creationist)|Paul Nelson]] and [[Percival Davis]]).
=== Theistic evolution ===
{{main|Theistic evolution}}
{{seealso|Naturalism (philosophy)|Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church|Clergy Letter Project}}
Theistic evolution, also known as "evolutionary creationism," is the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about [[God]] and [[creation theology|creation]] are compatible with some or all of modern [[scientific theory]], including specifically [[evolution]]. It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the [[first cause]] and [[Immanence|immanent]] sustainer/upholder of the universe; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong [[theism|theistic]] (as opposed to [[deism|deistic]]) convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize with the [[day-age creationism|day-age]] interpretation of the [[creation according to Genesis|Genesis creation account]]; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a [[framework view|literary framework]] or [[allegory]].
This position does not generally exclude the viewpoint of [[Naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]], a long standing convention of the [[scientific method]] in [[science]].
Theistic evolutionists have frequently been prominent in opposing creationism (including intelligent design). Notable examples have been biologist [[Kenneth R. Miller]] and theologian [[John Haught]] (both [[Catholics]]), who testified for the plaintiffs in [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]. Another example is the [[Clergy Letter Project]], an organization that has created and maintains a statement signed by American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism, with specific reference to points raised by intelligent design proponents. Theistic evolutionists have also been active in Citizens Alliances for Science that oppose the introduction of creationism into public school science classes (one example being evangelical Christian geologist [[Keith B. Miller]], who is a prominent board member of [[Kansas Citizens for Science]]).
=== Naturalistic evolution ===
{{seealso|Metaphysical naturalism}}
Naturalistic evolution is the position of acceptance of biological evolution and of [[metaphysical naturalism]] (and thus rejection of [[theism]] and [[theistic evolution]]).
{{Expand-section|date=June 2008}}
== Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science ==
Critiques such as those based on the distinction between theory and fact are often leveled against unifying concepts within scientific disciplines. Principles such as [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarianism]], [[Occam's Razor]] or [[parsimony]], and the [[Copernican principle]] are claimed to be the result of a [[bias]] within science toward [[philosophical naturalism]], which is equated by many [[creationists]] with [[atheism]].<ref>{{harvnb|Johnson|1998}}, {{harvnb|Hodge|1874|p=177}}, {{harvnb|Wiker|2003}}, {{harvnb|Peters & Hewlett|2005|Ref=CITEREFPetersHewlett2005|p=5}}--Peters and Hewlett argue that the atheism of many evolutionary supporters must be removed from the debate</ref> In countering this claim, [[Philosophy of science|philosophers of science]] use the term [[Naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]] to refer to the long standing convention in science of the [[scientific method]]. The [[methodology|methodological]] assumption is that [[observation|observable]] events in [[nature]] are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the [[supernatural]], and therefore supernatural explanations for such events are outside the realm of science.<ref>{{harvnb|Lenski|2000|p=Conclusions}}</ref> Creationists claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded and that scientific work is paradigmatically close-minded.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnson|1998}}</ref>
Because modern science tries to rely on the minimization of [[A priori and a posteriori (philosophy)|a priori]] assumptions, error, and [[subjectivity]], as well as on avoidance of [[Francis Bacon|Baconian idols]], it remains neutral on subjective subjects such as [[religion]] or [[morality]].<ref>{{harvnb|Einstein|1930|p=1-4}}</ref> Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form of [[pseudoscience]].<ref>{{harvnb|Dawkins|1997}}</ref>
=== Definitions ===
{{quotation|'''Fact:''' In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
'''Hypothesis:''' A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect,
the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
'''Law:''' A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated
circumstances.
'''Theory:''' In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can
incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.|National Academy of Sciences|Science and Creationism<ref name="FES">[http://www.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/6024.pdf ''Free Executive Summary''], ''Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences'', Second Edition, Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]], 1999,
ISBN 978-0-309-06406-4.</ref>}}
=== Limitations of the scientific endeavor ===
{{quotation|In science, explanations are limited to those based
on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based
on empirical evidence are not a part of science.|National Academy of Sciences|Science and Creationism<ref name="FES" />}}
{{Expand-section|date=June 2008}}
=== Theory vs. fact ===
{{main|Evolution as theory and fact}}
The argument that evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of [[evolution]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Johnson|1993|p=63}}, {{Harvnb|Tolson|2005}}, {{harvnb|Moran|1993}} ; [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/cobb%20county%20decision.pdf ''Selman v. Cobb County School District]''. US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2005); Talk. Origins; Bill Moyers ''et al'', 2004. "[http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins ''Now'' with Bill Moyers]." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29. Interview with Richard Dawkins</ref> The argument is related to a common misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" that is used by scientists. In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions. However, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."<ref>Merriam-Webster online dictionary. www.m-w.com</ref>
Exploring this issue, [[Paleontology|paleontologist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote:<ref>{{harvnb|Gould|1981}}</ref>
: ''[[Evolution]] is a theory. It is also a fact. And [[fact]]s and [[theories]] are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. [[Theories]] are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of [[gravitation]] replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.''
=== Falsifiability ===
[[Philosophy of science|Philosopher of science]] [[Karl Popper|Karl R. Popper]] set out the concept of [[falsifiability]] as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience: Testable theories are scientific, but those that are untestable are not.<ref>''See:<br>
*{{harvnb|Number|1992|p=247}};
*Wilkins, John S, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html Evolution and Philosophy: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?], TalkOrigins Archive
</ref> However, in ''Unended Quest'', Popper declared "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a ''[[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] [[research]] [[Program (management)|programme]]'', a possible framework for testable scientific theories," while pointing out it had "scientific character".<ref>{{harvnb|Popper|1976|p=168 and 172}} quoted in {{harvnb|Kofahl|1981}}</ref>
In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping,"<ref>Unknown sociologist quoted in {{harvnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref> opponents of evolution seized upon Popper's definition to claim [[evolution]] was not a science, and claimed creationism was an equally valid metaphysical research program.<ref>{{harvnb|Kofahl|1989}} as quoted by {{harvnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref> For example, [[Duane Gish]], a leading Creationist proponent, wrote in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981): "[[Stephen Jay Gould]] states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)."<ref>{{harvnb|Lewin|1982}}</ref>
Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that evolutionary theories regarding the origins of life on earth were [[science|scientific]] because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."<ref>Numbers(2006) p274</ref> However, creationists claimed that a key evolutionary concept, that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor, was not mentioned as testable by Popper, and claimed it never would be.<ref>{{harvnb|Kofahl|1981|p=873}}</ref>
In fact, Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html Talkorigins summary of Karl Popper attitudes towards evolution]</ref> Only a few years later, Popper changed his mind, and later wrote, "''I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation''".<ref>''See:<br>
*''Natural selection and the emergence of mind'', Karl Popper, Dialectica 32(3/4): 339—355, 1978
*[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_28/ai_n6194235/pg_1 ''Did Popper refute evolution?''], Massimo Pigliucci, [[Skeptical Inquirer]], Sept-Oct 2004
</ref>
Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiability in science continues.<ref>{{harvnb|Ruse|1999|p=13-37}}, which discusses conflicting ideas about science among [[Karl Popper]], [[Thomas Samuel Kuhn]], and their disciples.</ref> However, simple falsifiability tests for [[common descent]] have been offered by some scientists: For instance, [[biologist]] and prominent critic of creationism [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[J.B.S. Haldane]] both pointed out that if [[fossil]] [[rabbit]]s were found in the [[Precambrian]] [[era (geology)|era]], a time before most similarly complex lifeforms had evolved, "that would completely blow [[evolution]] out of the water."<ref>As quoted by {{harvnb|Wallis|2005|p=32}}. Also see {{harvnb|Dawkins|1986}} and {{harvnb|Dawkins|1995}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Wallis|2005|p=6}} [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] quoting [[J.B.S. Haldane|Haldane]]</ref>
Falsifiability has also caused problems for creationists: In his 1982 decision [[McLean v. Arkansas|McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education]], Judge [[William Overton (judge)|William R. Overton]] used falsifiability as one basis for his ruling against the teaching of creation science in the public schools, ultimately declaring it "simply not science."<ref>{{harvnb|Dorman|1996}}</ref>
=== Conflation of science and religion ===
Many of the most vocal creationists blur the boundaries between criticisms of modern science, [[philosophy]], and culture. They often conjoin their arguments focused on the science of evolution with [[doctrine|doctrinal]] statements or [[Evangelism|evangelistic]] attempts. This can be a central focus of [[apologetics]]. For example, in explanation for his "struggle" against evolution, prominent creationist [[Ken Ham]] has declared "the [[Lord]] has not just called us to knock down evolution, but to help in restoring the foundation of the [[gospel]] in our society. We believe that if the [[church]]es took up the tool of [[Approaches to evangelism#Creation evangelism|Creation Evangelism]] in society, not only would we see a stemming of the tide of [[humanism|humanistic philosophy]], but we would also see the seeds of revival sown in a culture which is becoming increasingly more [[paganism|pagan]] each day."<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v6/i2/creationII.asp Ham, Ken. Creation Evangelism] (Part II of Relevance of Creation). ''Creation Magazine <nowiki>'6'</nowiki>''(2):17, November 1983. </ref> Ham teaches that a rejection of the [[Creation according to Genesis|biblical]] creation history undermines the relevancy of the Christian [[gospel]]s and derivatively weakens the [[morality|moral]] foundations of society.
== Disputes relating to science ==
Many [[creationists]] vehemently oppose certain [[scientific theories]] in a number of ways, including opposition to specific applications of scientific processes, accusations of [[bias]] within the [[scientific community]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Johnson|1993|p=69}} where Johnson cites three pages spent in Issac Asimov's ''New Guide to Science'' that take creationists to task, while only spending one half page on evidence of [[evolution]].</ref> and claims that discussions within the scientific community reveal or imply a crisis. In response to perceived crises in [[modern science]], creationists claim to have an alternative, typically based on [[faith]], [[creation science]], and/or [[intelligent design]]. The scientific community has responded by pointing out that their conversations are frequently misrepresented (e.g. by [[quote mining]]) in order to create the impression of a deeper controversy or crisis, and that the creationists' alternatives are generally [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]].
=== Biology ===
[[Image:Phylogenetic tree.svg|thumb|340px|A [[phylogenetic tree]] based on rRNA genes.]]
Disputes relating to [[evolutionary biology]] are central to the controversy between Creationists and the [[scientific community]]. The aspects of evolutionary biology disputed include [[common descent]] (and particularly [[human evolution]] from common ancestors with other members of the [[Hominidae|Great Apes]]), [[macroevolution]], and the existence of [[transitional fossil]]s.
==== Common descent ====
{{main|Common descent}}
{{seealso|Evidence of common descent|Tree of life (science)}}
{{rquote|center|[The] Discovery [Institute] presents common descent as controversial exclusively within the animal kingdom, as it focuses on embryology, anatomy, and the fossil record to raise questions about them. In the real world of science, common descent of animals is completely noncontroversial; any controversy resides in the microbial world. There, researchers argued over a variety of topics, starting with the very beginning, namely the relationship among the three main branches of life.|John Timmer|''Evolution: what's the real controversy?''<ref name=timmer>[http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/05/07/evolution-whats-the-real-controversy Evolution: what's the real controversy?], John Timmer, Nobel Intent, May 07, 2008</ref>}}
A group of [[organisms]] is said to have common descent if they have a common [[ancestor]]. A theory of universal common descent based on [[evolution]]ary principles was proposed by [[Charles Darwin]] and is now generally accepted by biologists. The [[last universal common ancestor]], that is, the [[most recent common ancestor]] of all currently living organisms, is believed to have appeared about [[Timeline of evolution|3.9 billion years ago]].
With a few exceptions (e.g. [[Michael Behe]]), the vast majority of Creationists reject this theory.
[[Evidence of common descent]] includes evidence from [[fossil record]]s, [[comparative anatomy]], [[biogeography|geographical distribution of species]], [[comparative physiology]] and [[comparative biochemistry]].
===== Human evolution =====
{{Wikibooks|Introduction to Paleoanthropology}}
{{main|Human evolution}}
{{seealso|Paleoanthropology|Adam and Eve}}
[[Human evolution]] is the part of biological evolution concerning the emergence of humans as a distinct [[species]].
Molecular evidence indicates that the lineage of [[gibbon]]s (family [[Hylobatidae]]) became distinct between 18 and 12 Ma, and that of [[orangutan]]s (subfamily Ponginae) at about 12 Ma; we have no fossils that clearly document the ancestry of gibbons, which may have originated in a so far unknown South East Asian hominid population, but fossil proto-orangutans may be represented by ''[[Ramapithecus]]'' from India and ''Griphopithecus'' from Turkey, dated to around 10 Ma. Molecular evidence further suggests that between 8 and 4 mya, first the [[gorilla]]s, and then the [[chimpanzee]] (genus ''Pan'') split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is 98.4<ref name="98.4">[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3744-chimps-are-human-gene-study-implies.html Chimps are human, gene study implies] New Scientist, website, May 19, 2003</ref> percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees. We have no fossil record, however, of either group of African great apes, possibly because bones do not fossilize in [[rain forest]] environments.
Thereafter, [[paleoanthropology]] traces human evolution, via [[fossil]] [[hominid]] evidence through [[Homo (genus)|genus Homo]] to [[Homo sapiens sapiens|modern Humans]].
Creationists have argued that these fossils are either of apes (e.g. that [[Java man]] was a [[gibbon]]<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html ''Was Java Man a gibbon?''], Jim Foley, [[TalkOrigins]] website, April 30, 2003.</ref>) or humans, with no intermediates between the two. However Creationists frequently disagree on where this gap lies.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html ''Comparison of all skulls''], Jim Foley, [[TalkOrigins]] website, August 8, 2005.</ref> [[Creation myth]]s (such as the [[Book of Genesis]]) frequently posit a [[First man or woman|first man]] ([[Adam (Bible)|Adam]], in the case of Genesis) as an alternative viewpoint to the scientific account.
==== Macroevolution ====
{{main|Macroevolution}}
{{seealso|Speciation}}
Creationists have long argued against the possibility of Macroevolution. Macroevolution is defined by the scientific community to be [[evolution]] that occurs at or above the level of [[species]]. Under this definition, Macroevolution can be considered to be a fact, as evidenced by observed instances of [[speciation]]. Creationists however tend to apply a more restrictive, if vaguer, definition of Macroevolution, often relating to the emergence of new body forms or [[Organ (anatomy)|organs]]. The scientific community considers that there is strong evidence for even such more restrictive definitions, but the evidence for this is more complex.
Recent arguments against (such restrictive definitions of) macroevolution include the [[Intelligent design]] arguments of [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Specified complexity]]. However, neither argument has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and both arguments have been rejected by the scientific community as [[pseudoscience]].
{{Expand-section|date=June 2008}}
==== Transitional fossils ====
{{main|Transitional fossil}}
{{seealso|List of transitional fossils|Bird evolution|Evolution of the horse}}
It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils.<ref>''Scientific Creationism'', [[Henry M. Morris]], 1985, pp. 78-90</ref><ref>''Life--How Did It Get Here?'', [[Watchtower Bible and Tract Society]], 1985, pp. 57-59</ref> This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.
[[Image:Ambulocetus BW.jpg|thumb|right|220px|Reconstruction of ''[[Ambulocetus]] natans'']]
As another example, Alan Haywood stated in ''Creation and Evolution'' that "Darwinists rarely mention the whale because it presents them with one of their most insoluble problems. They believe that somehow a whale must have evolved from an ordinary land-dwelling animal, which took to the sea and lost its legs ... A land mammal that was in the process of becoming a whale would fall between two stools—it would not be fitted for life on land or at sea, and would have no hope for survival."<ref>Haywood, Alan (1985) ''Creation and Evolution''.Triangle Books, London. Quoted in ''[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_leviathan.html Hooking Leviathan by Its Past]'', [[Stephen Jay Gould]]</ref> The [[evolution of whales]] has however been documented in considerable detail, with ''[[Ambulocetus]]'', described as looking like a three-metre long mammalian [[crocodile]], as one of the transitional fossils.
Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.
The theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]] developed by [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Niles Eldredge]] is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. For example the change from a creature the size of a mouse, to one the size of an elephant, could be accomplished over 60,000 years, with a rate of change too small to be noticed over any human lifetime. 60,000 years is too small a gap to be identified or identifiable in the fossil record.{{Fact|date=April 2008}}
=== Geology ===
{{main|Flood Geology}}
{{seealso|Creation geophysics|Geochronology|Age of the Earth}}
Many believers in [[Young Earth Creationism]] – a position held by the majority of proponents of [[Flood Geology]] – accept biblical ''chronogenealogies'' (such as the [[Ussher chronology]] which in turn is based on the [[Masoretic]] version of the [[Genealogies of Genesis]]).<ref name="AiG">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/chronogenealogies.asp Biblical chronogenealogies]</ref><ref>[http://www.grisda.org/origins/07053.htm The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11]</ref> They believe that God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, in the space of six days. Much of creation geology is devoted to debunking the dating methods used in [[anthropology]], [[geology]], and [[planetary science]] that give ages in conflict with the young Earth hypotheses. In particular, creationists dispute the reliability of [[radiometric dating]] and [[Isochron dating|isochron]] analysis, both of which are central to mainstream geological theories of the age of the Earth. They usually dispute these methods based on uncertainties concerning initial concentrations of individually considered species and the associated measurement uncertainties caused by [[diffusion]] of the parent and daughter isotopes. However, a full critique of the entire parameter-fitting analysis, which relies on dozens of radionuclei parent and daughter pairs, has not been done by creationists hoping to cast doubt on the technique.
The consensus of professional scientific organisations worldwide is that no scientific evidence contradicts the age of approximately 4.5 billion years.<ref>[http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf ''IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution''], Interacademy Panel on Global Issues, June 21, 2006.</ref> Young Earth creationists reject these ages on the grounds of what they regard as being tenuous and untestable assumptions in the methodology. Apparently inconsistent radiometric dates are often quoted to cast doubt on the utility and accuracy of the method. Mainstream proponents who get involved in this debate point out that dating methods only rely on the assumptions that the [[physical laws]] governing [[radioactive decay]] have not been violated since the sample was formed (harking back to Lyell's doctrine of [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarianism]]). They also point out that the "problems" that creationists publicly mentioned can be shown to either not be problems at all, are issues with known contamination, or simply the result of incorrectly evaluating legitimate data.
Creationists do not claim to have a scientifically verifiable method for dating the Earth, and instead rely solely on Biblical chronologies.
=== Other sciences ===
==== Cosmology ====
{{seealso|Age of the universe}}
Whilst [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe that the [[Universe]] was created approximately 6000 years ago, the current scientific consensus is that it is about 13.7 billion years old. The recent science of [[nucleocosmochronology]] is extending the approaches used for [[Carbon-14]] dating to the dating of astronomical features. For example based upon this emerging science, the Galactic thin disk of the Milky Way galaxy is estimated to have been formed between 8.3 ± 1.8 billion years ago.<ref name=Del2005>{{cite journal | author = Del Peloso, E.F. | coauthors = Da Silva, L.; De Mello, G.F.P.; Arany-prado, L.I. | year = 2005 | title = The age of the Galactic thin disk from Th/Eu nucleocosmochronology | journal = A&A | volume = 434 | pages = 301–308 | doi = 10.1051/0004-6361:20047060}}</ref>
Many other creationists, including Old Earth Creationists, do not necessarily dispute these figures.
==== Nuclear physics ====
{{seealso|radiometric dating}}
Creationists point to experiments they have performed, which they claim demonstrate that 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay took place over a short period of time, from which they infer that "billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that [[Radioactive decay|radioisotope decay]] rates are constant, a core principle underlying [[nuclear physics]] generally, and [[radiometric dating]] in particular.<ref>[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=302 ''Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World''], [[Russell Humphreys|D. Russell Humphreys]], Impact, Number 352, October 2002.</ref>
The scientific community points to numerous flaws in these experiments, to the fact that their results have not been accepted for publication by any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and to the fact that the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental [[geochronology]].<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html ''Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates" Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data''], Kevin R. Henke, [[TalkOrigins]] website, Original version: March 17, 2005, Revision: November 24, 2005.</ref><ref>[http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm ''R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research''], J. G. Meert, Gondwana Research, The Official Journal of the International Association for Gondwana, November 13, 2000 (updated February 6, 2003).</ref>
In refutation of young-Earth claims of inconstant decay rates affecting the reliability of radiometric dating, Roger C. Wiens, a physicist specialising in isotope dating states:
{{quotation|There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do not affect the dating methods [under discussion]<ref>Dating methods discussed were [[potassium-argon dating]], [[argon-argon dating]], [[rubidium-strontium dating]], [[samarium-neodymium dating]], lutetium-hafnium, [[rhenium-osmium dating]], and [[uranium-lead dating]].</ref>":
#Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. ... The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment. ... [H]eavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent.
# ... Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. 'Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus. ... All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than several hundred thousand degrees. ...
#The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by atomic clocks in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates. ...|Roger C. Wiens|Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective<ref>[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2020 Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective], Roger C. Wiens, [[American Scientific Affiliation]], p20-21</ref>}}
=== Misrepresentations of science ===
==== Quote mining ====
{{main|Quote mining}}
As a means to criticise mainstream science, creationists have been known to quote, at length, scientists who ostensibly support the mainstream theories, but appear to acknowledge criticisms similar to those of creationists.<ref>{{harvnb|Dobzhansky|1973}}</ref> However, almost universally these have been shown to be [[quote mining|quote mines]] that do not accurately reflect the evidence for evolution or the mainstream scientific community's opinion of it, or highly out-of-date.<ref name="talk_origins_quote_mine"> {{harvnb|Pieret|2006}}</ref><ref>
*{{cite web | url = http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html | title = Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA113 | publisher = Talk.origins |accessdate = 2007-12-27 | last = Isaak | first = Mark | year = 2004}}
*{{cite web | url = http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/quote_mines/ | title = A new (mis)take on an old paper (and other posts) | publisher = [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|]] | accessdate = 2007-12-26 | last = Dunford | first = Mike | date = 2007-07-02 }}
* {{cite web | url = http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/im_shocked_shocked_to_find_that_quote_mining_is_going_on_in_there | first = PZ | last = Myers | date = 2004-09-11 | accessdate = 2007-12-27 | title = I'm shocked, shocked to find that quote mining is going on in there! | authorlink = PZ Myers | publisher = [[Pharyngula (blog)]] }}</ref> Many of the same quotes used by creationists have appeared so frequently in Internet discussions due to the availability of [[cut and paste]] functions, that the [[TalkOrigins Archive]] has created "[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project]" for quick reference to the original context of these quotations.<ref name="talk_origins_quote_mine" />
== Public policy issues ==
=== Science education ===
{{main|Creation and evolution in public education}}
{{seealso|Teach the Controversy}}
Creationists promote that [[evolution]] is a theory in crisis<ref name="AAAS"> "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."
[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]. [[February 16]] [[2006]] (PDF file)</ref><ref>[[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89]]</ref> with scientists criticizing evolution<ref>"That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom] George J. Annas, [[New England Journal of Medicine]], Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006</ref> and claim that fairness and equal time requires educating students about the alleged scientific controversy.
Opponents, being the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and science education organizations,<ref>See: 1) [[List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design]] 2) [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 83 of 139|Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83]]. The Discovery Institute's [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ Dissent From Darwin Petition] has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml firmly rejects intelligent design and denies that there is a legitimate scientific controversy]. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators [http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes]. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp List of statements from scientific professional organizations] on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. </ref> reply that there is in fact no scientific controversy and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.<ref name="AAAS"> "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]. February 16, 2006 </ref><ref>"That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom] George J. Annas, [[New England Journal of Medicine]], Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006</ref> The [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] and other science and education professional organizations say that Teach the Controversy proponents seek to undermine the teaching of [[evolution]]<ref name="AAAS"> "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."
[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]. [[February 16]] [[2006]] (PDF file)</ref><ref>"In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." [[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/3:Disclaimer#Page 49 of 139|Ruling - disclaimer, pg. 49]] [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].</ref> while promoting intelligent design,<ref>"ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner [[George Gilder]] (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. [[December 2]] [[2002]] [http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/mooney-c.html Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message]</ref><ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_teachingid0201.htm Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When?] by [[William A. Dembski]]"The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to "teach the controversy." There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy."</ref><ref>Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the ''Critical Analysis of Evolution'' model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists...] Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006</ref> and to advance an education policy for US [[Public education|public schools]] that introduces [[creationism|creationist]] explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula.<ref>"has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science." . . . The effect of Defendants’ actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause. [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 134 of 139|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Conclusion, page 134]]
</ref><ref name="doverulingpg89">"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the ''controversy'', but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."[[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, whether ID is science, page 89]]</ref> This viewpoint was supported by the December 2005 ruling in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] trial.<ref name="doverulingpg89" />
[[George Mason University]] Biology Department introduced a course on the creation/evolution controversy, and apparently as students learn more about biology, they find objections to evolution less convincing, suggesting that “teaching the controversy” rightly as a separate elective course on philosophy or history of science, or "politics of science and religion," would undermine creationists’ criticisms, and that the scientific community’s resistance to this approach was bad public relations.<ref>[http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/02_Events/Lectures/2006/02_Lecture_2006_0420.shtml AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion], [[20 April]] [[2006]], Emmett Holman, Associate Professor of Philosophy from [[George Mason University]], retrieved [[2007-04-29]]</ref>
=== Freedom of speech ===
Creationists have claimed that preventing them from teaching [[Creationism]] violates their right of [[Freedom of speech]]. However court cases (such as [[Webster v. New Lenox School District]] and [[Bishop v. Aronov]]) have upheld school districts' and universities' right to restrict teaching to a specified curriculum.
== Issues relating to religion ==
{{seealso|Relationship between religion and science|Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church}}
=== Theological arguments ===
{{seealso|Allegorical interpretations of Genesis|Evolutionary argument against naturalism}}
{{Expand-section|date=June 2008}}
=== Religion and historical scientists ===
Creationists often argue that Christianity and literal belief in the Bible are either foundationally significant or directly responsible for scientific progress.<ref>{{harvnb|Woods|2005|p=67-114}}, Chapter Five: The Church and Science</ref> To that end, Institute for Creation Research founder [[Henry M. Morris]] has enumerated scientists such as [[Galileo Galilei|astronomer and philosopher Galileo]], mathematician and theoretical physicist [[James Clerk Maxwell]], mathematician and philosopher [[Blaise Pascal]], geneticist monk [[Gregor Mendel]], and [[Isaac Newton]] as believers in a biblical creation narrative.<ref>{{harvnb|Morris|1982}}</ref>
This argument usually involves scientists either who were no longer alive when evolution was proposed or whose field of study didn't include evolution. The argument is generally rejected as specious by those who oppose creationism.<ref>[http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114.html Index to Creationist Claims - Claim CA114] edited by Mark Isaak. 2005</ref>
Many of the scientists in question did some early work on the mechanisms of evolution, e.g., the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] combines [[Charles Darwin|Darwin's]] [[theory of evolution|Evolution]] with [[Gregor Mendel|Mendel's]] theories of inheritance and genetics.<!-- Hopefully something so well known won't be viewed as original research. --> Though biological evolution of some sort had become the primary mode of discussing speciation within science by the late-19th century, it was not until the mid-20th century that evolutionary theories stabilized into the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|modern synthesis]]. Some of the historical scientists marshalled by creationists were dealing with quite different issues than any are engaged with today: [[Louis Pasteur]], for example, opposed the theory of [[spontaneous generation]] with [[biogenesis]], an advocacy some creationists describe as a critique on [[chemical evolution]] and [[abiogenesis]]. Pasteur accepted that some form of evolution had occurred and that the Earth was millions of years old.<ref>[http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114_22.html Index to Creationist Claims - Claim CA114.22] edited by Mark Isaak. 2005</ref>
[[Religion and science|The relationship between science and religion]] was not portrayed in antagonistic terms until the late-19th century, and even then there have been many examples of the two being reconcilable for evolutionary scientists.<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/sci_rel.htm] Science and religion:
Conflicts & occasional agreements</ref> Many historical scientists wrote books explaining how pursuit of science was seen by them as fulfillment of spiritual duty in line with their religious beliefs. Even so, such professions of faith were not insurance against dogmatic opposition by certain religious people.
Some extensions to this creationist argument have included the incorrect suggestions that [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[deism]] was a tacit endorsement of creationism or that [[Charles Darwin]] [[Elizabeth Hope|converted on his deathbed and recanted evolutionary theory]].
== Forums for the controversy ==
=== Debates ===
Many creationists and scientists engage in frequent public debates regarding the origin of human life, hosted by a variety of institutions. However, some scientists disagree with this tactic, arguing that by openly debating supporters of supernatural origin explanations (creationism and intelligent design), scientists are lending credibility and unwarranted publicity to creationists, which could foster an inaccurate public perception and obscure the factual merits of the debate.<ref>[http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins ''Why I Won't Debate Creationists''], [[Richard Dawkins]], Reason : In the News, richarddawkins.net, the official Richard Dawkins website, Monday, May 15, 2006.</ref> For example, in May 2004 Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] debated creationist [[Kent Hovind]] in front of a predominately [[creationist]] audience. In Shermer's online reflection while he was explaining that he won the debate with intellectual and scientific evidence he felt it was "not an intellectual exercise," but rather it was "an [[emotional]] drama."{{Clarifyme|date=March 2008}}<ref name="Hovind">{{cite news | url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-05-10.html#miracle | title=Then a Miracle Occurs: An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith | publisher=[[Skeptic Magazine|eSkeptic Online]] | date=2004-05-10 | first=Michael | last=Shermer | accessdate = 2007-02-11}}</ref> While receiving positive responses from creationist observers, Shermer concluded "Unless there is a subject that is truly debatable (evolution v. creation is not), with a format that is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the [[Non-overlapping magisteria|magisterium]] of [[science]] and the magisterium of [[religion]]."<ref name="Hovind" /> (see: [[scientific method]]). Others, like evolutionary biologist [[Massimo Pigliucci]], have debated Hovind, and have expressed surprise to hear Hovind try "to convince the audience that evolutionists believe humans came from rocks" and at Hovind's assertion that biologists believe humans "evolved from bananas."<ref>[[Massimo Pigliucci]]. ''[[Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science]].'' (Sinauer, 2002): ISBN 0878936599 page 102.</ref> {{Clarifyme|date=March 2008}}
[[Eugenie Scott]] of the [[National Center for Science Education]], a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools, claimed debates are not the sort of arena to promote science to creationists.<ref name="Hovind" /> Scott says that "Evolution is not on trial in the world of science," and "the topic of the discussion should not be the scientific legitimacy of evolution" but rather should be on the lack of evidence in creationism. Similarly, [[Stephen Jay Gould]] took a public stance against appearing to give legitimacy to creationism by debating its proponents. He noted during a [[Caltech]] lecture in 1985:<ref>Shermer, Michael. 'Why People Believe Weird Things', Owl Books, 2002. Paperback ed, p. 153. </ref>
{{cquote|Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!}}
=== Political lobbying ===
{{seealso|Politics of creationism|Kansas evolution hearings|Santorum Amendment|List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design}}
A wide range of organisations, on both sides of the controversy, are involved in lobbying in an attempt to influence political decisions relating to the teaching of evolution, at a number of levels. These include the [[Discovery Institute]], the [[National Center for Science Education]], the [[National Science Teachers Association]], state [[:Category:Citizens Alliances for Science|Citizens Alliances for Science]], and numerous national science associations and state Academies of Science.<ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations], [[National Center for Science Education|NCSE]]</ref>
{{Expand-section|date=June 2008}}
=== The controversy in the media ===
The controversy has been discussed in numerous newspaper articles, reports, [[Editorial|op-eds]] and letters to the editor, as well as a number of radio and television programmes (including the PBS series, [[Evolution (TV series)|''Evolution'']] and Coral Ridge Ministries' [[D. James Kennedy#Criticism and controversy|''Darwin's Deadly Legacy'']]). This has led some commentators to express a concern at what they see as a highly inaccurate and biased understanding of evolution among the general public. [[Pulitzer Prize]]-winning journalist and writer [[Edward Humes]] states:<ref>[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_493631.html Unintelligent designs on Darwin], [[Edward Humes]], [[Pittsburgh Tribune-Review]]</ref>
{{cquote|There are really two theories of evolution. There is the genuine scientific theory and there is the talk-radio pretend version, designed not to enlighten but to deceive and enrage.
The talk-radio version had a packed town hall up in arms at the "Why Evolution Is Stupid" lecture. In this version of the theory, scientists supposedly believe that all life is accidental, a random crash of molecules that magically produced flowers, horses and humans -- a scenario as unlikely as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747. Humans come from monkeys in this theory, just popping into existence one day. The evidence against Darwin is overwhelming, the purveyors of talk-radio evolution rail, yet scientists embrace his ideas because they want to promote atheism.}}
==The controversy outside the United States==
[[Image:Views on Evolution.jpg|thumb|right|440px|Views on human evolution in other countries]]
While the controversy has been prominent in the United States, it has also flared up in other countries as well.<ref name=Discover>{{cite journal |last=Pitock |first=Todd |year=2007 |month=06 |title=Science and Islam |journal=Discover |volume= |issue= |pages=36–45}} </ref> <ref name=TBO> {{cite news |author=Gregory Katz |title= Clash Over Creationism Is Evolving In Europe's Schools|url=http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/16/na-clash-over-creationism-is-evolving-in-europes-s |publisher=Associated Press |date= 2008-02-16|accessdate=2008-02-17}}/</ref><ref name="NCSE Edis">{{cite web |url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/8371_cloning_creationism_in_turkey_12_30_1899.asp |title= Cloning Creationism in Turkey |accessdate=2008-02-17 |author=Taner Edis |work=RNCSE 19 (6): 30-35 |publisher=National Center for Science Education}}</ref>
===Islamic countries===
In recent times, the controversy has become more prominent in Islamic countries.<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Evolution and religion: In the beginning | work = | publisher = The Economist | date = 2007-04-19 | url = http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9036706 | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2007-04-25 }}This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.</ref> Currently, in [[Egypt]] evolution is taught in schools but [[Saudi Arabia]] and [[Sudan]] have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.<ref name=Discover/> Creation science has also been heavily promoted in [[Turkey]] and in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by [[Harun Yahya]].<ref name="NCSE Edis"/>
===Europe===
Europeans have often regarded the creation-evolution controversy as an American matter.<ref name=TBO/> However, in recent years the conflict has become an issue in a variety of countries including [[Germany]], [[The United Kingdom]], [[Italy]], [[the Netherlands]], [[Poland]] and [[Serbia]].<ref name=TBO/><ref name="NCSE Edis"/><ref>{{cite news |title=Serbia reverses Darwin suspension |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3642460.stm|publisher=BBC |date=2004-09-09 |accessdate=2008-02-17 }}</ref> <ref>{{cite news |author= Roger Highfield |title=Creationists rewrite natural history |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/10/02/scihist102.xml |publisher=The Telegraph |date=2007-02-10 |accessdate=2008-02-17 }}</ref>
On 17th September 2007 the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a report on the attempt by American inspired creationists to promote creationism in European schools. It concludes "If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.... The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements... some advocates of creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy."<ref>New Scientist 10 November 2007, p. 72</ref>
===Australia===
With declining church attendance, there has been some growth in fundamentalist and pentecostal Christian denominations.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s820631.htm Christianity – Pentecostalism] [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]</ref> Under the former [[Queensland]] state government of [[Joh Bjelke-Petersen]], in 1980 lobbying was so successful that Queensland allowed the teaching of creationism as science to school children. Public lectures have been given in rented rooms at Universities, by visiting American speakers, and speakers with doctorates purchased by mail from Florida sites.<ref>Plimer, Ian "Telling lies for God- Reason versus Creationism", (Random House)</ref> One of the most acrimonious aspects of the Australian debate was featured on the science television program ''[[Quantum (TV series)|Quantum]]'', about a long-running and ultimately unsuccessful court case by [[Ian Plimer]], Professor of Geology at [[Melbourne University]], against an ordained minister, Dr. Allen Roberts, who had claimed that there were remnants of [[Noah's Ark]] in eastern [[Turkey]]. Although the court found that Dr Roberts had made false and misleading claims, they were not made in the court of trade or commerce, so the case failed. <ref name="QUANTUM">[http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/97lies.htm "Telling Lies for God"? - One Man's Crusade], accessed 2008-02-05, [[Quantum (TV series)|Quantum]]. See transcript link for detail.</ref>
== See also ==
<div style="-moz-column-count:3; column-count:3;">
* [[Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy]]
* [[Allegorical interpretations of Genesis]]
* [[Anti-intellectualism]]
* [[Clergy Letter Project]]
* [[Creation science]]
* [[Creationism]]
* [[Evidence of common descent]]
* [[Evidence of evolution]]
* [[Evolution Sunday]]
* [[Evolution]]
* [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]
* [[History of the creation-evolution controversy]]
* [[Intelligent design]]
* [[Jainism and non-creationism]]
* [[Level of support for evolution]]
* [[List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy]]
* [[Lysenkoism]]
* [[Natural theology]]
* [[Objections to evolution]]
* [[Politics of creationism]]
* [[Project Steve]]
* [[Relationship between religion and science]]
* [[Teach the Controversy]]
</div>
==Footnotes==
{{reflist|2}}
== References ==
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = AAAS
| Given = American Association for the Advancement of Science
| Authorlink = American Association for the Advancement of Science
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-02-16
| Title = Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
| Publisher = aaas.org
| URL = http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
| format = pdf
| accessdate = [[2007-01-14]]}}
* {{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
| accessdate = [[2007-02-03]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Burns
| Given1 = Edward M.
| Surname2 = Ralph
| Given2 = Philip Lee
| Surname3 = Lerner
| Given3 = Robert E.
| Surname4 = Standish
| Given4 = Meacham
| Year = 1982
| Title = World Civilizations Their History and Their Culture
| Edition = Sixth
| Publisher = W.W. Norton & Company
| isbn = 0-393-95077-8
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Dawkins
| Given = Richard
| Authorlink = Richard Dawkins
| Year = 1986
| Title = [[The Blind Watchmaker]]
| Publisher = W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
| isbn = 0-393-31570-3
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Dawkins
| Given = Richard
| Authorlink = Richard Dawkins
| Year = 1995
| Title = [[River Out of Eden]]
| Publisher = Basic Books
| 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
| accessdate = [[2007-01-30]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Desmond
| Given1 = Adrian
| Surname2 = Moore
| Given2 = James
| Authorlink2 = James Moore (biographer)
| Year = 1991
| Title = Darwin
| Publisher = London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group
| 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
| isbn = 0-87975-853-8
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Dobzhansky
| Given = Theodosius
| Authorlink = Theodosius Dobzhansky
| Year = 1973
| Date = March, 1973
| Title = Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
| Journal = American Biology Teacher
| Volume = 35
| Pages = 125-129
| Publisher = National Association of Biology Teachers
| url = http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml
| accessdate = [[2007-01-14]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Dorman
| Given = Clark
| Year = 1996
| Date = [[1996-01-30]]
| Title = Transcription of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton
| Publisher = TalkOrigins Archive Foundation
| url = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
| accessdate = [[2007-01-31]]}}
* {{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
| accessdate = [[2007-01-30]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Gould
| Given = Stephen Jay
| Authorlink = Stephen Jay Gould
| Year = 1981
| Title = Evolution as Fact and Theory
| Publisher = The Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive
| URL = http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
| accessdate = [[2007-01-17]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Hodge
| Given = Charles
| Authorlink = Charles Hodge
| Title = What is Darwinism?
| Year = 1874
| Publisher = Scribner, Armstrong, and Company
| ID = ASIN B0006AEEMO
| URL = http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-8.txt
| accessdate = [[2007-01-14]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Hovind
| Given = Kent
| Authorlink = Kent Hovind
| Year = 2006
| Title = Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
| Publisher = Creation Science Evangelism
| URL = http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67
| accessdate = [[2007-01-17]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Huxley
| Given = Thomas H.
| Authorlink = Thomas Huxley
| Year = 1902
| Title = An Episcopal Trilogy 1887
| Journal = Collected Essays Science and Christian Tradition
| Volume = V
| Pages = 126-159
| URL = http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15905/15905-8.txt
| Publisher = Kessinger Publishing
| isbn = 978-1417973729 | accessdate = [[2007-01-14]]}}
* {{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
| accessdate = [[2007-01-14]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Johnson
| Given = Phillip E.
| Authorlink = Phillip E. Johnson
| Year = 1998
| Title = Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education
| Publisher = IntervaVsity Press
| isbn = 0-8308-1929-0
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Johnson
| Given = Phillip E.
| Authorlink = Phillip E. Johnson
| Year = 1993
| Title = Darwin on Trial
| Edition = 2nd
| Publisher = InterVarsity Press
| isbn = 0-8308-1324-1
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Kofahl
| Given = Robert E.
| Year = 1981
| date = [[May 22]] [[1981]]
| Title = Popper on Darwinism
| Journal = Science (New Series)
| Volume = 212
| Number = 4497
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Kofahl
| Given = Robert E.
| Year = 1989
| Date = June, 1989
| Title = The Hierarchy of Conceptual Levels For Scientific Thought And Research
| Journal = CRS Quarterly
| Volume = 26
| Number = 1
| Publisher = The Creation Research Society
| url = http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum26_1.html
| accessdate = [[2007-01-29]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Larson
| Given = Edward J.
| Authorlink = Edward J. Larson
| Year = 2004
| Title = Evolution
| Publisher = Modern Library
| isbn = 0-679-64288-9
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Lenski
| Given = Richard E.
| Year = 2000
| Title = Evolution: Fact and Theory
| Publisher = AcitionBioscience.org
| URL = http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
| accessdate = [[2007-01-23]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Martz
| Given1 = Larry
| Surname2 = McDaniel
| Given2 = Ann
| Year = 1987
| Date = [[1987-06-29]]
| Title = Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)
| Journal = Newsweek
| Pages = 23-24
| Volume = CIX
| Number = 26
| Publisher = Newsweek Inc.
| isbn = 0028-9604
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Moore
| Given1 = James
| Authorlink1 = James Moore (biographer)
| Year = 2006
| Chapter = Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin
| url = http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml
| Title = Speaking of Faith (Radio Program)
| Publisher = American Public Media
| accessdate = [[2007-01-24]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Moran
| Given = Laurence
| Year = 1993
| Title = Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
| Publisher = TalkOrigins Archive Foundation
| url = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
| accessdate = [[2007-01-23]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Morris
| Given = Henry M.
| Authorlink = Henry M. Morris
| Year = 1982
| Date = [[1982-01-01]]
| Title = Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past
| Journal = Impact
| Volume = 103
| Publisher = Institute for Creation Research
| url = http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185
| accessdate = [[2007-01-20]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Myers
| Given = P.Z.
| Authorlink = PZ Myers
| Year = 2006
| Date = [[2006-06-18]]
| Title = Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?
| Journal = [[Pharyngula]]
| Publisher = [[ScienceBlogs]]
| url = http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php
| accessdate = [[2007-09-12]]}}
* {{Citation
| surname = NSTA
| given = National Science Teachers Association
| author-link = National Science Teachers Association
| year = 2007
| title = An NSTA Evolution Q&A
| url = http://www.nsta.org/publications/evolution.aspx
| accessdate = [[2008-02-01]]}}[http://web.archive.org/web/20070804211846/http://www.nsta.org/publications/evolution.aspx Archive link]
* {{Citation
| last = Numbers
| first = Ronald L.
| author-link = Ronald L. Numbers
| year = 1992
| title = Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism
| publisher = Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
| pages = 224
| isbn = 0-679-40104-0
}}
*{{cite book
| last = Numbers
| first = Ronald
| authorlink = Ronald Numbers
| coauthors =
| title = [[The Creationists]]: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition
| publisher = Harvard University Press
|date=2006-11-30
| location =
| pages = 624 pages
| url =
| doi =
| id =
| isbn = 0674023390}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Numbers
| Given = Ronald L.
| Authorlink = Ronald L. Numbers
| Year = 1998
| Date = [[1998-11-15]]
| Title = Darwinism Comes to America
| Publisher = Harvard University Press
| Pages = 224
| isbn = 0674193121
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Peters
| Given1 = Ted
| Authorlink1 = Ted Peters
| Surname2 = Hewlett
| Given2 = Martinez
| Authorlink2 = Martinez Hewlett
| Authorlink = American Association for the Advancement of Science
| Year = 2005
| Date = 2005-12-22
| Title = The Evolution Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What?
| Publisher = Pacific Luthern Theological Seminary
| url = http://www.plts.edu/docs/EvolutionBrief2.pdf
| format = pdf
| accessdate = [[2007-01-28]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pieret
| Given = John
| Year = 2006
| Title = The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
| Publisher = TalkOrigins Archive Foundation
| url = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
| accessdate = [[2007-01-23]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Pinholster
| Given = Ginger
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-02-19
| Title = AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event
| publisher = aaas.org
| url = http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml
| accessdate = [[2007-01-14]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Popper
| Given = Karl
| Authorlink = Karl Popper
| Year = 1976
| Title = Unended Quest: An Intellecutal Autobiography
| Publisher = Open Court Publishing Co.
| isbn = 0-87548-366-6
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Popper
| Given = Karl
| Authorlink = Karl Popper
| Year = 1980
| Title = Letter to the Editor
| Journal = New Scientist
| Volume = 87
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Ruse
| Given = Michael
| Authorlink = Michael Ruse
| Year = 1999
| Date = [[1999-04-30]]
| Title = Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction
| Publisher = Harvard University Press
| Pages = 320
| isbn = 0-674-46706-X
}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Simon
| Given = Stephanie
| Year = 2006
| Title = Their Own Version of a Big Bang: Those who believe in creationism -- children and adults -- are being taught to challenge evolution's tenets in an in-your-face way.
| Periodical = [[Los Angeles Times]]
| Issue = [[2006-02-11]]
| url = http://philosophy.tamucc.edu/article.pl?sid=06/02/12/1727208&mode=thread
| accessdate = [[2007-02-03]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Tolson
| Given = Jay
| Year = 2005
| Date = 2005-09-05
| Title = Religion in America: Intelligent Design on Trial
| Journal = U.S. News & World Report
| chapter = Religion in America
| url = http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050928/28religion.htm
| accessdate = [[2007-01-6]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = van Wyhe
| Given1 = John
| Year = 2006
| Title = Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist: A biographical sketch
| url = http://darwin-online.org.uk/darwin.html
| accessdate = [[2007-01-24]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Verderame
| Given = John
| Year = 2007
| Title = Creation evangelism: cutting through the excess
| Publisher = answersingenesis.org
| url = http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0510news.asp
| accessdate = [[2007-02-07]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Wallis
| Given = Claudia
| Title = The Evolution Wars
| Journal = Time Magazine
| Year = 2005
| Date = [[2005-08-07]]
| url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-1,00.html
}} Retrieved on [[2007-01-31]]
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Wiker
| Given = Benjamin D.
| Year = 2003
| Date = July/August 2003
| Title = Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics
| Journal = Crisis Politics, Culture, and the Church
| Publisher = CRISIS Magazine
| url = http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2003/feature1.htm
| accessdate = [[2007-01-21]]}}
* {{Harvard reference
| Surname = Woods
| Given = Thomas E., Jr.
| Authorlink = Thomas Woods
| Year = 2005
| Title = How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
| Publisher = Regnery Publishing, Inc.
| isbn = 0-89526-038-7
}}
=== Published books and other resources ===
* Burian, RM: 1994. ''Dobzhansky on Evolutionary Dynamics: Some Questions about His Russian Background''; in {{cite book |author=Adams, Mark A. |title=The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky: essays on his life and thought in Russia and America |publisher=Princeton University Press |location=Princeton, N.J |year=1994 |pages= |isbn=0-691-03479-6 |oclc= |doi=}}
* {{cite book |author=Butler, Samuel |title=Evolution, Old And New: Or The Theories Of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin And Lamarck, As Compared With That Of Charles Darwin (1911) |publisher=Kessinger Publishing, LLC |location= |year=2007 |pages= |isbn=0548641323 |oclc= |doi=}}
* {{cite book |author=Beer, Gillian; Darwin, Charles |title=The origin of species |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford [Oxfordshire] |year=1996 |pages= |isbn=019283438X |oclc= |doi=}}
* {{cite book |author=Gould, Stephen Jay; Dobzhansky, Theodosius Grigorievich |title=Genetics and the origin of species |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |year=1982 |pages= |isbn=0231054750 |oclc= |doi=}}
* {{cite book |author=Henig, Robin Marantz |title=The monk in the garden: the lost and found genius of Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics |publisher=Houghton Mifflin |location=Boston |year=2000 |pages= |isbn=0395977657 |oclc= |doi=}}
* {{cite journal |author=Kutschera U, Niklas KJ |title=The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis |journal=Naturwissenschaften |volume=91 |issue=6 |pages=255–76 |year=2004 |pmid=15241603 |doi=10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y}}
* {{cite book |author=Mayr, Ernst |title=The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance |publisher=Belknap Press |location=Cambridge, Mass |year=1985 |pages= |isbn=0674364465 |oclc= |doi=}}
* {{cite book |author=Miller, James H. |title=An evolving dialogue: theological and scientific perspectives on evolution |publisher=Trinity Press International |location=Valley Forge, Pa |year=2001 |pages= |isbn=1-56338-349-7 |oclc= |doi=}}
* {{cite book | last = Morris | first = HR | year = 1963 | title = The Twilight of Evolution | publisher = Baker Pub Group | location = Grand Rapids, MI | isbn = 0801058627 }}
* {{cite book |author=Numbers, Ronald L. |title=The creationists |publisher=University of California Press |location=Berkeley |year=1993 |pages= |isbn=0520083938 |oclc= |doi=}}
* {{cite journal |author=Pennock RT |title=Creationism and intelligent design |journal=Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet |volume=4 |issue= |pages=143–63 |year=2003 |pmid=14527300 |doi=10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400}}
* {{cite book |author=Sagan, Carl |title=The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark |publisher=Ballantine Books |location=[New York |year=1997 |pages= |isbn=0345409469 |oclc= |doi=}}
* {{cite journal | author = Scott, E.C. | year = 1997 | title = Antievolution And Creationism In The United States | journal = Annual Review of Anthropology | volume = 26 | issue = 1 | pages = 263–289 | doi = 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.263}}
* Maynard Smith, "The status of neo-darwinism," in "Towards a Theoretical Biology" (C.H. Waddington, ed., University Press, Edinburgh, 1969.
* {{cite journal | author = Hull, D.L. | year = 1999 | title = The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper | journal = Biology and Philosophy | volume = 14 | issue = 4 | pages = 481–504 | url = http://www.springerlink.com/index/T4220X33T0284444.pdf | accessdate = 2008-04-11 | doi = 10.1023/A:1006554919188}}
* {{cite book |author=Strobel, Lee |title=The case for a Creator: a journalist investigates scientific evidence that points toward God |publisher=Zondervan/Willow Creek Resources |location=Grand Rapids, Mich |year=2004 |pages= |isbn=0310240506 |oclc= |doi=}}
== External links ==
* [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=21814 Gallup public opinion poll in regards to the concepts of Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design as of May 2007]
* [http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=286 Data by country regarding the percentage of the population that believes in evolution]
=== Creationism as social policy ===
* [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html Isaac Asimov, The "Threat" of Creationism.]
===Creationist beliefs===
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis], [[Young Earth Creationism]]
* [http://reasons.org/ Reasons to Believe], [[Old Earth Creationism]]
====Scientific rebuttals====
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ Talk.origins ''Index to Creationist Claims'']
=== Evolution versus creationism debates ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Location and link
! Year
! Pro-evolution
! Pro-creationism
|-
| [http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/6287DarSciorPhi.rm Stanford University]
| 1994
| [[Will Provine]]
| [[Phillip E. Johnson]]
|-
| [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/ Nova on-line]
| 1996
| [[Kenneth R. Miller]]
| [[Phillip E. Johnson]]
|-
| [http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p45.htm Firing Line]
| 1997
| [[Kenneth R. Miller]], [[Michael Ruse]], [[Eugenie Scott]] & [[Barry Lynn]]
| [[Phillip E. Johnson]], [[Michael Behe]], [[David Berlinski]] & [[William F. Buckley]]
|-
| [http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/sites/debate/debate_audio.html University of London] ([http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/RoyalHollowayCollegeDebate transcript])
| 2007
| [[Lewis Wolpert]]
| [[Steve Fuller (social epistemologist)|Steve Fuller]]
|}
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Religion and science]]
[[Category:Religious controversies]]
[[bg:Спорът "Сътворение или еволюция?"]]
[[cs:Vznik života]]
[[pt:Controvérsia da criação vs. evolução]]
[[ro:Controversa creaţie-evoluţie]]