History
The creation–evolution controversy began in Europe andContemporary reaction to Darwin
The publication of Darwin's ''Creationism in theology
At the beginning of the 19th century debate had started to develop over applying historical methods toDevelopment of creationism in the United States
At first in the U.S., evangelical Christians paid little attention to the developments in geology and biology, being more concerned with the rise of European higherBritish creationism
The main British creationist movement in this period, the Creation Science Movement, Evolution Protest Movement (EPM), formed in the 1930s out of the Victoria Institute, or Philosophical Society of Great Britain (founded in 1865 in response to the publication of Darwin's ''On the Origin of Species'' in 1859 and of ''Essays and Reviews'' in 1860). The Victoria Institute had the stated objective of defending "the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture ... against the opposition of Science falsely so called". Although it did not officially oppose evolution, it attracted a number of scientists skeptical of Darwinism, including John William Dawson and Arnold Guyot. It reached a high point of 1,246 members in 1897, but quickly plummeted to less than one third of that figure in the first two decades of the twentieth century. Although it opposed evolution at first, the institute joined the theistic evolution camp by the 1920s, which led to the development of the Evolution Protest Movement in reaction. Amateur Ornithology, ornithologist Douglas Dewar, the main driving-force within the EPM, published a booklet entitled ''Man: A Special Creation'' (1936) and engaged in public speaking and debates with supporters of evolution. In the late 1930s he resisted American creationists' call for acceptance of flood geology, which later led to conflict within the organization. Despite trying to win the public endorsement of C. S. Lewis (1898–1963), the most prominent Christian apologetics, Christian apologist of his day, by the mid-1950s the EPM came under control of schoolmaster/pastor Albert G. Tilney, whose dogmatic and authoritarian style ran the organization "as a one-man band", rejecting flood geology, unwaveringly promoting gap creationism, and reducing the membership to lethargic inactivity. It was renamed the Creation Science Movement (CSM) in 1980, under the chairmanship of David Rosevear, who holds a Doctor of Philosophy, Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry from the University of Bristol. By the mid-1980s the CSM had formally incorporated flood geology into its "Deed of Trust" (which all officers had to sign) and condemned gap creationism and day-age creationism as unscriptural.United States legal challenges and their consequences
In 1925 Tennessee passed a statute, the Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in all schools in the state. Later that year Mississippi passed a similar law, as did Arkansas in 1927. In 1968 the Supreme Court of the United States struck down these "anti-monkey" laws as unconstitutional, "because they established a religious doctrine violating both the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, First and Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution." In more recent times religious fundamentalists who accept creationism have struggled to get their rejection of evolution accepted as legitimate science within education institutions in the U.S. A series of important court cases have resulted.Butler Act and the Scopes monkey trial (1925)
''Epperson v. Arkansas'' (1968)
In 1968 the United States Supreme Court invalidated a forty-year-old Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution in the State school#United States, public schools. A Little Rock, Arkansas, high-school-biology teacher, Susan Epperson, filed suit, charging that the law violated the federal constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion as set forth in the Establishment Clause. The Little Rock Ministerial Association supported Epperson's challenge, declaring, "to use the Bible to support an irrational and an archaic concept of static and undeveloping creation is not only to misunderstand the meaning of the Book of Genesis, but to do God and religion a disservice by making both enemies of scientific advancement and academic freedom". The Court held that the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma". But the Supreme Court decision also suggested that creationism could be taught in addition to evolution.''Daniel v. Waters'' (1975)
''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. Following this ruling, creationism was stripped of overt biblical references and rebranded "Creation Science", and several states passed legislative acts requiring that this be given equal time with the teaching of evolution.Creation science
As biologists grew more and more confident in evolution as the central defining principle of biology, American membership in churches favoring increasingly literal interpretations of scripture also rose, with the Southern Baptist Convention and Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod outpacing all other denominations. With growth and increased finances, these churches became better equipped to promulgate a creationist message, with their own colleges, schools, publishing houses, and broadcast media. In 1961 P&R Publishing, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing released the first major modern creationist book: John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris' influential ''The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications''. The authors argued that creation was literally 6 days long, that humans lived concurrently with dinosaurs, and that God created each "kind" of life individually. On the strength of this, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at fundamentalist churches, colleges, and conferences. Morris' Creation Science Research Center (CSRC) rushed publication of biology textbooks that promoted creationism. Ultimately, the CSRC broke up over a divide between sensationalism and a more intellectual approach, and Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research, which he promised would be controlled and operated by scientists. During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the terms "scientific creationism" and "creation science". The "flood geology" theory effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views."Court cases
=''McLean v. Arkansas''
= In 1982, another case in Arkansas ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Act 590) was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause. Much of the transcript of the case was lost, including evidence (law), evidence from Francisco J. Ayala, Francisco Ayala.=''Edwards v. Aguillard''
= In the early 1980s, the Louisiana legislature passed a law titled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act". The act did not require teaching either evolution or creationism as such, but did require that when evolutionary science was taught, 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. In the similar case of ''McLean v. Arkansas'' (see above) the federal trial court had also decided against creationism. ''Mclean v. Arkansas'' was not appealed to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals, creationists instead thinking that they had better chances with ''Edwards v. Aguillard''. In 1987 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana act was also unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, it stated its opinion 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 later came to be known as intelligent design. s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/1:Introduction#Page 7 of 139, Introduction, pp. 7–9.Intelligent design
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 Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plans. The Kansas evolution hearings were a series of hearings held in Topeka, Kansas, May 5 to May 12, 2005. The Kansas State Department of Education, 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 Party (United States), Republican Party candidates for the Board. On August 1, 2006, four of the six conservative Republicans who approved the Critical Analysis of Evolution classroom standards lost their seats in a primary election. The moderate Republican and Democratic Party (United States), 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, 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."Dover trial
Following the ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' decision by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court held 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 to an unnamed and undefined intelligent designer, as opposed to God. This ultimately resulted in the "Dover Trial," ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', which went to trial on 26 September 2005 and was decided on 20 December 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 :s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' decision held that intelligent design was not a subject of legitimate scientific research, and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and hence religious, antecedents." s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 136 of 139, Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136. The December 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial supported the viewpoint of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and other science and education professional organizations who say that proponents of Teach the Controversy seek to undermine the teaching of evolution s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/3:Disclaimer#Page 49 of 139, Disclaimer, p. 49: "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." while promoting intelligent design, and to advance an education policy for U.S. public schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula. s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139, Whether ID Is Science, p. 89, support the view that "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." s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 134 of 139, Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 134.Texas Board of Education support for intelligent design
On March 27, 2009, the Texas Board of Education, by a vote of 13 to 2, voted that at least in Texas, textbooks must teach intelligent design alongside evolution, and question the validity of the fossil record. Don McLeroy, a dentist and chair of the board, said, "I think the new standards are wonderful ... dogmatism about evolution [has sapped] America's scientific soul." According to ''Science (journal), Science'' magazine, "Because Texas is the second-largest textbook market in the United States, publishers have a strong incentive to be certified by the board as 'conforming 100% to the state's standards'." The 2009 Texas Board of Education hearings were chronicled in the 2012 documentary ''The Revisionaries''.Recent developments
The scientific consensus on the origins and evolution of life continues to be 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 Biblical literalism, literalist Christians who believe the biblical account is Biblical inerrancy, inerrant, and more than one sees the debate as part of the Christian mandate to evangelism, evangelize. Some groups see science and religion as being diametrically opposed views that cannot be reconciled. More accommodating viewpoints, held by many mainstream churches and many scientists, consider science and religion to be separate categories of thought (non-overlapping magisteria), which ask fundamentally different questions about reality and posit different avenues for investigating it. This idea has received criticism from both the non-religious, like the zoologist, evolutionary biologist and religion critic Richard Dawkins, and fundamentalists, who see the idea as both underestimating the ability of methodological naturalism to result in moral conclusions and ignorant or downplaying of the fact claims of religions and scriptures. Studies on the religious beliefs of scientists does support the evidence of a rift between traditional literal fundamentalist religion and experimental science. Three studies of scientific attitudes since 1904 have shown that over 80% of scientists do not believe in a traditional god or the traditional belief in immortality, with disbelief stronger amongst biological scientists than physical scientists. Amongst those not registering such attitudes a high percentage indicated a preference for adhering to a belief concerning mystery than any dogmatic or faith based view. But only 10% of scientists stated that they saw a fundamental clash between science and religion. This study of trends over time suggests that the ''"culture wars"'' between creationism and evolution, are held more strongly by religious literalists than by scientists themselves and are likely to continue, fostering anti-scientific or pseudoscientific attitudes amongst fundamentalist believers. More recently, the intelligent design movement has attempted an anti-evolution position that avoids any direct appeal to religion. Scientists have argued that intelligent design is pseudoscience and does not represent any research program within the mainstream scientific community, and is still essentially creationism. Its leading proponent, the Discovery Institute, made widely publicized claims that it was a new science, although 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." On August 1, 2005, U.S. president George W. 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."Points of view
In the controversy a number of divergent opinions have crystallized regarding both the acceptance of scientific theories and religious doctrine and practice.Young-Earth creationism
Young-Earth creationism (YEC) involves the religiously based belief that God created the Earth within the last 10,000 years, literally as described in Genesis creation narrative, 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 to that of the Earth. Creationist cosmologies result from attempts by some creationists to assign the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other Young-Earth timeframes based on the genealogies. This belief generally has a basis in biblical literalism and completely rejects the scientific methodology of evolutionary biology. Creation science is agreed by the scientific community to be aOld-Earth creationism
Old-Earth creationism holds that God created the universe, physical universe, but that one should not take the creation event of Genesis within 6 days strictly literally. This group generally accepts the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth as described by astronomers and geologists, but regards details of the evolutionary theory as questionable. Old-Earth creationists interpret the Genesis creation-narrative in a number of ways, each differing from the six, consecutive, 24-hour day creation of the Young-Earth creationist view.Neo-creationism and "intelligent design"
Neo-creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. They wish 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 underlies the intelligent design movement, 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) and some sympathetic Old-Earth creationists.Neo-creationism and fundamentalist cladists
As of the 2010s, religious fundamentalist cladists that deny speciation and chronospecies have become more common, following similar lines of thought as creationists, usually replacing religious teachings about deities with religious philosophy. In addition to general denial of biological evolution, common talking points of such cladist creationists are denial of botany and ichthyology along with conflation of herpetology and ornithology along with ignorance of mutation rates and paraphyletic groups. Only a small amount of the general population thus far noticed the creeping spread of such religious cladists, as very few people even have the education to separate the use of the tool from the religious group, as the graph itself does not necessarily assume evolution.Theistic evolution
Theistic evolution takes the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation myth, creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including, specifically, evolution. It generally views evolution as a tool used by a creator deity, creator 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 Genesis creation myth; 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 Allegorical interpretations of Genesis, allegory. This position generally accepts the viewpoint of naturalism (philosophy), methodological naturalism, a long-standing convention of the scientific method in science. Many Protestantism in the United States#Mainline vs. evangelical, mainline/liberal denominations have long accepted evolution, and it is increasingly finding acceptance among evangelical Christians, who strive to keep traditional Christian theology intact. Theistic evolutionists have frequently been prominent in opposing creationism (including intelligent design). Notable examples have included biologist Kenneth R. Miller and theologian John F. Haught, who testified for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005. Another example is the Clergy Letter Project, which has compiled and maintains statements - signed by American Christian and non-Christian clergy of different denominations - rejecting creationism, with specific reference to points raised by intelligent-design proponents. Theistic evolutionists have also been active in :Citizen alliances for science, 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).Agnostic evolution
Agnostic evolution is the position of acceptance of biological evolution, combined with the belief that it is not important whether God is, was, or will have been involved.Materialistic evolution
Materialism, Materialistic evolution is the acceptance of biological evolution, combined with the position that if the supernatural exists, it has little to no influence on the material world (a position common to Metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalists, humanism, humanists and atheists). The New Atheism, New Atheists champion this view; they argue strongly that the creationist viewpoint is not only dangerous, but is completely rejected by science.Arguments relating to the definition and limits 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, 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. 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. Creationists claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded and that scientific work is paradigmatically close-minded. Because modern science tries to rely on the minimization of ''a priori and a posteriori, a priori'' assumptions, error, and subjectivity, as well as on avoidance of Baconian method#Idols of the Mind (Idola Mentis), Baconian idols, it remains neutral on subjects such as religion or morality. Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form ofTheory vs fact
The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution. 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. In science, "theory" usually means "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."#NAS 1999, NAS 1999Falsifiability
Conflation of science and religion
Creationists commonly argue against evolution on the grounds that "evolution is a religion; it is not a science," in order to undermine the higher ground biologists claim in debating creationists, and to reframe the debate from being between science (evolution) and religion (creationism) to being between two equally religious beliefs—or even to argue that evolution is religious while intelligent design is not. Those that oppose evolution frequently refer to those who accept evolution as "evolutionism, evolutionists" or "Darwinism, Darwinists." This is generally argument#By analogy, argued by analogy, by arguing that evolution and religion have one or more things in common, and that therefore evolution is a religion. Examples of claims made in such arguments are statements that evolution is based on faith, that supporters of evolution revere Darwin as a prophet and dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand. These claims have become more popular in recent years as the neocreationist movement has sought to distance itself from religion, thus giving it more reason to make use of a seemingly anti-religious analogy. In biology, no scientist's claims, including Darwin's, are treated as sacrosanct, as shown by the aspects of Darwin's theory that have been rejected or revised by scientists over the years, to form first neo-Darwinism and later the Modern synthesis (20th century), modern evolutionary synthesis.Appeal to consequences
A number of creationists have blurred the boundaries between their disputes over the truth of the underlying facts, and explanatory theories, of evolution, with their purported philosophical and moral consequences. This type of argument is known as an appeal to consequences, and is a Informal fallacy, logical fallacy. Examples of these arguments include those of prominent creationists such as Ken Ham and Henry M. Morris.Disputes relating to science
Many creationists strongly oppose certain scientific theories in a number of ways, including opposition to specific applications of scientific processes, accusations of bias within the scientific community, and claims that discussions within the scientific community reveal or imply a crisis. In response to perceived crises in History of science#Modern science, modern science, creationists claim to have an alternative, typically based on faith, creation science, or intelligent design. The scientific community has responded by pointing out that their conversations are frequently misrepresented (e.g. by Fallacy of quoting out of context#Quote mining and the creation–evolution controversy, quote mining) in order to create the impression of a deeper controversy or crisis, and that the creationists' alternatives are generally pseudoscientific.Biology
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 fossils.Common descent
A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary principles was proposed by Charles Darwin and is now generally accepted by biologists. The most recent common ancestor of all living organisms is believed to have appeared about Timeline of evolutionary history of life, 3.9 billion years ago. With a few exceptions (e.g. Michael Behe) the vast majority of creationists rejected this theory in favor of the belief that a common design suggests a common designer (God). Many of these same creationists through the beginning of the 21st century also held that modern species were perpetually fixed from creation. However, now a large amount of creationists allow evolution of species, in the face of undeniable evidence for speciation. They contend, however, that it was specific "kinds" or baramin that were created initially, from which all present-day species arose. Thus all bear species may have developed from a common ancestor that was separately created to establish a bear-like baramin, by this type of creationism. This type of creationism often acknowledges the existence of evolutionary processes but denies that they demonstrate common ancestry or that evolutionary processes would have produced the diversity of contemporary life. Evidence of common descent includes evidence from genetics, fossil records, comparative anatomy, biogeography, geographical distribution of species, comparative physiology and Biochemistry, comparative biochemistry.=Human evolution
= Human evolution is the study of the biological evolution of humans as a distinct species from its common ancestors with other animals. Analysis of fossil evidence and genetic distance are two of the means by which scientists understand this evolutionary history. Fossil evidence suggests that humans' earliest hominid ancestors may have split from other primates as early as the late Oligocene, circa 26 to 24 Megaannum, Ma, and that by the early Miocene, the adaptive radiation of many different hominoid forms was well underway. Evidence from the molecular clock, molecular dating of genetic differences indicates that the gibbon lineage (family Hylobatidae) diverged between 18 and 12 Ma, and the orangutan lineage (subfamily Ponginae) diverged about 12 Ma. While there is no fossil evidence thus far clearly documenting the early ancestry of gibbons, fossil proto-orangutans may be represented by ''Sivapithecus'' from India and ''Griphopithecus'' from Turkey, dated to around 10 Ma. Molecular evidence further suggests that between 8 and 4 Ma, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzee (genus ''Pan (genus), Pan'') split from the line leading to the humans. We have no fossil record of this divergence, but distinctively hominid fossils have been found dating to 3.2 Ma (see Lucy (Australopithecus), Lucy) and possibly even earlier, at 6 or 7 Ma (see Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Toumaï). Comparisons of DNA show that 99.4 percent of the coding regions are identical in chimpanzees and humans (95–96% overall), which is taken as strong evidence of recent common ancestry. * Today, only one distinct human species survives, but many earlier species have been found in the fossil record, including ''Homo erectus'', ''Homo habilis'', and ''Neanderthal, Homo neanderthalensis''. Creationists dispute there is evidence of shared ancestry in the fossil evidence, and argue either that these are misassigned ape fossils (e.g. that Java Man was a gibbon) or too similar to modern humans to designate them as distinct or transitional forms. Creationists frequently disagree where the dividing lines would be. Creation myths (such as the Book of Genesis) frequently posit a List of protoplasts, first man (Adam, in the case of Genesis), which has been advocated by creationists as underlying an alternative viewpoint to the scientific account. All these claims and objections are subsequently refuted. Creationists also dispute the scientific community's interpretation of genetic evidence in the study of human evolution. They argue that it is a "dubious assumption" that genetic similarities between various animals imply a common ancestral relationship, and that scientists are coming to this interpretation only because they have preconceived notions that such shared relationships exist. Creationists also argue that genetic mutations are strong evidence against evolutionary theory because, they assert, the mutations required for major changes to occur would almost certainly be detrimental. However, most mutations are neutral mutation, neutral, and the minority of mutations which are beneficial or harmful are often situational; a mutation that is harmful in one environment may be helpful in another.Macroevolution
Transitional fossils
It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. 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 that a complex feature with one function can adapt a different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, or mating display. Today, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.Geology
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 Text, Masoretic version of the Genealogies of Genesis). They believe that God created the universe approximately 6,000 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 idea. 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. A full critique of the entire parameter-fitting analysis, which relies on dozens of radionuclei parent and daughter pairs and gives essentially identical or near identical readings, has not been done by creationists hoping to cast doubt on the technique. The consensus of professional scientific organizations worldwide is that no scientific evidence contradicts the age of approximately 4.5 billion years. Young Earth creationists reject these ages on the grounds of what they regard as being tenuous and untestable assumptions in the methodology. They have often quoted apparently inconsistent radiometric dates 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). 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.Other sciences
Cosmology
While Young Earth creationists believe that the Universe was created by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God approximately 6000 years ago, the current scientific consensus is that the Universe as we know it emerged from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago. The recent science of nucleocosmochronology is extending the approaches used for carbon-14 and other radiometric 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 8.3 ± 1.8 billion years ago.Nuclear physics
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, 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. 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. In refutation of Young Earth claims of inconstant decay-rates affecting the reliability of radiometric dating, Roger C. Wiens, a physicist specializing in isotope dating states:Misrepresentations of the scientific community
The Discovery Institute has a "formal declaration" titled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" which has many evangelicals, people from fields irrelevant to biology and geology and few biologists. Many of the biologists who signed have fields not directly related to evolution. In response, there has been an analogous declaration humorously upholding the consensus, Project Steve, which emphasizes the large amount of scientists supporting the consensus.Quote mining
As a means to criticize mainstream science, creationists sometimes quote scientists who ostensibly support the mainstream theories, but appear to acknowledge criticisms similar to those of creationists. These have very often 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 are highly out-of-date. Many of the same quotes used by creationists have appeared so frequently in Internet discussions due to the availability of Cut, copy, and paste, cut and paste functions, that the TalkOrigins Archive has created "The Quote Mine Project" for quick reference to the original context of these quotations. Creationists often quote mine Darwin, especially with regard to the seeming improbability of the evolution of the eye, to give support to their views.Public policy issues
The creation–evolution controversy has grown in importance in recent years, interfacing with other contemporary political issues, primarily those in the United States that involve the Christian right.Science education
Creationists promoted the idea that evolution is a theory in crisis with scientists criticizing evolution 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, ''See'': *List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design * Whether ID Is Science, p. 83. *The Discovery Institute's ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'' petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. The four-day ''A Scientific Support for Darwinism'' petition gained 7,733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. *#AAAS 2002, AAAS 2002. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. *More than 70,000 Australian scientists "...urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science." *National Center for Science Education]: List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences. reply that there is no scientific controversy and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics. 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.Freedom of speech
Creationists have claimed that preventing them from teaching creationism violates their right of freedom of speech. Court cases (such as ''Webster v. New Lenox School District'' (1990) and ''Bishop v. Aronov'' (1991)) have upheld school districts' and universities' right to restrict teaching to a specified curriculum.Issues relating to religion
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. To that end, Institute for Creation Research founder Henry M. Morris has enumerated scientists such as astronomer and philosopher Galileo Galilei, mathematician and theoretical physicist James Clerk Maxwell, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, geneticist monkForums
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. For example, in May 2004 Michael Shermer debated creationist Kent Hovind in front of a predominantly 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," with scientists arguing from "an impregnable fortress of evidence that converges to an unmistakable conclusion," while for creationists it is "a Spiritual warfare, spiritual war." 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 magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion." (see Non-overlapping magisteria). 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."Political lobbying
On both sides of the controversy a wide range of organizations are involved at a number of levels in lobbying in an attempt to influence political decisions relating to the teaching of evolution. These include the Discovery Institute, the National Center for Science Education, the National Science Teachers Association, state :Citizen alliances for science, Citizens Alliances for Science, and numerous national science associations and state academies of science.Media coverage
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'' (2001) and D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries' D. James Kennedy#Apologetics and views, ''Darwin's Deadly Legacy'' (2006)). 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. Edward Humes states:Outside the United States
Europe
Europeans have often regarded the creation–evolution controversy as an American matter. In recent years the conflict has become an issue in other countries including Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Turkey and Serbia. On September 17, 2007, the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) 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 strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy." The Council of Europe firmly rejected creationism.Australia
Under the former Queensland state government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in the 1980s Queensland allowed the teaching of creationism in secondary schools. In 2010, the Queensland state government introduced the topic of creationism into school classes within the "ancient history" subject where its origins and nature are discussed as a significant controversy. Public lectures have been given in rented rooms at universities, by visiting American speakers. 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 the University of Melbourne, against an ordained minister, Allen Roberts, who had claimed that there were remnants of Noah's Ark in eastern Turkey. Although the court found that Roberts had made false and misleading claims, they were not made in the course of trade or commerce, so the case failed.Islamic countries
In recent times, the controversy over evolution has spread into several Islamic countries. In Egypt, evolution is currently taught in schools, but Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools. Creation science has also been heavily promoted in Turkey, primarily by creationists like Adnan Oktar, Harun Yahya. In Iran, the traditional practice of Shia Islam isn't preoccupied with Qur'anic literalism as in case of Saudi Wahhabi movement, Wahhabism but ''ijtihad;'' many influential Iranian Shi'ite scholars, including several who were closely involved in Iranian Revolution, are not opposed to evolutionary ideas in general, disagreeing that evolution necessarily conflicts with the Muslim mainstream. Iranian pupils since 5th grade of elementary school learn only about evolution, thus portraying geologists and scientists in general as an authoritative voice of scientific knowledge.Asia
South Korea
In South Korea, most opposition to teaching evolution comes from the local evangelical community. As part of these efforts, the Korean Association for Creation Research (KACR) was established in 1981 by evangelical pastors Kim Yŏnggil and Ch'oe Yŏngsang. In South Korea, according to a 2009 survey, about 30 percent of the population believe in creation science while opposing the teaching of evolution.See also
*Acceptance of evolution by religious groups *Anti-intellectualism *Evolutionary origin of religions *Theology of creationism and evolutionNotes
Citations
References
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Further reading
* * * * * * * *External links