Misplaced Pages

Rejection of evolution by religious groups: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:39, 1 April 2007 editGnixon (talk | contribs)2,977 edits →Limitations of the scientific endeavor: Removed statement that was POVish or original research without attribution.← Previous edit Revision as of 22:44, 1 April 2007 edit undoGnixon (talk | contribs)2,977 edits →Limitations of the scientific endeavor: wikify Dawkins and identify him at first mentionNext edit →
Line 47: Line 47:
Science is indeed limited in its inquiry of causes, as the ] yields descriptive explanations rather than explaining why nature exists in such a way, and is generally limited to the independently observable evidence. However such critiques of the limits of science and rational inquiry in general have no single philosophical resolution and are often seen as problems for theistic claims as well. The pronouncement by creationists that such limitations point to the existence of a ] is criticized by many skeptics as a ] argument where religious argumentation is reduced to a placeholder for gaps in human knowledge. Science is indeed limited in its inquiry of causes, as the ] yields descriptive explanations rather than explaining why nature exists in such a way, and is generally limited to the independently observable evidence. However such critiques of the limits of science and rational inquiry in general have no single philosophical resolution and are often seen as problems for theistic claims as well. The pronouncement by creationists that such limitations point to the existence of a ] is criticized by many skeptics as a ] argument where religious argumentation is reduced to a placeholder for gaps in human knowledge.


Dawkins goes further. In chapter 4 of '']'', ''Why there almost certainly is no God'', he says that ] can be used to demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong. He argues that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena the designer was intended to explain, and that any theory that explains the existence of the universe must be a “crane”, something equivalent to natural selection, rather than a “skyhook” that merely postpones the problem. Dawkins holds out hope for a cosmological equivalent to evolution that would explain why the universe exists in all its amazing complexity. He uses the argument from improbability, for which he introduced the term "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", to argue that "God almost certainly does not exist": ], a well-known evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist, goes further. In chapter 4 of '']'', ''Why there almost certainly is no God'', he says that ] can be used to demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong. He argues that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena the designer was intended to explain, and that any theory that explains the existence of the universe must be a “crane”, something equivalent to natural selection, rather than a “skyhook” that merely postpones the problem. Dawkins holds out hope for a cosmological equivalent to evolution that would explain why the universe exists in all its amazing complexity. He uses the argument from improbability, for which he introduced the term "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", to argue that "God almost certainly does not exist":


{{cquote|However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.<ref>{{harvnb|Dawkins|2006|p=114}}</ref>}} {{cquote|However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.<ref>{{harvnb|Dawkins|2006|p=114}}</ref>}}

Revision as of 22:44, 1 April 2007

Part of a series on
Creationism
Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" on the Sistine Chapel ceiling
History
Types
Biblical cosmology
Creation science
Rejection of evolution by religious groups
Religious views
Non-creation
Evolution
Part of the Biology series on
Evolution
Mechanisms and processes
Research and history
Evolutionary biology fields

The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe, a debate most prevalent in certain regions of the United States, where it is often portrayed as part of the culture wars. While the controversy has a long history, today it is mainly over what constitutes good science, with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creation and evolution in public education.

Debate on the details of scientific theories and their philosophical or religious implications are often the most intense parts of the controversy. Some participants on both sides believe that the conflict boils down to opposing definitions of all or parts of science, reality, and religion. Accusations of misleading formulations, incorrect or false statements, and inappropriate mixing of ideas are also fundamental points of disagreement. Some consider the term "creation vs. evolution" itself is misleading, believing it implies a false dichotomy and adds fuel to the debate.

The level of support for evolution is overwhelming in the scientific community and academia, while support for creation based alternatives where evolution does not take place is minimal among secular scientists.

History of the controversy

Main articles: History of creationism, History of evolutionary thought, and History of the creation-evolution controversy

Creation-evolution controversy in the age of Darwin

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 fossils showing past extinctions prompted early ideas of evolution. However, these ideas were seen as a threat to the fixed social order, suggesting it too could change, and thus were rejected. Some progress began to be made in the middle of the nineteenth century towards acceptance, but Charles Darwin's groundbreaking 1859 work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection first made evolution a respectable scientific viewpoint.

Darwin's book revolutionized the way naturalists viewed the world, but caused great theological controversy, being declared, in the words of one reviewer, "tantamount to atheism". The controversy was further fueled by Darwin's supporters, many of whom held agnostic or atheist views, which came out in their defenses of the theory.

Creationists during this period were largely premillennialists, whose belief in Christ's return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible. 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. In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the fossil record. Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Biblical flood, unlike subsequent creationists. Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or allowed that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.

Scopes trial

Main article: Scopes trial

Initial reactions in the United States of America matched the developments in Britain, and when Wallace went there for a lecture tour in 1886–1887 his explanations of "Darwinism" were welcomed without any problems, but attitudes changed after the First World War. The controversy became political when public schools began teaching that man evolved from earlier forms of life per Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. In response, the State of Tennessee passed a law (the Butler Act of 1925) prohibiting the teaching of any theory of the origins of humans that contradicted the teachings of the Bible. This law was tested in the highly publicized Scopes Trial of 1925. The law was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and remained on the books until 1967 when it was repealed. However, the next year, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968) that such bans contravened the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose was religious.

Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan chat in court during the Scopes trial.

ICR and the co-opting of the creationist label

Main article: Institute for Creation Research

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 rose, with the Southern Baptist Convention and Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod outpacing all other denominations. With growth, these churches became better equipped to promulgate a creationist message, with their own colleges, schools, publishing houses, and broadcast media.

In 1961, the first major modern creationist book was published: Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr.'s The Genesis Flood. Morris and Whitcomb argued that creation was literally 6 days long, 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 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. 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. During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the scientific sounding terms scientific creationism and creation science. The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views".

Controversy in recent times

See also: Politics of creationism

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 evangelize. Some see science and religion as being diametrically opposed views which cannot be reconciled (see section on the false dichotomy). More accommodating viewpoints, held by 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.

More recently, the Intelligent Design movement has taken an anti-evolution position which avoids any direct appeal to religion. However, Leonard Krishtalka, a paleontologist and an opponent of the movement, has called intelligent design "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo", and, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, but is grounded in theology and cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. Before the trial began, 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." Scientists argue that Intelligent design does not represent any research program within the mainstream scientific community, and is opposed by most of the same groups who oppose creationism.

Accusations involving 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, 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. Opponents of creationism spend much of their participation in the controversy defending against these accusations. Some of the more common creationist claims involving science are listed below, together with their associated debates.

Limitations of the scientific endeavor

Creationists who use the controversy as an opportunity for apologetics and evangelism will often refer to scientific theories as being incomplete, incorrect, or inherently flawed due to the infinite regression nature of questions of origins. Typical of these challenges are the somewhat rhetorical questions asked by creationists "What caused the Big Bang?" or "What was the nature of the first lifeform?" These questions are in principle subject to scientific investigation, but if and when answers are provided it is likely that the answers will themselves be subject to similar kinds of regressive inquiry. These first cause arguments are invoked as a means to point to the existence of a deity (and often, in particular, the Judeo-Christian God). Creationists argue that science cannot supply such answers, and that their religious discourse is more complete, more reliable, and surpasses the naturalistic descriptions that science provides.

Science is indeed limited in its inquiry of causes, as the scientific method yields descriptive explanations rather than explaining why nature exists in such a way, and is generally limited to the independently observable evidence. However such critiques of the limits of science and rational inquiry in general have no single philosophical resolution and are often seen as problems for theistic claims as well. The pronouncement by creationists that such limitations point to the existence of a creator god is criticized by many skeptics as a God of the gaps argument where religious argumentation is reduced to a placeholder for gaps in human knowledge.

Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist, goes further. In chapter 4 of The God Delusion, Why there almost certainly is no God, he says that evolution by natural selection can be used to demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong. He argues that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena the designer was intended to explain, and that any theory that explains the existence of the universe must be a “crane”, something equivalent to natural selection, rather than a “skyhook” that merely postpones the problem. Dawkins holds out hope for a cosmological equivalent to evolution that would explain why the universe exists in all its amazing complexity. He uses the argument from improbability, for which he introduced the term "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", to argue that "God almost certainly does not exist":

However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.

The "Boeing 747" reference alludes to a statement reportedly made by Fred Hoyle arguing in favor of panspermia: the "probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap-yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747." Dawkins objects to this argument on the grounds that it is made "...by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection". A common theme in Dawkins' books is that natural selection, not chance, is responsible for the evolution of life, and that the apparent improbability of life's complexity does not imply evidence of design or a designer. He goes further in this chapter by presenting examples of apparent design. Dawkins concludes the chapter by arguing that his "Ultimate 747" gambit is a very serious argument against the existence of God, and that he has yet to hear "a theologian give a convincing answer despite numerous opportunities and invitations to do so." Dawkins quotes Dan Dennett, where Dennett calls Dawkins' retort "an unrebuttable refutation" dating back two centuries.

Conversely, mathematicians and scientists have found that the capabilities of evolution through selection can often surpass the capabilities of (human) intelligent designers. There has been some recent success in implementing simulated evolution for artificial uses. For example, biotechnologists use a process called SELEX (Systematic Evolution of Ligans by Exponential Enrichment) to produce nucleic acid ligands with properties well suited to particular applications, such as pharmaceuticals, diagnostics or research reagentes. Other uses of evolution include genetic algorithms, which can find the solution to a multi-dimensional problem more quickly than standard software produced by humans, and the use of evolutionary fitness landscapes to optimize the design of a system. Evolutionary optimization techniques are particularly useful in situations in which it is easy to determine the quality of a single solution, but hard to go through all possible solutions one by one.

Examples of open questions in origins research within their associated scientific fields include:

Research into understanding these subjects is ongoing.

Theory vs. fact

See also: Theory and Fact
Main article: 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. However, a large part of the difficulty is actually a linguistic problem and some confusion. Scientists use many specialized terms, frequently incorporating terminology that may have different meanings to the lay-person. In defining "fact" and "theory", scientists ascribe to them very distinct meanings.

Exploring this issue, the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts 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 Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.".

Philosophical arguments

Critiques such as those based on the distinction between theory and fact are often leveled against unifying concepts within scientific disciplines. For example, 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 to atheism. In countering this claim, philosophers of science use the term methodological naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method. The methodological assumption is that 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 assumptions, error, and subjectivity, as well as on avoidance of Baconian idols, it remains neutral on subjective subjects such as religion or morality. Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form of pseudoscience.

Falsifiability

Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery 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. However, in Unended Quest, Popper declared "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme, a possible framework for testable scientific theories", while pointing out it had "scientific character". However, in what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping", 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. 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)."

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 scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested." 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.

Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiability in science continues. 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 rabbits were found in the Precambrian era, a time before most similarly complex lifeforms had evolved, "that would completely blow evolution out of the water."

Falsifiability has also caused problems for creationists: In his 1982 decision McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 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."

Arguments against evolution

See also: Objections to evolution

Creationists have criticized the scientific evidence used to support evolution as being based on faulty assumptions, unjustified jumping to conclusions, or even outright lies. This includes the fossil record, which creationists claim has significant gaps that cast doubt on evolution, the emergence of new species, which creationists claim hasn't been observed directly, and radiometric dating, which creationists claim is inaccurate due to an inappropriate reliance on assumptions of uniformitarianism. In debates, creationists claim that the problems they point out represent significant "holes" while their opponents respond that the "holes" reveal where research needs to be directed, or misunderstanding on the part of creationists; a gap in the knowledge does not cast doubt on the framework that the theory of evolution provides, but a contradiction would.

Creationist's car in Athens, Georgia

Some creationist organizations have recently tried to reposition their criticism against mainstream science by using more subtle critiques involving information science and the laws of thermodynamics, which are more difficult for the average person to analyze. In particular, creationists have adopted many of the arguments of the intelligent design movement such as that specified complexity and irreducible complexity either has not had enough time to develop naturally (see intelligent design) or is impossible to develop due to the second law of thermodynamics. Similar types of arguments continue to be made even by proponents of intelligent design

Instances of hoaxes have helped inflame the situation. God--or Gorilla, an article by Catholic journalist Alfred Watterson McCann, sneeringly "reveled in exposing Piltdown man as a hoax years before the scientific community conceded" the fact, was utilized in Creationist M.D. Arthur I. Brown's book Men, Monkeys and Missing Links. An infamous instance of creationist evidence against evolution was the human and dinosaur tracks found in Paluxy riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas which purported to show that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. The so-called evidence has been proven false by various studies in several scientific disciplines.

Another example was an argument relating to the accumulation of lunar dust indicating an age for the moon of a few thousand years. These claims have been thoroughly discounted now and many creationists disavow them.

Most scientists do not spend a great deal of time debunking such claims, and some outright refuse to participate so as not to lend the creationists any legitimacy, including the late Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. An instance of this was in 2005, when mainstream science organizations boycotted hearings held by the Kansas Board of Education that evolution pundits described as a "kangaroo court" over whether new science standards should be designed with the "Teach the Controversy" model in mind. The committee members had already stated their positions ahead of time and evolutionary scientists believed that no amount of testimony would be likely to change the outcome.

Debates

This March 2007 may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the March 2007. There might be a discussion about this on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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 pubilicity to creationists, which could foster an inaccurate public perception and obscure the factual merits of the debate. 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." 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: 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."

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. 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. Stephen Jay Gould took public stances against appearing to give legitimacy to creationism by debating its proponents. He noted during a Caltech lecture in 1985:

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!

Quote mining

Main article: 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. However, almost universally these have been shown to be quote mines (lists of out of context or misleading quotations) that do not accurately reflect the evidence for evolution or the mainstream scientific community's opinion of it, or 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 and paste functions, that the TalkOrigins Archive has created "The Quote Mine Project" for quick reference to the original context of these quotations.

Conflation of science and religion

While the controversy is usually portrayed in the mass media as being between creationists and scientists, in particular evolutionary biologists in fact very few scientists consider the debate to have any academic legitimacy. Many of the most vocal creationists rely heavily on their criticisms of modern science, philosophy, and culture as a means of Christian apologetics. For example, as a way of justifying the struggle against "evolution", one prominent creationist 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 churches took up the tool of Creation Evangelism in society, not only would we see a stemming of the tide of humanistic philosophy, but we would also see the seeds of revival sown in a culture which is becoming increasingly more pagan each day."

Religion and historical scientists

This Creation-evolution controversy section called Religion and historical scientists does not cite any sources. Please help improve this Creation-evolution controversy section called Religion and historical scientists by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Rejection of evolution by religious groups" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2006) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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, 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.

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.

Ironically, many of the scientists in question did some early work on the mechanisms of evolution. 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 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.

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 reconcileable for evolutionary scientists. 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 Einstein's deism was a tacit endorsement of creationism or that Charles Darwin converted on his deathbed and recanted evolutionary theory.

Science as religion

A popular accusation among creationists is that evolution is itself a religion based on secular humanism, scientific materialism, or philosophical naturalism.

Creationists use neologisms such as evolutionism and Darwinism to refer to the modern theory of evolution, and evolutionists and Darwinists to those who accept it, often pejoratively. In the context of the evolution/creation controversy, many evolution proponents object to such usage as inaccurate and misleading. In particular, the -ist/-ists/-ism suffixes evoke similarity to religious or philosophical rather than scientific ideas (e.g. creationist, fundamentalist, Calvinist, communist). It is claimed that in the case of evolutionism the label implies that evolution is a belief system akin to religion, while in the case of Darwinism, the implication is that modern evolutionary theory is the static work of just one individual, Charles Darwin, as though he were not a scientist but rather the founder of a religious sect. However, these terms are also commonly used without pejorative intent by others, including historians, commentators, and sometimes scientists, e.g., scientist, evolutionist, Neo-Darwinism, etc.

False dichotomy

Many supporters of evolution (especially religious ones) disagree with the claim made by creationists and some scientists that there exists an inherent, irresolvable conflict between religion and evolutionary theory. Since many, if not most religious people do accept evolution (see Theistic evolution), they argue that this is a false dichotomy. Views on this subject cover a very wide spectrum, from strict Biblical literalism (which implies Young Earth creationism) to atheism.

Strict (Intelligent Design, Old Earth, and Young Earth) creationists strenuously reject evolutionary creationism on two grounds:

  1. Strict creationists claim that "evolution" is an attempt to remove God from the natural world. "Evolution as understood by its ablest advocates is an inherently atheistic explanation," claims one. Such creationists claim that, because probability, chance, and randomness are used as explanations for mutations and genetic drift, God is necessarily excluded from the mechanisms of evolution. Creationists who are actively involved in the conflict tend to criticize those who advocate theistic evolution as having missed a claimed fundamental disparity between the naturalistic mechanisms described as explanations for the natural sciences and the theistic action inherent to the doctrine of creation.
  2. Strict creationists claim that there are two and only two positions that can possibly be correct: creation science (or intelligent design) or the scientific mainstream (evolution). This automatically precludes discussions of other origin beliefs and allows such advocates to claim that the only plausible explanation of origins that permits God is that which they are advocating. On this basis they claim that science itself is inherently atheistic, and lobby for a reversion to faith-based natural philosophy.

A point concerning this apparent dichotomy is provided by some Christian apologists, notably Stanley Jaki and Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), that God in his omnipotence, is fully capable of creating a universe which would bring forth the desired result - that is, humanity - as a consequence of the Laws of Creation inherent in it. Also, the literal view of creationism therefore propounds a "small" view of God's greatness. They qualify this theory with the assumption that after evolution brought forth the biology of humans, God breathed the Spirit into them to give them Life in His image. Furthermore they promote the idea that there is no contradiction between the biblical account of creation and the latest scientific understanding.

"Science does not produce evidence against God. Science and religion ask different questions," according Martin Nowak, a self-described person of faith as well as a professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology at Harvard. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, comes to a similar conclusion, albeit from a completely different perspective. In March 2006, he stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

See also

References

  1. See Hovind 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHovind2006 (help), for example.
  2. Larson 2004, p. 247-263 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLarson2004 (help) Chapter titled Modern Culture Wars. See also Ruse 1999, p. 26 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRuse1999 (help), who writes "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed...religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently been very significant factors in the forward movement of science."
  3. Numbers 1992, p. 3-240
  4. ^ Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 1 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPetersHewlett2005 (help)
  5. v. Dover Area School District, page 20
  10. Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, pages 7-9, also pages 64-90
  11. Myers 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMyers2006 (help); NSTA 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNSTA2003 (help); IAP 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIAP2006 (help); AAAS 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAAAS2006 (help); and Pinholster 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPinholster2006 (help)
  12. Larson 2004, p. 258 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLarson2004 (help) "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 Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMartzMcDaniel1987 (help), 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'."
  13. Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 34-35 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDesmondMoore1991 (help)
  14. ^ van Wyhe 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFvan_Wyhe2006 (help)
  15. Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 503-505 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDesmondMoore1991 (help).
  16. Hodge 1874, p. 177 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHodge1874 (help), Numbers 1992, p. 14
  17. Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 965 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBurnsRalphLernerStandish1982 (help), Huxley 1902 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHuxley1902 (help)
  18. Numbers 1992, p. 14
  19. Numbers 1992, p. 14-15
  20. ^ Numbers 1992, p. 17
  21. 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
  22. Moore 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMoore2006 (help)
  23. See, for example, Dobzansky, 1973, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, Starting “The Modern Synthesis”: Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Larson 2004, p. 248,250 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLarson2004 (help)
  24. Cite error: The named reference Larson251 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  25. Cite error: The named reference Larson252 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. Larson 2004, p. 255 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLarson2004 (help),Numbers 1992, p. xi,200-208
  27. Larson 2004, p. 255 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLarson2004 (help)
  28. Numbers 1992, p. 284-285
  29. Numbers 1992, p. 284-6
  30. Quoting Larson 2004, p. 255-256 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLarson2004 (help): "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."
  31. Larson 2004, p. 254-255 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLarson2004 (help), Numbers 1998, p. 5-6 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNumbers1998 (help)
  32. Verderame 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVerderame2007 (help),Simon 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSimon2006 (help)
  33. Dewey 1994, p. 31 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDewey1994 (help), and Wiker 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWiker2003 (help), summarizing Gould.
  34. As reported in the 4 May 2005 edition of the Washington Post
  35. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20 2005, Ruling Whether ID Is Science: Page 89, and Conclusion.
  36. Bumiller 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBumiller2005 (help), Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 3 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPetersHewlett2005 (help)
  37. Larson 2004, p. 258 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLarson2004 (help) "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 Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMartzMcDaniel1987 (help), 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'."
  38. Johnson 1993, p. 69 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJohnson1993 (help) 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.
  39. Winston 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWinston2006 (help)
  40. Dawkins 2006, p. 114 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDawkins2006 (help)
  41. Dawkins 2006, p. 113 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDawkins2006 (help)
  42. Dawkins 2006, p. 157 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDawkins2006 (help)
  43. Dawkins 2006, p. 157 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDawkins2006 (help), referring to Dennett 1995, p. 155 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDennett1995 (help). The Dennett citation praises Dawkins: "Dawkins' retort to the theorist who would call on God to jump-start the evolution process is an unrebuttable refutation, as devastating today as when Philo used it to trounce Cleanthes in Hume's Dialogues two centuries earlier." Dialogues concerning Natural Religion is a fictional/philosophical work.
  44. Tuerk, C. & Gold, L. Systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment: RNA ligands to bacteriophage T4 DNA polymerase. Science. 1990 Aug 3;249(4968):505–510.
  45. Interferometric "fitness" and the large optical array, Dr David Buscher and Prof. Chris Haniff, 2003 -- optimizing the design of a large interferometer array using an evolutionary fitness landscape.
  46. Johnson 1993, p. 63 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJohnson1993 (help), Tolson 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTolson2005 (help), Moran 1993 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMoran1993 (help) ; Selman v. Cobb County School District. US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2005); Talk. Origins; Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29. Interview with Richard Dawkins
  47. Gould 1981 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGould1981 (help)
  48. Johnson 1998 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJohnson1998 (help), Hodge 1874, p. 177 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHodge1874 (help), Wiker 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWiker2003 (help), Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 5 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPetersHewlett2005 (help)--Peters and Hewlett argue that the atheism of many evolutionary supporters must be removed from the debate
  49. Lenski 2000, p. Conclusions harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLenski2000 (help)
  50. Johnson 1998 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJohnson1998 (help)
  51. Einstein 1930, p. 1-4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFEinstein1930 (help)
  52. Dawkins 1997 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDawkins1997 (help)
  53. Popper 1976, p. 167-180 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPopper1976 (help) as quoted by Number 1992, p. 247 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNumber1992 (help)
  54. Wilkins, John S, Evolution and Philosophy: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?, TalkOrigins Archive.
  55. Popper 1976, p. 168 and 172 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPopper1976 (help) quoted in Kofahl 1981 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKofahl1981 (help)
  56. Unknown sociologist quoted in Numbers 1992, p. 247
  57. Kofahl 1989 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKofahl1989 (help) as quoted by Numbers 1992, p. 247
  58. Lewin 1982 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewin1982 (help)
  59. Popper 1980, p. 611 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPopper1980 (help) as cited in Numbers, 1992 & p247 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNumbers1992p247 (help)
  60. Kofahl 1981, p. 873 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKofahl1981 (help)
  61. Ruse 1999, p. 13-37 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRuse1999 (help), which discusses conflicting ideas about science among Karl Popper, Thomas Samuel Kuhn, and their disciples.
  62. As quoted by Wallis 2005, p. 32 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWallis2005 (help). Also see Dawkins 1986 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDawkins1986 (help) and Dawkins 1995 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDawkins1995 (help)
  63. Wallis 2005, p. 6 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWallis2005 (help) Dawkins quoting Haldane
  64. Dorman 1996 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDorman1996 (help)
  65. See for example the Christian tract written by creationist Donald G. Scott entitled The Fantasy of Organic Evolution, A Pagan Religion at http://www.evolutionfantasy.org/
  66. Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
  67. Morris, Henry M., 1986. The vanishing case for evolution. Impact 156 (Jun.).
  68. Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 139.
  69. For a comparison see Kofahl, Robert E., and Kelly L. Segraves, 1975. The Creation Explanation: A scientific alternative to evolution. Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw, p. 37 as an older argument involving the second law of thermodynamics compared to creationist Jonathan Safarti's exposition on current creationist thought regarding these issues
  70. Examples from notable modern ministries include CARM CARM (external site) and Christiananswers . See ISCID (external site) for use by the ISCID which promotes intelligent design
  71. Numbers 1992, p. 57-58
  72. Schadewald 1986 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSchadewald1986 (help)
  73. answeringenesis.org: Moon-dust argument no longer useful
  74. See for example the transcripts described on talkorigins.org Kansas Evolution Hearings' transcript and see talkorigins.org Cross Examination By Mr. Irigonegary "our hope is that at the end of these hearings we will be allowed to teach the controversy."
  76. ^ Shermer, Michael (May 10, 2004). "Then a Miracle Occurs: An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith". eSkeptic Online. Retrieved 2007-02-11.
  77. Massimo Pigliucci. Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. (Sinauer, 2002): ISBN 0878936599 page 102.
  79. Shermer, Michael. 'Why People Believe Weird Things', Owl Books, 2002. Paperback ed, p. 153.
  80. Dobzhansky 1973 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDobzhansky1973 (help)
  81. ^ Pieret 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPieret2006 (help)
  82. TalkOrigins comment; Articles on the Panda's Thumb about quote mines, PZ Myers briefly comments on a famous quote mining of Darwin, etc.
  83. Myers 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMyers2006 (help)
  84. IAP 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIAP2006 (help),AAAS 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAAAS2006 (help)
  85. Ham, Ken. Creation Evangelism (Part II of Relevance of Creation). Creation Magazine 6(2):17, November 1983.
  86. Woods 2005, p. 67-114 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWoods2005 (help), Chapter Five: The Church and Science
  87. Morris 1982 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMorris1982 (help)
  88. Index to Creationist Claims - Claim CA114 edited by Mark Isaak. 2005
  89. Index to Creationist Claims - Claim CA114.22 edited by Mark Isaak. 2005
  90. Index to Creationist Claims - Claim CA610 edited by Mark Isaak. 2004
  91. Wiker 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWiker2003 (help), Johnson 1993, p. 125-134 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJohnson1993 (help)
  92. For example, Ruse 1999, p. 55-80 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRuse1999 (help), Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982, p. 962-965 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBurnsRalphLernerStandish1982 (help)
  93. Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 2 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPetersHewlett2005 (help)
  94. Woodmorappe, John. 1999. New Educational Activities for Home Schooling Science: A Hands-on Science Activity that Demonstrates the Atheism and Nihilism of Evolution. http://www.rae.org/nihilism.html
  95. Wallis 2005, p. 3 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWallis2005 (help)
  96. Williams 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWilliams2006 (help)

Citations

Published books and other resources

  • Burian, RM: 1994. Dobzhansky on Evolutionary Dynamics: Some Questions about His Russian Background. In The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky, ed. MB Adams, Princeton University Press.
  • Samuel Butler, Evolution Old and New, 1879, p. 54.
  • Darwin, "Origin of Species," New York: Modern Library, 1998.
  • Dobzhansky, Th: 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press
  • Henig, The Monk in the Garden: The Lost and Found Genius of Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
  • Kutschera, Ulrich and Karl J. Niklas. 2004. "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis." Naturwissenschaften 91, pp. 255-276.
  • Mayr, E. The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.
  • James B. Miller (Ed.): An Evolving Dialogue: Theological and Scientific Perspectives on Evolution, ISBN 1-56338-349-7
  • Morris, H.R. 1963. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
  • Numbers, R.L. 1991. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Berkely: University of California Press.
  • Pennock, Robert T. 2003. "Creationism and intelligent design." Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 4, pp. 143-163.
  • Carl Sagan. The Demon-Haunted World. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
  • Scott, Eugenie C. 1997. "Antievolution and creationism in the United States." Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 263-289.
  • Maynard Smith, "The status of neo-darwinism," in "Towards a Theoretical Biology" (C.H. Waddington, ed., University Press, Edinburgh, 1969.
  • D.L. Hull: The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper. Biology and Philosophy 14:4 (October 1999), 481–504.
  • Strobel, Lee. 2004. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

External links

Comments on Creationism as Social Policy

Theistic Evolution (a mixture of religious belief and science)

Examples of Creationist Beliefs

  • An Index to Creationist Claims - attempts to maintain a complete list of creationist claims leveled against evolution, with rebuttals and references from the scientific community

Young Earth Creationists

Old Earth Creationists

In the News

Formal debates

Categories: