Level of support for evolution

The level of support for evolution is a frequently disputed topic in the creation-evolution controversy. Although evolutionary theory is almost universally supported by biologists on the grounds that there is overwhelming evidence of evolution, creationists frequently assert that there is a significant scientific controversy or disagreement over the validity of evolution, and therefore that public schools should "teach the controversy". Supporters of evolution dispute this, pointing out that dozens of scientific societies representing hundreds of thousands of scientists support evolution, that a petition supporting the teaching of evolution was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, and that US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching Creation, in numerous cases.

On the other hand, creationists point out that they have, at least in some countries, persuaded far more of the general public that creationism is a more convincing explanation for the natural world. In addition, creationists have been far more successful making inroads in the political realm in the US and other countries. Because many claims in the creation-evolution controversy rest on whether or not evolution is genuinely controversial or contested in scientific circles, gauging the level of support and scientific consensus for evolution is an important task in evaluating claims on all sides.

Scientific support

There is almost unanimous expert support in the scientific community and academia for evolution. One estimate in 1987 found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 scientists with professional credentials in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science. An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that only about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief asking the US Supreme Court to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism in the case Edwards v. Aguillard was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies. This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point. The amicus curiae brief also clearly described why evolution was science, not religion, and why creationism is not science.

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution. The prestigious US National Academy of Sciences that provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.

Voting, resolutions and statements of scientists before 1985

One of the earliest efforts to express support for evolution by scientists was organized by Nobel Prize Winner German biologist Hermann J. Muller in 1966. Muller circulated a petition entitled "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?" in May of 1966:

There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its “tree of life,” that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.

This manifesto was signed by 177 of the leading American biologists, including Nobel Prize Winner George G. Simpson of Harvard, Carl Sagan of Cornell, John Tyler Bonner of Princeton, Nobel Prize Winner George Beadle, President of the University of Chicago, and Donald F. Kennedy of Stanford University, formerly head of the United States Food and Drug Administration.

This was followed by the passing of a resolution by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the fall of 1972 that stated, in part, "the theory of creation... is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the rules required of science theories". The United States National Academy of Sciences also passed a similar resolution in the fall of 1972. A "A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science." was signed by Nobel Prize Winner Linus Pauling, Isaac Asimov, Nobel Prize Winner George G. Simpson, Caltech Biology Professor N.H. Horowitz, Ernst Mayr, and others, and published in 1977. The governing board of the American Geological Institute issued a statement supporting resolution in November 1981. Shortly thereafter, the AAAS passed another resolution supporting evolution and disparaging efforts to teach creationism in science classes.

Creationist disputes over the scientific support for evolution

Creationists strongly dispute the fact that there is overwhelming support for evolution in the science community. One of the first attempts to provide evidence that there were substantial number of scientists who disagreed with evolution was a pamphlet produced by the Institute for Creation Research in 1971 entitled "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation" This pamphlet has been reprinted several times. However, skeptics point out that these 21 "scientists" include 3 with PhD's in education, 2 in theology, 5 in engineering, 1 in physics, 1 in chemistry, 1 in hydrology, 1 in entomology, 1 in psycholinguistics 1 in food science technology, 2 in biochemistry, 1 in ecology, 1 in physiology and 1 in geophysics, and therefore most of their backgrounds might not give them much authority in evolutionary biology.

In continuing attempts to counter the charge that there are no scientists who disagree with the principles of evolution, creationist organizations have gathered lists of hundreds of scientists that disagree with evolution and support creationism. Some prominent creationist organizations that have produced these kinds of lists include the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International. The Institute for Creation Research website includes the following statement:

Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creationist scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science and their numbers are increasing rapidly. In the Creation Research Society (2717 Cranbrook Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48104) alone there are over 650 scientist members with either doctor's or master's degrees in some field of natural science. Among the additional 2,000 + sustaining members of the Society, many are also scientists with bachelor's degrees, in addition to numerous social scientists and other highly educated people with postgraduate degrees in their own fields. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation is "religion." When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies—not their awareness of scientific facts!

Support for evolution by religious bodies

Many creationists act as evangelists and their organizations are registered as tax-free religious organizations. Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of the true Christians, and evolution is only associated with atheism.

However, there are several religious organizations that have issued statements in support of evolution:In addition the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams has issued statements in support of evolution in 2006. The Clergy Letter Project is a signed statement by 10,000 American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, "of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education." These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.

Michael Shermer argued in Scientific American in October 2006 that evolution supports concepts like family values, avoiding lies, fidelity, moral codes and the rule of law. Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model, the more common image subscribed to by creationists.

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are compatible according to the Church. Catholics are asked to reject an intelligent design that contradicts evolution in order to be in agreement with the Church position. On the 12th August 1950, the Roman Catholic Church accepted that the ‘doctrine of evolution’ was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis saying “research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution”. In the same encyclical the Magisterium holds that a Catholic can believe in the creation account found in sacred scripture. However the encyclical rejects what it described as some “fictitious tenets of evolution”. Following this announcement Catholic Schools began teaching evolution.

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that “Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” This statement was published by the Vatican on July 2004 by the authority of Pope Benedict XVI who was actually the President of the Commission while he was a Cardinal.

In the 21st century, on Jan 18th 2006, the L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, featured an article by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, which concurred with the judges rulings at Kitzmiller v. Dover and said that intelligent design was unscientific.

Although the Magisterium has not yet made an authoritative statement on intelligent design (and it may not if intelligent design is not proven to be a science) it actively supported Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, in his denunciation of intelligent design “Intelligent design diminishes God”.

Support for evolution in medicine and industry

A common complaint of creationists is that evolution is of no value and has never been used for anything and will never be of any use. According to many creationists, nothing would be lost by getting rid of evolution, and science and industry might even benefit.

However, evolution is not just part of science, but is being put to use in medicine and genetics and industry.Corporations such as pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products. It is claimed that they do this because they have a profit motive, and the motive encourages them to use the take a hardline, verifiable approach to their research and development efforts. There is no luxury of time and effort to be wasted on ideas that do not have substantial scientific support behind them.

Because of this, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of corporations. In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry. Paul Hanle of the Biotechnology Institute warned that the US risks falling behind in the biotechnology race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching evolution. James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory.

A book review by Jerry Cohn in 2006 of the book The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David Mindell suggests that some of this enthusiasm might be excessive:

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.

Other support for evolution

There are also many educational organizations that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.

Repeatedly, creationists and intelligent design advocates have lost suits in US courts. Here is a list of important court cases in which creationists have suffered setbacks:

1968 Epperson v. Arkansas United States Supreme Court
1981 Segraves v. State of California Supreme Court of California
1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education US Federal Court
1987 Edwards v. Aguillard United States Supreme Court
1990 Webster v. New Lennox School District Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
2000 Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota
2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District US Federal Court
2006 Hurst v. Newman US District Court Eastern District of California

However, given the Santorum Amendment, flavors of creationism might very well be introduced into American classrooms.

Public support

Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of creationism's validity as a scientific theory. In some countries, creationist beliefs have made substantial inroads with the public, even garnering the majority of public opinion. Given the political power this public support represents, it is likely that there will be more conflict and controversy in the future.

United States

**1997 Gallup Poll Results**
US Group	Young Earth Creationism	Belief in God-guided Evolution	Belief in Evolution without God
Public	44%	39%	10%
Scientists	5%	40%	55%

There have been numerous public surveys to try to ascertain levels of belief in evolution. The results of these polls are not the same in all countries that are surveyed. The US has one of the highest levels among industrialized countries of public belief in biblical or other religious accounts of the origin of the diversity of life forms on earth.

According to a 2006 Gallup poll, about 46% of Americans believe in strict creationism, concurring with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," and 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution. Only 13% believe that humans evolved over millions of years, without any supernatural intervention. Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22% believe in strict creationism.A poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.

There are interesting divisions in public opinions about evolution between conservatives and liberals, or people with different political leanings. A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 60 percent of Republicans are creationists, and only 11 percent express a belief in evolution, but 29 percent of Democrats are creationists and 44 percent accept evolution. Also, the Pew survey found that 70 percent of evangelical Christians felt that living organisms have not changed since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32 percent of mainline Protestants had the same opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll estimated that 63 percent of liberals and 37 percent of conservatives agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry.

International

A study published in Science, compared attitudes about evolution from the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population. (See the chart)

A 2006 UK poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolution theory and the rest did not know. As the poll lacked nuanced survey techniques and equivocated on origin definitions as well as forced participants to make choices as though there were only three options, its results do not necessarily indicate the all possible views of the general public concerning mainstream science or religious alternatives.

Examining the level of public support

However, it should be noted that just because the public supports something, it does not necessarily mean it is true. A study by Miller et al (1997) felt fewer than 20% of Americans possessed basic scientific literacy.A poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way found only 48% of the people polled could choose the correct definition of evolution from a list.

Polls were conducted by Bryan Farha at Oklahoma City University and Gary Steward of the University of Central Oklahoma in 2006, and compared to the results of a Gallup poll in 2001. They found fairly consistent results. The Farha-Steward poll results are followed by the Gallup results in parentheses.

Percentage of Americans who believe in the following

Belief in psychic/spiritual healing: 56 (54)
Belief in ESP: 28 (50)
Haunted houses: 40 (42)
Demonic possession: 40 (41)
Ghosts/spirits of the dead: 39 (38)
Telepathy: 24 (36)
Extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past: 17 (33)
Clairvoyance and prophecy: 24 (32)
Communication with the dead: 16 (28)
Astrology: 17 (28)
Witches: 26 (26)
Reincarnation: 14 (25)

Channeling: 10 (15)

Percentage of Americans who marked "not sure" in these categories

Belief in psychic/spiritual healing: 26 (19)
Belief in ESP: 39 (20)
Haunted houses: 25 (16)
Demonic possession: 28 (16)
Ghosts/spirits of the dead: 27 (17)
Telepathy: 34 (26)
Extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past: 34 (27)
Clairvoyance and prophecy: 33 (23)
Communication with the dead: 29 (26)
Astrology: 26 (18)
Witches: 19(15)
Reincarnation: 28 (20)

Channeling: 29 (21)

Other surveys by different organizations at different times have found very similar results. A 2001 Gallup Poll found that the general public embraced the following: 54% of people believed in psychic/spiritual healing, 42% believed in haunted houses, 41% believed in satanic possession, 36% in telepathy, 25% in reincarnation, and 15% in channeling. A survey by Jeffrey S. Levin, associate professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk found that over 2/3 of the U.S. population reported having at least one mystical experience.

A 1996 Gallup poll estimated that 71% of the people in the United States believed that the government was covering up information about UFOs. A 2002 Roper poll conducted for the Sci Fi channel reported that 56% thought UFOs were real craft and 48% that aliens had visited the Earth.

A 2001 National Science Foundation survey found that 9 percent of people polled thought astrology was very scientific, and 31 percent thought it was somewhat scientific. About 32% of Americans surveyed stated that some numbers were lucky, while 46% of Europeans agreed with that claim. About 60% of all people polled believed in some form of ESP and 30% thought that UFOs were "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations." New Scientist reported in 2006 that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is much closer to 95-99%, depending on the primates involved and the study used.

Also, as Steve Sailer points out, it is also not clear how firmly held the public beliefs in creationism are. After all, most of the creationist claims require a literal reading of Genesis and a belief in biblical inerrancy. However, even among the most fervent American Christians, the 15% that are evangelical Protestants, only 47.8% believe that the Bible is literally true, and 6.5% believe that the Bible is an ancient book full of history and legends. Only about 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants believe the Bible is literally true, and only 9% of Jews believe the Torah is literally true. About 20% of Catholics and Protestants reported that the Bible is a book of history and legends, and 52.6% of ] respondents felt the same about the Torah. These figures make it clear that a large fraction of Christians and do not subscribe to the necessary beliefs to adopt creationist principles wholeheartedly.

From these results, it may not be possible to put much credence in the creationist claim that public levels of belief correspond to more certainty.

Project Steve

The National Center for Science Education has produced a light-hearted petition called "Project Steve" in supported of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It was meant as a parody of the lists of alleged "scientists" that supposedly support creationist principles that creationist organizations produce.

According to the United States Census, about 1.6% of males and 0.4% of females have a first name that would qualify them to sign the petition. Therefore, about 1% of all people in the United States are called Steve or some name that is close to Steve.

Therefore, if one can get N scientists named Steve or something similar to endorse the petition, one might expect that roughly 100xN scientists with all kinds of names would endorse the petition. As of the end of 2006, over 770 scientists named Steve had endorsed the petition, suggesting that if all scientists were allowed to endorse the petition, about 77,000 scientists would have signed. This compares with the Discovery Institute's claim to have over 600 scientists that support intelligent design as of the end of June, 2006.

Trends

Early impact of Darwin's theory

The level of support for evolution in different communities has varied with time. Darwin's theory had convinced almost every naturalist within 20 years of its publication in 1858, and was making serious inroads with the public and the more liberal clergy. It had reached such extremes, that by 1880, one American religious weekly publication estimated that "perhaps a quarter, perhaps a half of the educated ministers in our leading Evangelical denominations" felt "that the story of the creation and fall of man, told in Genesis, is no more the record of actual occurrences than is the parable of the Prodigal Son."

By the late 1800s, many of the most conservative Christians accepted an ancient earth, and life on earth before Eden. Victorian Era Creationists were more akin to people who subscribe to theistic evolution today. Even fervent anti-evolutionist Scopes Trial prosecutor William Jennings Bryant interpreted the "days" of Genesis as ages of the earth, and acknowledged that biochemical evolution took place, drawing the line only at the story of Adam and Eve's creation. Prominent pre-World War II creationist Harry Rimmer allowed an Old Earth by slipping millions of years into putative gaps in the Genesis account, and claimed that the Noachian Flood was only a local phenomenon.

In the decades of the 1900s, George Macready Price and a tiny group of Seventh Day Adventist followers were the among the very few believers in a Young Earth and a worldwide flood, which Price championed in his "new catastrophism" theories. It was not until the publication of John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris’s book Genesis Flood in 1961 that Price's idea was revived. In the last few decades, many creationists have adopted Price's beliefs, becoming progressively more strict biblical literalists.

Recent public beliefs

In a 1991 Gallup poll, 47% of the US population, and 25% of college graduates agreed with the statement, “God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” Fourteen years later, in 2005, Gallup found that 53 percent of Americans expressed the belief that “God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.” About 2/3 (65.5%) of those surveyed thought that creationism was definitely or probably true. In 2005 a Newsweek poll discovered that 80 percent of the American public thought “that God created the universe,” and the Pew Research Center reported that “nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.” Even more surprising was the level of support among high school biology teachers, from 30% in Illinois to 69% in Kentucky. The National Center for Science Education reports that from 1985 to 2005, the number of Americans unsure about evolution increased from 7% to 21%, while the number rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%. Jon Miller of Michigan State University has found in his polls that the number of Americans who accept evolution has declined from 45% to 40% from 1985 to 2005.

In light of these somewhat contradictory results, it is difficult to know for sure what is happening to public opinion on evolution in the US. It does not appear that either side is making unequivocal progress. It does appear that uncertainty about the issue is increasing, however.

Anecdotal evidence is that creationism is becoming more of an issue in the UK as well. One report in 2006 was that UK students are increasingly arriving ill-prepared to participate in medical studies or other advanced education.

Recent scientific trends

At the same time, the level of support for creationism among scientists might very well be decreasing. While 700 biologists and geologists were found to support creationism in 1987, the Discovery Institute in 2007 has managed to get the endorsements of about 600 "scientists" after several years of effort.

There were reportedly 480,000 biological and geological scientists in 1987. The NSF statistics on science graduates per year demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987. By gross oversimplification, this would produce an estimate of a total of 780,000 scientists in the biological and geological sciences in 2001, and even more in 2007 if the trends of the previous 14 years continued.

Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.077% of the roughly 780,000 biological and geological scientists that existed in 2001. However, even this is probably an overestimate:

A large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters are mathematicians, engineers, physicists, engineers and others who never deal with evolution professionally.
In addition the statement signed by the Darwin Dissenters merely expresses scepticism about evolution, and is not a ringing endorsement of supernatural intervention in the natural world.
The number of people graduating in biology has probably continued its historic climb, so that 780,000 is likely an underestimate in 2007.

Although these estimates are not particularly solid, they do seem to indicate that while public suport for creationism and intelligent design is increasing, scientific support appears to be decreasing.

Validity of polling, surveys, resolutions, etc.

In this controversy, both sides have put substantial and increasing amounts of effort to produce long lists of supporters, or signed statements or collections of resolution. These fall in the category of "argumentum ad populum", or arguing that the strength of one's position is correct because of the force of numbers supporting it. Of course, as creationist Bert Thompson asserts, "truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote".

This is definitely true in science, and the only thing in science that matters is whether the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. If they do, then the theory gains support among the scientific community. In this case, the polls do confirm that evolution is the dominantly accepted theory attempting to explain the diversity of the earth's life forms among scientists.

There is never absolute support of all scientists for any theory, however. There are always alternative theories that exist and garner support. It is also important to remember, as Guy Woods writes, "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world."

Notes

^ The ICR Scientists, Henry Morris, Impact #86, Institute for Creation Research website
Evolution: A theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, 1986
The Discovery Institute issued a press release August 19, 2003, signed by 24 Texas faculty members that stated that "in recent years, a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues that challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Thus, we think the best science education will present students with both 'the strengths and weaknesses' of neo-Darwinian theory." However, an analysis of the signers demonstrates that only one was a biolgist (emeritus). The others were from other fields like military science, religious studies or journalism. A second press release September 5, 2003 was signed by 40 "scientists", many that signed the earlier press release, claiming, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. The Darwin-only lobby tries to claim there is no scientific debate over the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism, and this proves that's just bogus. "Texas Citizens for Science Responds to Latest Discovery Institute Challenge, Steven Schafersman, Ph.D., September 2, 2003
For example, in the US Presidential Race in 2000, both George W. Bush and Al Gore's initial political platforms included advocating the teaching of both evolution and creationism in science classes (George W. Bush, The Last Relativist, Timothy Noah, Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics, Slate, Oct. 31, 2000).
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair appears to have been supporting efforts to establish schools teaching creationism in the UK (Revealed: Tony Blair's Link to Schools that Take the Creation Literally, Nicholas Pyke, The Independent, 2004-06-13)
In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.(We put the clock back a 1000 years, Peer Meinert, dpa -German language).
Serbia reverses Darwin suspension
Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006 when the deputy education minister, Mirosław Orzechowski, denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools (And finally..., Warsaw Business Journal, 18 December 2006).
Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula. scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2006-11-18.
The National Science Teachers Association's position statement on the teaching of evolution.
IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
^ Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution, Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520-522
^ As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
^ Finding the Evolution in Medicine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, July 28, 2006.
Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995.
Many scientists see God's hand in evolution, Witham, Larry, Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(6): 33, 1997
See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support For Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
"Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't. Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." Nobel Laureates Initiative (PDF file)
Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. 20 October 2005. Intelligent Design is not Science - Scientists and teachers speak out
US Supreme Court Case No. 85-1513, October Term, 1986, August 18, 1986
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES, ROBERT A. KLAYMAN, WALTER B. SLOCOMBE, JEFFREY S. LEHMAN, BETH SHAPIRO KAUFMAN, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, One Thomas Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 862-5000, Attorneys for Amici Curiae
List of numerous US scientific societies that support evolution and their statements about evolution
List of 68 international scientific societies on the Interacademy Panel (IAP) that endorse a resolution supporting evolution and a multibillion year old earth, June 2006.
National Science Board letter in support of evolution 1999
Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design, 11 Apr 2006.
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1999.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998.
Bales, James D., Forty-Two Years on the Firing Line, Lambert, Shreveport, LA, p.71-72, no date.
^ The Day the Scientists Voted, Bert Thompson, Apologetics Press: Sensible Science, 2001, originally published in Reason & Revelation, 2(3):9-11, March 1982.
^ American Biology Teacher, January 1973.
A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science, The Humanist, January/February, 1977, p. 4-6.
AAPG Explorer, January, 1982.
"Creation-Science" Law Is Struck Down, Raloff, J., Science News, 121:20, January 9, 1982.
"21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation, 2nd edition", Creation-Life Publishers, 1971.
"Scientific" Creationism Examined, Paul Tobin, The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity
An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement, John W. Patterson, Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 89(2):55-58, 1982.
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a list of scientists who dispute evolution on the Discovery Institute's website
List of Creation Scientists , a list of biological and physical scientists that support creationism on the Institute for Creation Research website.
Creation scientists and other biographies of interest, a list of scientists that support creationism on the Answers in Genesis website.
Creation scientists and other specialists of interest, a list of scientists who support creationism on Creation Ministries International's website. It should be noted that Creation Ministries International is the international arm of Answers in Genesis and not an independent organization.
For a discussion about some controversy about this, see Kent Hovind.
Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, in his book Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975, vol. 2, p. 15, argues that "First, it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men to be told that the whale and the humming-bird, man and the mosquito, are derived from the same source... the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand."
Presupposing Naturalism: Atheism, Agnosticism and Theistic Evolution?, Rev. Curtis L. Brickley, Jr., Darwin, Design and Democracy V: Science Converges on Design - from Cosmology to Paleontology to Biology, September 24-25, 2004, Woodward Hall, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico states that "Theistic evolution fails traditional theistic religion by not allowing for the continued intervention of a creative cause or power. Theistic evolution can get you knowledge "of God" only through faith by denying natural revelation. But without natural revelation, there can be no rational basis for belief in a God who actually reveals Himself through nature. By embracing Naturalism, and its rejection of the supernatural, theistic evolution denies a rational basis for belief in God and a basis for our faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Evolution and Christianity are opposites, p. 36 of Evolution and Society, Volume 2 of Scientific Facts Against Evolution-Origin of the Universe: 3 Volume Encyclopedia states, of evolution and Christianity, "there can be no reconciliation between the two. One view stands for fighting, warfare against the supposed weaker ones, and atheism; the other is for peace, self-sacrifice for the good of others, and belief and trust in the Creator God...Even evolutionists and atheists have declared that their creeds are totally different than those of Christianity." Also in the article Evolution and the churches on pages 39-41 of the same volume, "In spite of clear-cut statements by evolutionists that "evolution IS atheism," many denominations today accept one form or another of evolutionary theory."
Defending the teaching of evolution in public education, Statements from Religious Organizations
Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution: Well, he is a Primate, Chris Williams, The Register, Tuesday 21st March 2006
Christianity, Evolution Not in Conflict, John Richard Schrock, Wichita Eagle May 17, 2005 page 17A
^ Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution, Michael Shermer, Scientific American, October 2006.
Pope John Paul II, Speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 23, 1996
“Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1519041
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503
Evolution - Useful or Useless?, George Lindsey, Impact, #148, October 1985, Institute for Creation Research website
Evolution and practical science, Carl Wieland, Creation 20(4):4, September 1998.
French creation Interview with French scientist Dr André Eggen, Ken Ham, Creation 20(4):17–19, September 1998
Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, Randolph Nesse and George C. Williams, Vintage Books, New York 1996.
^ Talkorigins site listing many applications of evolution
^ The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life, David Mindell, Harvard University Press, 2006.
Region seeks high-tech jobs: "Anti-science" label may repel scientists, Jason Gertzen and Diane Stafford, The Kansas City Star, Sun, Oct. 09, 2005
Waging War on Evolution, Paul A. Hanle, Washington Post, Sunday, October 1, 2006; Page B04
Evolution is a Winner - for Breakthroughs and Prizes, James McCarter, St Louis Post-Dispatch 2005 Oct 9
^ Selling Darwin, Jerry Cohn, Nature 442, 983-984(31 August 2006)
List of educational organizations that support evolution and their statements about evolution
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998) Appendix A, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97. (1968)
Segraves v. California, No. 278978 Sacramento Superior Court (1981)
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 (1982) U.S. Law Week 2412
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482, U.S. 578, 55 (1987) U.S. Law Week 4860, S. CT. 2573, 96 L. Ed. 2d510
Webster v. New Lennox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1004 (7th. Cir., 1990)
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir., 1994)
Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997)
Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District No. 04-2688 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005)
Hurst v. Newman court documents
No scientific issue is ever decided in this manner. The only thing that matters in science is if the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. This is called argumentum ad populum (Introduction to Logic, I.M. Copi, Macmillan, New York, 1978). As pointed out by creationist Bert Thompson, "truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote" ( The Day the Scientists Voted, Bert Thompson, Apologetics Press: Sensible Science)
Public beliefs about evolution and creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995-2006.
Third of Americans Say Evidence Has Supported Darwin's Evolution Theory Almost half of Americans believe God created humans 10,000 years ago Frank Newport Result of 2004 Gallup poll showing about 45% of the US public believe in the biblical creation account, and only 1/3 believe in Darwinian theory.
^ See Americans Still Hold Faith In Divine Creation.
^ Evolution and Creationism in Public Education, results of People for the American Way Poll
^ "Public Acceptance of Evolution". Science. 313 (5788): 765–766. 11 August 2006. doi:10.1126/science.1126746. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Britons unconvinced on evolution
BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life
Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada., Miller, J. D., R. Pardo, and F. Niwa. 1997. Chicago: Chicago Academy of Sciences.
^ Smart People See Ghosts, Brad Steiger, Fate Magazine, April 2006 Issue, p. 52-56; the unusual thing found by Farha and Steward was that belief in the supernatural increased with education level, contrary to many other surveys. However, that aspect of their study is not being used here.
Skeptical Inquirer, 30, 1; 37-40
USA Today, January 12, 1994
Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding-Public Knowledge About S&T, Chapter 7 of Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, National Science Board, National Science Foundation
^ Why doesn't America believe in evolution?, Jeff Hecht, New Scientist, 20 August 2006
A Miracle Happens Here:" Darwin's Enemies on the Right - Part I of a Two Part Series, Steve Sailer, National Post, 11/20/99
American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, September 2006
It should be noted that not all scientists who signed necessarily are staunch creationists. For example, Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but describes himself as an atheist, said that when he endorsed a petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Salte stated, “I signed it in irritation.” (Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition, Panda's Thumb, February 21, 2006)
National Center for Science Education "Project Steve"
Dissent From Darwin “Goes Global” as Over 600 Scientists From Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory: Scientific Dissent From Darwinism Continues to Grow, Staff, Discovery Institute, June 20, 2006.
^ The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, expanded edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 2006 ISBN-10: 0-674-02339-0
Science, vol 313, p 765
' Academics fight rise of creationism at universities: More students believe Darwin got it wrong, Royal Society challenges 'insidious problem, Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, Tuesday February 21, 2006.
NSF statistics on science graduates 1966-2001
And Be Not Conformed To This World...,, Guy N. Woods, Gospel Advocate, 124:2,23, January 7, 1982.

v t e Evolutionary biology
Introduction Outline Timeline of evolution History of life Index
Evolution	Abiogenesis Adaptation Adaptive radiation Altruism Cheating Reciprocal Baldwin effect Cladistics Coevolution Mutualism Common descent Convergence Divergence Earliest known life forms Evidence of evolution Evolutionary arms race Evolutionary pressure Exaptation Extinction Event Homology Last universal common ancestor Macroevolution Microevolution Mismatch Non-adaptive radiation Origin of life Panspermia Parallel evolution Signalling theory Handicap principle Speciation Species Species complex Taxonomy Unit of selection Gene-centered view of evolution
Population genetics	Artificial selection Biodiversity Evolutionarily stable strategy Fisher's principle Fitness Inclusive Gene flow Genetic drift Kin selection Parental investment Parent–offspring conflict Mutation Population Natural selection Sexual dimorphism Sexual selection Flowering plants Fungi Mate choice Social selection Trivers–Willard hypothesis Variation
Development	Canalisation Evolutionary developmental biology Genetic assimilation Inversion Modularity Phenotypic plasticity
Of taxa	Bacteria Birds origin Brachiopods Molluscs Cephalopods Dinosaurs Fish Fungi Insects butterflies Life Mammals cats canids wolves dogs hyenas dolphins and whales horses Kangaroos primates humans lemurs sea cows Plants pollinator-mediated Reptiles Spiders Tetrapods Viruses
Of organs	Cell DNA Flagella Eukaryotes symbiogenesis chromosome endomembrane system mitochondria nucleus plastids In animals eye hair auditory ossicle nervous system brain
Of processes	Aging Death Programmed cell death Avian flight Biological complexity Cooperation Color vision in primates Emotion Empathy Ethics Eusociality Immune system Metabolism Monogamy Morality Mosaic evolution Multicellularity Sexual reproduction Gamete differentiation/sexes Life cycles/nuclear phases Mating types Meiosis Sex-determination Snake venom
Tempo and modes	Gradualism/Punctuated equilibrium/Saltationism Micromutation/Macromutation Uniformitarianism/Catastrophism
Speciation	Allopatric Anagenesis Catagenesis Cladogenesis Cospeciation Ecological Hybrid Non-ecological Parapatric Peripatric Reinforcement Sympatric
History	Renaissance and Enlightenment Transmutation of species David Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species History of paleontology Transitional fossil Blending inheritance Mendelian inheritance The eclipse of Darwinism Neo-Darwinism Modern synthesis History of molecular evolution Extended evolutionary synthesis
Philosophy	Darwinism Alternatives Catastrophism Lamarckism Orthogenesis Mutationism Saltationism Structuralism Spandrel Theistic Vitalism Teleology in biology
Related	Biogeography Ecological genetics Evolutionary medicine Group selection Cultural evolution Cultural group selection Dual inheritance theory Hologenome theory of evolution Missing heritability problem Molecular evolution Astrobiology Phylogenetics Tree Polymorphism Protocell Systematics Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance
Category Portal

Misplaced Pages