   #copyright

Creation-evolution controversy

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Evolution and
reproduction; Religious disputes

   Part of the series on
   Intelligent design
   Concepts

   Irreducible complexity
   Specified complexity
   Fine-tuned universe
   Intelligent designer
   Theistic realism
   Intelligent design movement

   Discovery Institute
   Centre for Science and Culture
   Wedge strategy
   Critical Analysis of Evolution
   Teach the Controversy
   Intelligent design in politics
   Santorum Amendment

   The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs.
   evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring dispute in the
   popular arena about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the
   universe. The debate is most prevalent and visible in certain regions
   of the United States, where it is often portrayed in the mass media in
   the broader context of the culture wars or a supposed dispute between
   religion and science. The main opposing positions are held by those who
   hold religious origin beliefs and those who support naturalistic or
   scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology. It
   should be noted, however, that, despite the controversy, many people
   believe that scientific ideas, including biological evolution, need not
   contradict their personal religious beliefs.

   The conflict centers primarily on the defensibility of creationism
   (especially the forms of creationism derived from fundamentalist or
   religiously conservative Abrahamic accounts of origins), a view that
   regards scientific explanations of origins as antithetical to divine
   creation, and often, more specifically, Creation according to Genesis.
   The key contention of such creationists is that only a supernatural
   miracle and not "unguided evolution" can account for origins. This view
   is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community and academia,
   who point to the strong correspondence of reality with the theory, and
   how, as in the title of a famous essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky,
   Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.

   Evolution is often expanded by creationists to include such things as
   the Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, and the formation of stars, however,
   although the word evolution is used as part of several astronomical
   terms such as stellar evolution, none of these are implied by the term
   evolution alone. Which specific scientific ideas conflict with their
   concept of creationism, and would therefore comprise "evolution", can
   vary from creationist to creationist.

   A new school of creationism that has become well known as part of the
   controversy in American schools is the Intelligent Design movement and
   its associated arguments. Intelligent Design proponents assert that
   science inappropriately excludes the idea that origins of the
   biological and physical worlds could derive from an intelligent
   designer and have advocated a program named Teach the Controversy,
   while many opponents claim Intelligent Design is simply creationism
   under a different name.

History of the controversy

   Antecedents to the controversy can be seen in the challenges made by
   various religious people and organizations to the legitimacy of certain
   scientific ideas since the Age of Enlightenment (see Galileo and his
   advocacy of " natural philosophy" in relation to the Inquisition of the
   Roman Catholic Church). The Creation-Evolution controversy itself
   originated in Europe and North America in the late eighteenth century,
   when geological discoveries indicated that the earth is much older than
   was suggested by the Judeo-Christian Bible. When the theory of
   evolution by natural selection was introduced and published by English
   naturalist Charles Darwin in his mid nineteenth century book, On the
   Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, many Christian
   preachers attacked the book believing it to be in conflict with their
   interpretations of the biblical account of life's, especially
   humanity's, origin and development.

   The controversy became political in the United States of America when
   public schools began teaching the scientific theory that man evolved
   from earlier forms of life per Darwin's theory of Natural Selection as
   opposed to being created by God in His image per the Bible. In
   response, the State of Tennessee passed a law (the Butler Act)
   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 and remained
   on the books until 1967 when it was repealed.

   The controversy continues to this day with the secular mainstream
   scientific consensus on the origins and evolution of life actively
   attacked and denigrated by a number of creationist organizations and
   religious groups who desire to uphold creationism (often " Young Earth
   creationism", " creation science" or " Intelligent design") as an
   alternative. Most of these groups are explicitly Christian, and more
   than one sees the debate as an opportunity to evangelize.

   There are those involved on both sides of the debate who see secular
   science and theistic religion as being diametrically opposed views
   which cannot be reconciled (see section on the false dichotomy). More
   accommodating viewpoints include believers in theistic evolution, who
   see science and religion as fully compatible disciplines which ask
   fundamentally different questions about reality and posit different
   avenues for investigating it.

   As recently as 2005, the Intelligent Design movement has attempted to
   frame an anti-evolution position by avoiding any 'direct' appeal to
   religion, although Leonard Krishtalka, a paleontologist and an opponent
   of the movement, called intelligent design "nothing more than
   creationism in a cheap tuxedo" (see Neo-Creationism). In addition, in
   Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) United States District
   Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science
   and is essentially religious in nature. Intelligent design, as a
   perspective, does not represent a research program within the
   mainstream scientific community and is opposed by many of the same
   groups who oppose creationism.

Common venues for debate

   Conflict occurs mostly in the public arena, as creationists have been
   unwilling or unable to publish their ideas through academic channels or
   in scientific journals. Popular-level books and articles by
   creationists attacking mainstream science and by proponents of
   mainstream science attacking creationism have been published and
   numerous public debates have been sponsored by churches, universities,
   and clubs. With the Internet, the battle between proponents has also
   been waged on-line. One of the first Usenet newsgroups was created for
   the controversy. Since 1986, the Talk.origins newsgroup has allowed for
   multiple discussions of nearly every topic and issue ever developed in
   the controversy. In 1994, an archive of the mainstream science
   responses to creationist objections was created as a web site. Various
   creationists followed suit with their own clearinghouses, the most
   famous of which are Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis and the Institute for
   Creation Research website. Chatrooms, message boards, and blogs
   continue to promote the controversy with many arguments printed and
   reprinted.

   Most Christian denominations have an official stance on the
   controversy. In the U.S. many conservative Protestant denominations
   unapologetically promote creationism and preach against evolution from
   the pulpits and sponsor lectures and debates on the subject. Some
   groups that explicitly advocate for creationism and against evolution
   include Assemblies of God, Church of the Nazarene, Evangelical
   Presbyterian Church, Free Methodist Church, Jehovah's Witnesses,
   Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Pentecostal Churches, Seventh-day
   Adventist Churches, Southern Baptist Convention Churches, Wisconsin
   Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Christian Reformed Church and Pentecostal
   Oneness churches.

Conflicts inherent to the controversy

   While debate on the details of scientific theories and their
   philosophical or religious implications are often the most intense
   parts of the controversy, ultimately the conflict comes 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 fundamental points of
   disagreement.

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 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 since science cannot supply such answers, 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.

   Dawkins 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 s/he/it 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 Darwinism 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":


   Creation-evolution controversy

     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.


   Creation-evolution controversy

   The "Boeing 747" reference alludes to a statement reportedly made by
   Fred Hoyle: 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 reports that Dan
   Dennett, calls it "an unrebuttable refutation" dating back two
   centuries.

   Examples of open questions in origins research within their associated
   scientific fields include:
     * Cosmogony as the speculative predecessor to the explanations
       provided by physical cosmology and the Big Bang.
     * The nebular hypothesis as a consistent application of the
       observations of protoplanetary discs and general principles of
       planetary science.
     * The giant impact hypothesis as a consistent model for lunar
       formation in conjunction with the geological timescale.
     * The various scientific inquiries into the origin of life including
       consistent models of abiogenesis.

   Research into understanding these subjects is ongoing.

Defining evolution

   Many creationists argue that since scientists cannot fully explain
   origins, evolution as a whole is flawed. Such critiques effectively
   recast "evolution" as a broader statement than the one typically
   accepted by mainstream science. Young Earth Creationists, such as Kent
   Hovind, count no fewer than six different aspects to "evolution"
   despite the formal scientific definition, which applies only to the
   modern synthesis. These aspects, as defined by Hovind, are:
    1. Cosmic evolution — origin of time, space and matter (essentially
       referring to the Big Bang).
    2. Stellar and planetary evolution — origin of stars and planets.
    3. Chemical evolution — origin of other elements from hydrogen.
    4. Organic evolution — origin of animate life from inanimate matter.
    5. Macroevolution — origin of major 'kinds' (for a creationist
       treatment see Created kinds).
    6. Microevolution — origin of variations within 'kinds'.

   Such a broad-based grouping of topics from disparate fields of science
   including cosmology, astronomy, geology, and chemistry expands the
   controversy well beyond the confines of biological evolution as per the
   modern synthesis. For example, while almost all biologists consider it
   a matter of fact that life was formed through natural means,
   evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include
   abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter.

   This approach to redefining the aspects of evolution has been
   criticized in other ways as well. For example, in the context of
   evolutionary biology, "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are
   distinguished only by the total amount of evolutionary change and the
   number of generations that had passed between ancestors and
   descendants. Evolutionary changes are often so gradual that biologists
   can disagree over exactly when speciation occurs. A few scientists have
   attempted to posit different mechanisms for macroevolution (see
   saltation), but none has been generally accepted. Creationists,
   however, generally accept microevolution while rejecting
   macroevolution. An example of this is the creationist endeavor
   baraminology which purports to study the biology of various " kinds".
   "Kinds" and "baramin" are terms invented by creationists and derived
   from the book of Genesis. They are not used in mainstream biological
   research, and those who debate creationists claim that they are a
   patchwork-fix meant to allow creationists to accept short-term
   manifestations of evolution (such as the development of new dog breeds
   or antibiotic-resistant bacteria) as change within a "kind", while
   arbitrarily rejecting speciation, the appearance of entirely new
   species that generally takes much more time.

Theory vs. fact

   The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been
   made against the exclusive teaching of evolution. However, this
   represents a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific terms and
   concepts. In commenting on this creationist misunderstanding,
   Paleontologist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould explained:

     "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.... In science, 'fact'
     can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse
     to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start
     to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in
     physics classrooms."

   Various levels of incredulity about scientific conclusions have been a
   constant component of creationist discourse. In particular,
   creationists are wary of scientific arguments involving events that
   happened in the distant past. Although some amount of inference
   characterizes evolution research, as it does all scientific research
   concerning the past, the inference proceeds from observed facts.
   According to Ernst Mayr, these inferences have "enormous certainty" due
   to agreement of multiple lines of evidence, confirmation of
   predictions, and the absence of any rational alternative. He has called
   the distinction between these inferences and direct observations
   "misleading."

   Critiques based on the distinction between theory and fact are often
   leveled against unifying concepts within scientific disciplines, such
   as uniformitarianism, Occam's Razor/ parsimony, and the Copernican
   principle, that are claimed to be the result of a bias within science
   toward philosophical naturalism, which is equated by 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 which makes the methodological
   assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by
   natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the
   supernatural, and so considers supernatural explanations for such
   events to be outside 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.
   A satirical image of Charles Darwin as an ape from 1871 reflects part
   of the social controversy over whether humans and apes share a common
   lineage.
   Enlarge
   A satirical image of Charles Darwin as an ape from 1871 reflects part
   of the social controversy over whether humans and apes share a common
   lineage.

Arguments against evolution

   Creationists are best known for their claims that evolutionary theory
   is incorrect and that evidence contradicting it has been discovered.
   These claims are not taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of
   the scientific community, where the evidence of evolution is considered
   to be overwhelming in quality and amount. Richard Dawkins, biologist
   and professor at Oxford University, explains that evolution "is a
   theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years, which
   starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual
   gradients to greater complexity. ... If there were a single hippo or
   rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of
   the water. None have ever been found." Similarly, the evolutionary
   biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what hypothetical evidence would
   disprove evolution in exchange for a creationist concept replied
   "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era", a period more than 540 million
   years ago, a time when life on Earth consisted largely of bacteria,
   algae, and plankton. The absence of such evidence against evolution
   serves as one of the primary criticisms of creationism.

   A famous instance of creationist evidence against evolution was the
   supposed human and dinosaur tracks found in Paluxy riverbed near Glen
   Rose, Texas which was allegedly evidence that showed dinosaurs and
   humans walked the Earth at the same time. 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.
   Creationist's car in Athens, Georgia
   Enlarge
   Creationist's car in Athens, Georgia

   Creationists have also criticized the scientific evidence used to
   support evolution as being based on faulty assumptions, unjustified
   jumping to conclusions, or even outright lies. Such criticism typically
   involves the most often cited pieces of evidence in favour of
   mainstream science. 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.
   Creationists have also claimed that because Piltdown Man and other
   paleontology hoaxes were fabricated, all of the pieces of evidence for
   human evolution were questionable. Certain creationist organizations
   have, over time, modified or distanced themselves completely from these
   claims, moving to more sophisticated arguments. In debates, the
   back-and-forth criticism has a tendency to degenerate into arguments
   over details of the major ideas, creationists claiming that the
   problems they point out represent significant "holes" while their
   opponents respond that the holes are either due to a lack of
   understanding by creationists or are not detrimental to the paradigm.

   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. 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. Most of the largest creationist
   organizations now discourage using the idea that entropy prevents
   evolution, but similar types of arguments continue to be made in the
   controversy.

   Most scientists do not spend a great deal of time debunking such claims
   and oftentimes this gives the impression that they are either unwilling
   or unable to answer the creationist critiques. There are even those
   that outright refuse to participate so as not to lend the creationists
   any legitimacy, including Stephen Gould and Richard Dawkins. The latest
   instance of this was in 2005, when mainstream science organizations
   boycotted hearings held by the Kansas Board of Education who held what
   certain 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.

Accusations of bias

   Creationists argue that the scientific community's methodological
   naturalism "could just as well be called atheism, and is really a
   religion to be accepted on faith." Creationists claim that their ideas
   are unfairly dismissed as pseudoscience so as to stifle the debate.
   This claim is hotly disputed by scientists in the relevant fields who
   point out that creationist ideas about scientific topics have
   fundamental flaws, misconceptions, errors, and a lack of substantiating
   facts, rendering them unworthy of inclusion in academic discussion.
   Creationists tend to respond at length to such criticisms, sometimes to
   the point of responding line-by-line to anti-creationist articles,
   though it is disputed whether these succeed in addressing the issues.

   Many creationist organizations have tried to address criticism from the
   scientific establishment by recruiting religious scientists and
   academics who are sympathetic to their cause. The Institute for
   Creation Research, the Intelligent Design think-tank Discovery
   Institute, and Answers in Genesis all employ people with doctoral
   degrees in scientific or related fields. The use of credentials by some
   of the creationist experts (notably Kent Hovind) that rely on their
   non-biological and/or non-accredited doctoral degrees to argue from
   authority has been criticized as being fraudulent or misleading. Some
   creationists (for example, the Old Earth creationist astronomer Hugh
   Ross, who accepts the scientifically calculated age of the Earth but
   questions macroevolution), raise objections to scientific theories
   outside of their field of expertise.

Debates

   Creationists, notably Kent Hovind, have made a living debating
   scientists regarding creationism (intelligent design) and evolution.
   Eugenie Scott of the National Centre for Science Education, claimed
   debates are not the sort of arena to promote science to creationists.
   Scott claims, "Evolution is not on trial in the world of science," and
   "the topic of the discussion should not be the scientific legitimacy of
   evolution." Rather the issue should be on the lack of evidence in
   creationism. Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould took public stances
   against appearing to give legitimacy to creationism by debating its
   proponents. Stephen Jay Gould noted during the McLean v. Arkansas
   trial:

     "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

   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

   The controversy is usually portrayed in the mass media as being between
   scientists, in particular evolutionary biologists, and creationists,
   but as almost all scientists do not consider the debate to have any
   academic legitimacy, it may be more correctly described as a conflict
   over a conflation of science and religion. 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

   A somewhat popular creationist claim in the context of the controversy
   is that Christianity and belief in a literal Bible are either
   foundationally significant or directly responsible for scientific
   progress. To that end, creationists have been known to list scientists
   such as Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Pascal, and Mendel as believers in a
   biblical creation narrative.

   Since most of the scientists creationists tend to list as supporters
   were not aware of evolution because they were either no longer alive
   when it was proposed or the idea was outside their field of study, this
   kind of argument is generally rejected as being specious by those who
   oppose creationism.

   In many cases, the context for the scientist in question opposing
   evolution was historically situated quite differently than it would be
   today, and usually involved very early work on the mechanism of
   evolution. Though biological evolution of some sort became the primary
   mode of discussing speciation within science since the late 19th
   century, it was not until the mid-20th century that evolutionary
   theories more or less stabilized. 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 which
   some creationists describe as a critique on chemical evolution and
   abiogenesis.

   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 the creationist argument have included suggesting
   that Einstein's deism was a tacit endorsement of creationism and
   incorrectly suggesting that Charles Darwin converted on his deathbed
   and recanted evolutionary theory.

Religion as science

   Most creationists involved in the controversy posit that they have
   alternatives to mainstream science in the form of creation science or
   intelligent design. They argue that science needs a paradigm shift and
   that a scientific revolution needs to occur in order to remove what
   they perceive as anti-religious bias from science. This conflation of
   religious and scientific ideas has come to define the controversy
   separately from either theological or scientific discourse.

Science as religion

   The Darwin fish is a parody of the ichthys, a symbol often used to
   self-identify Christians and sometimes creationists.
   Enlarge
   The Darwin fish is a parody of the ichthys, a symbol often used to
   self-identify Christians and sometimes creationists.
   The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the Darwin
   fish.
   Enlarge
   The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the Darwin
   fish.
   T-Rex eating the ichthus, motivated by the challenge posed by
   scientific facts to literal interpretations of the Bible.
   Enlarge
   T-Rex eating the ichthus, motivated by the challenge posed by
   scientific facts to literal interpretations of the Bible.

   A popular accusation among creationists is that evolution is itself a
   religion based on secular humanism, scientific materialism, or
   philosophical naturalism. Creationists argue that there is an atheistic
   bias in the scientific community that systematically discriminates
   against their religious views. Creationists involved in the controversy
   often do not believe distinction can be made between science and
   religion, and hold that the modern philosophy of science is informed
   inappropriately by rejection of a deity. They do not accept a priori
   rejection of claims of supernatural events or miracles. Martin Nowak, a
   Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "who
   describes himself as a person of faith," argues that science and
   religion are not mutually exclusive: "Science does not produce evidence
   against God. Science and religion ask different questions."

   Creationists and their supporters often use derisive neologisms such as
   evolutionism and Darwinism to refer to the modern theory of evolution,
   and evolutionists and Darwinists to those who accept it. Many opponents
   to creationism object to such terms as inaccurate and misleading. In
   particular, the -ist/-ists/-ism suffixes are claimed to 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
   just another religious belief system without empirical support, 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.

False dichotomy

   Many supporters of evolution (especially religious ones) disagree with
   the claim made by creationists and some "evolutionists" that there
   exists an inherent, irresolvable conflict between religion and
   evolutionary theory. Since many, if not most religious people do accept
   evolution (see evolutionary creationism), they argue that this is a
   false dichotomy. Religious beliefs 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) and 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.

Beyond the dichotomy

   Opponents of creationist argumentation claim that there is no way to
   distinguish between creationism's objection to mainstream science and
   objections to mainstream science that are derived from groups that are
   not followers of creationism. The following list gives an idea of the
   many diverse views on origins beyond the creation-evolution dichotomy:
     * With Zen and New Age religions, everything and nothing are all
       interconnected, inseparable, a made whole. These conceptions deny
       that the person is the first cause and posit a guiding non-
       anthropomorphic consciousness that balances the universe and serves
       as a source for all being.
     * Theogony by Hesiod contains a poetic rendering of the Greek myth
       that the Cosmos was created through sexual intercourse.
     * Panspermia is a theory explaining the existence of life on the
       Earth as a result of seed organisms coming from some other planet
       through outer space.
     * Norse mythology says that Odin and his brothers used the body of
       Ymir, the giant, to create the world.

Ramifications of the controversy

Public education in the United States

   Evolution and creationism in public education in the United States have
   been the subjects of often acrimonious contention since the Scopes
   trial. Locally controlled school boards in regions of the country
   dominated by creationists have made numerous and varied attempts over
   the years to undermine evolution and/or promote creationism in public
   school science classrooms.

   Those who do not consider creationism to be legitimate science oppose
   having children taught these beliefs as science, though most do not
   object to objective discussions about these beliefs in humanities
   classes, e.g., in a comparative religions course. On the other hand,
   religious conservatives often consider the teaching of evolution as a
   threat to their religious beliefs and prerogatives as parents and
   clergy.

   Scientists opposed to the teaching of faith-based origins argue that
   science and religion are wholly separate realms, and that teaching
   creationism as science confuses students about the proper nature of
   science.

   Controversy also surfaces frequently in school textbook/curriculum
   reviews. Creationists lobby for equal time, Teach the Controversy, or
   replacement of science curriculum with creation "science" or
   intelligent design. They allege science textbooks are biased, out of
   date and contain factual errors. A perennial hot-spot is Kansas, where
   the school board favors creationism whenever its proponents command a
   majority.

   Some creationists seek to redefine Constitutional limitations on
   religious advocacy in public school by lending their support to school
   voucher programs. They endorse those voucher programs that allow
   parents to send their children to private religiously-affiliated
   schools that teach creationism or intelligent design in science
   classes. Opponents say this violates the Establishment Clause of the
   First Amendment, but the Supreme Court had not yet ruled decisively on
   the matter as of 2006.

Controversy in education world-wide

   Education in the United Kingdom comes under different systems in its
   four countries, all of which provide schools with a particular
   religious ethos as part of the state system alongside essentially
   secular schools. Both types of schools teach evolution by natural
   selection in their biology curricula, not creationism. An exception has
   arisen with the introduction in England of private sponsorship of state
   schools, known as city academies, which were introduced by Tony Blair’s
   government in 2000. This has allowed millionaire car dealer Peter Vardy
   to introduce the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in 2 - 7
   city academies accepting sponsorship from his fund, which is called the
   Emmanuel Schools Foundation. This resulted in public controversy which
   drew attention to one private Seventh-day Adventist school and a few
   private Muslim schools teaching creationism. Despite protests by
   scientists, bishops and politicians, the government has so far not
   prohibited the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as long as
   National Curriculum guidelines on teaching evolution are met.
   Independent schools, which teach around 10 per cent of the population,
   are free to choose what they teach. Creationism is taught in science
   lessons, but as a non-scientific theory.

   In September 2004, the teaching of evolution in primary schools was
   briefly banned in Serbia, but the ban was lifted days later after an
   outcry from scientists and even Serbian Orthodox bishops. The incident
   led to the resignation of education minister Ljiljana Čolić.

   The Netherlands education minister Maria van der Hoeven suggested that
   discussion of Intelligent design in schools might promote dialogue
   between religious groups. Widespread opposition from scientists led to
   proposals for a conference on the plan being dropped.

   Turkey, a secular state, has a small creationist movement, initiated
   after contact with creationists from the USA. However, members of the
   Turkish scientific community strongly oppose creationism, and only
   evolution is taught in universities. There is an ongoing debate on
   including intelligent design in high school text books.

   In Pakistan, evolution is no longer taught in universities.

   Brazilian scientists protested in 2004 when the education department of
   Rio de Janeiro started teaching creationism in religious education
   classes. Since then, most Christian colleges have taught evolution as
   science, while teaching creationism as religion only in special,
   non-curricular classes. Public schools teach only evolution.

   In Japan, evolution is taught at all senior high schools (15-18 years
   of age). The regulation ("Gakushuu shidou youryou") states: "Explain
   (to the pupils) that the various forms of life on the earth have come
   to their present forms through evolution. Mention too the examples of
   evolution and explain the debates and processes that led to the theory
   of evolution." This means that no educational institutions can be
   officially run as senior high schools without teaching evolution.
   However, private schools are free to teach alternative views along with
   evolution. Creationism can be used as a supporting material in the
   non-science modules, such as National Language ("Kokugo").

   Retrieved from "
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
