From A Storehouse of Knowledge

The creation-evolution controversy is an on-going cultural controversy about origins, essentially between those who hold to a biblical view of origins and those who hold to a naturalistic view. Therefore the controversy is about more than just the evolution of living things, and encompasses the age of the Earth, etc., cosmology, geology, and more. The controversy is over the evolutionary worldview.

The controversy is carried out in various forums, although rarely with different sides using the same forums. It is also notable in having leading anti-creationists using various self-serving and logically fallacious argument, including abusive ad hominem arguments, rather than just engage in fair debate; see the section below.

On the other hand, creationists are accused of quote mining and other false arguments. For example, creationists would sometimes quote out of context a remark of Charles Darwin's in which he seemed to say that the idea of the human eye evolving was an absurd one. It was this and other arguments that prompted the leading creationist group, Creation Ministries International, to make a list of arguments that creationists should not use.^[1]

The controversy has been going on in some form for at least two centuries.

Contents 1 Scope and positions 2 Participants 2.1 Creationist organisations 2.2 Individual creationists 2.3 Evolutionist organisations 2.4 Individual evolutionists 2.5 Intelligent Design organisations 2.6 Progressive creation organisations 2.7 Theistic evolution organisations 3 Qualifications and demographics 3.1 Questioning credentials and argumentum ad populum 3.2 Claiming that there is no debate 4 Politeness and honesty 4.1 Two-faced arguments 4.2 Labelling 4.3 Ridicule and vilification 5 Forums 6 Arguments relating to the definition and limits of science 6.1 Equating views about the unobservable past with scientific observations 6.2 Claiming that creationists reject science itself 7 Disputes relating to science 7.1 Definitions 7.1.1 Conflating concepts 7.1.2 Strawman arguments 7.2 Arguments by creationists 7.3 Arguments by intelligent design proponents 7.4 Arguments by evolutionists 8 Strategies 8.1 Creationist strategies 8.1.1 Claims of circular arguments 8.2 Intelligent design strategies 8.3 Evolutionist strategies 8.3.1 Contradictory arguments 8.3.2 Claims of "quote mining" 9 Public policy issues 10 Issues relating to religion 10.1 Claiming that religion and evolution are compatible 10.2 Claiming that the battle is between science and religion 10.3 Enlisting theistic evolutionists 11 History 12 External links 12.1 Biblical creationist 12.2 Anti-creationist/anti-intelligent design 12.3 Progressive Creationist 12.4 Theistic Evolutionist 12.5 Intelligent Design 13 Notes 14 References

Scope and positions

Despite popularly being known as creation vs. evolution, the controversy concerns more than just the creation or evolution of living things. It includes the ages of rock formations, the Earth itself, astronomical bodies, the entire universe, and much more, as well as the causes of many of the same things. At one end of the spectrum are the Biblical creationists who believe that nothing is older than the Biblically-derived age of about 6,000 years, while at the other end are the mainstream views that the universe is about 14 thousand million years old, the Earth is about four thousand million years old, and so on. Similarly, Biblical creationists argue that most of the rock formations on Earth were formed during the year of Noah's Flood, while the mainstream view is that they were formed over millions of years.

The controversy is really one of whether a supernatural being (God) created everything, or whether it can all be explained naturalistically. It is largely a controversy between conservative Christianity and secularism, notwithstanding that there are more than just these two groups taking sides on the issue.

Although there are only two main views (supernatural vs. natural), there are also combinations of these views. The following table summarises the main broad positions.

Group	Position on Cause	Position on age	Position on evolution
Mainstream views	Causes are all natural	old	It occurred naturalistically
Biblical creation	God is the cause	young	It didn't occur: God created during creation week
Progressive creation	God is the cause	old	It didn't occur: God created in stages over millions of years.
Theistic evolution	God is the ultimate cause	old	Evolution was God's means of creation
Gap theory	God is the cause	old, except perhaps for life	It didn't occur; God created
Intelligent Design	(unspecified) intelligent being or beings	no formal position, although old Earth generally assumed	Perhaps some occurred, but not without intelligent input

The controversy over biological evolution is over the origin of the diversity of life. It is not, as popularly believed, over whether or not living things change and adapt, whether new species are formed, or the existence of natural selection.

Participants

Participants in this controversy include scientists, Christians, atheists, agnostics, journalists, and members of Internet forums. Followers of other religions, except Muslims to some extent, generally do not take part in the controversy. Numerous organisations have weighed into the controversy, including many that have been set up specifically to promote one view or the other.

As much of the debate of the controversy takes part in Internet discussion forums, much of it is done by people who are not experts in the different views.

Creationist organisations

Some of the main organisations which have been formed to promote the creationist viewpoint are as follows:

The Creation Research Society (CRS) was founded in the United States in 1963 by Henry Morris and others. It produces the CRS Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal. Unlike most of the other creationist groups listed here, it is a membership organisation, with voting members required to have an earned postgraduate degree in a recognized area of science.

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) was founded in the United States in 1970 by Henry Morris. It has speakers who give talks in churches and other places, produces a regular free newsletter, takes part in debates, and operates a Graduate School. It has a number of scientists on staff.

Creation Ministries International (CMI) was formed in Australia in 1979/80 from the amalgamation of two other fledgling creationist groups. Known for many years as the Creation Science Foundation, then Answers in Genesis, the current name was adopted in 2006. CMI has expanded to have sister organisations in New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, and Singapore. It employs scientists who write articles and speak in churches and other places, publishes the magazine Creation and the peer-reviewed journal Journal of Creation, and has an active web-site with thousands of articles, including most of the articles from back issues of its publications and responses to feedback. It claims to have more scientists on staff than any other Christian ministry, and liaises with many others.

Answers in Genesis (AiG) was founded in 1994 in the United States by Ken Ham. It was originally a sister organisation of CMI, but separated from that organisation in 2005/06. AiG also has a sister organisation with the same name in the United Kingdom. AiG produces the magazine Answers, has an active web-site with thousands of articles, publishes a peer-reviewed journal Answers Research Journal on the web, and provides speakers for churches and other meetings. It also runs the Creation Museum. It has several scientists on staff and many others it can call on.

Individual creationists

Some well-known creationists are either not associated with any of the leading creationist organisations, or have started their own organisation which comprises little more than themselves and perhaps family members. These mavericks are generally not endorsed by the main creationist groups.

One of the best known creationist speakers is Kent Hovind. Hovind, also known as "Dr. Dino", has been a popular speaker on the subject in the United States, and is the founder of Creation Science Evangelism, now run by family members, and a now-closed small theme park, Dinosaur Adventure Land, in Pensacola, Florida. Hovind also opposed the government's right to have him pay tax on his employees, and in 2006 was convicted of various charges related to not paying taxes and sentenced to ten years in prison.

Carl Baugh runs his Creation Evidences Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, the star exhibit of which is claimed fossil human footprints in the same rock layers as dinosaur footprints of the nearby Paluxy River. The "Paluxy man tracks" are not regarded as good evidence in support of creationism by leading creationists.

Walt Brown has published multiple editions of his book In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, and runs the Center for Scientific Creation.

Evolutionist organisations

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) was formed in the United States in 1982 specifically to oppose creationism. It publishes Reports of the National Center for Science Education six times per year and gives talks in universities and at other venues.

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) was formed in the United States in 1976 to debunk claims of the paranormal, and has extended to scepticism of what it considers fringe science and pseudoscience. It was apparently formed at a meeting of the American Humanists Association^[2] and is a member of the International Humanist and Ethical Union.^[3]

TalkOrigins Archive is a web-site which started as a convenient access to some of the posts on the talk.origins usenet group.

In Australia, the main anti-creationist group is the Australian Skeptics, an association of local Skeptic groups taking after the American Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long opposed creationism in the American education system.

Science magazines Scientific American and New Scientist have both run editorials and articles criticising creationism.

The British Centre for Science Education (BCSE) was formed in 2006 specifically to oppose creationism and Intelligent Design. Despite supposedly being concerned with science education, none of its leaders were educators and only one was a scientist. It is actually a very small group of people more concerned with fighting Christianity than with science.^[4] However, it has been endorsed by CSI.^[5]

Individual evolutionists

The following individuals are all recommended by other prominent evolutionists and evolutionary organisations and publications.

The late Stephen Jay Gould was a well-known and highly-regarded scientist, historian of science, and Marxist, who is frequently quoted by creationists because of statements that he made regarding the fossil record and other matters, but who was also outspoken against creationists.

Atheist scientist Richard Dawkins is a popular author, speaker, and debater, and has spoken and written against creationism numerous times, although he refuses to debate creationists.

Michael Ruse testified at the Arkansas creationism court case, and has written numerous articles and books on the topic of evolution and creation. He has been involved in the debate for over 30 years.

P. Z. Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris who runs the well known "Pharyngula" blog.

Professor Ian Plimer is an Australian geologist who for a while in the 1990s became well-known for his attacks on creationism, including publishing the book, "Telling Lies for God".

James Lippard has written numerous articles attacking creationist arguments, but also criticising fellow anti-creationists, Ian Plimer in particular, for some of their tactics.

Intelligent Design organisations

The best-known organisation promoting Intelligent Design is the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

Progressive creation organisations

The best-known progressive creation organisation is Reasons to Believe, founded by Hugh Ross in the United States.

Theistic evolution organisations

Biologos was founded by Frances Collins, the former director of the Human Genome Project, in 2007. It rejects the historicity of Adam and Eve.^[6]

The Institute for the Study of Christianity in an age of Science and Technology (ISCAST) is an Australian theistic evolution group.

Qualifications and demographics

Questioning credentials and argumentum ad populum

Anti-creationists frequently used to question the credentials of creationists, claiming that there were no scientists who were creationists, claiming that their qualifications were from a diploma mill, or claiming that they were speaking outside their area of expertise. Such claims are easily refuted, and leading anti-creationists have generally stopped using such arguments so blatantly, but have done little to stop other anti-creationists using them, and continue to use more subtle but similar tactics, such as downplaying or subtly questioning credentials.

For example, the web-site of the British Centre for Science Education puts quote marks around the word "scientist" in references to scientists who work for Creation Ministries International, falsely implying that they are not really scientists.^[7]

Still common is to refer to "scientists" or the "scientific community" as opposed to "creationists", as though the two groups are mutually exclusive, and to speak as though essentially all scientists agree on evolution, despite a small but significant minority of scientists (more than 100,000) disagreeing with at least some aspect of it.^{[note 1]} TalkOrigins Archive's 'An Index to Creationist Claims',^[8] for example, says that it "attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims".

And from the American National Academy of Sciences: "...there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred...",^[9] yet scientists involved in the debate—both creationary scientists and anti-creationist scientists—are part of the scientific community.

Claiming that there is no debate

NCSE executive director Eugenie Scott claimed on Australian ABC radio in an interview with host Robyn Williams that there is no controversy over evolution.

In a March 2003 broadcast of The Science Show on Radio National, a radio station of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, presenter Robyn Williams and Eugenie Scott openly admitted, on the pretence that evolution is true, that creationists do not warrant equal time.

Robyn Williams: And the old question of science having two sides - and this is a journalistic thing where some of us still, especially if you go to television, are supposed to display conflict, you know, one side and the other side as if there is this continuing argument.
Eugenie Scott: Well Robyn, you put your finger exactly on the issue. When there is a controversy, responsible journalists will present both or all sides and give a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard. If you were doing a show on anthrax you would not feel compelled to put a Christian scientist^{[note 2]} who denied the germ theory of disease on the show to balance the program, because the germ theory of disease in medicine is a done deal, we are not debating whether germs cause disease. Similarly, if you are discussing an issue like what topics should be taught in science education at the pre-college level, which is a continuing controversy in the United States, you don't debate whether to teach evolution, because evolution is state of the art science and it should be taught. You don't debate whether to teach evidence against evolution or some sort of creationism because scientists don't accept these arguments, there is no body of evidence against evolution. And this is what the theory of biological evolution is all about.^[10]

However, Eugenie Scott herself is the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, a group with the prime goal of countering the influence of creationists.^[11]

Former Editor-in-Chief of National Geographic Bill Allen claimed, in a blog with a prejudicial title, that there was no debate among "reputable" scientists, begging the question of what he meant by "reputable"^[12]

The American National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine said, "There is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution."^[13] in a statement containing their view on the controversy, one of many similar statements by scientific bodies opposed to creationism.

Politeness and honesty

Two-faced arguments

Anti-creationists will claim to be religiously neutral or even Christian, when they are anything but. The NCSE, for example, says that it has no religious position,^[14] yet the they have been linked to humanist organisations and have many atheists and humanists among their supporters.^[15] And Professor Ian Plimer claimed to be a Christian and claimed to be concerned that creationism leads people to atheism, yet was a member of the Humanist Society of Victoria, even being awarded the title "Humanist of the Year" in 1995.^[16]

Peter Hearty, a member of the National Secular Society in Britain, said in a radio show on Intelligent Design that he thinks "motive is actually very important in this.". He was referring to the motives of Christians wanting to prove God's involvement.^[17] Similarly, Judge Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District rejected inclusion of mention of Intelligent Design on the grounds of the religious motives of its supporters. The atheistic motives of leading proponents of evolution such as Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott are ignored.

The American National Academy of Sciences claimed in their 1998 publication Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science that "accepting evolution as an accurate description of the history of life on earth does not mean rejecting religion…" and later that "Religious and scientific ways of knowing have played, and will continue to play, significant roles in human history. ... Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral."^[18] Yet in a paper also published by the National Academy, the author argues on supposedly-scientific grounds (but actually materialistic grounds) that free will—a central tenet of Christianity—does not exist, and describes religion as "nonsensical".^[19]

Labelling

Evolutionists regularly claim that Intelligent Design is merely repackaged creationism,^[20] despite both biblical creationists^[21] and intelligent design advocates^[22] rejecting this claim, and despite numerous differences between ID and creationism.

"Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes.^[22]

Ian Plimer had attacked the Creation Science Foundation (CSF, now CMI) for several years when he took Noah's Ark searcher Allen Roberts to court, following Roberts taking him to court.^[23] He had the media claiming that this was a battle between science and creation, failing to mention that Roberts was not associated with CSF nor any other creationist organisation.^[24]

Ridicule and vilification

Rather than stick to debating the issues, some anti-creationists will resort to abusive ad hominem arguments.

Finnish philosopher Tapio Puolimatka said, "Naturalism is today propagated dogmatically. The alternative idea that God has created the universe is excluded by ridicule, which is hardly scientific."^[25]

Phil Plait, former president of sceptical society the James Randi Educational Foundation, said that "Instead of relying on the merits of the arguments, which is what critical thinking is really all about—what evidence-based reasoning is all about, it seems that vitriol and venom are on the rise."^[26]

Some examples are:

• Steve Jones said that "They think that 2 + 2 = 5; or, at a push, as a compromise, 4.1."^[27]
• Richard Dawkins said that "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).".^{[28][note 3]}
• Isaac Asimov said that all "creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way." and that all of their "points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying."^[30]

Forums

Much of the debate about creation and evolution is carried out by each side presenting their own arguments in whatever venues and forums are available to them. Relatively little of it takes place as true back-and-forth debate, except in Internet-based discussion forums, although a number of formal debates have taken place over the years, particularly in the United States. A number of Internet forums either cater specifically for the debate, or for Christianity or religion in general, and include discussion on this controversy. One of the earliest such forums was TalkOrigins, a Usenet discussion forum, moderated by evolutionists. A lot of debate takes place on the discussion pages of Wikis, such as Wikipedia and A Storehouse of Knowledge.

Evolutionists promote evolution and criticise creation in the mainstream media, science magazines, journals, the education system, and blogs, among other places. They often cite their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Biblical creationists generally spread their message by means of church meetings, self-published magazines and journals, web-sites, books, and DVDs.

Arguments relating to the definition and limits of science

Equating views about the unobservable past with scientific observations

Evolution is primarily a claim about the past, which is unobservable and untestable. This contrasts with most other science which observes and tests things in the present.

Yet anti-creationists will frequently equate evolution with other scientific endeavours which can be directly studied and measured. Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

Now this is a belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old ... is equivalent to someone believing, despite the evidence, that the width of North America from one coast to the other is only 7.8 yards.^[31]

Whilst making a valid point about creationists who claim that evolution is "only a theory" (a claim specifically rejected by mainstream creationists^[32]), TalkOrigins Archive equates observable, testable, theories such as gravity with largely unobservable, untestable, evolution:

If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.^[33]

Claiming that creationists reject science itself

It is common for anti-creationists to claim or imply that creationists reject all of science, and even that they hypocritically accept the benefits of science whilst rejecting the basis of those benefits. This charge is both false and ironic, given that a Christian/creationist worldview is the basis of science,^[34] that many creationists are scientists,^[35] and that creationists such as Louis Pasteur (developer of germ theory) and Raymond Damadian (inventor of Magnetic Resonance Imaging) have provided some of those benefits.

For example, Ian Plimer wrote:

...if creationist 'science' was correct, then we would have no television (and no cars, telephones, aeroplane travel, etc.).^[36]

Chris Conner, in a YouTube video^[37] made or endorsed by the NCSE, refers to Intelligent Design (which she refers to as creationism) as "anti-science".^[38]

Disputes relating to science

Although anti-creationists criticise creationists for arguing from the Bible, both sides use both theological and scientific arguments in support of their point of view. Both sides use a wide range of arguments, but some arguments are more heavily used than others.

Definitions

Conflating concepts

Creationists sometimes use the lack of evidence for one process to argue that there is also a lack of evidence for a different process. In particular, the scientific evidence concerning the origin of the first life (abiogenesis or creation ex nihilo) is at best extremely sparse and indirect, so that any discussion of a particular mechanism is highly speculative. This fact has, however, little or no bearing on the question of whether evolution occurred after the first cell appeared (beyond the connection that the philosophy of complete naturalism implies both of them).

Evolutionists frequently use evidence that is not in dispute in order to argue for views that are in dispute. For example, they will cite examples of natural selection as evidence that evolution occurs, despite natural selection not being in dispute and only being a claimed mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself. They will cite examples of loss of features or variations within genetic limits as evidence of evolution occurring, despite these phenomena being consistent with a creationary model and not providing evidence of the origin of new features.^[39] They will also cite antibiotic and pesticide resistance as evidence of evolution,^[40] even though such cases do not demonstrate the sort of changes required by amoeba-to-man evolution.^[41]

Strawman arguments

Anti-creationists frequently create straw man arguments about creationism then knock them down, making it look like the creationists' arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. With typical Internet debate-forum participants, this is often due to being largely ignorant of what creationists do believe, but such arguments are also used by leading anti-creationists.

Plimer, in his book "Telling Lies for God", for example, claims that Noah's ark would have had an aquarium to hold two whales,^[42] despite no creationist claiming that there were whales on the ark.^{[note 4]}

Scientific American, in its 2002 article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense", included at least five straw-man arguments, including three which CMI lists as ones that creationists should not use.^[43] Whilst these arguments probably are used by non-experts on Internet discussion forums, Scientific American gave no hint that some of the "creationist arguments" they were refuting were rejected by leading creationists.

An article Scientific American in June 2009 falsely claimed that creationists argue that speciation has never been observed. The article supported this claim by quoting not a creationist, but an Intelligent Design proponent, who actually said that "this sort of speciation has never been observed" (emphasis added), referring to the evolutionary family tree.^[44] In fact creationists have long agreed that speciation does occur,^[45] and even the ID proponent quoted in Scientific American has previously said that speciation was not a problem.^[46]

Arguments by creationists

Creationists stress the philosophical aspects of evolution, in particular it being based on naturalism, or the rejection of the supernatural. In support of this they say that most of the leading evolutionists have been and are atheists,^[47] who will not accept the possibility of a supernatural explanation, adding that even those who do believe in God often will not consider the supernatural as a possible explanation.

The creationist argument is that this is really a debate about worldviews, and that creation and evolution are both scientific explanations based on the respective worldviews.

Creationists have long used the design argument, that nature shows evidence of having been designed. This aspect is now the main argument of the Intelligent Design Movement, which seeks to concentrate on this aspect to the exclusion of other arguments.

The lack of the transitional forms expected by evolution is another key argument used by creationists, and in this they have made considerable use of quotes from palaeontologists admitting to a lack of transitional fossils.

Creationists dispute the long ages claimed by evolutionists and uniformitarian geology by citing evidence of the unreliability and inconsistency of dating methods.

In addition to arguing against the existence of evolution, creationists also publish arguments on the consequences of believing evolution, such as the case of a pygmy displayed in a zoo in American as an example of an evolutionarily-inferior race.^[48]

Arguments by intelligent design proponents

Michael Behe uses irreducible complexity as evidence that evolution doesn't always occur as there are "large gaps" in the knowledge of biochemistry.

William Dembski has used mathematics in the form of complex specified information in search algorithms to attempt to discredit evolution.

Stephen Meyer uses an argument based on information but in an old-earth time frame.

Arguments by evolutionists

Evolutionary biologists cite a variety of evidence in support of evolution, including morphological similarities in living organisms and fossils, the sequence of the fossil record, biogeography, and DNA similarities. Anti-creationists will frequently cite various pieces of evidence for an origin of the universe about 14.5 billion years ago, including radiometric dating and distant starlight.

Anti-creationists argue that creationism is a merely descriptive program incapable of generating testable hypothesis because it is predicated on the existence of an untestable entity (the Christian god). Evolutionists claim that the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming and that the scientific community is in agreement on it.

Ever since Darwin, evolution has been supported with theological arguments, and this continues today. Dawkins, for instance, has argued that the human eye is wired backwards, something that a good engineer would not do.^[49] In doing so, he is making an argument about what an intelligent designer would or would not do. It is a theological argument, not a scientific one.

Strategies

Proponents of each of the different views each have their own ways of promoting their views, ranging from producing technical arguments to employing logical fallacies including abusive ad hominem arguments.

Whilst it is normal for fallible people to use mistaken or outdated arguments at times, the use of logical fallacies and incorrect arguments should generally not occur, or at least be quickly corrected, when used by people who make themselves accountable to others, such as by spokesmen for organisations. It is therefore notable that creationist groups , Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis have published a list of arguments that creationists should not use, ."^[1] whereas there is no known such equivalent list published by the evolutionist side.

Creationist strategies

Creationist groups in America initially tried to get their message out by arguing their case at an academic level, including holding talks and debates on college campuses. They therefore concentrated on the scientific arguments and avoided introducing Biblical arguments. Later creationist groups such as CMI and AiG instead concentrated on getting the message to Christians,^{[note 5]} as decades of evolutionary indoctrination had led many Christians to compromise their Christian beliefs with secular views. This also meant that the creationist groups could introduce Biblical arguments that would not be accepted in other forums.

In America, many Christians have tried to persuade their district school boards to provide more balance, such as by giving equal time to creationist or Intelligent Design scientific arguments. Meanwhile, creationist organisations such as CMI and AiG have warned against forcing teachers to teach creationary views, although supporting the principle that teachers who feel able to do so should be allowed to without recrimination.

As far as actual arguments are concerned, creationists have two main approaches. The first is to argue that science is not the objective and unbiased process that it is supposed to be when it makes pronouncements about the unobservable and untestable past, and that evidence such as fossils is seen in the light of one's presuppositions. The debate is therefore very much a debate about presuppositions rather than evidence. That is, it is a debate between two different worldviews, not a debate about the evidence.

The second approach is to argue that the evidence itself, properly understood, generally fits better with a creationary model than an evolutionary model. They point out that they are not claiming that the evidence proves one view over the other; merely that it fits better with the creationary view. Some of the main examples of this are in citing cases of radiometric dating that support an age too young for the mainstream view, pointing to a lack of the transitional forms that evolution expects, pointing to evidence from genetic information to argue that an intelligence was required, and using design arguments to argue that there must be a designer.

Creationists make considerable use of quotes from evolutionists in support of their view, such as a quote from Colin Patterson (then senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History) admitting that he knew of no transitional forms.^[51]

Creationists counter the argumentum ad populum claims that evolutionists make to discredit creationism by citing polls about popular support for creationism. For example, in a Journal of Creation article, "The attitude of various populations toward teaching creation and evolution in schools," Bergman cites Gallup poll data about whether Americans are creationists.^[52]

Unlike many anti-creationists who resort to ridicule, vilification, and name-calling (see below), creationists behave civilly, as even anti-creationists acknowledge.^[53]

Claims of circular arguments

Creationists frequently accuse evolutionists of using circular arguments,^[54][55] yet quite often, their accusations don't stand up to scrutiny.

For example, a common claim of this sort is that paleontologists use circular reasoning because they use fossils to date rocks and rocks to date fossils.

Suppose that at some site called Fossil Creek, a fossil specimen of a woozle is found, a species thought on the basis of many finds throughout the world to occur only in Upper East Side strata. If the discoverer then writes a paper, claiming in Section I that the strata where the fossil was found is Upper East Side because a woozle was found in it, and claiming in Section II that this find is further support of the hypothesis that woozles only occur in Upper East Side strata, then that would be circular reasoning.

Suppose now that the fossil of a new species is found at Fossil Creek, in the same strata as where the wuzzle was found. If the discoverer then writes a paper, claiming in Section I that the strata where the fossil was found is very probably Upper East Side because a woozle was found in it, and claiming in Section II that the new species has been found in Upper East Side strata, then no circular reasoning is involved, even though a fossil was used to date the strata and the strata was used to date a fossil.

In the same way, to substantiate an accusation that a paleontologist is guilty of circular reasoning, it would have to be demonstrated that the fossil species used to date the strata was the same species that was dated by the strata.

Intelligent design strategies

The strategies of the Discovery Institute were outlined in the Wedge Document it produced and which was later leaked. These amounted to a plan to publish intelligent design materials in the peer-reviewed scientific literature to eventually "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."^[56] Despite the Wedge document, intelligent design proponents say that they do not indentify a designer in their explanations.

Evolutionist strategies

As evolution has become a ruling paradigm in science, evolutionists enjoy the power of the education system, the mainstream media, and science journals to promote their views. They also publish various books and newsletters and have set up web-sites opposing both creationism and Intelligent Design.

Although leading anti-creationists cannot be held responsible for every anti-creationist argument, such as by inexpert anti-creationists inhabiting Internet forums, leading anti-creationists themselves often use logically-fallacious arguments and demonstrate a willingness to endorse the shoddy or false arguments of other anti-creationists. For example, Professor Ian Plimer's book "Telling Lies for God" contained such blatant errors that it was criticised by various anti-creationists,^{[note 6]} but was nevertheless enthusiastically promoted by other anti-creationists.

Contradictory arguments

Anti-creationists argue both that creationism is inherently unscientific because it is unfalsifiable, and that it has been falsified. For example, Judge Overton, in the Arkansas creation case, ruled that creation science was not science partly on the grounds of it being unfalsifiable. Michael Ruse, in commenting on this, said that testimony showed that evolution does "make falsifiable claims" and added that "This argument succeeded in court — the judge accepted that evolutionary thinking is falsifiable. Conversely, he accepted that Creation Science is never truly open to check".^[59]Yet many anticreationists claim that many of the claims of creationism have been proved wrong, which is impossible if they are not falsifiable.

Philosopher P. Quinn wrote:

In a recent collection of essays, Stephen Jay Gould claims that “‘Scientific creationism’ is a self-contradictory phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified”…Ironically, in the next sentence Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that “the individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research.” Indeed, some of them are! But since they are so easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not as a serious objection in Gould’s anti-creationist polemics.^[60]

Donald Prothero wrote:^[61]

Scientists don't exclude God from their hypotheses because they are inherently atheistic or unwilling to consider the existence of God; they simply cannot consider supernatural events in their hypotheses. Why not? because... once you introduce the supernatural to a scientific hypothesis, there is no way to falsify or test it.

Yet in the very next paragraph, he added:

In fact, there have been many scientific tests of supernatural and paranormal explanations of things, including parapsychology, ESP, divination, prophecy, and astrology. All of these nonscientific ideas have been falsified when subjected to the scrutiny of scientific investigation.

Claims of "quote mining"

Anti-creationists frequently accuse creationists of "quote mining", which seems to simply be another name for quoting out of context, yet quite often, their accusations don't stand up to scrutiny. For example, TalkOrigins Archive has a short-lived on-line magazine, Cretinism or Evilution which in its third edition^[62] purported to "examine one or more quotations that appear in The Revised Quote Book, not merely for accuracy of reproduction, but in order to determine their scientific significance and context to see if what each quotation says is what creationists think it says", yet failed to show that any out of context quoting had occurred.^[63]

Public policy issues

For more information, see Suppression of dissent against evolution.

In America, creationists have attempted to use the courts to promote their views.^[Fact?] Generally, these attempts have been unsuccessful because the position of the creationists was ruled to violate freedom of religion as protected by the US Constitution.

Creation journals usually have explicit policies to exclude papers with conclusions contrary to creationist beliefs, regardless of the scientific merits of the paper.^[Fact?] These policies have even been applied to papers written in response to papers published in the very journals in question.^[64][Fact?]

In America, anti-creationists have used the courts to protect their views. When creationists or Intelligent Design supporters have tried to get school boards to provide even minimal balance, anti-creationists have brought legal action to protect their views from being challenged. When the Cobb County school district in Georgia placed stickers in textbooks informing the students that evolution was a theory, not a fact, and that they should study it with an open mind, evolutionists brought court action to stop even that.^[65]

Teachers have been denied tenure, sacked, and even blackballed for daring to question evolution in any way. One teacher was prevented from giving his students copies of articles from leading science journals because the articles, written by well-known evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould, pointed out problems in the evolutionary hypothesis. At least one university admitted that they were illegally discriminating against staff members because they held creationist views, but did it anyway.^[Fact?]

Students have had qualifications and marks withheld because they expressed support for creation or intelligent design.

Issues relating to religion

Claiming that religion and evolution are compatible

A common tactic is to point out that religion and evolution are compatible, which is correct as a general statement, but does not address the point that a straightforward reading of the Bible is not compatible with evolution.^{[note 7]}

Newspaper and television stories sometimes make it seem as though evolution and religion are incompatible, but that is not true.^[13]

Similarly, anti-creationists will often quote the claims of prominent Christians, such as the Pope,^{[note 8]} that there is no conflict between a belief in Christ and a belief in evolution. Again, while a person might believe in evolution and still be a Christian, this argument also neglects to address the incompatibility between a straightforward reading of the Bible and evolution.^{[note 9]}

There are other anti-creationists who do acknowledge the incompatibility between the Bible and evolution, sometimes expressing it more broadly as an incompatibility between evolution and religion in general.

The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.— Frank Zindler^[67]

Jerry Coyne:

...as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence--the existence of religious scientists--is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith. ... Attempts to reconcile God and evolution keep rolling off the intellectual assembly line. It never stops, because the reconciliation never works.^[68]

William Provine, an atheist professor at Cornell:

One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.^[69]

Claiming that the battle is between science and religion

Creation and evolution are competing claims about (pre)historical events. Creation is based on a biblical worldview, and evolution on a naturalistic worldview. Both sides use scientific arguments to support their view of (pre)history, but both are based on presuppositions which are not scientifically testable.

Creationist Jonathan Sarfati wrote, "It is completely useless to try to portray the debate as “science vs. religion”, when it is the science invoked to support one religion vs. the science of another."^[70] Anti-creationist Michael Ruse, in his book "The Evolution-Creation Struggle" agrees that the controversy is not one of science vs. religion, but religion vs. religion.^{[note 10]} Science historian Peter Bowler said that "It's not religion versus science. It's religion versus the materialistic worldview that is seen to stem from the science."^[73]

Yet anti-creationists frequently characterise the battle as being between science and religion, as though evolution was a totally-objective scientific look at history and creation had no scientific content.

TalkOrigins Archive:

Q. Doesn't evolution contradict religion? Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity.^[74]

Enlisting theistic evolutionists

A number of atheist and agnostic evolutionists try and involve theistic evolutionists to their cause in fighting the creationists. Atheist Eugenie Scott of the NCSE said, "In the controversy to keep evolution in the schools and keep creationism out of science class, my best allies are members of the mainstream clergy groups (who don’t want to see biblical literalism — they don’t believe in it — presented as science)."^[75]

Jerry Coyne is blunter:

This disharmony [between science and religion] is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict.^[68]

History

Prior to the late 18th century, although there were those who rejected Christianity, and those who thought that life came about naturalistically, there was no real academic support for a naturalistic view.

This situation began to change with people such as James Hutton and Charles Lyell, who proposed naturalistic explanations for geology. Lyell specifically wanted to remove the biblical narrative as a basis for science. This movement was opposed by the "Scriptural geologists" of the late 18th and early 19th century, but the idea was keenly adopted by those wanting reason to disregard the Bible.

Charles Darwin, whose influences included Lyell, then formulated and published his ideas on evolution in the middle of the 19th century, and the idea gradually became well accepted, despite objections from scientists and Christians.

In the early 20th century, several groups were started to oppose the rise in popularity of evolution, notably the Evolution Protest Movement in England, begun in 1932 and surviving today as the Creation Science Movement, the oldest creationist group in the world.^[76]

The popularity of evolution continued to grow, helped by various "discoveries" which seemed to prove it, but which often turned out to be wrong, the most famous of which was the fraudulent Piltdown man fossils in England. However, the teaching of evolution in schools increased markedly as part of a push to increase science education following the Soviet Union taking the lead on launching a man into space in 1961.

The same year, Henry Morris and John Whitcomb published The Genesis Flood,^[77] a ground-breaking fresh look at the biblical account of the flood from a scientific perspective. This book is acknowledged by creationists and anti-creationists alike as giving birth to the modern revival in Biblical creation.

Morris went on to be one of the founders of the Creation Research Society in 1963, and then founder of the Institute for Creation Research in 1970. His writings also provided inspiration for what is now Creation Ministries International, begun in Australia in 1979/80, and its former sister organisation, Answers in Genesis.

External links

Biblical creationist Answers in Genesis Creation Museum Creation Evidences Museum Creation Ministries International Creation Science Evangelism Institute for Creation Research Creation Research Society

Anti-creationist/anti-intelligent design National Centre for Science Education Australian Skeptics The Committee for Skeptical Enquiry P. Z. Myers' Pharyngula blog The TalkOrigins Archive The National Academies

Progressive Creationist Reasons to Believe Theistic Evolutionist BioLogos ISCAST Intelligent Design Discovery Institute

Notes

References