(2014) Debating the origins: The creation-evolution controversy

Science Education, 2006

The social movement known as creationism has had a long history and a variety of manifestations through time. To understand it takes considerable study" (p. 135). So states the author in part three of this book. After reading this volume I could not agree more. Let me say at the outset that this is quite an extraordinary book, and one I predict is destined to become a classic. Eugenie Scott brings to bear her encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the conflict, passion for the subject, and deep understanding of the legal framework tempered by her long involvement as Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. This work provides a well-balanced synthesis of the complexities of science, religion, jurisprudence, and education as they pertain to understanding the continuing dichotomy between evolution and creationism. Perhaps its greatest strength, however, is that all this information is so expertly brought together under one cover. Scott has made a concerted effort to write for an audience that includes "bright high school students and college undergraduates" (p. xvii). The book is organized into three main sections: Science, Evolution, Religion, and Creationism; A History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy; and Selections From the Literature. In the third section, readers will find a plethora of information, including primary scientific literature, important legal opinions, legislative bills, committee reports, and obscure historical documents. Most of these selections are well chosen and provide the reader with a rich perspective of the ongoing debate. Unfortunately, many articles from the creationist literature were not included because permission to publish them was refused. Scott does her best to summarize those articles she considers important and encourages readers to explore them in their entirety. True to the spirit of the book, the final section contains an impressive and perhaps unparalleled collection of references for further exploration. In the Introduction, the author erects "three pillars of creationism" under which is claimed all arguments should fall: evolutionary theory is flawed, evolution and religion are incompatible, and fairness to both sides. As the book unfolds, all arguments do indeed appear to fall into one of these three categories. With Scott's scientific background, it is not perhaps surprising that the strongest sections are those which elaborate on the nature of science, evolutionary theory (chapters 1 and 2), and biological patterns and processes (chapter 8), although these are not without fault. The section that elaborates the principals of biological evolution is, in general, extremely well done and puts to rest any suggestion that "evolutionary theory is flawed." While the example illustrating natural selection using rabbits and myxomatosis is well presented, it should be pointed out that rabbits are not in fact rodents, but lagomorphs. Some other minor but important concerns include the correct use of terminology. A very important

2019

Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2010

Every discipline has its hazards, and for evolution scientists and educators, a major hazard consists of encounters with creationists, their rhetoric, and their attempts to insert antievolutionism into public education. Preparation for this hazard should be a standard part of the background of professional evolutionists. One important piece of this preparation involves understanding the historical origins of creationism within the wider history of western Christianity, especially evangelical Protestantism and its development in the United States. Here, I place the standard histories of "creation science" by Numbers and Larson (covering primarily the early 1900s to the 1980s) into this larger context (going back to the evangelical split over slavery before the Civil War and during), and then show how the "intelligent design" movement (from the 1980s until the present) fits squarely within the long history of primarily evangelical, biblicist opposition to evolution. The major creationist movements and slogans are identified and also placed into this historical picture. In summary, while creationism has evolved diverse labels and strategies for legal and rhetorical purposes, its fundamental essence remains unchanged. That essence is advocacy of miraculous divine intervention, i.e., special creation, in the history of life, and the claim that science must acknowledge special creation or dire consequences for society will follow.

The creation/evolution debate has been recurring for a long time as philosophers, scientists, politicians and theologians continually dispute the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe. This ongoing feud has, for a long time, been about supporting a 'creationist' view based upon religious beliefs against those who accept evolution, as supported by scientific evidence. Although this difference mainly concerns the field of evolutionary biology, it also affects such scientific disciplines as: genetics, geology, palaeontology, thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology. As if this debate wasn't enough, we are now presented with a third option concerning our origins on earth. One that postulates that we are the result of genetic manipulation by ancient astronauts. Now, before treating this as a joke, let us consider the creation and evolution theories as though hearing about them for the first time.

Dialectical Anthropology, 1975

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2014

The* issue* of* creation* and* evolution* has* been* a* major* source* of* conflict* between* the* Theologians* who* believe* that* the* universe* is* the* creative* ability* of* God* and* that* this* creation* is* exPnihilo.* The* exPnihilism* of* the* creation* has* also* engendered* series* of* argument*among*various*interests,*particularly*among*the*scientists*and*Philosophers* alike.* This* came* as* a* result* of* the* apparent* contradictions* observable* in* creation* which* calls* for* attention.* It* is* in* this* regard* that* these* various* groups* have* arisen* to* either* debunk* or* refute* the* creationist* principle* on* the* ground* of* its* incoherent* and* illogical* trends* which* do* not* ascertain* the* basic* requirements* for* explaining* the* rationale*behind*observable*difference*in*the*universe*which*is*believed*to*have*been* created* by* God.* Consequently,* the* scientific* and* philosophical* traditions* seem* to* be* disillusioned*by*the*claim*of*the*theologians*with*regard*to*creation.*Hence,*this*paper* attempts*to*explore*the*scientific,*the*philosophical*and*theological*perspectives*of*the* issue* of* creation* and* evolution* with* the* view* to* ascertaining* the* veracity* of* their* claims.

2008

Heated debates stemming from the confrontation of scientific knowledge with the biblical picture of the creation of man, which had followed the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution, became far less prominent in the second half of the 20th century. This was due to two factors: first, the theory of evolution was partly accepted in theological circles and at the same time biologists showed a growing awareness of the limited epistemological scope of the competence of the natural sciences. This lesson from the history, however, seems to have been forgotten by many who now and again return to controversies which more often than not are caused by ideological quarrels over religion, with true scholarship being too easily lost from sight. The paper reminds some of the history of the controversy in question and suggests that at least some of the current problems regarding evolution˗and˗creation controversy may have already found their solutions. In part 1, “The Theory of Evolution and the Creation of the Human” it deals with the general issue of human origins. In part 2, “Monogenism and Original Sin” it explores the notion of the ‘first human’ as it is employed in biology and in theology, and shows its completely different meaning in these two realms of knowledge which helps to resolve the recurrent controversy over monogenism.

Science & Education, 2012

Science Education, 2010