Creationism is an ancient worldview that was incorporated into ancient religious doctrines and survived in the western world due to its domination by religious institution such as the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Slowly, with the development of democratic political systems and science, the church lost its power of dominance over intellectual enterprises, and evolution became accepted by the majority as the inherent process in nature. Nevertheless, creationism is still very much alive among various fundamentalist churches and their organizations in (...) the United States. This article discusses the premises of the creationist movement, its varieties, and confronts it with the basic premises, characteristics, and modus operandi of the scientific enterprise. (shrink)

Creationism is an ancient worldview that was incorporated into ancient religious doctrines and survived in the western world due to its domination by religious institution such as the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Slowly, with the development of democratic political systems and science, the church lost its power of dominance over intellectual enterprises, and evolution became accepted by the majority as the inherent process in nature. Nevertheless, creationism is still very much alive among various fundamentalist churches and their organizations in (...) the United States. This article discusses the premises of the creationist movement, its varieties, and confronts it with the basic premises, characteristics, and modus operandi of the scientific enterprise. (shrink)

The paper reviews criteria which have been used to distinguish science from nonscience and from pseudo–science, and it examines the extent to which they can usefully be applied to “creation science.” These criteria do not force a clear decision, especially as creation science resembles important eighteenth–century forms of orthodox science. Nevertheless, the proponents of creation science may be accused of pious fraud in failing to concede in their political battles that their “science” is (...) tentative and tendentious and will continue to be so while it remains archaic and poorly integrated into the rest of science. (shrink)

Creationism is an ancient worldview that was incorporated into ancient religious doctrines and survived in the western world due to its domination by religious institution such as the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Slowly, with the development of democratic political systems and science, the church lost its power of dominance over intellectual enterprises, and evolution became accepted by the majority as the inherent process in nature. Nevertheless, creationism is still very much alive among various fundamentalist churches and their organizations in (...) the United States. This article discusses the premises of the creationist movement, its varieties, and confronts it with the basic premises, characteristics, and modus operandi of the scientific enterprise. (shrink)

Several years ago, I was asked to participate in a forum on evolution. Flattered, I accepted, only discovering later that I was to participate in a “debate”, involving me and a scientist squaring off against two Creationists, Henry M. Morris and Duane T. Gish. The topic for discussion was which doctrine has the greatest scientific merit: organic evolution through natural processes set against the background of a very old earth, or special instantaneous appearance of all organisms, about 6000 years ago, (...) followed shortly thereafter by a world-wide flood? I very much doubt that many minds were changed on that particular evening—the bleachers were packed with ardent Baptists bussed in from all over Wisconsin and Illinois. The 10 or so in the audience who believed in evolution went on believing in evolution. The 5000 in the audience who took the early chapters of Genesis absolutely literally went on taking the early chapters of Genesis absolutely literally. But, people's time was far from wasted. Morris and Gish got the attention they crave. Their supporters were thrilled by the sight of heretics publicly proclaiming doctrines for which they would surely earn eternal damnation. And, I learnt what a hollow sham modern day Creationism really is: crude, dogmatic, Biblical literalism, masquerading as genuine science, in order to avoid the strictures of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bars the teaching of religion in schools. (shrink)

This paper presents an analysis of the birth and growth of scientific creationism in South Korea by focusing on the lives of four major contributors. After creationism arrived in Korea in 1980 through the global campaign of leading American creationists, including Henry Morris and Duane Gish, it steadily grew in the country, reflecting its historical and social conditions, and especially its developmental state with its structured mode of managing science and appropriating religion. We argue that while South Korea’s creationism (...) started with the state-centered conservative Christianity under the government that also vigilantly managed scientists, it subsequently constituted some technical experts’ efforts to move away from the state and its religion and science through their negotiation of a new identity as Christian intellectuals. Our historical study will thus explain why South Korea became what Ronald Numbers has called “the creationist capital of the world.”. (shrink)

On August 18, 1986, seventy-two Nobel laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in which they defined and agreed upon the nature and scope of science. The brief was submitted in response to the Louisiana Balanced TreatmentAct for creation science and evolution science that had been struck down in the Federal Court of Louisiana in 1985 and was being appealed (...) to the Supreme Court. The Louisiana trial in general and the amicus curiae brief in particular have historical significance for the history of science, being unique in the collective mobilization of scientists both in defense of and in defining science. This article describes the origin and significance of the brief. (shrink)

Several years ago, I was asked to participate in a forum on evolution. Flattered, I accepted, only discovering later that I was to participate in a “debate”, involving me and a scientist squaring off against two Creationists, Henry M. Morris and Duane T. Gish. The topic for discussion was which doctrine has the greatest scientific merit: organic evolution through natural processes set against the background of a very old earth, or special instantaneous appearance of all organisms, about 6000 years ago, (...) followed shortly thereafter by a world-wide flood? I very much doubt that many minds were changed on that particular evening—the bleachers were packed with ardent Baptists bussed in from all over Wisconsin and Illinois. The 10 or so in the audience who believed in evolution went on believing in evolution. The 5000 in the audience who took the early chapters of Genesis absolutely literally went on taking the early chapters of Genesis absolutely literally. But, people's time was far from wasted. Morris and Gish got the attention they crave. Their supporters were thrilled by the sight of heretics publicly proclaiming doctrines for which they would surely earn eternal damnation. And, I learnt what a hollow sham modern day Creationism really is: crude, dogmatic, Biblical literalism, masquerading as genuine science, in order to avoid the strictures of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bars the teaching of religion in schools. (shrink)

Clarke, Moira On the East coast of America, every 13 or 17 years, billions of red-eyed magicicadas emerge from underground. For the next few weeks every tree resounds with a near-deafening symphony, a courting ritual that has been measured at 94 decibels. Finally, the resulting offspring burrow back into the earth, there to remain inactive for the exact same duration, 13 or 17 years.

In this paper, I describe an approach to the teaching of philosophy of science that draws normally reluctant students into controversial issues in the philosophy of science. I have found that the topic of creationism is a good vehicle for introducing students to the more difficult issues in philosophy of science. I explore the use of creationism as a case-study in the philosophy of science and detail my own experience in the creationism debate.

Creationism is usually paired these days with evolution, as in “The Creation vs. Evolution Debate.” Although there is something right about that, it is not the whole story. The controversy is older than Darwin and touches on far more than biological evolution. In this chapter, we consider broader questions about the origin of the universe and the relation between science and Scripture: How old is the universe? If God created it, how did he do so? How should we interpret (...) the account of creation in the early chapters of Genesis? There are four main approaches to these questions. The first is naturalism: nothing exists beyond the realm of nature, material objects, and energy. Most naturalists consider religious beliefs to be purely matters of faith, making no contribution to history or science. Although naturalism and atheism are not synonymous, when it comes to matters of religion, they are essentially the same. The second view is young earth creationism (YEC), which takes a literal interpretation of Genesis and the six days of creation. The last two views, progressive creationism (PC) and theistic evolution (TE), reject this interpretation and agree with contemporary science about the age of the universe. The difference between PC and TE has to do with God’s activities after the initial creation of the cosmos. Although there are nonchristian theists in each camp, the debate is a much larger, defining issue among contemporary, Protestant Christians than it is in other religions. (shrink)

The world is configured in ways that seem systematically hospitable to life forms, especially the human race. Is this the outcome of divine planning or simply of the laws of physics? Ancient Greeks and Romans famously disagreed on whether the cosmos was the product of design or accident. In this book, David Sedley examines this question and illuminates new historical perspectives on the pantheon of thinkers who laid the foundations of Western philosophy and science. Versions of what we call (...) the "creationist" option were widely favored by the major thinkers of classical antiquity, including Plato, whose ideas on the subject prepared the ground for Aristotle's celebrated teleology. But Aristotle aligned himself with the anti-creationist lobby, whose most militant members—the atomists—sought to show how a world just like ours would form inevitably by sheer accident, given only the infinity of space and matter. This stimulating study explores seven major thinkers and philosophical movements enmeshed in the debate: Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Socrates, Plato, the atomists, Aristotle, and the Stoics. (shrink)

The research is devoted to the study of the phenomenon of spiritual culture of Modern times - creationism. Authors analyze the causes of creationist teachings, as well as develop a classification of forms of creationism. As such, the following are distinguished and analyzed: biblical creationism, scientific creationism, theological evolutionism, teleological creationism, alterism, missionary creationism. Biblical creationism is a literal understanding of the texts of the Bible relating to the creation of the Earth and man. Scientific creationism is an attempt (...) by individual scientists to combine scientific knowledge with religious beliefs. It gathers scientific evidence in favor of the biblical narrative, and, at the same time, rational arguments against the scientific theory of evolution. On the contrary, theological evolutionism, especially in the form of concordism, tries to reconcile the scientific and religious view of evolution. This is achieved through the interpretation of Biblical symbols through modern scientific concepts, or by the creation of a new pseudo-religion (for example, Teilhardism). Teleological creationism, in the modern form of Intelligent Design theory, popular in Western Protestantism, using the data of natural sciences, criticizes the foundations of the theory of biological evolution, thus demonstrating the gap of natural causality in order to justify the supernatural purposefulness of the Universe. Alterism asserts that the very nature of the world before original sin was different, therefore, the current knowledge of nature cannot correspond to the original plan of God reflected in the Bible. For the first time, highlighted and explored in this work, missionary creationism seeks to interpret the Bible from the point of view of concepts of modern science in order to bring a person with an already formed scientific picture of the world to faith. It is shown that most of the above forms demonstrate a pseudoscientific or pseudo-religious essence. The authors make an assumption about the origins of creationist teachings rooted in the introduction of elements of Neoplatonic philosophy into Christian teaching. The seeming contradiction between science and religion in understanding the evolution of nature finds its explanation through the disclosure of creationism's claim to understand the world as a "thing in itself". (shrink)

Creationism is usually regarded as an irrational set of beliefs. In this paper I propose that the best way to understand why individual learners settle on any mature set of beliefs is to see that as the developmental outcome of a series of “fast and frugal” boundedly rational inferences rather than as a rejection of reason. This applies to those whose views are opposed to science in general. A bounded rationality model of belief choices both serves to explain the (...) fact that folk traditions tend to converge on “anti-modernity”, and to act as a default hypothesis, deviations from which we can use to identify other, arational, influences such as social psychological, economic and individual dispositions. I propose some educational and public policy strategies that might decrease the proportion of learners who find creationism and anti-science in general a rational choice. (shrink)

I consider what it might mean to teach creationism and offer a variety of educational, legal, religious, and philosophical arguments for why it is improper to teach it in public school science classes and possibly elsewhere as well. I rebut the standard creationist arguments for inclusion. I also rebut Rawlsian arguments offered by philosopher of religion Alvin Plantinga.

Most debates surrounding the teaching of creationism in the science classroom have been addressed under a standard frame: whether creationism is science or religion. As creationism suggests supernatural causation, it has been understood as beyond the purview of science, and therefore as religion. This argument for methodological naturalism has been increasingly challenged by philosophers of science as a demarcation criterion. The disaggregation approach introduced by Cecile Laborde provides an alternative framework to address this debate. It suggests (...) that the problem with creationism lies in its epistemic inaccessibility, as it is a theory with weak explanatory capacity that has been superseded by Darwinian evolution. Thus, the exclusion of creationism from the science classroom is not grounded in its religious character, but rather in a set of epistemic shortcomings, which are shared by other fully secular pseudoscientific theories. In the same way that religion is not special as a legal-political category under Laborde’s analysis, creationism in the curriculum should not be treated as special either. (shrink)

Key Words creation science, evolution education s Abstract Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach “creation science,” one now finds lobbying for “intelligent design” (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge strategy,” the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and (...) what it sees as a pernicious materialist worldview and to renew a theistic foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in the image of God. Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, “irreducible complexity,” “complex specified information,” and “icons of evolution,” have been thoroughly examined and refuted. Nevertheless, from Kansas to Ohio to the U.S. Congress, ID continues lobbying to teach the controversy, and scientists need to be ready to defend good evolution education. (shrink)

An anthology of writings by proponents and critics of intelligent design creationism.

Until recently, little attention has been paid in the school classroom to creationism and almost none to intelligent design. However, creationism and intelligent design appear to be on the increase and there are indications that there are more countries in which schools are becoming battlegrounds over them. I begin by examining whether creationism and intelligent design are controversial issues, drawing on Robert Dearden’s epistemic criterion of the controversial and more recent responses to and defences of this. I then examine whether (...) the notion of ‘worldviews’ in the context of creationism is a useful one by considering the film March of the Penguins. I conclude that the ‘worldviews’ perspective on creationism is useful for two reasons: first, it indicates the difficulty of using the criterion of reason to decide whether an issue is controversial or not; secondly, it suggests that standard ways of addressing the diversity of student views in a science classroom may be inadequate. I close by examining the implications of this view for teaching in science lessons and elsewhere, for example in religious education lessons and at primary level where subject divisions cannot be made in so clear-cut a manner. (shrink)

This paper discusses the judgment of Judge William Overton in McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education (1982), and the subsequent philosophical literature that discusses this judgment.

Creationists have acquired a more sophisticated intellectual arsenal. This book reveals the insubstantiality of their arguments. Creationism is no longer the simple notion it once was taken to be. Its new advocates have become more sophisticated in how they present their views, speaking of "intelligent design" rather than "creation science" and aiming their arguments against the naturalistic philosophical method that underlies science, proposing to replace it with a "theistic science." The creationism controversy is not just about the (...) status of Darwinian evolution—it is a clash of religious and philosophical worldviews, for a common underlying fear among Creationists is that evolution undermines both the basis of morality as they understand it and the possibility of purpose in life. In Tower of Babel, philosopher Robert T. Pennock compares the views of the new creationists with those of the old and reveals the insubstantiality of their arguments. One of Pennock's major innovations is to turn from biological evolution to the less charged subject of linguistic evolution, which has strong theoretical parallels with biological evolution, both in content and in the sort of evidence scientists use to draw conclusions about origins. Of course, an evolutionary view of language does conflict with the Bible, which says that God created the variety of languages at one time as punishment for the Tower of Babel. Several chapters deal with the work of Phillip Johnson, a highly influential leader of the new Creationists. Against his and other views, Pennock explains how science uses naturalism and discusses the relationship between factual and moral issues in the creationism-evolution controversy. The book also includes a discussion of Darwin's own shift from creationist to evolutionist and an extended argument for keeping private religious beliefs separate from public scientific knowledge. (shrink)

Creationism in Twentieth Century America: A Ten‐Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903–1961 Gen ed. Ronald L. Numbers.

Ewolucjonizm–kreacjonizm. Poszukiwanie płaszczyzny dialogu W artykule przedstawiona została próba wskazania płaszczyzny dyskusji ewolucjonistów z kreacjonistami, która umożliwiałaby dialog zwiększający szansę wypracowania spójnego światopoglądu łączącego elementy wiedzy naukowej i wiary religijnej. W odniesieniu do różnych typów wiedzy zaproponowane zostało wyróżnienie trzech poziomów: 1) przedmiot badań, 2) wiedza o tym przedmiocie, 3) interpretacja tej wiedzy. Dialog może być prowadzony już na poziomie drugim, lecz z poszanowaniem wzajemnej autonomii i ukierunkowaniem raczej na inspirację, niż na integrację. Właściwą płaszczyzną dialogu jest poziom trzeci: interpretacja (...) wiedzy oraz budowanie wizji świata i człowieka. Celem dialogu na tym poziomie jest integracja wszystkich elementów światopoglądu i dążenie do wyjaśnienia i zrozumienia całej rzeczywistości. (shrink)

Society as the ethical starting point for political inquiry -- The moral relevance of dependence -- Nature and the moral frame of society -- Morality in the order of the will.

Society as the ethical starting point for political inquiry -- The moral relevance of dependence -- Nature and the moral frame of society -- Morality in the order of the will.

Noted biologist and philosopher Sahotra Sarkar exposes the frauds and fallacies of Intelligent Design Theory, and its claim to be ‘good science’. A scientific and philosophical exploration of the debate between evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design in the classroom Puts the debate into its scientific and historical context Looks at a variety of topics, including the relation between Darwinism and modern evolutionary theory, the use of computer science and information theory by the creationists, and the idea of metaphysical (...) naturalism Rejects Intelligent Design’s claim to legitimacy, showing clearly how and why it is an unsuitable alternative to evolutionary biology in the classroom A thought-provoking book for those seeking to understand an intellectual debate that is shaping our education policies Forms part of the provocative and timely _Blackwell Public Philosophy_ series. (shrink)

The University of Minnesota organized a conference ("Evolution and Public Education," December 5, 1981) to help clarify issues in the creation/evolution controversy and to examine arguments of the proponents of scientific creationism. This six-part book, a revised version of a resource manual compiled for the conference: (1) discusses the theory of evolution and its place in science education; (2) examines the creationist movement; (3) states the position of scientific creationists; (4) responds to creationists' arguments against evolution; (5) explores (...) legal issues in the controversy; and (6) provides some perspectives on attempts to treat the Genesis creation account as science. The fifth section, on legal issues, includes Judge Overton's decision striking down the Arkansas Creationism Act, as well as pieces of legislation which reveal the changing tactics of creationists, who first sought to ban the teaching of evolution in the 1920s, then sought equal time for biblical creationism in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and now seek a two-model approach to earth science/biology teaching (evolution as one model, scientific creationism as the other). A comprehensive bibliography lists most of the important works that directly address the controversy, as well as many publications on the philosophy of science and faith issues. (JN). (shrink)