Neo-creationism

Last updated

Neo-creationism is a pseudoscientific movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

One of the principal claims of neo-creationism propounds that ostensibly objective orthodox science, with a foundation in naturalism, is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion. [4] Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements, thus effectively excluding religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe. This leads to an open and often hostile opposition to what neo-creationists term "Darwinism", which they generally mean to refer to evolution, but which they may extend to include such concepts as abiogenesis, stellar evolution and the Big Bang theory.

Notable neo-creationist organizations include the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture. Neo-creationists have yet to establish a recognized line of legitimate scientific research and as of 2015 lack scientific and academic legitimacy, even among many academics of evangelical Christian colleges. [5] Eugenie C. Scott and other critics regard neo-creationism as the most successful form of irrationalism. [3] The main form of neo-creationism is intelligent design. [6] A second form, abrupt appearance theory, [3] which claims that the first life and the universe appeared abruptly and that plants and animals appeared abruptly in complex form, has occasionally been postulated. [7] [8]

Motivations

The neo-creationist movement is motivated by the fear that religion is under attack by the study of evolution. [9] [10] [11] An argument common to neo-creationist justifications is that society has suffered "devastating cultural consequences" [12] [13] [14] from adopting materialism and that science is the cause of this decay into materialism since science seeks only natural explanations. They believe that the theory of evolution implies that humans have no spiritual nature, no moral purpose, and no intrinsic meaning, and thus that acceptance of evolution devalues human life [15] directly leading to the atrocities committed by Hitler's Nazi regime, for example. [16] [17] The movement's proponents seek to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". [14] Phillip E. Johnson, 'father' of the intelligent design movement, states the movement's goal is to "affirm the reality of God". [18]

Tactics

Much of the effort of neo-creationists in response to science consists of polemics highlighting gaps in understanding or minor inconsistencies in the literature of biology, then making statements about what can and cannot happen in biological systems. [19] [20] [21] Critics of neo-creationism suggest that neo-creationist science consists of quote-mining the biological literature (including outdated literature) for minor slips, inconsistencies or polemically promising examples of internal arguments. These internal disagreements, fundamental to the working of all natural science, are then presented dramatically to lay audiences as evidence of the fraudulence and impending collapse of "Darwinism". [22] Critics suggest that neo-creationists routinely employ this method to exploit the technical issues within biology and evolutionary theory to their advantage, relying on a public that is not sufficiently scientifically literate to follow the complex and sometimes difficult details.

Robert T. Pennock argues that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The 'scientific' claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists.... According to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit." [23]

Eugenie Scott describes neo-creationism as "a mixed bag of antievolution strategies brought about by legal decisions against equal time laws". [24] Those legal decisions, McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard, doomed the teaching of creation science as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes. Scott considers intelligent design, and the various strategies of design proponents like Teach the Controversy and Critical Analysis of Evolution, as leading examples of neo-creationism.

Neo-creationists generally reject the term "neo-creation", alleging it is a pejorative term. [25] Any linkage of their views to creationism would undermine their goal of being viewed as advocating a new form of science. Instead, they identify themselves to their non-scientific audience as conducting valid science, sometimes by redefining science to suit their needs. [26] This is rejected by the vast majority of actual science practitioners. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Nevertheless, neo-creationists profess to present and conduct valid science which is equal, or superior to, the theory of evolution, [32] but have yet to produce recognized scientific research and testing that supports their claims. [33] Instead, the preponderance of neo-creationist works are publications aimed at the general public and lawmakers and policymakers. Much of that published work is polemical in nature, disputing and controverting what they see as a "scientific orthodoxy" which shields and protects "Darwinism" while attacking and ridiculing alleged alternatives like intelligent design. [16] [34] [35] Examples of neo-creationist polemics include the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, [36] the book Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, and the book From Darwin to Hitler by Richard Weikart. [37] Research for Weikart's book was funded by the Discovery Institute, and is promoted through the institute. [38] Both Johnson and Weikart are affiliated with the Discovery Institute; Johnson is program advisor, and Weikart is a fellow.

Criticism

All of the following names make explicit the connections between traditional creationism, neo-creationism and intelligent design. Not all critics of neo-creationism are on the evolution side of the debate. Henry M. Morris, a notable young earth creationist, accepted the term [1] but opposed the logic of neo-creationism for the very reason that it does not embrace the Bible. [39] The Baptist Center for Ethics calls for "Baptists to recommit themselves to the separation of church and state, which will keep public schools free from coercive pressure to promote sectarian faith, such as state-written school prayers and the teaching of neo-creationism..." [40] [41]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creationism</span> Belief that nature originated through supernatural acts

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views, which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena.

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Center for Science Education</span> Nonprofit supporting the teaching of evolution and climate change

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit membership organization in the United States whose stated mission is to educate the press and the public on the scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution and climate change, and to provide information and resources to schools, parents, and other citizens working to keep those topics in public school science education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenie Scott</span> American anthropologist (born 1945)

Eugenie Carol Scott is an American physical anthropologist who has been active in opposing the teaching of young Earth creationism and intelligent design in schools. She coined the term "Gish gallop" to describe a fallacious rhetorical technique of overwhelming an interlocutor with as many individually weak arguments as possible, in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument.

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or Steven or a variation thereof who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution", such as the Answers in Genesis's list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors while making it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould. The level of support for evolution among scientists is very high. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "[n]early all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Center for Science and Culture</span> Part of the Discovery Institute

The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is part of the Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative Christian think tank in the United States. The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public-school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while trying to cast doubt on the theory of evolution. These positions have been rejected by the scientific community, which identifies intelligent design as pseudoscientific neo-creationism, whereas the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus.

The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist religious campaign for broad social, academic and political change to promote and support the pseudoscientific idea of intelligent design (ID), which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its chief activities are a campaign to promote public awareness of this concept, the lobbying of policymakers to include its teaching in high school science classes, and legal action, either to defend such teaching or to remove barriers otherwise preventing it. The movement arose out of the creation science movement in the United States, and is driven by a small group of proponents. The Encyclopædia Britannica explains that ID cannot be empirically tested and that it fails to solve the problem of evil; thus, it is neither sound science nor sound theology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen C. Meyer</span> American author, educator and advocate of intelligent design creationism

Stephen Charles Meyer is an American historian, author, and former educator. He is an advocate of intelligent design, a pseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God. Meyer was a founder of the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement. Before joining the institute, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College. He is a senior fellow of the DI and the director of the CSC.

Theistic science, also referred to as theistic realism, is the pseudoscientific proposal that the central scientific method of requiring testability, known as methodological naturalism, should be replaced by a philosophy of science that allows occasional supernatural explanations which are inherently untestable. Proponents propose supernatural explanations for topics raised by their theology, in particular evolution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wedge strategy</span> Creationist political and social action plan

The Wedge Strategy is a creationist political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document. Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect politically conservative fundamentalist evangelical Protestant values. The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log.

<i>Of Pandas and People</i> Creationist supplementary textbook by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon

Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins is a controversial 1989 school-level supplementary textbook written by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, edited by Charles Thaxton and published by the Texas-based Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE). The textbook endorses the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design – the argument that life shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent which is not named specifically in the book, although proponents understand that it refers to the Christian God. The overview chapter was written by young Earth creationist Nancy Pearcey. They present various polemical arguments against the scientific theory of evolution. Before publication, early drafts used cognates of "creationist". After the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to "intelligent design". The second edition published in 1993 included a contribution written by Michael Behe.

The "teach the controversy" campaign of the Discovery Institute seeks to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design as part of its attempts to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses. Scientific organizations point out that the institute claims that there is a scientific controversy where in fact none exists.

<i>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District</i> 2005 court case in Pennsylvania

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design (ID), ultimately found by the court to not be science. In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book. The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial, a name which recalls the popular name of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.

Dean H. Kenyon is an American biophysicist who is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, a young Earth creationist, and one of the founders of the intelligent design movement. He is the author of Biochemical Predestination.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to the creation–evolution controversy.

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a Christian, conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington, U.S., best known for its promotion of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. As part of the Discovery Institute's Teach the Controversy campaign, the statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism", a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.

<i>Creationisms Trojan Horse</i> 2004 book by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design is a 2004 book by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross on the origins of intelligent design, specifically the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and its wedge strategy. The authors are highly critical of what they refer to as intelligent design creationism, and document the intelligent design movement's fundamentalist Christian origins and funding.

The Discovery Institute has conducted a series of related public relations campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism". The Discovery Institute promotes the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement and is represented by Creative Response Concepts, a public relations firm.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of intelligent design</span>

This timeline of intelligent design outlines the major events in the development of intelligent design as presented and promoted by the intelligent design movement.

<i>Explore Evolution</i>

Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism is a controversial biology textbook written by a group of intelligent design supporters and published in 2007. Its promoters describe it as aimed at helping educators and students to discuss "the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory that are discussed openly in scientific books and journals but which are not widely reported in textbooks." As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to "teach the controversy" its evident purpose is to provide a "lawsuit-proof" way of attacking evolution and promoting pseudoscientific creationism without being explicit.

References

  1. 1 2 Morris, Henry M. "Neocreationism". icr.org. Institute for Creation Research . Retrieved September 29, 2014.
  2. ↑ Safire, William (August 21, 2005). "On Language: Neo-Creo". The New York Times. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
  3. 1 2 3 Scott, Eugenie C. (1996). "Creationism, ideology, and science". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The Flight from Science and Reason. Vol. 775. pp. 505–22. Bibcode:1995NYASA.775..505S. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb23167.x . Retrieved 2009-11-12.
  4. ↑ Johnson, Phillip E. (October 2004). "Darwinism is Materialist Mythology, Not Science" (PDF). DarwinReconsidered.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 25, 2011. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
  5. ↑ Laurie, Goodstein (December 4, 2005). "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker". New York Times . Section 4, Page 1, Column 1. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
  6. ↑ Pigliucci, Massimo (September 2001). "Design Yes, Intelligent No". Skeptical Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2009-04-02. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
  7. ↑ Wendell R. Bird (December 1992). The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance. Thomas Nelson. p.  13. ISBN   0-8407-6848-6.
  8. ↑ Scott, Eugenie Carol (2005). Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction . Science, religion, education. University of California Press. pp.  114–115. ISBN   9780520246508 . Retrieved May 25, 2015. Lawyer Wendell Bird [...] proposed a new 'scientific alternative' to evolution [...]. His view, which he dubbed 'Abrupt Appearance Theory,' was, however, indistinguishable in content from Creation Science. [...] The phrase 'abrupt appearance' was part of the definition of Creation Science in literature presented by the creationist side in the Edwards v. Aguillard case. Bird reworked his brief for the Edwards case into The Origin of Species Revisited, published in 1987. [...] Although mammoth in its scope [...], The Origin of Species Revisited is rarely cited today in creationist literature. it was, and remains, ignored in the scientific literature, and after the mid-1990s virtually disappeared from the political realm as well. it has been supplanted by another 'alternative to evolution' that was evolving parallel to it.
  9. ↑ Colson, Charles; Pearcey, Nancy (September 20, 1999). How Now Shall We Live?. Tyndale House Publishers. ISBN   0842336079. LCCN   2001265761. OCLC   42999968. OL   8238567M.
  10. ↑ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District , p. 136, Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. [Text in wikisource]
  11. ↑ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District , p. 30, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. (11:8–15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32–34, Sept. 28, 2005). [Text in wikisource]
  12. ↑ Martin, Allie; Parker, Jenni (August 25, 2006). "TV Producer Defends Documentary Exposing Darwin-Hitler Link". agapepress.org. Archived from the original on February 12, 2009.
  13. ↑ Handley, Paul (March 7, 2005). "Scientists battle over anti-Darwin 'Intelligent design' theory". timesofoman.com. Times of Oman. Archived from the original on March 10, 2005. Retrieved March 10, 2005.
  14. 1 2 Discovery Institute (1998). "The Wedge Document". ncse.com. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
  15. ↑ Weikart, Richard (March 1, 2004). "Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life?". discovery.org. The Human Life Review. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
  16. 1 2 Richards, Jay W. (July 25, 1999). "Intelligent Design Theory". discovery.org. IntellectualCapital.com. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
  17. ↑ Kennedy, James (August 26, 2006). "Darwin's Deadly Legacy". truthinaction.org. Coral Ridge Ministries. Archived from the original (Television documentary) on August 29, 2006.
  18. ↑ Johnson, Phillip E. (1997). Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. pp.  91–92. ISBN   0-8308-1360-8. LCCN   97012916. OCLC   36621960.
  19. ↑ Orr, H. Allen (May 23, 2005). "Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't". The New Yorker. Annals of Science. No. 2005–05–30. Archived from the original on May 29, 2005.
  20. ↑ Attie, A. D. (2006), "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action", Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 116, no. 5, pp. 1134–1138, doi:10.1172/JCI28449, PMC   1451210 , PMID   16670753
  21. ↑ Hurd, Gary (May 4, 2005). "Back to the Quote Mines". pandasthumb.org. Archived from the original on August 9, 2015. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
  22. ↑ Forrest, Barbara; Gross, Paul R. (January 8, 2004). Creationism's Trojan Horse . Oxford University Press. ISBN   0-19-515742-7. OCLC   50913078.
  23. ↑ Pennock, Robert T. (ed.) (December 1, 2001). Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. p.  322. ISBN   9780262661249. LCCN   2001031276. OCLC   539676227. OL   9452268M. librarything 827088. goodreads 567279 . Retrieved September 30, 2014.{{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)
  24. ↑ Scott, Eugenie C. (February 13, 2001). "Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States". ncse.com. National Center for Science Education . Retrieved September 30, 2014.
  25. ↑ Nkangoh, Wilston (May 19, 2005). "FAQs IDEA Club, University of Texas, Dallas". utdallas.edu. IDEA Club. Archived from the original on February 5, 2012.
  26. ↑ Behe, Michael J. (2006). "Whether Intelligent Design is Science". discovery.org. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. p. 2. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
  27. ↑ Wikipedia. List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.
  28. ↑ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District , p. 83 [Text in wikisource]
  29. ↑ AAAS Board of Directors (October 18, 2002). "AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory". aaas.org. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archived from the original on November 13, 2002. [The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID].
  30. ↑ UNSW (October 20, 2005). "Intelligent design is not science - Scientists and teachers speak out". unsw.edu.au. Sydney, Australia: The University of New South Wales. Archived from the original on April 10, 2011. A coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers has called on all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory.
  31. ↑ NCSE. "Voices for evolution. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism". ncse.com. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
  32. ↑ Meyer, Stephen C. (December 1, 2002). "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories". discovery.org. Ignatius Press. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
  33. ↑ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District , p. 88, . [Text in wikisource]
  34. ↑ Applegate, David (July 2000). "Creationists Open a New Front". agiweb.org/geotimes. American Geological Institute. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
  35. ↑ McCarthy, John (November 5, 2005). "Intelligent Design Advocates Seem Unserious And Insincere". stanford.edu. Department of Computer Science, Stanford University. Archived from the original on November 21, 2005.
  36. ↑ Discovery Institute (1998), The Wedge Strategy (PDF), retrieved September 30, 2014
  37. ↑ Discovery Institute. "From Darwin to Hitler".
  38. ↑ Discovery Institute (July 27, 2004). "Nota Bene July". Archived from the original on September 30, 2007.
  39. ↑ Morris, Henry M. "Design Is Not Enough!". Institute for Creation Research . Retrieved September 30, 2014.
  40. ↑ Ray, Brian D. (April 25, 2006). "Some Baptists Supporting Government-Run Schools". National Home Education Research Institute. Archived from the original on February 5, 2012.
  41. ↑ Baptist Center for Ethics (April 21, 2006). "A Baptist Pastoral Letter Supporting Public Education". Archived from the original on August 10, 2006.
  42. ↑ Pigliucci, Massimo (September 2001). "Design Yes, Intelligent No: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism". csicop.org. Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
  43. ↑ Eugenie C. Scott (December 1997). "Creationists and the Pope's Statement" . Quarterly Review of Biology. 72 (4): 403. doi:10.1086/419952. S2CID   85003487 . Retrieved 2007-10-14. Phrases like "intelligent design theory," "abrupt appearance theory," "evidence against evolution," and the like, have sprung up, although the content of many of the arguments is familiar. This view can be called "neocreationism." ... Neocreationists are by no means identical to their predecessors, however.... Neither biblical creationists nor theistic evolutionists.... Most of them are "progressive creationists."
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.