Creación Controversia Evolución

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://en...
Make a donation to Wikipedia and give the gift of knowledge!
Creacin controversia evolucin De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
La creacin de controversia evolucin (tambin denominado la creacin vs evolucin debate o los orgenes debate) es un recurrente conflicto poltico sobre los orgenes de la Tierra, la humanidad, la vida y el universo [1], entre los que propugnan la validez y superioridad de una determinada religin basada en la creacin de mito y el consenso cientfico, especialmente en el mbito de la biologa evolutiva, sino tambin en los campos de la geologa, paleontologa, la termodinmica, la fsica nuclear y la cosmologa.
[2]
Parte de la Biologa en serie
Parte de una serie de
Evolucin
Creacionismo
Los mecanismos y procesos Adaptacin Deriva gentica El flujo de genes Mutacin La seleccin natural La especiacin La investigacin y la historia Prueba Historia evolutiva de la vida Historia Moderno sntesis Social efecto Objeciones / Polmica La biologa evolutiva campos Cladstica Gentica ecolgica Desarrollo evolutivo La evolucin humana Evolucin molecular Filogenia La gentica de poblaciones
Historia del creacionismo Neo-creacionismo Tipos de creacionismo Young Tierra creacionismo Old Tierra creacionismo Da-Edad creacionismo Progresista creacionismo Gap creacionismo Evolucin testa Diseo inteligente Otros puntos de vista religiosos Hind Islmica Juda Deista Pandeist Creacin de la teologa Creacin en el Gnesis Gnesis como una alegora Marco de interpretacin Omphalos hiptesis Creacin de la ciencia Baraminology Flood geologa Diseo inteligente Controversia Poltica de creacionismo La educacin pblica Historia Ensee a la Controversia Artculos relacionados
Portal creacionismo
Este debate es ms prevalente en general, conservador regiones de los Estados Unidos. Hay poco debate serio sobre el tema fuera de los Estados Unidos. A menudo es retratado como parte de la cultura guerras. [3] Si bien la controversia tiene una larga historia, [4] hoy es principalmente sobre lo que constituye una buena ciencia, [5] con la poltica del creacionismo se centra principalmente en la enseanza de la creacin y la evolucin en la educacin pblica [6]. El debate tambin se centra en cuestiones como la definicin de la ciencia (y de lo que constituye la investigacin cientfica y las pruebas), la enseanza de la ciencia (y si la enseanza de la opinin de consenso cientfico debe ser "equilibrada" de la enseanza tambin franja teoras), la libertad de expresin, la separacin de Iglesia y Estado, y la teologa (en particular la forma en que diferentes confesiones cristianas interpretar el libro del Gnesis).
Biologa Portal
Dentro de la comunidad cientfica y el mundo acadmico el nivel de apoyo para la evolucin es esencialmente universal, [7], mientras que el apoyo a la Biblialiteral cuentas u otras alternativas creationist es muy pequea entre los cientficos, y prcticamente inexistente entre los que estn en los campos pertinentes [8]. El debate a veces es retratado como entre la ciencia y la religin. Sin embargo, como la Academia Nacional de Ciencias dice lo siguiente:
"
Hoy en da, muchas denominaciones religiosas que aceptar la evolucin biolgica ha producido la diversidad de los seres vivos durante miles de millones de aos de la historia de la Tierra. Muchos de ellos han emitido declaraciones y seal que la evolucin y los postulados de sus creencias son compatibles. Los cientficos y telogos han escrito con elocuencia acerca de su asombro y maravilla en la historia del universo y de la vida en este planeta, explicando que ellos no ven
"
28/08/2008 4:42
1 de 28
ningn conflicto entre su fe en Dios y la evidencia de la evolucin. Confesiones religiosas que no aceptan la incidencia de la evolucin tienden a ser aquellos que creen en la interpretacin estrictamente literal de los textos religiosos.
-- Ciencia, Evolucin y creacionismo, la Academia Nacional de Ciencias [9]
Sumario
1 Historia de la controversia 1,1 antigua creacin-evolucin controversias 1,2 Creacin controversia evolucin-en la era de Darwin 1,3 creacionismo 1.3.1 La Ley de Butler y los mbitos juicio del mono V. 1.3.2 Daniel Waters 1,4 Creacin Ciencia 1.4.1 Tribunal de Justicia los casos 1.4.1.1 Epperson v. Arkansas 1.4.1.2 McLean v. Arkansas 1.4.1.3 Edwards v. Aguillard 1,5 Diseo Inteligente 1.5.1 La controversia en los ltimos tiempos 1.5.2 Kansas evolucin audiencias 1.5.3 El juicio de Dover 2 Puntos de vista 2,1 joven Tierra creacionismo 2,2 Vieja Tierra creacionismo 2,3 neo-creacionismo 2,4 Evolucin testa 2,5 naturalista evolucin 3 Los argumentos relativos a la definicin, los lmites y la filosofa de la ciencia 3,1 Definiciones 3,2 Limitaciones del esfuerzo cientfico 3,3 Teora vs hecho 3,4 Falsifiability 3,5 Conflation de la ciencia y la religin 4 controversias relativas a la ciencia 4,1 Biologa 4.1.1 ascendencia comn 4.1.1.1 evolucin humana 4.1.2 macroevolucin 4.1.3 Transicin de fsiles 4,2 Geologa Otros 4,3 Ciencias 4.3.1 Cosmologa 4.3.2 fsica nuclear 4,4 tergiversaciones de la ciencia 4.4.1 Calcula la minera 5 cuestiones de poltica pblica 5,1 la enseanza de las ciencias 5,2 Libertad de expresin 6 Las cuestiones relativas a la religin 6,1 argumentos teolgicos Religin 6,2 cientficos e histricos 7 Foros para la controversia 7,1 Debates
2 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
7,2 cabildeo poltico 7,3 La polmica en los medios de comunicacin 8 La controversia fuera de los Estados Unidos 8,1 los pases islmicos 8,2 Europa 8,3 Australia 9 Vase tambin Notas a pie de pgina 10 11 Referencias 11,1 autor de libros y otros recursos 12 Enlaces externos 12,1 creacionismo como la poltica social 12,2 Creationist creencias 12.2.1 Ciencia refutaciones 12,3 Evolucin versus creacionismo debates
Historia de la controversia
Vase tambin: Historia del pensamiento evolutivo
Antiguo creacin-evolucin controversias

Lactancio (c.250 - c.330) en su Divina Institutos refuta rudimentario pensamiento evolutivo de desacreditar abiogenesis, especficamente en cuanto al origen del Hombre. "... Los hombres no nacieron de la tierra en todo el mundo ... pero un hombre (Adam) fue creada por Dios y de un hombre que toda la tierra se llen de la raza humana, como de nuevo se llev a cabo despus del diluvio ( Noah's Flood). "[10]
Creacin controversia evolucin-en la era de Darwin

Ver tambin: Reaccin a la teora de Darwin La creacin-evolucin controversia se origin en Europa y Amrica del Norte a finales del siglo XVIII, cuando los descubrimientos en geologa dado lugar a diversas teoras de una antigua tierra, y los fsiles muestran extinciones pasado impuls las ideas de principios de evolucin, sobre todo Lamarckismo. En Inglaterra estas ideas de cambio continuo fueron vistos como una amenaza para el orden social fijo, y fueron duramente reprimidos. [11] suavizado las condiciones, y en 1844 la controvertida Patrimonio populariz la transmutacin de las especies. El establecimiento cientfico lo desestim scornfully y la Iglesia de Inglaterra reaccion con furia, pero muchos unitarios, los cuqueros y los bautistas se opuso a los privilegios de la Iglesia a favor de sus ideas de Dios acta a travs de leyes. La publicacin de Charles Darwin 's sobre el origen de las Especies por Medio de la seleccin natural en 1859 trajo la credibilidad cientfica a la evolucin, y la hizo ms respetable. [12]
Hubo un intenso inters en las implicaciones religiosas de El libro de Darwin, pero la Iglesia de Inglaterra la atencin se desvi de gran controversia teolgica ms mayores crticas que figuran en Ensayos y comentarios de Christian liberal autores, algunos de los cuales expresaron su apoyo a Darwin, al igual que muchos nonconformists . El Reverendo Charles Kingsley apoyado abiertamente la idea de Dios trabajando a travs de la evolucin. Sin embargo, muchos cristianos se opusieron a la idea e incluso algunos de Darwin's amigos cercanos y apoyan entre ellos Charles Lyell y Asa Gray no puede aceptar algunas de sus ideas. [13] Thomas Huxley, que promovi fuertemente las ideas de Darwin, mientras que la campaa para poner fin a la dominacin de la ciencia de los clrigos, acu el trmino agnstico para describir su posicin de que la existencia
3 de 28 28/08/2008 4:42
Una satrica imagen de Charles Darwin como un mono de 1871 refleja parte de la controversia social sobre si los seres humanos y los simios comparten un mismo linaje.
de Dios es incognoscible, y Darwin tambin tom esta posicin [13], pero la evolucin tambin fue abordada por destacados ateos incluidos Edward Aveling y Ludwig Bchner y criticado, en las palabras de un revisor, ya que "equivale al atesmo." [14] A finales del siglo 19 los catlicos romanos guiados por Pope Leo XIII acept la evolucin humana a partir de ancestros animales, mientras que afirman que el alma humana es directamente creada por Dios. [13 ] Creacionistas durante este perodo fueron en gran medida premillennialists, cuya fe en Cristo retorno depende de una cuasi-lectura literal de la Biblia. [15] Sin embargo, no fueron tan preocupado por la geologa, la concesin de los cientficos libremente cualquier momento antes de que necesitan el Jardn del Edn para cuenta para observaciones cientficas, como fsiles y geolgicos conclusiones. [16] En el inmediato post-darwiniano poca, pocos cientficos o clrigos rechaz la antigedad de la tierra o la naturaleza progresiva de los fsiles. [17] Del mismo modo, pocos se adjunta geolgicos a la importancia bblica de inundacin, a diferencia de los creacionistas posteriores [17]. Evolutiva escpticos, creationist lderes cientficos y escpticos suelen ser bien dispuestos a adoptar una figurativo lectura del primer captulo del Gnesis, o para permitir que los seis das de creacin no son necesariamente 24 horas diarias [18].
creacionismo
Ver tambin: Creacin y evolucin en la educacin pblica En los Estados Unidos de Amrica creacionismo fue ampliamente aceptada y es an considerada una verdad fundamental, pero no hubo resistencia oficial a la evolucin de las denominaciones principales. [13] Alrededor del comienzo del siglo 20 algunos evanglicos estudiosos han ideas acomodar la evolucin, como BB Warfield que lo vio como una ley natural que expresa la voluntad de Dios. Sin embargo, el desarrollo del movimiento eugensico llevado a muchos catlicos a rechazar la evolucin. [13] En esta empresa han recibido poca ayuda de los cristianos conservadores en Gran Bretaa y Europa. En Gran Bretaa esto ha sido atribuido a su condicin de minora que conduzcan a una actitud ms tolerante, menos militante tradicin teolgica. Los principales britnico Creationist movimiento en este perodo fue la evolucin movimiento de protesta, formada en la dcada de 1930 [19]. La Ley de Butler y los mbitos juicio del mono A raz de la Primera Guerra Mundial, los fundamentalistas-modernista controversia trajo una ola de oposicin a la idea de evolucin, y tras la campaa de William Jennings Bryan varios estados introdujo la legislacin que prohbe la enseanza de la evolucin. En 1925, dicha legislacin se est estudiando en 15 estados, y aprob en algunos estados, como Tennessee. La American Civil Liberties Union se ofreci a defender a nadie que quera llevar un caso de prueba en contra de una de estas leyes. John T. Scopes acept, y le confes a su enseanza Tennessee clase evolucin haciendo caso omiso de la Ley Butler. El libro de texto en cuestin fue Hunter's Ciudadana Biologa Clarence Darrow y William (1914). El juicio fue ampliamente divulgado por HL Mencken, entre otros, y Jennings Bryan chat en el tribunal se conoce comnmente como los mbitos Monkey Trial. Osciloscopios fue durante los mbitos de juicio. declarado culpable, sin embargo, la amplia publicidad galvanizado proponentes de la evolucin. Cuando el caso fue apelado a la Corte Suprema de Tennessee, la Corte revoc la decisin en un detalle tcnico (el juez haba evaluado la multa cuando el jurado haba sido necesario hacerlo). Pese a que anul la sentencia condenatoria, la Corte decidi que la ley no estaba en violacin de la Primera Enmienda. El Tribunal de Justicia declar,
"No somos capaces de ver cmo la prohibicin de ensear la teora de que el hombre ha descendido de un orden inferior de animales que da preferencia a ninguna comunidad religiosa o modo de culto. Hasta la fecha, como sabemos, no hay ninguna comunidad religiosa o cuerpo organizado que tiene en su credo o confesin de la fe a cualquier artculo que negar o afirmar tal teora. " C. el Estado alcances 289 SW 363, 367 (Tenn 1927).
La interpretacin de la clusula de establecimiento hasta ese momento era que el Congreso no pudo establecer una religin como la religin del Estado. En consecuencia, el Tribunal de Justicia declar que la prohibicin sobre la
4 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
enseanza de la evolucin no violaba la clusula de establecimiento, porque no establecer una religin como la "religin de Estado." Como resultado de la explotacin, la enseanza de la evolucin sigue siendo ilegal en Tennessee, y la continuacin de la campaa tuvo xito en la eliminacin de la evolucin de los libros de texto escolares en todo Estados Unidos [20]. v. Daniel Waters V. Daniel Waters era un 1975 en el caso legal que los Estados Unidos Corte de Apelaciones del Sexto Circuito revoc Tennessee 's la ley en relacin con la enseanza de "igualdad de tiempo" de la evolucin y el creacionismo en las escuelas pblicas clases de ciencias, ya que violan la clusula de establecimiento de los EE.UU. Constitucin. A raz de esta sentencia, el creacionismo fue despojado de referencias bblicas abierta y rebautizado como la creacin de la ciencia, y varios estados pasaron leyes que requieren que esta se d el mismo tiempo con la enseanza de la evolucin.
Creacin Ciencia
Como bilogos creci ms y ms confianza en la evolucin como principio central la definicin de la biologa, [21] Miembros de Amrica en las iglesias cada vez ms a favor de la interpretacin literal de la Escritura rosa, con la Convencin Bautista del Sur y la Iglesia Luterana - Snodo de Missouri superando todas las dems confesiones. [22 ] Con el crecimiento, estas iglesias se convirtieron en mejores condiciones para promulgar una creationist mensaje, con sus propios colegios, escuelas, casas editoriales, la radio y la televisin. [23] En 1961, la primera gran moderna creationist libro fue publicado: Henry M. Morris y John C. Whitcomb Jr 's la gnesis de inundacin. Whitcomb y Morris argument que la creacin ha sido literalmente 6 das de duracin, que los seres humanos viven simultneamente con los dinosaurios, y que Dios cre cada 'tipo' de la vida individual. [24] Sobre la base de esto, Morris se convirti en un popular orador, de lucha contra la propagacin de ideas evolutivo en las iglesias fundamentalistas, colegios y conferencias. [25] Morris' Creacin Science Research Center (CIEC ) Se apresuraron la publicacin de libros de texto de biologa que promueve el creacionismo, y tambin publicado otros libros como Kelly Segrave la sensacional Hijos de Dios Retorno que se ocupan de la ufologa, las inundaciones geologa, y demonologa en contra de Morris' objeciones. [26] En ltima instancia, la CIEC se rompi a lo largo de una brecha entre el sensacionalismo y un enfoque ms intelectual, y Morris fund el Instituto de Investigacin de la Creacin, lo que se prometi a ser controlado y operado por los cientficos. [27] Durante este tiempo, Morris y otros que apoyaron la geologa de inundacin aprob el cientfico trminos cientficos creacionismo y la creacin de la ciencia. [28] La inundacin gelogos eficazmente co-optado por "la etiqueta genrica creationist para hyperliteralist sus opiniones" [29]. Tribunal de Justicia los casos
Epperson v. Arkansas
En 1928, Arkansas aprob una ley que prohbe cualquier escuela pblica o la universidad la enseanza de "la teora o doctrina que la humanidad ascendido o descendido de un orden inferior de animales" y de utilizar cualquier libro de texto que ensea la misma, se prohbe la enseanza de la evolucin en los las escuelas pblicas. Durante los cuarenta aos la ley de Arkansas fue en efecto, nadie fue nunca procesado por violacin. A mediados del decenio de 1960 el secretario de la Asociacin de Educacin de Arkansas trat de impugnar la ley como una violacin de la Clusula de Establecimiento de la Constitucin de los Estados Unidos. En 1968 el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos invalid el estatuto, sentencia inconstitucional porque violaba la Clusula de Establecimiento de la Primera Enmienda. Los mandatos que la creacin de la ciencia se ensea no declarada inconstitucional por el Tribunal hasta 1987 el caso Edwards v. Aguillard.
McLean v. Arkansas
En 1982 otro caso en Arkansas dictamin que el Arkansas "un trato equilibrado de la Creacin-Ciencia y Evolution-Science Act" es inconstitucional porque viola la clusula de establecimiento de los EE.UU.
5 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
Constitucin. Gran parte de la transcripcin del caso se perdi, incluida la prueba de Francisco Ayala.
Edwards contra Aguillard
A principios del decenio de 1980, la Luisiana legislatura aprob una ley titulada el "tratamiento equilibrado de la Creacin de la Ciencia y la Evolucin de la Ciencia en la Escuela Pblica Instruccin Ley". La ley no exige la enseanza, ya sea el creacionismo o evolucin, pero s exigir que, cuando la evolucin se ensea la ciencia, la "creacin de la ciencia" ha enseado a ser as. Creacionistas haba presionado agresivamente por la ley, argumentando que la Ley estaba por la libertad acadmica para los profesores, un argumento, aprobada por el estado en apoyo de la ley. Baja tribunales dictamin que el Estado tiene la finalidad real era promover la doctrina religiosa de "la creacin de la ciencia," pero el Estado apel ante el Tribunal Supremo. El caso similar en McLean v. Arkansas ha decidido tambin contra el creacionismo. Mclean v. Arkansas sin embargo no se hizo un llamamiento a nivel federal, los creacionistas en lugar de pensar que tenan ms posibilidades con Edwards v. Aguillard. En 1987 la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos dictamin que la ley era inconstitucional, porque la ley es precisamente la intencin de promover una religin en particular. Al mismo tiempo, sin embargo, sostuvo que "la enseanza de una variedad de teoras cientficas sobre los orgenes de la humanidad a la escuela los nios puedan ser vlidamente realizada con la clara intencin secular de mejorar la eficacia de la ciencia instruccin" dejando abierta la puerta para un puado de proponentes de la creacin de la ciencia para desarrollar sus argumentos en la iteracin de creacionismo que lleg a ser conocido como diseo inteligente. [30]
Diseo Inteligente
Ver tambin: neo-creacionismo, el diseo inteligente movimiento, Ensee a la controversia, y el anlisis crtico de la evolucin En respuesta a Edwards contra Aguillard, el Neo-Creationist diseo inteligente movimiento se form en torno al Instituto Discovery 's Centro para la Ciencia y la Cultura. Su objetivo es reafirmar el creacionismo en los trminos ms probabilidades de ser bien recibida por el pblico, los encargados de formular polticas, los educadores y la comunidad cientfica, y hace que la afirmacin de que "ciertas caractersticas del universo y de los seres vivos se explican mejor por una causa inteligente , No undirected un proceso como la seleccin natural. "[32] Se ha considerado como un" cientfico "para el creacionismo de los creacionistas, pero es ampliamente rechazado como poco cientficos de la comunidad cientfica (vase, por ejemplo, la lista de sociedades cientficas rechazar inteligente diseo). Controversia en los ltimos tiempos Ver tambin: Poltica de creacionismo y diseo inteligente en la poltica La controversia contina hasta el da de hoy, con las actividades principales de consenso cientfico sobre los orgenes y evolucin de la vida creationist impugnada por organizaciones y grupos religiosos que el deseo de defender alguna forma de creacionismo (por lo general jvenes tierra creacionismo, la creacin de la ciencia, la antigua tierra creacionismo o diseo inteligente) como una alternativa. La mayora de estos grupos estn explcitamente cristiana, y ms de uno ve el debate como parte de los cristianos mandato de evangelizar. [33] Algunos ven en la ciencia y la religin como diametralmente opuestas opiniones que no pueden conciliarse. Ms acomodar los puntos de vista, celebrada por incorporar muchas iglesias y muchos cientficos, considere la posibilidad de la ciencia y la religin para ser separado las categoras de pensamiento, que piden fundamentalmente diferentes preguntas acerca de la realidad y afirmar las diferentes vas para investigar. [34] La opinin pblica en cuanto a los conceptos de Evolucin, creacionismo y diseo inteligente es fluctuante. Ms recientemente, el Diseo Inteligente movimiento ha tomado un anti-evolucin posicin que se evite cualquier llamamiento directo a la religin. Los cientficos sostienen que el diseo inteligente no representa ningn programa de investigacin al interior de la comunidad cientfica, y es esencialmente creacionismo. [35] Su principal proponente, el Discovery Institute, hizo una amplia publicidad a las reclamaciones que se trataba de una nueva
El Instituto Discovery 's Centro para la Renovacin de la Ciencia y la Cultura utilizarse pancartas sobre la base de "La Creacin de Adn" de la Capilla Sixtina. Ms tarde se utiliz una imagen menos religiosos, a continuacin, pas a denominarse el Centro para la Ciencia y la Cultura. [31]
6 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
ciencia, aunque el nico documento para argumentar su publicacin en una revista cientfica se ha aceptado en circunstancias cuestionables y rpidamente desautoriz a la revisin por pares Sternberg controversia, con la Sociedad Biolgica de Washington afirmando que no cumpla con la revista de normas cientficas, era un "importante partida" de la revista de la materia normal y se public en el antiguo editor de la entera y exclusiva discrecin, "contrario a las prcticas tpicas editorial". [36] el presidente Bush coment apoyar la enseanza del diseo inteligente junto con la evolucin "Me sent como ambas partes deben ser debidamente enseados ... para que la gente pueda entender lo que el debate se trata. "[37] Kansas evolucin audiencias En el empuje de diseo inteligente defensores de introducir el diseo inteligente en las escuelas pblicas de ciencia aulas, el centro neurlgico del diseo inteligente movimiento, el Instituto Discovery, dispuestas a realizar audiencias para examinar las pruebas para la evolucin a la luz de su anlisis crtico de la evolucin planes de lecciones . La Evolucin de Kansas Audiencias fueron una serie de audiencias celebradas en Topeka, Kansas Mayo 5 al 12 de mayo de 2005. El Kansas Junta de Educacin del Estado aprob finalmente el instituto Anlisis crtico de la evolucin planes de lecciones sobre las objeciones de la Junta Estatal de Ciencias Comisin de Audiencias, electoral y en nombre del conservador republicano candidatos para la Junta. [38] El 1 de agosto de 2006, 4 de la 6 republicanos conservadores que aprobaron el anlisis crtico de la evolucin de normas de clase perdido sus escaos en una eleccin primaria. Los republicanos moderados y demcratas prometieron ganar escaos para revocar el 2005 la enseanza de la ciencia y adoptar las normas de las recomendadas por un Consejo Estatal de Ciencia Comisin de Audiencias que fueron rechazadas por la anterior junta, [39] y el 13 de febrero de 2007, la Junta vot 6 a 4 de rechazar la modificacin de la ciencia normas promulgadas en 2005. La definicin de la ciencia, una vez ms, se limita a "la bsqueda de explicaciones naturales para lo que se observa en el universo."
[40]
El Dover Trial Despus de que Edwards contra Aguillard juicio en la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en la que el Tribunal dictamin que un Luisiana ley que exige que la creacin de la ciencia se ensea en las escuelas pblicas siempre que la evolucin se ensea es inconstitucional, porque la ley se destina especficamente para avanzar en un determinado la religin, los creacionistas renovado sus esfuerzos por introducir el creacionismo en la escuela pblica las clases de ciencia. Este esfuerzo result en el diseo inteligente, que trata de evitar las prohibiciones legales de dejar la fuente de una creacin sin nombre definido y diseador inteligente, en oposicin a Dios. [41] Esta ltima instancia, dio lugar a la "prueba de Dover," Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Distrito, que fue a juicio el 26 de septiembre de 2005 y se decidi el 20 de diciembre de 2005 en favor de los demandantes, que denunci que el mandato que el diseo inteligente se ensee en las escuelas pblicas las aulas la ciencia es un establecimiento inconstitucional de la religin. La pgina 139 del dictamen Kitzmiller v. Dover fue saludada como una decisin histrica, se crea firmemente que el creacionismo y diseo inteligente son las enseanzas religiosas y no las reas legtimas de la investigacin cientfica.
Puntos de vista
joven Tierra creacionismo
Ver tambin: Creacin de la ciencia y la geologa de inundacin Young Tierra creacionismo es la creencia de que la Tierra fue creada por Dios en los ltimos 10000 aos, literalmente, tal como se describe en el Gnesis, en el plazo aproximado de genealogas bblicas (por ejemplo detallado en el Calendario de Ussher-Lightfoot). Young Tierra a menudo los creacionistas creen que el Universo tiene una edad similar como la Tierra. Creationist cosmologas son intentos de algunos pensadores creationist a dar el universo una edad de conformidad con el Calendario de Ussher-Lightfoot y otros jvenes a la Tierra plazos. Esta creencia general, tiene una base en un literal y inerrant interpretacin de la Biblia.
Old Tierra creacionismo
7 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
Ver tambin: Gap creacionismo, Da de la edad creacionismo y el Progreso de creacionismo Old Tierra creacionismo sostiene que el universo fsico fue creado por Dios, sino que la creacin del Gnesis caso no se ha de tener estrictamente literal. Este grupo, por lo general cree que la edad del Universo y la edad de la Tierra son los descritos por los astrnomos y los gelogos, pero que los detalles de la teora evolutiva son cuestionables. Old Tierra creacionistas interpretar la creacin del Gnesis cuentas de varias maneras, que cada difieren de los seis, consecutivos, da de 24 horas creacin de la literalist joven Tierra Creationist punto de vista.
neo-creacionismo
Ver tambin: el diseo inteligente Neo-creacionistas intencionalmente distanciarse de otras formas de creacionismo, prefiriendo a ser conocido como totalmente independientes de creacionismo como una filosofa. Su objetivo es reafirmar el creacionismo en los trminos ms probabilidades de ser bien recibida por el pblico, los encargados de la poltica educativa y la comunidad cientfica. Su objetivo es volver a enmarcar el debate sobre los orgenes de la vida no en trminos religiosos y sin apelaciones a la Escritura, y para llevar el debate ante la opinin pblica. Neo-los creacionistas pueden ser joven o vieja Tierra Tierra creacionistas, y celebrar una serie de puntos de vista teolgicos subyacentes (por ejemplo, sobre la interpretacin de la Biblia). Neo-creacionismo actualmente existe en la forma del diseo inteligente movimiento, que tiene una 'gran carpa' estrategia que incluye muchos jvenes Tierra creacionistas (como Paul Nelson y Percival Davis).
Evolucin testa
Ver tambin: Naturalismo (filosofa), Evolucin y la Iglesia Catlica Romana, y el clero Carta de Proyecto Theistic evolution, also known as "evolutionary creationism," is the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory , including specifically evolution . It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the first cause and immanent sustainer/upholder of the universe; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong theistic (as opposed to deistic ) convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize with the day-age interpretation of the Genesis creation account ; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a literary framework or allegory . This position does not generally exclude the viewpoint of methodological naturalism , a long standing convention of the scientific method in science . Theistic evolutionists have frequently been prominent in opposing creationism (including intelligent design). Notable examples have been biologist Kenneth R. Miller and theologian John Haught (both Catholics ), who testified for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District . Another example is the Clergy Letter Project , an organization that has created and maintains a statement signed by American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism, with specific reference to points raised by intelligent design proponents. Theistic evolutionists have also been active in Citizens Alliances for Science that oppose the introduction of creationism into public school science classes (one example being evangelical Christian geologist Keith B. Miller , who is a prominent board member of Kansas Citizens for Science ).
Naturalistic evolution
See also: Metaphysical naturalism Naturalistic evolution is the position of acceptance of biological evolution and of metaphysical naturalism (and thus rejection of theism and theistic evolution ).
8 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science

Critiques such as those based on the distinction between theory and fact are often leveled against unifying concepts within scientific disciplines. Principles such as uniformitarianism , Occam's Razor or parsimony , and the Copernican principle are claimed to be the result of a bias within science toward philosophical naturalism , which is equated by many creationists with atheism . [42] In countering this claim, philosophers of science use the term methodological naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method . The methodological assumption is that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural , and therefore supernatural explanations for such events are outside the realm of science. [43] Creationists claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded and that scientific work is paradigmatically close-minded. [44] Because modern science tries to rely on the minimization of a priori assumptions, error, and subjectivity , as well as on avoidance of Baconian idols , it remains neutral on subjective subjects such as religion or morality . [45] Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form of pseudoscience . [46]
Definitions
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism [47]
Limitations of the scientific endeavor
In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science. National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism [47]
Theory vs. fact

The argument that evolution is a theory , not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution . [48] The argument is related to a common misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" that is used by scientists. In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures, hypotheses, and unproven assumptions. However, in science, "theory" usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." [49]
9 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
Exploring this issue, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote: [50] Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin 's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Falsifiability
Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience: Testable theories are scientific, but those that are untestable are not. [51] However, in Unended Quest , Popper declared "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme , a possible framework for testable scientific theories," while pointing out it had "scientific character". [52] In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping," [53] opponents of evolution seized upon Popper's definition to claim evolution was not a science, and claimed creationism was an equally valid metaphysical research program. [54] For example, Duane Gish , a leading Creationist proponent, wrote in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981): " Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)." [55] Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that evolutionary theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested." [56] However, creationists claimed that a key evolutionary concept, that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor, was not mentioned as testable by Popper, and claimed it never would be. [57] In fact, Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory. [58] Only a few years later, Popper changed his mind, and later wrote, " I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation ". [59] Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiability in science continues. [60] However, simple falsifiability tests for common descent have been offered by some scientists: For instance, biologist and prominent critic of creationism Richard Dawkins and JBS Haldane both pointed out that if fossil rabbits were found in the Precambrian era , a time before most similarly complex lifeforms had evolved, "that would completely blow evolution out of the water." [61] [62] Falsifiability has also caused problems for creationists: In his 1982 decision McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education , Judge William R. Overton used falsifiability as one basis for his ruling against the teaching of creation science in the public schools, ultimately declaring it "simply not science." [63]
Conflation of science and religion

Many of the most vocal creationists blur the boundaries between criticisms of modern science, philosophy , and culture. They often conjoin their arguments focused on the science of evolution with doctrinal statements or evangelistic attempts. This can be a central focus of apologetics . For example, in explanation for his "struggle" against evolution, prominent creationist Ken Ham has declared "the Lord has not just called us to knock down evolution, but to help in restoring the foundation of the gospel in our society. We believe that if the churches took up the tool of Creation Evangelism in society, not only would we see a stemming of the tide of humanistic philosophy , but we would also see the seeds of revival sown in a culture which is becoming increasingly more pagan each day." [64] Ham teaches that a rejection of the biblical creation history undermines the relevancy of the
10 de 28 28/08/2008 4:42
Christian gospels and derivatively weakens the moral foundations of society.
Disputes relating to science

Many creationists vehemently oppose certain scientific theories in a number of ways, including opposition to specific applications of scientific processes, accusations of bias within the scientific community , [65] and claims that discussions within the scientific community reveal or imply a crisis. In response to perceived crises in modern science , creationists claim to have an alternative, typically based on faith , creation science , and/or intelligent design . The scientific community has responded by pointing out that their conversations are frequently misrepresented (eg by quote mining ) in order to create the impression of a deeper controversy or crisis, and that the creationists' alternatives are generally pseudoscientific .
Biology
Disputes relating to evolutionary biology are central to the controversy between Creationists and the scientific community . The aspects of evolutionary biology disputed include common descent (and particularly human evolution from common ancestors with other members of the Great Apes ), macroevolution , and the existence of transitional fossils . Common descent See also: Evidence of common descent and Tree of life (science)
[The] Discovery [Institute] presents common descent as controversial exclusively within the animal kingdom, as it focuses on embryology, anatomy, and the fossil record to raise questions about them. In the real world of science, common descent of animals is completely noncontroversial; any controversy resides in the microbial world. There, researchers argued over a variety of topics, starting with the very beginning, namely the relationship among the three main branches of life.
A phylogenetic tree based on rRNA genes.
John Timmer, Evolution: what's the real controversy? [66]
A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor . A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary principles was proposed by Charles Darwin and is now generally accepted by biologists. The last universal common ancestor , that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living
11 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
organisms, is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago . With a few exceptions (eg Michael Behe ), the vast majority of Creationists reject this theory. Evidence of common descent includes evidence from fossil records , comparative anatomy , geographical distribution of species , comparative physiology and comparative biochemistry .
Human evolution
See also: Paleoanthropology and Adam and Eve Human evolution is the part of biological evolution concerning the emergence of humans as a distinct species . Molecular evidence indicates that the lineage of gibbons (family Hylobatidae ) became distinct between 18 and 12 Ma, and that of orangutans (subfamily Ponginae) at about 12 Ma; we have no fossils that clearly document the ancestry of gibbons, which may have originated in a so far unknown South East Asian hominid population, but fossil proto-orangutans may be represented by Ramapithecus from India and Griphopithecus from Turkey, dated to around 10 Ma. Molecular evidence further suggests that between 8 and 4 mya, first the gorillas , and then the chimpanzee (genus Pan ) split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is 98.4 [67] percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees. We have no fossil record, however, of either group of African great apes, possibly because bones do not fossilize in rain forest environments. Thereafter, paleoanthropology traces human evolution, via fossil hominid evidence through genus Homo to modern Humans . Creationists have argued that these fossils are either of apes (eg that Java man was a gibbon [68] ) or humans, with no intermediates between the two. However Creationists frequently disagree on where this gap lies. [69] Creation myths (such as the Book of Genesis ) frequently posit a first man ( Adam , in the case of Genesis) as an alternative viewpoint to the scientific account. Macroevolution See also: Speciation Creationists have long argued against the possibility of Macroevolution. Macroevolution is defined by the scientific community to be evolution that occurs at or above the level of species . Under this definition, Macroevolution can be considered to be a fact, as evidenced by observed instances of speciation . Creationists however tend to apply a more restrictive, if vaguer, definition of Macroevolution, often relating to the emergence of new body forms or organs . The scientific community considers that there is strong evidence for even such more restrictive definitions, but the evidence for this is more complex. Recent arguments against (such restrictive definitions of) macroevolution include the Intelligent design arguments of Irreducible complexity and Specified complexity . However, neither argument has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and both arguments have been rejected by the scientific community as pseudoscience .
Transitional fossils See also: List of transitional fossils , Bird evolution , and Evolution of the horse It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. [70] [71] This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays,
12 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight. As another example, Alan Haywood stated in Creation and Evolution that "Darwinists rarely mention the whale because it presents them with one of their most insoluble problems. They believe that somehow a whale must have evolved from an ordinary land-dwelling animal, which took to the sea and lost its legs ... A land mammal that was in the process of becoming a whale would fall between two stoolsit would not be fitted for life on land or at sea, and would have no hope for survival." [72] The evolution of whales has however been documented in considerable detail, with Ambulocetus , described as looking like a three-metre long mammalian crocodile , as one of the transitional fossils.
Reconstruction of Ambulocetus natans
Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species. The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. For example the change from a creature the size of a mouse, to one the size of an elephant, could be accomplished over 60,000 years, with a rate of change too small to be noticed over any human lifetime. 60,000 years is too small a gap to be identified or identifiable in the fossil record.
Geology
See also: Creation geophysics , Geochronology , and Age of the Earth Many believers in Young Earth Creationism a position held by the majority of proponents of Flood Geology accept biblical chronogenealogies (such as the Ussher chronology which in turn is based on the Masoretic version of the Genealogies of Genesis ). [73] [74] They believe that God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, in the space of six days. Much of creation geology is devoted to debunking the dating methods used in anthropology , geology , and planetary science that give ages in conflict with the young Earth hypotheses. In particular, creationists dispute the reliability of radiometric dating and isochron analysis, both of which are central to mainstream geological theories of the age of the Earth. They usually dispute these methods based on uncertainties concerning initial concentrations of individually considered species and the associated measurement uncertainties caused by diffusion of the parent and daughter isotopes. However, a full critique of the entire parameter-fitting analysis, which relies on dozens of radionuclei parent and daughter pairs, has not been done by creationists hoping to cast doubt on the technique. The consensus of professional scientific organisations worldwide is that no scientific evidence contradicts the age of approximately 4.5 billion years. [75] Young Earth creationists reject these ages on the grounds of what they regard as being tenuous and untestable assumptions in the methodology. Apparently inconsistent radiometric dates are often quoted to cast doubt on the utility and accuracy of the method. Mainstream proponents who get involved in this debate point out that dating methods only rely on the assumptions that the physical laws governing radioactive decay have not been violated since the sample was formed (harking back to Lyell's doctrine of uniformitarianism ). They also point out that the "problems" that creationists publicly mentioned can be shown to either not be problems at all, are issues with known contamination, or simply the result of incorrectly evaluating legitimate data.
13 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
Creationists do not claim to have a scientifically verifiable method for dating the Earth, and instead rely solely on Biblical chronologies.
Other sciences
Cosmology See also: Age of the universe Whilst Young Earth Creationists believe that the Universe was created approximately 6000 years ago, the current scientific consensus is that it is about 13.7 billion years old. The recent science of nucleocosmochronology is extending the approaches used for Carbon-14 dating to the dating of astronomical features. For example based upon this emerging science, the Galactic thin disk of the Milky Way galaxy is estimated to have been formed between 8.3 1.8 billion years ago. [76] Many other creationists, including Old Earth Creationists, do not necessarily dispute these figures. Nuclear physics See also: radiometric dating Creationists point to experiments they have performed, which they claim demonstrate that 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay took place over a short period of time, from which they infer that "billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying nuclear physics generally, and radiometric dating in particular. [77] The scientific community points to numerous flaws in these experiments, to the fact that their results have not been accepted for publication by any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and to the fact that the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental geochronology . [78] [79] In refutation of young-Earth claims of inconstant decay rates affecting the reliability of radiometric dating, Roger C. Wiens, a physicist specialising in isotope dating states:
There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do not affect the dating methods [under discussion] [80] ": 1. Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. ... The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment. ... [H]eavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent. 2. ... Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. 'Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus. ... All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than several hundred thousand degrees. ... 3. The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by atomic clocks in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates. ... Roger C. Wiens, Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective [81]
14 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
Misrepresentations of science
Quote mining As a means to criticise mainstream science, creationists have been known to quote, at length, scientists who ostensibly support the mainstream theories, but appear to acknowledge criticisms similar to those of creationists. [82] However, almost universally these have been shown to be quote mines that do not accurately reflect the evidence for evolution or the mainstream scientific community's opinion of it, or highly out-of-date. [83] [84] Many of the same quotes used by creationists have appeared so frequently in Internet discussions due to the availability of cut and paste functions, that the TalkOrigins Archive has created " The Quote Mine Project (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html& usg=ALkJrhh46YYYNDlmMbZFGrkDiwRWhdpS5w) " for quick reference to the original context of these quotations. [83]
Public policy issues

Science education
See also: Teach the Controversy Creationists promote that evolution is a theory in crisis [85] [86] with scientists criticizing evolution [87] and claim that fairness and equal time requires educating students about the alleged scientific controversy. Opponents, being the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and science education organizations, [88] reply that there is in fact no scientific controversy and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics. [85] [89] The American Association for the Advancement of Science and other science and education professional organizations say that Teach the Controversy proponents seek to undermine the teaching of evolution [85] [90] while promoting intelligent design, [91] [92] [93] and to advance an education policy for US public schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to public-school science curricula. [94] [95] This viewpoint was supported by the December 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. [95] George Mason University Biology Department introduced a course on the creation/evolution controversy, and apparently as students learn more about biology, they find objections to evolution less convincing, suggesting that teaching the controversy rightly as a separate elective course on philosophy or history of science, or "politics of science and religion," would undermine creationists criticisms, and that the scientific communitys resistance to this approach was bad public relations. [96]
Freedom of speech
Creationists have claimed that preventing them from teaching Creationism violates their right of Freedom of speech . However court cases (such as Webster v. New Lenox School District and Bishop v. Aronov ) have upheld school districts' and universities' right to restrict teaching to a specified curriculum.
Issues relating to religion

See also: Relationship between religion and science and Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
Theological arguments
See also: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis and Evolutionary argument against naturalism
15 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
Religion and historical scientists

Creationists often argue that Christianity and literal belief in the Bible are either foundationally significant or directly responsible for scientific progress. [97] To that end, Institute for Creation Research founder Henry M. Morris has enumerated scientists such as astronomer and philosopher Galileo , mathematician and theoretical physicist James Clerk Maxwell , mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal , geneticist monk Gregor Mendel , and Isaac Newton as believers in a biblical creation narrative. [98] This argument usually involves scientists either who were no longer alive when evolution was proposed or whose field of study didn't include evolution. The argument is generally rejected as specious by those who oppose creationism. [99] Many of the scientists in question did some early work on the mechanisms of evolution, eg, the Modern evolutionary synthesis combines Darwin's Evolution with Mendel's theories of inheritance and genetics. Though biological evolution of some sort had become the primary mode of discussing speciation within science by the late-19th century, it was not until the mid-20th century that evolutionary theories stabilized into the modern synthesis . Some of the historical scientists marshalled by creationists were dealing with quite different issues than any are engaged with today: Louis Pasteur , for example, opposed the theory of spontaneous generation with biogenesis , an advocacy some creationists describe as a critique on chemical evolution and abiogenesis . Pasteur accepted that some form of evolution had occurred and that the Earth was millions of years old. [100] The relationship between science and religion was not portrayed in antagonistic terms until the late-19th century, and even then there have been many examples of the two being reconcilable for evolutionary scientists. [101] Many historical scientists wrote books explaining how pursuit of science was seen by them as fulfillment of spiritual duty in line with their religious beliefs. Even so, such professions of faith were not insurance against dogmatic opposition by certain religious people. Some extensions to this creationist argument have included the incorrect suggestions that Einstein 's deism was a tacit endorsement of creationism or that Charles Darwin converted on his deathbed and recanted evolutionary theory .
Forums for the controversy

Debates
Many creationists and scientists engage in frequent public debates regarding the origin of human life, hosted by a variety of institutions. However, some scientists disagree with this tactic, arguing that by openly debating supporters of supernatural origin explanations (creationism and intelligent design), scientists are lending credibility and unwarranted publicity to creationists, which could foster an inaccurate public perception and obscure the factual merits of the debate. [102] For example, in May 2004 Dr. Michael Shermer debated creationist Kent Hovind in front of a predominately creationist audience. In Shermer's online reflection while he was explaining that he won the debate with intellectual and scientific evidence he felt it was "not an intellectual exercise," but rather it was "an emotional drama." [103] While receiving positive responses from creationist observers, Shermer concluded "Unless there is a subject that is truly debatable (evolution v. creation is not), with a format that is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion ." [103] (see: scientific method ). Others, like evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci , have debated Hovind, and have expressed surprise to hear Hovind try "to convince the audience that evolutionists believe humans came from rocks" and at Hovind's assertion that biologists believe humans "evolved from bananas." [104] Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education , a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools, claimed debates are not the sort of arena to promote science to creationists. [103] Scott says that "Evolution is not on trial in the world of science," and "the topic of the discussion should not be the scientific legitimacy of evolution" but rather should be on the lack of evidence in creationism. Similarly, Stephen Jay Gould took a public stance against appearing to give legitimacy to creationism by debating
16 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
its proponents. He noted during a Caltech lecture in 1985: [105]
Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!
Political lobbying
See also: Politics of creationism , Kansas evolution hearings , Santorum Amendment , and List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design A wide range of organisations, on both sides of the controversy, are involved in lobbying in an attempt to influence political decisions relating to the teaching of evolution, at a number of levels. These include the Discovery Institute , the National Center for Science Education , the National Science Teachers Association , state Citizens Alliances for Science , and numerous national science associations and state Academies of Science. [106]
The controversy in the media

The controversy has been discussed in numerous newspaper articles, reports, op-eds and letters to the editor, as well as a number of radio and television programmes (including the PBS series, Evolution and Coral Ridge Ministries' Darwin's Deadly Legacy ). This has led some commentators to express a concern at what they see as a highly inaccurate and biased understanding of evolution among the general public. Pulitzer Prize -winning journalist and writer Edward Humes states: [107]
There are really two theories of evolution. There is the genuine scientific theory and there is the talk-radio pretend version, designed not to enlighten but to deceive and enrage. The talk-radio version had a packed town hall up in arms at the "Why Evolution Is Stupid" lecture. In this version of the theory, scientists supposedly believe that all life is accidental, a random crash of molecules that magically produced flowers, horses and humans -- a scenario as unlikely as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747. Humans come from monkeys in this theory, just popping into existence one day. The evidence against Darwin is overwhelming, the purveyors of talk-radio evolution rail, yet scientists embrace his ideas because they want to promote atheism.
The controversy outside the United States
17 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
While the controversy has been prominent in the United States, it has also flared up in other countries as well.
[108] [109] [110]
Islamic countries
In recent times, the controversy has become more prominent in Islamic countries. [111] Currently, in Egypt evolution is taught in schools but Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools. [108] Creation science has also been heavily promoted in Turkey and in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by Harun Yahya . [110]
Views on human evolution in other countries
Europe
Europeans have often regarded the creation-evolution controversy as an American matter. [109] However, in recent years the conflict has become an issue in a variety of countries including Germany , The United Kingdom , Italy , the Netherlands , Poland and Serbia . [109] [110] [112] [113] On 17th September 2007 the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a report on the attempt by American inspired creationists to promote creationism in European schools. It concludes "If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.... The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements... some advocates of creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy." [114]
Australia
With declining church attendance, there has been some growth in fundamentalist and pentecostal Christian denominations. [115] Under the former Queensland state government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen , in 1980 lobbying was so successful that Queensland allowed the teaching of creationism as science to school children. Public lectures have been given in rented rooms at Universities, by visiting American speakers, and speakers with doctorates purchased by mail from Florida sites. [116] One of the most acrimonious aspects of the Australian debate was featured on the science television program Quantum , about a long-running and ultimately unsuccessful court case by Ian Plimer , Professor of Geology at Melbourne University , against an ordained minister, Dr. Allen Roberts, who had claimed that there were remnants of Noah's Ark in eastern Turkey . Although the court found that Dr Roberts had made false and misleading claims, they were not made in the court of trade or commerce, so the case failed. [117]
Vase tambin
Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy Allegorical interpretations of Genesis Anti-intellectualism Clergy Letter Project Creation science Creationism Evidence of common descent Evidence of evolution Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church Evolution Sunday Evolutionary origin of religions Hindu views on evolution History of the creationevolution controversy Intelligent design Jainism and non-creationism Jewish views on evolution Level of support for evolution List of participants in the
18 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
creation-evolution controversy Mormonism and evolution Natural theology
Objections to evolution Politics of creationism Project Steve Relationship between religion
and science Teach the Controversy
Footnotes
1. ^ See Hovind 2006 , for example. 2. ^ An Index to Creationist Claims (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html& usg=ALkJrhgYJYcrzDVUxKPeucVdv0fGpzkLxA) , Mark Isaak, Talkorigins Archive ,Copyright 2006. 3. ^ Larson 2004 , p. 247-263 Chapter titled Modern Culture Wars . See also Ruse 1999 , p. 26, who writes "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed ...religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently been very significant factors in the forward movement of science." 4. ^ Numbers 1992 , p. 3-240 5. ^ See: Peters & Hewlett 2005 , p. 1; Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 20 6. ^ See: Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles /A32444-2005Mar13.html& usg=ALkJrhhRN_2dtMbzx8Fz8CH9Vcfw205mNA) , Peter Slevin, Washington Post , Monday, March 14, 2005, Page A01; The Political Design of Intelligent Design (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://cstl-cla.semo.edu /Renka/Renka_papers/intell_design.htm& usg=ALkJrhhdpdc7WIrAmPLlHWBA5sgzl_GFQ) , Russell D. Renka, November 16, 2005; Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //pewforum.org /news/display.php%3FNewsID%3D5262& usg=ALkJrhgJkPFddDCjWXDHNjiUPtED7xF7LA) , Jody Wilgoren, The New York Times , April 21, 2005 The Newest Evolution of Creationism (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.evcforum.net/RefLib /NaturalHistory_200204_Forrest.html& usg=ALkJrhi4xzDvn9okiMd2yb2m1sRuNGDfpA) , Barbara Forrest , Natural History , April, 2002, page 80; Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, pages 7-9, also pages 64-90 7. ^ Myers 2006 ; NSTA 2007 ; IAP 2006 ; AAAS 2006 8. ; and Pinholster 2006 ; Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83 ^ Larson 2004 , p. 258 "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science ; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." See also Martz & McDaniel 1987 , p. 23, a Newsweek article which states "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 US earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." ^ Committee on Revising Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism . National Academy of Sciences , p 12. ISBN 0-309-10586-2 . ^ The Divine Institutes 6.10-11, trans. W. Fletcher, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers 7 . ^ Desmond & Moore 1991 , p. 34-35 ^ See": van Wyhe 2006 ; Desmond & Moore 1991 , p. 321-323, 503-505. abcde ^ AAAS Evolution Dialogues: Science, Ethics and Religion (http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser /images_Doser/Publications /evol_dialogue_study_guide.pdf) study guide (pdf) ^ See: Hodge 1874 , p. 177; Numbers 1992 , p. 14; Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish 1982 , p. 965; Huxley 1902 ^ Numbers 1992 , p. 14 ^ Numbers 1992 , p. 14-15 ^ a b Numbers 1992 , p. 17 ^ Numbers 1992 , p. 18, noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many or most Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views were rarely expressed in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David Nevins Lord (1792-1880). However, the observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807-1884); John William Dawson (1820-1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818-1907); George D. Armstrong (1813-1899); Charles Hodge , theologian (1797-1878); James Dwight Dana (1813-1895); Edward Hitchcock , clergyman and respected Amherst College geologist, (1793-1864);
9.
10. 11. 12.
13.
14.
15. 16. 17. 18.
19 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
19. 20.
21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
29. 30. 31.
32.
33. 34. 35.
Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818-1897); HL Hastings (1833?-1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838-1922; Alexander Patterson , Presbyterian evangelist who published The Other Side of Evolution Its Effects and Fallacy 36. ^ Numbers(2006) p161 ^ See: s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 19 of 139 ; Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist 37. Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. 38. (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads /attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf) (pdf) A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007; TalkOrigins Archive: Post of the Month: March 2006 (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: 39. //www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth /mar06.html& usg=ALkJrhi5iTbVHOMU736CQQONexhYlQGepg) , The History of Creationism by Lenny Flank. ^ Larson 2004 , p. 248,250, see also Dobzhansky 1973 40. ^ Larson 2004 , p. 251 ^ Larson 2004 , p. 252 ^ Larson 2004 , p. 255, Numbers 1992 , p. xi,200-208 ^ Larson 2004 , p. 255 ^ Numbers 1992 , p. 284-285 ^ Numbers 1992 , p. 284-6 ^ Quoting Larson 2004 , p. 255-256: "Fundamentalists no longer merely denounced Darwinism as false; they 41. offered a scientific-sounding alternative of their own, which they called either 'scientific creationism (as distinct from religious creationism) or 'creation science' (as opposed to evolution science." ^ Larson 2004 , p. 254-255, Numbers 1998 , p. 5-6 ^ Ruling , Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District pp 7-9. 42. ^ " NCSE Resource (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles /8325_evolving_banners_at_the_discov_8_29_2002.asp& 43. usg=ALkJrhgEE_afx88JZWRGvvS7YYy2Lm-umg) ". 44. Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute ( 2002 45. 08-29 ). Retrieved on 2007 - 10-07 . 46. ^ " Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design? (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& 47. langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.discovery.org /csc/topQuestions.php&usg=ALkJrhjlUAxdt_Mq9rZlzJdyfd5uiC4Ig#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign) ". Discovery Institute . Retrieved on 2007 - 05-13 .. ^ Verderame 2007 , Simon 2006 ^ Dewey 1994 , p. 31, and Wiker 2003 , summarizing 48. Gould. ^ Larson 2004 , p. 258 "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." See also Martz & McDaniel 1987 , p. 23, a Newsweek article which states "By one count there are some 700 scientists
(out of a total of 480,000 US earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." ^ Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html& usg=ALkJrhgeS5Xj1D-ocP5cfmb1jGEU8zYmPA) ^ Bumiller 2005 , Peters & Hewlett 2005 , p. 3 ^ Some question group's move with elections nearing (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.6newslawrence.com/news/2006/jul/07 /many_question_groups_move_elections_nearing /&usg=ALkJrhhvQ5E0tSweJzdAQYXl3k6m2aXKag) 6News Lawrence, Lawrence Journal-World. July 7, 2006. ^ Evolutions foes lose ground in Kansas (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.msnbc.msn.com /id/14137751 /&usg=ALkJrhh31jFIqSBrgcDcDB8lOmjYCDcPUA) MSNBC, August 2, 2006. ^ Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.iht.com/articles /ap/2007/02/13/america/NA-GEN-US-KansasEvolution-History.php& usg=ALkJrhjl1g80mNzn9KEgDW8I3kySipBP3A) The Associated Press, via the International Herald Tribune, February 13, 2007. ^ The "Evolution" of Creationism (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general /default.aspx%3Foid%3D20418%26print%3Dyes%26units%3D usg=ALkJrhhiu2YXX_3o1enMTFWPJ_VZxd3kEA) Timeline: how creationism has "evolved". People for the American Way . ^ Johnson 1998 , Hodge 1874 , p. 177, Wiker 2003 , Peters & Hewlett 2005 , p. 5--Peters and Hewlett argue that the atheism of many evolutionary supporters must be removed from the debate ^ Lenski 2000 , p. Conclusions ^ Johnson 1998 ^ Einstein 1930 , p. 1-4 ^ Dawkins 1997 ^ a b Free Executive Summary (http://www.nap.edu /execsumm_pdf/6024.pdf) , Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences , Second Edition, Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences , 1999, ISBN 978-0-309-06406-4 . ^ Johnson 1993 , p. 63, Tolson 2005 , Moran 1993 ; Selman v. Cobb County School District (http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs /cobb%20county%20decision.pdf) . US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2005); Talk. Origins; Bill Moyers et al , 2004. " Now with Bill Moyers (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.pbs.org
20 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
49. 50. 51.
52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.
59.
60.
61. 62. 63. 64.
65.
66.
/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html& usg=ALkJrhhHNdyTSt7TUrydahq3TopvCBmzAw#dawkins) ." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29. Interview with Richard Dawkins ^ Merriam-Webster online dictionary. www.mw.com ^ Gould 1981 67. ^ See: Number 1992 , p. 247; Wilkins, John S, Evolution and Philosophy: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean? (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil 68. /falsify.html& usg=ALkJrhjpFszgXmmkt22rSH6VK7n0dL-Zdg) , TalkOrigins Archive ^ Popper 1976 , p. 168 and 172 quoted in Kofahl 1981 69. ^ Unknown sociologist quoted in Numbers 1992 , p. 247 ^ Kofahl 1989 as quoted by Numbers 1992 , p. 247 ^ Lewin 1982 ^ Numbers(2006) p274 70. ^ Kofahl 1981 , p. 873 ^ Talkorigins summary of Karl Popper attitudes 71. towards evolution (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: 72. //www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html& usg=ALkJrhjpZpgh4Z314onpVZ-sNZgiSnemhQ) ^ See: Natural selection and the emergence of mind , Karl Popper, Dialectica 32(3/4): 339355, 1978 Did Popper refute evolution? (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& 73. langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://findarticles.com /p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_28/ai_n6194235 /pg_1& usg=ALkJrhhOVhFwL7uf167Zp9sR2YAhLLyALg) , Massimo Pigliucci, Skeptical Inquirer , 74. Sept-Oct 2004 ^ Ruse 1999 , p. 13-37, which discusses conflicting ideas about science among Karl Popper , Thomas Samuel Kuhn , and their disciples. ^ As quoted by Wallis 2005 , p. 32. Also see 75. Dawkins 1986 and Dawkins 1995 ^ Wallis 2005 , p. 6 Dawkins quoting Haldane ^ Dorman 1996 ^ Ham, Ken. Creation Evangelism 76. (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v6/i2 /creationII.asp&usg=ALkJrhhCrLfxg77. E0igywzx5lh4ysE3Dlkg) (Part II of Relevance of Creation). Creation Magazine '6' (2):17, November 1983. ^ Johnson 1993 , p. 69 where Johnson cites three pages spent in Issac Asimov's New Guide to Science that take creationists to task, while only spending one half page on evidence of evolution . 78. ^ Evolution: what's the real controversy? (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en&
langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://arstechnica.com/journals /science.ars/2008/05/07/evolution-whats-the-realcontroversy& usg=ALkJrhjsCoCXaXQ420W0XL6AYacxNcG37g) , John Timmer, Nobel Intent, May 07, 2008 ^ Chimps are human, gene study implies (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.newscientist.com /article/dn3744-chimps-are-human-gene-studyimplies.html& usg=ALkJrhgYKMuCOHQtrYSsQ2eujN6870BKVg) New Scientist, website, May 19, 2003 ^ Was Java Man a gibbon? (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html& usg=ALkJrhgQmVYVGfit2TnoN2q_QBdw46Ul1A) , Jim Foley, TalkOrigins website, April 30, 2003. ^ Comparison of all skulls (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html& usg=ALkJrhjfeSet6zf7aIpnjhkm5pResogUVw) , Jim Foley, TalkOrigins website, August 8, 2005. ^ Scientific Creationism , Henry M. Morris , 1985, pp. 78-90 ^ Life--How Did It Get Here? , Watchtower Bible and Tract Society , 1985, pp. 57-59 ^ Haywood, Alan (1985) Creation and Evolution .Triangle Books, London. Quoted in Hooking Leviathan by Its Past (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.stephenjaygould.org/library /gould_leviathan.html& usg=ALkJrhhhfPj7JGnQE0ZI_Jc414fWMCRKpg) , Stephen Jay Gould ^ Biblical chronogenealogies (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17 /i3/chronogenealogies.asp& usg=ALkJrhg5zN98vrCUM2KiKvNRH9s7KM9oFg) ^ The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.grisda.org/origins /07053.htm& usg=ALkJrhhYsCXpNMPnhwiNXfFa1uhNpEJkEA) ^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master /6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf) , Interacademy Panel on Global Issues, June 21, 2006. ^ Del Peloso, EF; Da Silva, L.; De Mello, GFP; Arany-prado, LI (2005). "The age of the Galactic thin disk from Th/Eu nucleocosmochronology". A&A 434 : 301308. doi : 10.1051/0004-6361:20047060 . ^ Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.icr.org /index.php%3Fmodule%3Darticles%26action%3Dview%26ID% usg=ALkJrhhx3CFPQdutj6xLW2ia7g3---sHrQ) , D. Russell Humphreys , Impact, Number 352, October 2002. ^ Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates" Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and
21 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
79.
80.
81.
82. 83. 84.
85.
Questionable Data (http://66.102.9.104 understand "the controversy." But there is no /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: significant controversy within the scientific community //www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html& about the validity of the theory of evolution. The usg=ALkJrhgRuLtgFAC_t03fXau-SBinVlUyQQ) , current controversy surrounding the teaching of Kevin R. Henke, TalkOrigins website, Original evolution is not a scientific one." AAAS Statement on version: March 17, 2005, Revision: November 24, the Teaching of Evolution (http://www.aaas.org 2005. /news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf) ^ RATE: More Faulty Creation Science from The American Association for the Advancement of Institute for Creation Research (http://66.102.9.104 Science . February 16 , 2006 (PDF file) /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: 86. ^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, //gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm& page 89 usg=ALkJrhg5SsvHO2YUpqsQWAoHO-4e7DI0JQ) , 87. ^ "That this controversy is one largely manufactured JG Meert, Gondwana Research, The Official Journal by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design of the International Association for Gondwana, may not matter, and as long as the controversy is November 13, 2000 (updated February 6, 2003). taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or ^ Dating methods discussed were potassium-argon religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists dating , argon-argon dating , rubidium-strontium dating nor citizens should be concerned." Intelligent Judging , samarium-neodymium dating , lutetium-hafnium, Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom rhenium-osmium dating , and uranium-lead dating . (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& ^ Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://content.nejm.org (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& /cgi/content/full/354/21/2277& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.asa3.org usg=ALkJrhiqa7kmpMzkcd265QvzQu3tb0l7Hg) /ASA/resources/Wiens.html& George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine , usg=ALkJrhiPu6GgwQMKOITcP367jcNC_MOhUw#page%2020) Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006 , Roger C. Wiens, American Scientific Affiliation , 88. ^ See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting p20-21 intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83 . The ^ Dobzhansky 1973 Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin Petition (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& ^ a b Pieret 2006 langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: ^ //www.dissentfromdarwin.org Isaak, Mark (2004). " Index to Creationist /&usg=ALkJrhjXYbOXvdDeDad6onCfJN9vqMFgGg) Claims: Claim CA113 (http://66.102.9.104 has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: the largest association of scientists in the US, has //www.talkorigins.org/indexcc 120,000 members, and firmly rejects intelligent design /CA/CA113.html& and denies that there is a legitimate scientific usg=ALkJrhg2ZzYLZd6EpAfcontroversy (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& 4l1c0hkk766hkQ) ". Talk.origins. Retrieved on langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.aaas.org 2007 - 12-27 . /news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml& Dunford, Mike ( 2007 - 07-02 ). " A new usg=ALkJrhhmCfbGt5cDOulORHaP7LVh5ifJEA) . (mis)take on an old paper (and other posts) More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& condemn teaching of intelligent design in school langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: science classes (http://66.102.9.104 //www.pandasthumb.org/archives/quote_mines /&usg=ALkJrhisLokMySHSDQT4oU2WJtTOlMnAOg) /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005 ". [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|]]. Retrieved on /intelligent.html& 2007 - 12-26 . usg=ALkJrhiu7EWe0H8hZd3wSf1K4cdXvao8GA) . Myers, PZ ( 2004 - 09-11 ). " I'm shocked, List of statements from scientific professional shocked to find that quote mining is going on in organizations (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& there! (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.ncseweb.org langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://pharyngula.org /resources/articles /index/weblog/comments /8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp& /im_shocked_shocked_to_find_that_quote_mining_is_going_on_in_there& usg=ALkJrhi1yD8NFriOCTRKpne0RjMVsDfLSA) on usg=ALkJrhgFu3JCRgyKwReClkBQjWBdWzPloQ) the status intelligent design and other forms of ". Pharyngula (blog) . Retrieved on 2007 creationism. 12-27 . abc 89. ^ "That this controversy is one largely manufactured ^ "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of may not matter, and as long as the controversy is evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or community. Others insist that teachers have absolute religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists freedom within their classrooms and cannot be nor citizens should be concerned." Intelligent Judging disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom evolution. A number of bills require that students be (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to
22 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://content.nejm.org /cgi/content/full/354/21/2277& usg=ALkJrhiqa7kmpMzkcd265QvzQu3tb0l7Hg) George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine , Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006 ^ "In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." Ruling disclaimer, pg. 49 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District . ^ "ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2 , 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.prospect.org/print /V13/22/mooney-c.html&usg=ALkJrhi9b7scT0EykIGTcZpllL0LMjh0g) ^ Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.arn.org /docs/dembski/wd_teachingid0201.htm& usg=ALkJrhjpISEhEVcL-MBC3XF2XISYGFhl9A) by William A. Dembski "The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to "teach the controversy." There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy." ^ Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label. No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists... (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07 /no_one_here_but.html& usg=ALkJrhh5_E1aSp9Eh_zbfwzjefcpS4uunw) Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006 ^ "has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science." . . . The effect of Defendants actions in
95.
96.
97. 98. 99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Conclusion, page 134 ^ a b "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy , but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, whether ID is science, page 89 ^ AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser /02_Events/Lectures /2006/02_Lecture_2006_0420.shtml& usg=ALkJrhgfTYRHkBgc2fZ7RT-6zoka_hgCYA) , 20 April 2006 , Emmett Holman, Associate Professor of Philosophy from George Mason University , retrieved 2007 - 04-29 ^ Woods 2005 , p. 67-114, Chapter Five: The Church and Science ^ Morris 1982 ^ Index to Creationist Claims - Claim CA114 (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://talkorigins.org/indexcc /CA/CA114.html&usg=ALkJrhjOCOgYMOzmObhry4ify41JrT68w) edited by Mark Isaak. 2005 ^ Index to Creationist Claims - Claim CA114.22 (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://talkorigins.org/indexcc /CA/CA114_22.html& usg=ALkJrhj7usu5P6RTrHH8PNTqSZZhMu3aKg) edited by Mark Isaak. 2005 ^ [1] (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.religioustolerance.org/sci_rel.htm& usg=ALkJrhgrrljWTJUNumE1CYequSfP9BXbNA) Science and religion: Conflicts & occasional agreements ^ Why I Won't Debate Creationists (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://richarddawkins.net /article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,RichardDawkins& usg=ALkJrhg73lU8H_LcIDujTq0lsd_q1xy0cA) , Richard Dawkins , Reason : In the News, richarddawkins.net, the official Richard Dawkins website, Monday, May 15, 2006. ^ a b c Shermer, Michael ( 2004 - 05-10 ). " Then a Miracle Occurs: An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-05-10.html& usg=ALkJrhh46q6oFEn2Jgev3oJPrSTeT94MzA#miracle ", eSkeptic Online . Retrieved on 2007 - 02-11 . ^ Massimo Pigliucci . Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science .
23 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
(Sinauer, 2002): ISBN 0878936599 page 102. 105. ^ Shermer, Michael. 'Why People Believe Weird Things', Owl Books, 2002. Paperback ed, p. 153. 106. ^ Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.ncseweb.org /resources/articles /8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp&112. usg=ALkJrhi1yD8NFriOCTRKpne0RjMVsDfLSA) , NCSE 107. ^ Unintelligent designs on Darwin (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion /columnists/guests/s_493631.html& 113. usg=ALkJrhgwGlO3Oy-dxIjqV_eMsMKNrxiNjA) , Edward Humes , Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 108. ^ a b Pitock, Todd (06 2007). "Science and Islam". Discover : 3645. 109. ^ a b c Gregory Katz ( 2008 - 02-16 ). " Clash Over Creationism Is Evolving In Europe's Schools (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& 114. langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www2.tbo.com/content 115. /2008/feb/16/na-clash-over-creationism-is-evolvingin-europess&usg=ALkJrhheVRHEa47LCXeNcZEuvKWxlD2OAg) ", Associated Press . Retrieved on 2008 - 02-17 . / 110. ^ a b c Taner Edis. " Cloning Creationism in Turkey 116. (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.ncseweb.org 117. /resources/rncse_content/vol19 /8371_cloning_creationism_in_turkey_12_30_1899.asp& usg=ALkJrhiFWVJ2X0SsirRyZLCyTpCWZvM59A) ". RNCSE 19 (6): 30-35 . National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 2008 - 02-17 . 111. ^ " Evolution and religion: In the beginning
(http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.economist.com /world/displaystory.cfm%3Fstory_id%3D9036706& usg=ALkJrhhfcWijZ8CDYoAV4s3PL1ba8mhHHA) ". The Economist ( 2007 - 04-19 ). Retrieved on 2007 04-25 .This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy. ^ " Serbia reverses Darwin suspension (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://news.bbc.co.uk /1/hi/world/europe/3642460.stm& usg=ALkJrhg5S8ufknvhVkH4LRAsxH0AHAC5XA) ", BBC ( 2004 - 09-09 ) . Retrieved on 2008 - 02-17 . ^ Roger Highfield ( 2007 - 02-10 ). " Creationists rewrite natural history (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.telegraph.co.uk/earth /main.jhtml%3Fview%3DDETAILS%26grid %3D%26xml%3D/earth/2007/10/02/scihist102.xml& usg=ALkJrhh9Qm8QVGrBrWEOQVHqQvhyzwD37Q) ", The Telegraph . Retrieved on 2008 - 02-17 . ^ New Scientist 10 November 2007, p. 72 ^ Christianity Pentecostalism (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s820631.htm& usg=ALkJrhg7TR6eeV-3WdowSycqyz-plL2ezw) Australian Broadcasting Corporation ^ Plimer, Ian "Telling lies for God- Reason versus Creationism", (Random House) ^ "Telling Lies for God"? - One Man's Crusade (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.abc.net.au/quantum /info/97lies.htm& usg=ALkJrhixUbwcefQH6qqVVxzp8IF0lB6iqA) , accessed 2008-02-05, Quantum . See transcript link for detail.
AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006-02-16), Statement on the Teaching of Evolution , aaas.org , < http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-14 Bumiller, Elisabeth (2005), " Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution ", The New York Times (no. 2005-08-03) , < http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html?ex=1280721600& en=8bbf73d2f5204260&ei=5088&partner=r > . Retrieved on 2007 - 02-03 Burns, Edward M.; Philip Lee Ralph & Robert E. Lerner et al. (1982), World Civilizations Their History and Their Culture (Sixth ed.), WW Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-95077-8 Dawkins, Richard (1986), The Blind Watchmaker , WW Norton & Company, Inc., ISBN 0-393-31570-3 Dawkins, Richard (1995), River Out of Eden , Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-06990-8 Dawkins, Richard (January/February 1997), " Is Science a Religion? ", Humanist , < http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-30 Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin , London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN 0-7181-3430-3 Dewey, John (1994), "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy", in Martin Gardner, Great Essays in Science , Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-853-8
24 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
Dobzhansky, Theodosius (March, 1973), " Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution ", American Biology Teacher (National Association of Biology Teachers) 35 : 125-129 , < http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-14 Dorman, Clark ( 1996 - 01-30 ), Transcription of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education Decision by US District Court Judge William R. Overton , TalkOrigins Archive Foundation , < http://www.talkorigins.org /faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-31 Einstein, Albert ( 1930 - 11-09 ), " Religion and Science ", New York Times Magazine : 1-4 , < http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-30 Gould, Stephen Jay (1981), Evolution as Fact and Theory , The Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive , < http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-17 Hodge, Charles (1874), What is Darwinism? , Scribner, Armstrong, and Company, ASIN B0006AEEMO , < http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-8.txt > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-14 Hovind, Kent (2006), Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer , Creation Science Evangelism , < http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67 > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-17 Huxley, Thomas H. (1902), " An Episcopal Trilogy 1887 ", Collected Essays Science and Christian Tradition (Kessinger Publishing) V : 126-159, ISBN 978-1417973729 , < http://www.gutenberg.org/files /15905/15905-8.txt > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-14 IAP, Interacademy Panel (2006-06-21), IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution , interacademies.net , < http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-14 Johnson, Phillip E. (1998), Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education , IntervaVsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-1929-0 Johnson, Phillip E. (1993), Darwin on Trial (2nd ed.), InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-1324-1 Kofahl, Robert E. ( May 22 , 1981 ), "Popper on Darwinism", Science (New Series) 212 (4497) Kofahl, Robert E. (June, 1989), " The Hierarchy of Conceptual Levels For Scientific Thought And Research ", CRS Quarterly (The Creation Research Society) 26 (1) , < http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts /sum26_1.html > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-29 Larson, Edward J. (2004), Evolution , Modern Library, ISBN 0-679-64288-9 Lenski, Richard E. (2000), Evolution: Fact and Theory , AcitionBioscience.org , < http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-23 Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel ( 1987 - 06-29 ), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek (Newsweek Inc.) CIX (26): 23-24, ISBN 0028-9604 Moore, James (2006), "Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin" , Speaking of Faith (Radio Program) , American Public Media , < http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin /transcript.shtml > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-24 Moran, Laurence (1993), Evolution is a Fact and a Theory , TalkOrigins Archive Foundation , < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-23 Morris, Henry M. ( 1982 - 01-01 ), " Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past ", Impact (Institute for Creation Research) 103 , < http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185 > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-20 Myers, PZ ( 2006 - 06-18 ), " Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution? ", Pharyngula ( ScienceBlogs ) , < http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php > . Retrieved on 2007 -
25 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
09-12 NSTA, National Science Teachers Association (2007), An NSTA Evolution Q&A , < http://www.nsta.org /publications/evolution.aspx > . Retrieved on 2008 - 02-01 Archive link (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://web.archive.org/web/20070804211846/http: //www.nsta.org/publications/evolution.aspx&usg=ALkJrhidHfYyVt_skaywsgObYOglOb9YwA) Numbers, Ronald L. (1992), Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism , Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., pp. 224, ISBN 0-679-40104-0 Numbers, Ronald ( 2006 - 11-30 ). The Creationists : From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition . Harvard University Press, 624 pages. ISBN 0674023390 . Numbers, Ronald L. ( 1998 - 11-15 ), Darwinism Comes to America , Harvard University Press, 224, ISBN 0674193121 Peters, Ted & Martinez Hewlett (2005-12-22), The Evolution Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What? , Pacific Luthern Theological Seminary , < http://www.plts.edu/docs/EvolutionBrief2.pdf > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-28 Pieret, John (2006), The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines , TalkOrigins Archive Foundation , < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-23 Pinholster, Ginger (2006-02-19), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event , aaas.org , < http://www.aaas.org/news/releases /2006/0219boardstatement.shtml > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-14 Popper, Karl (1976), Unended Quest: An Intellecutal Autobiography , Open Court Publishing Co., ISBN 0-87548-366-6 Popper, Karl (1980), "Letter to the Editor", New Scientist 87 Ruse, Michael ( 1999 - 04-30 ), Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction , Harvard University Press, 320, ISBN 0-674-46706-X Simon, Stephanie (2006), " Their Own Version of a Big Bang: Those who believe in creationism -- children and adults -- are being taught to challenge evolution's tenets in an in-your-face way. ", Los Angeles Times (no. 2006 - 02-11 ) , < http://philosophy.tamucc.edu/article.pl?sid=06/02/12/1727208&mode=thread > . Retrieved on 2007 - 02-03 Tolson, Jay (2005-09-05), Religion in America , "Religion in America: Intelligent Design on Trial", US News & World Report , < http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050928/28religion.htm > . Retrieved on 2007-01-6 van Wyhe, John (2006), Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist: A biographical sketch , < http://darwinonline.org.uk/darwin.html > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-24 Verderame, John (2007), Creation evangelism: cutting through the excess , answersingenesis.org , < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0510news.asp > . Retrieved on 2007 - 02-07 Wallis, Claudia ( 2005 - 08-07 ), " The Evolution Wars ", Time Magazine , < http://www.time.com /time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-1,00.html > Retrieved on 2007 - 01-31 Wiker, Benjamin D. (July/August 2003), " Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics ", Crisis Politics, Culture, and the Church (CRISIS Magazine) , < http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2003 /feature1.htm > . Retrieved on 2007 - 01-21 Woods, Thomas E., Jr. (2005), How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization , Regnery Publishing, Inc., ISBN 0-89526-038-7
26 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
Published books and other resources

Burian, RM: 1994. Dobzhansky on Evolutionary Dynamics: Some Questions about His Russian Background ; in Adams, Mark A. (1994). The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky: essays on his life and thought in Russia and America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03479-6 . Butler, Samuel (2007). Evolution, Old And New: Or The Theories Of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin And Lamarck, As Compared With That Of Charles Darwin (1911) . Kessinger Publishing, LLC. ISBN 0548641323 . Beer, Gillian; Darwin, Charles (1996). The origin of species . Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019283438X . Gould, Stephen Jay; Dobzhansky, Theodosius Grigorievich (1982). Genetics and the origin of species . New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231054750 . Henig, Robin Marantz (2000). The monk in the garden: the lost and found genius of Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0395977657 . Kutschera U, Niklas KJ (2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften 91 (6): 25576. doi : 10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y . PMID 15241603 . Mayr, Ernst (1985). The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance . Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press. ISBN 0674364465 . Miller, James H. (2001). An evolving dialogue: theological and scientific perspectives on evolution . Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-349-7 . Morris, HR (1963). The Twilight of Evolution . Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Pub Group. ISBN 0801058627 . Numbers, Ronald L. (1993). The creationists . Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0520083938 . Pennock RT (2003). "Creationism and intelligent design". Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 4 : 14363. doi : 10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400 . PMID 14527300 . Sagan, Carl (1997). The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark . [New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0345409469 . Scott, EC (1997). "Antievolution And Creationism In The United States". Annual Review of Anthropology 26 (1): 263289. doi : 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.263 . Maynard Smith, "The status of neo-darwinism," in "Towards a Theoretical Biology" (CH Waddington, ed., University Press, Edinburgh, 1969. Hull, DL (1999). " The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper ". Biology and Philosophy 14 (4): 481504. doi : 10.1023/A:1006554919188 . Retrieved on 2008 - 04-11 . Strobel, Lee (2004). The case for a Creator: a journalist investigates scientific evidence that points toward God . Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan/Willow Creek Resources. ISBN 0310240506 .
Enlaces externos
Gallup public opinion poll in regards to the concepts of Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design as of May 2007 (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.galluppoll.com /content/default.aspx%3Fci%3D21814&usg=ALkJrhj8Il7xDjgGEbhlTegukGtBc-IWLg) Data by country regarding the percentage of the population that believes in evolution (http://66.102.9.104 /translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.data360.org /graph_group.aspx%3FGraph_Group_Id%3D286&usg=ALkJrhjYaBJJKDAazvgz-GcBuHH4Pcxjhw)
Creationism as social policy

Isaac Asimov, The "Threat" of Creationism. (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces& u=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html&usg=ALkJrhjAvYCdW51KW0bJGNZAWgyPEiJRA)
Creationist beliefs
Answers in Genesis (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http: //www.answersingenesis.org/&usg=ALkJrhjpRkN9fcwlKhZAqg6VFXlK-z3DxQ) , Young Earth Creationism Reasons to Believe (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://reasons.org
27 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42
/&usg=ALkJrhjjJWTSMAq_0YpHK90xv19gHVpmuA) , Old Earth Creationism Scientific rebuttals Talk.origins Index to Creationist Claims (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces& u=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/&usg=ALkJrhhTPiXgKRGUz3vVFY4pdFdYEB2I8Q)
Evolution versus creationism debates

Location and link Stanford University (http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen /UCSD_TV/6287DarSciorPhi.rm) Nova on-line (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey /debate/&usg=ALkJrhjNK7EBPfLkjOZi6ApGx5AZWINS_g) Firing Line (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics /p45.htm&usg=ALkJrhi4WZ0jaJFImrKGIggXHc5rdahq6A) University of London (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en& langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/sites/debate /debate_audio.html& usg=ALkJrhiJcyeGEC3hVVUjq0nixgKajuCYiA) ( transcript (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces& u=http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php /Main/RoyalHollowayCollegeDebate& usg=ALkJrhgfmqJRAWPDOvChsv4nc77zGXnpuQ) ) Ao Pro-evolution 1994 Will Provine 1996 Kenneth R. Miller Pro-creationism Phillip E. Johnson Phillip E. Johnson Phillip E. Johnson , Michael Behe , David Berlinski & William F. Buckley
Kenneth R. Miller , Michael 1997 Ruse , Eugenie Scott & Barry Lynn
2007 Lewis Wolpert
Steve Fuller
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy " Categories : Evolution | Creationism | Religion and science | Religious controversies Hidden categories: Articles to be expanded since June 2008 | All articles to be expanded | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since April 2008 | Wikipedia articles needing clarification This page was last modified on 27 August 2008, at 23:07. Todo el texto est disponible bajo los trminos de la GNU Free Documentation License. (Vase Copyrights para ms detalles). Wikipedia es una marca registrada de Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Registradas en EE.UU. 501 (c) (3) deducibles de impuestos sin fines de lucro sin fines de lucro.
28 de 28
28/08/2008 4:42

Creación Controversia Evolución

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Creación Controversia Evolución

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Make a donation to Wikipedia and give the gift of knowledge!

Creacin controversia evolucin De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Parte de la Biologa en serie

Parte de una serie de

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Antiguo creacin-evolucin controversias

Creacin controversia evolucin-en la era de Darwin

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Old Tierra creacionismo

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science

Limitations of the scientific endeavor

Theory vs. fact

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Conflation of science and religion

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Christian gospels and derivatively weakens the moral foundations of society.

Disputes relating to science

A phylogenetic tree based on rRNA genes.

John Timmer, Evolution: what's the real controversy? [66]

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Reconstruction of Ambulocetus natans

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Public policy issues

Issues relating to religion

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Religion and historical scientists

Forums for the controversy

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

its proponents. He noted during a Caltech lecture in 1985: [105]

The controversy in the media

The controversy outside the United States

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

creation-evolution controversy Mormonism and evolution Natural theology

Objections to evolution Politics of creationism Project Steve Relationship between religion

and science Teach the Controversy

10. 11. 12.

15. 16. 17. 18.

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

29. 30. 31.

33. 34. 35.

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

49. 50. 51.

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

61. 62. 63. 64.

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

82. 83. 84.

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

97. 98. 99.

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Creacin de evolucin controversia - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre