Neo-creationism explained

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

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

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

Motivations

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

Tactics

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

Robert T. Pennock argues that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The 'scientific' claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists.... According to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit."[22]

Eugenie Scott describes neo-creationism as "a mixed bag of antievolution strategies brought about by legal decisions against equal time laws".[23] Those legal decisions, McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard, doomed the teaching of creation science as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes. Scott considers intelligent design, and the various strategies of design proponents like Teach the Controversy and Critical Analysis of Evolution, as leading examples of neo-creationism.

Neo-creationists generally reject the term "neo-creation", alleging it is a pejorative term.[24] Any linkage of their views to creationism would undermine their goal of being viewed as advocating a new form of science. Instead, they identify themselves to their non-scientific audience as conducting valid science, sometimes by redefining science to suit their needs.[25] This is rejected by the vast majority of actual science practitioners.[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Nevertheless, neo-creationists profess to present and conduct valid science which is equal, or superior to, the theory of evolution,[31] but have yet to produce recognized scientific research and testing that supports their claims.[32] Instead, the preponderance of neo-creationist works are publications aimed at the general public and lawmakers and policymakers. Much of that published work is polemical in nature, disputing and controverting what they see as a "scientific orthodoxy" which shields and protects "Darwinism" while attacking and ridiculing alleged alternatives like intelligent design.[16] [33] [34] Examples of neo-creationist polemics include the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, the book Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, and the book From Darwin to Hitler by Richard Weikart.[35] Research for Weikart's book was funded by the Discovery Institute, and is promoted through the institute.[36] Both Johnson and Weikart are affiliated with the Discovery Institute; Johnson is program advisor, and Weikart is a fellow.

Criticism

All of the following names make explicit the connections between traditional creationism, neo-creationism and intelligent design. Not all critics of neo-creationism are on the evolution side of the debate. Henry M. Morris, a notable young earth creationist, accepted the term[1] but opposed the logic of neo-creationism for the very reason that it does not embrace the Bible.[37] The Baptist Center for Ethics calls for "Baptists to recommit themselves to the separation of church and state, which will keep public schools free from coercive pressure to promote sectarian faith, such as state-written school prayers and the teaching of neo-creationism..."[38] [39]

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. Web site: Neocreationism . Morris . Henry M. . Henry M. Morris . icr.org . . September 29, 2014.
  2. Safire . William . August 21, 2005 . On Language: Neo-Creo . The New York Times . September 29, 2014.
  3. Scott, Eugenie C.. Eugenie Scott. The Flight from Science and Reason. 1996. Creationism, ideology, and science. 2009-11-12. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 775. 505–22. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb23167.x. 1995NYASA.775..505S.
  4. Web site: Darwinism is Materialist Mythology, Not Science . Johnson . Phillip E. . October 2004 . DarwinReconsidered.org . September 29, 2014 . https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220342/http://www.darwinreconsidered.org/media/MaterialistMythology.pdf . July 25, 2011 . dead .
  5. Laurie . Goodstein . December 4, 2005 . Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker . . September 29, 2014 . Section 4, Page 1, Column 1.
  6. News: Design Yes, Intelligent No . . September 2001 . Massimo . Pigliucci . Massimo Pigliucci . 2009-04-04 . https://web.archive.org/web/20090402021558/http://csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html . 2009-04-02 . dead .
  7. Book: Wendell R. Bird. The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance. 0-8407-6848-6. December 1992. Thomas Nelson. 13.
  8. Book: Scott. Eugenie Carol. Eugenie C. Scott . Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction . 2005. registration. Science, religion, education. University of California Press. 2005. 114–115. 9780520246508. May 25, 2015. Lawyer Wendell Bird [...] proposed a new 'scientific alternative' to evolution [...]. His view, which he dubbed 'Abrupt Appearance Theory,' was, however, indistinguishable in content from Creation Science. [...] The phrase 'abrupt appearance' was part of the definition of Creation Science in literature presented by the creationist side in the Edwards v. Aguillard case. Bird reworked his brief for the Edwards case into The Origin of Species Revisited, published in 1987. [...] Although mammoth in its scope [...], The Origin of Species Revisited is rarely cited today in creationist literature. it was, and remains, ignored in the scientific literature, and after the mid-1990s virtually disappeared from the political realm as well. it has been supplanted by another 'alternative to evolution' that was evolving parallel to it..
  9. Book: Colson . Charles . Charles W. Colson . Pearcey . Nancy . Nancy Pearcey . September 20, 1999 . How Now Shall We Live? . Tyndale House Publishers . 0842336079 . 42999968 . 8238567M . 2001265761.
  10. [Text in [[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 136 of 139|wikisource]]]
  11. [Text in [[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 30 of 139|wikisource]]]
  12. Web site: TV Producer Defends Documentary Exposing Darwin-Hitler Link . Martin . Allie . Parker . Jenni . August 25, 2006 . agapepress.org . https://web.archive.org/web/20090212115843/http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/252006b.asp . February 12, 2009.
  13. Web site: Scientists battle over anti-Darwin 'Intelligent design' theory . Handley . Paul . March 7, 2005 . timesofoman.com . Times of Oman . March 10, 2005 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20050310095036/http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=11764 . March 10, 2005 .
  14. Web site: The Wedge Document . Discovery Institute . 1998 . ncse.com . September 29, 2014.
  15. Web site: Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life? . Weikart . Richard . March 1, 2004 . discovery.org . The Human Life Review . September 29, 2014.
  16. Web site: Intelligent Design Theory . Richards . Jay W. . July 25, 1999 . discovery.org . IntellectualCapital.com . September 29, 2014.
  17. Web site: Darwin's Deadly Legacy . Television documentary . Kennedy . James . James Kennedy (televangelist) . August 26, 2006 . truthinaction.org . . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20060829011506/http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/ . August 29, 2006 .
  18. Book: Johnson, Phillip E. . 1997 . Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds . Downers Grove, IL . InterVarsity Press . 0-8308-1360-8 . 97012916 . 36621960 . Johnson 1997 . 91–92 . registration .
  19. Orr . H. Allen . Devolution - Why intelligent design isn't. Annals of Science . The New Yorker . May 23, 2005 . 2005–05–30 . https://web.archive.org/web/20050529015150/http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact . May 29, 2005 .
  20. Web site: Back to the Quote Mines . Hurd . Gary . May 4, 2005 . pandasthumb.org . September 29, 2014 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20150809025945/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/back_to_the_quo.html . August 9, 2015 .
  21. Book: Creationism's Trojan Horse. Forrest . Barbara . Barbara Forrest. Gross . Paul R. . Paul R. Gross. 0-19-515742-7. 50913078. January 8, 2004. Oxford University Press.
  22. Book: Pennock, Robert T. (ed.) . Robert T. Pennock . December 1, 2001 . Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives . registration . Cambridge, Mass. . MIT Press . 322 . 9780262661249 . September 30, 2014 . 9452268M . 539676227 . librarything 827088. goodreads 567279 . 2001031276.
  23. Web site: Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States . Scott . Eugenie C. . February 13, 2001 . ncse.com . . September 30, 2014.
  24. Web site: FAQs IDEA Club, University of Texas, Dallas . Wilston . Nkangoh . May 19, 2005 . utdallas.edu . IDEA Club . https://web.archive.org/web/20120205175824/http://www.utdallas.edu/orgs/idea/faqs.htm . February 5, 2012.
  25. Web site: Whether Intelligent Design is Science . Behe . Michael J. . 2006 . discovery.org . Discovery Institute . September 30, 2014 . 2 . Seattle, WA.
  26. Wikipedia. List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.
  27. [Text in [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 83 of 139|wikisource]]]
  28. Web site: AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory . AAAS Board of Directors . October 18, 2002 . aaas.org . American Association for the Advancement of Science . https://web.archive.org/web/20021113213410/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml . November 13, 2002. [The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID].
  29. Web site: Intelligent design is not science - Scientists and teachers speak out . UNSW . October 20, 2005 . unsw.edu.au . . Sydney, Australia . https://web.archive.org/web/20110410005235/http://www2.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html . April 10, 2011 . A coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers has called on all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory..
  30. Web site: Voices for evolution. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism . NCSE . ncse.com . National Center for Science Education . September 30, 2014.
  31. Web site: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories . Meyer . Stephen C. . December 1, 2002 . discovery.org . Ignatius Press . September 30, 2014.
  32. [Text in [[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 88 of 139|wikisource]]]
  33. Web site: Creationists Open a New Front . Applegate . David . July 2000 . agiweb.org/geotimes . American Geological Institute . September 30, 2014.
  34. Web site: Intelligent Design Advocates Seem Unserious And Insincere . McCarthy . John . November 5, 2005 . stanford.edu . Department of Computer Science, Stanford University . https://web.archive.org/web/20051121145014/http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/commentary.html . November 21, 2005.
  35. Web site: From Darwin to Hitler . Discovery Institute.
  36. Web site: Nota Bene July . July 27, 2004 . Discovery Institute . https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033334/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=2191 . September 30, 2007.
  37. Web site: Design Is Not Enough! . Morris . Henry M. . Henry M. Morris . . September 30, 2014.
  38. Web site: Some Baptists Supporting Government-Run Schools . Ray . Brian D. . April 25, 2006 . National Home Education Research Institute . https://web.archive.org/web/20120205212616/http://www.nheri.org/content/view/195/71/ . February 5, 2012.
  39. Web site: A Baptist Pastoral Letter Supporting Public Education . Baptist Center for Ethics . April 21, 2006 . https://web.archive.org/web/20060810140618/http://www.ethicsdaily.com/static.cfm?mode=public_education_letter . August 10, 2006.
  40. Web site: Design Yes, Intelligent No: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism . Pigliucci . Massimo . Massimo Pigliucci . September 2001 . csicop.org . Skeptical Inquirer . September 30, 2014.
  41. Creationists and the Pope's Statement. Eugenie C. Scott. Eugenie Scott. Quarterly Review of Biology. 72. 4. December 1997. 403. 10.1086/419952. 85003487. 2007-10-14. Phrases like "intelligent design theory," "abrupt appearance theory," "evidence against evolution," and the like, have sprung up, although the content of many of the arguments is familiar. This view can be called "neocreationism." ... Neocreationists are by no means identical to their predecessors, however.... Neither biblical creationists nor theistic evolutionists.... Most of them are "progressive creationists.". subscription.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Neo-creationism".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.