Notes to General Prologue

The fonts handbags replica engraved on the gucci replica handbags bag are very hermes replica handbags. Most of the Louis Vitton products are engraved with replica handbags or “Made in Spain” or even hermes replica .

1 Darwin 1859. Almost two years before Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published, the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace had arrived independently at the concept of natural selection. He sent Darwin an essay on the subject ("On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type"), asking if Darwin might bring it to the attention of the geologist Charles Lyell. This put Darwin, who had worked many years on his own theory without publishing, in an awkward bind. Darwin consulted with Lyell and botanist Joseph Hooker, friends who arranged for Wallace's essay and some unpublished writing by Darwin to be jointly presented to a meeting of the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858. On the Origin of Species, a shortened version of the book Darwin had long been working on, was published in November 1859.

On Darwin's life and work, see Browne 1996 and 2002 (two-volume biography); Quammen 2006; Eldredge 2005; Desmond and Moore 1994; Bowler 1996; Mayr 1991. Darwin's On the Origin of Species is online at On Wallace, see Raby 2002. For good general books on evolution, see Zimmer 2001 (companion volume to the 8-hour PBS series "Evolution"), Mayr 2001, Gould 2002, and Ruse 2001. For a history of the theory, from the 18th century to the modern creationist movement, see Larson 2004. For a good encyclopedia of evolution, see Pagel 2002. For an excellent book on the creation/evolution conflict, see Scott 2004. See also Witham 2002.

2 Quoted in Mayr 1964, xv. See "Darwin's Bulldog" Thomas Henry Huxley, and Desmond 1997.

3 The title of the late Christian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky's 1973 article in American Biology Teacher has become an oft-quoted line: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) describes evolutionary biology as "a cornerstone of modern science," and states that creationists "begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter--that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems--rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations" (NAS 2008, xi, 43).

4 "The laws governing inheritance," wrote Darwin (1859, 13), "are quite unknown." The science of genetics was founded by the Moravian priest Gregor Mendel, though his work was largely ignored till the year 1900, sixteen years after his death. (See Tudge 2001; Henig 2000; and Roger B. Blumberg's MendelWeb.)

Between 1936 and 1950, Darwin's concept of natural selection was merged with the new understanding of heredity through the work of several naturalists and geneticists, producing a consensus that Julian Huxley (1942) termed the "modern" or "evolutionary synthesis." Among the main architects of this synthesis were geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1937), biologist Ernst Mayr (1942, 2004, Coyne 2005a), paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson (1944), and biologist G. Ledyard Stebbins (1950). Important works prior to 1936 were published by Ronald A. Fisher (1930), J. B. S. Haldane (1932), and Sewall Wright (1931). See Mayr 1991, 132-140. On the Web, see Laurence Moran's "The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution."

5 A major question debated by modern theorists is which is more important, natural selection or genetic drift (random changes in gene frequencies), in the evolution of new species. Recent studies indicate that natural selection is more important than drift in molecular evolution (Smith and Eyre-Walker 2002; Fay et al. 2002; Pennisi 2000a; ScienceDaily). (On genetic drift, see "The Biochemist's Tale," 150-161 and Moran 1993-1997b.)

6 From Darwin 1859, 457-458: "The innumerable species, genera, and families of organic beings, with which this world is peopled, have all descended, each within its own class or group, from common parents, and have all been modified in the course of descent." See Cracraft and Donoghue 2004; The Tree of Life Home Page; "The Biochemist's Tale," note 39; and Pennisi 2003d.

7 See note 21.

8 Ackerman 1986; Aarsdma 1988, iv; H. Morris 1978, 91; J. Morris 1994b and 1995a. The leaders of the "creation science" movement are Christian fundamentalists, biblical literalists who espouse young-Earth creationism (YEC). The YECs (called also Biblical creationists or BCs) base their estimate of the Earth's age on biblical genealogies and flood geology. Many creationists, however, are in the old-Earth creationism (OEC) camp, accepting an ancient age for the Earth by subscribing to the gap theory, the day-age theory, progressive creationism, or intelligent design.

The gap theory, made popular among conservative Christians by the Scofield Reference Bible, assumes an indefinite gap between the first two verses of Genesis, with the original Earth (Gen. 1:1) somehow meeting with ruin--becoming "without form and void" (l:2)--followed by the six-day creation (see McIver 1988b). Young-Earth creationists reject the gap theory as unbiblical and unscientific (H. Morris 1997d; 1978, 87; 1984a, 58-59; 1985, 231-243). The YECs also reject the day-age theory ("even worse" [H. Morris 1997d]), according to which the Genesis "days" of creation refer to ages rather than twenty-four-hour periods (H. Morris 1985, 221-230; 1995b, 4; J. Morris 1995a and 1995d). YECs also object to progressive creationism, according to which species or "kinds" were created sequentially over millions of years ("a bumbling sort of god" [H. Morris 1984a, 115; see also Whitcomb 2003]). The creationist intelligent design (ID) movement has come under YEC criticism for its lack of explicit appeal to scripture (see note 15 below and "The Biologist's Tale," note 27).

The percentage of adults in America who reject evolution is higher than in any western European country (Miller et al. 2006). A 2006 Gallup poll showed that 46 percent of Americans believe that humans were created in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so; 36 percent believe humans evolved over millions of years with God's guidance, while 13 percent believe humans evolved with God playing no part (Spencer 2006). On the "creation/evolution continuum" or range of beliefs, from the Flat Earth Society to materialist evolutionism, see Scott 1999.

9 H. Morris 1963, 77; 1989, 260. Creationist leader Henry M. Morris (see note 21), who died in 2006, and was called "the Darwin of the creationist movement" (Numbers 1992, 287), considered the theory of evolution to be not only "false and absurd scientifically" (1982b, 184) but "the anti-God conspiracy of Satan himself" (1970, 71; see also "The Scholar's Tale," note 37). Kurt Wise (2002), a YEC with a Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard, where he studied under famed evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, has called evolution "a very good theory" (Mayshark 1998), but one that he will never accept. "If all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it," Wise has stated, "but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand" (Rosin 2007).

10 I am not aware of a "Back to Genesis" Seminar actually being held at Bryan College. Such young-Earth creationist (YEC) seminars have been regularly presented around the country by the Institute for Creation Research (see note 21). Bryan College hosted creationist conferences in 1989 and 1998, and in 2001 helped fund a conference at Ohio's Cedarville University called "Discontinuity: Understanding Biology in the Light of Creation," with discontinuity defined as the principle that life, contrary to Darwin's theory of common descent with modification, "does not show a continuous evolutionary line" (emphasis in original) (Acts & Facts 30[10]:10; see note 6 above and "The Biochemist's Tale," note 39).

11 The grandiloquent William Jennings Bryan helped lead a fundamentalist movement in the 1920s to promote state laws against teaching evolution in public schools. ("Organized knowledge," wrote Maynard Shipley, "has come into open conflict with organized ignorance" [Marsden 1984, 95].) A former secretary of state and three-time presidential candidate, Bryan had been reduced to what H. L. Mencken called "a tinpot pope in the Coca-Cola belt" (Gould 1983, 277). Reporting on the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee (see notes 12 and 13), the acerbic Mencken wrote, "When (Bryan) deluges (these hillbillies) with his theologic bilge they rejoice like pilgrims disporting in the river Jordan."

12 In 1925, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offered to pay the expenses of anyone willing to test in court the constitutionality of Tennessee's Butler Act prohibiting the public school teaching of evolution. Dayton athletic coach and physics teacher John Scopes, who had briefly substituted for the high school's biology teacher, accepted the offer at the urging of some fellow Dayton citizens at Robinson's Drug Store--though Scopes couldn't remember if evolution had even been discussed in class (Cole 1983, 14; Gould 1983, 265).

13 Bryan not only assisted in the prosecution, he testified as an expert on the Bible. Defense attorney Clarence Darrow had a field day with Bryan's biblical literalism on the stand, resulting in international ridicule of Bryan (Mencken 1925b, 165; Cole 1983, 15; Marsden 1984, 95). On the Scopes trial, see Larson 1997; Peterson 2005; The Scopes "Monkey Trial"; and Mencken 1925a). The convicted Scopes was fined $100. His conviction was overturned because the fine was $50 too much. The Butler Act under which Scopes was convicted remained on the books until the late 1960s. (In 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Epperson v. Arkansas, ruled a similar antievolution law in Arkansas unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment prohibiting "the establishment of religion." See Larson 1989; Ecker 1990, 79.)

14 I take poetic license, as Robinson's Drug Store is no longer in business. The late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould enjoyed a Coke there in 1981 (1983, 266-267).

15 In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the public school teaching of "creation science" whenever evolution is taught had a "religious purpose," thus violating the First Amendment Establishment Clause (see Dorman 1996a; Larson 1989; Ecker 1990, 72-76; Eve and Harrold 1991, 151-154; Bennetta 1988b and 1988c). With this court defeat, creationists turned to a community-level strategy of "education and persuasion" (ICR 1987, iii), including holding seminars and debates and pressuring teachers, school boards, and textbook selection committees (see Scott 1996). According to a survey conducted in 2005 by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), about one third of the more than 1,050 teachers participating said they felt pressured to include creationist concepts when teaching evolution. 31 percent felt pressured by either students or parents, while only 5 percent felt pressured by school administrators or officials. "Something is not right when science educators feel pressure to teach a variety of religious or non-science viewpoints," said NSTA executive director Gerry Wheeler. "It's not fair to our students to give them anything less than good science" (UPI 3/24/05).

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) continues to argue that "creation science" can be legally taught in public schools as long as it is not in a religious context. "We would attempt to present to young people in our tax-supported public schools a non-Biblical origins model," says Frank Sherwin, "alongside the questionable science of evolutionism" (Sherwin 2003). The ICR advertises Duane Gish's book Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools as a "great gift for school board members." (For the public school view of Answers in Genesis, the other leading young-Earth creationist organization in America, see Ham 2002.) This is now a hard sell, however, due to Edwards, and has been overshadowed by the intelligent design (ID) movement (called also by its critics "neocreationism"), a creationist strategy, born after Edwards, that avoids the c-word by trying to get "intelligent design theory" discussed in public school science classes (see "The Biologist's Tale," note 27; Scott 1997a; H. Morris 1998; Pennock 1999 and 2001. Euphemisms previously used by creationists include "abrupt appearance theory" and "evidences against evolution" [Matsumura 1999]). The Seattle-based Discovery Institute has become the ID movement's bellwether organization (see note 21 below, and "The Biologist's Tale," note 27).

Since it is rather hard to separate intelligent design from a deity or religion, in public school it is safer constitutionally for creationists to talk about "critical analysis of evolution" instead. ID proponents therefore use a "teach the controversy" approach to getting ID into the public school classroom (Meyer and Campbell 2005; Mooney 2002), even though the only controversy among mainstream scientists about evolution relates to its mechanisms, not whether or not it occurs. "The 'controversy' (creationists) claim to be discussing," notes philosophy professor Barbara Forrest, "is one they manufactured, not a genuine scientific controversy" (quoted in Rosenfeld 2002). Columnist Charles Krauthammer (2005) of the New York Times has summed up ID as "phony theory, false conflict." As another Times columnist, Paul Krugman (2005), has perceptively stated, ID "doesn?t have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory."

By 2005 this manufactured controversy or confusion had spread among state and local school boards across America. Kansas was particularly in the news, having first drawn attention in 1999 when the state board of education eliminated evolution--and the Big Bang too--from the state?s required science curriculum. Moderates gained control of the board in 2001 and voted 7-3 for new science standards that emphasized evolution and once again included the Big Bang theory (Beem 2001). But conservatives regained a majority on the board with the 2004 elections, and proposed another standards revision including a change in the definition of science (from natural explanations for what is observed in the world, to "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is sought [Hanna 2005]).

A three-member committee of the Kansas school board held hearings on evolution in May 2005 that drew comparisons to the 1925 Scopes Trial. Mainstream scientists boycotted the hearings, which were led by John Calvert, director of the Kansas office of the Intelligent Design Network, and were described in Wichita Eagle editorials (3/30/05, 4/12/05) as an "anti-science crusade," a "waste of time and money," and "a train wreck for the state?s image."

After the hearings, committee member Connie Morris sent a taxpayer-funded newsletter to constituents calling evolution an "age-old fairy tale" that was defended with "anti-God contempt and arrogance." Describing herself as a Christian who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis, Morris wrote that evolution was "biologically, genetically, mathematically, chemically, metaphysically and etc. wildly and utterly impossible" (Klepper 2005).

The Kansas board voted 6-4 in November 2005 for new science standards with greater criticism of evolution (AP 11/8/05). But in elections a year later, moderates regained a majority on the board, which voted 6-4 in February 2007 for new standards supporting evolution (Hanna 2007).

Other states in which education disputes over evolution arose in 2002 or later, as the ID movement gathered steam, included California, Georgia, Maryland, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. President George W. Bush weighed in by telling reporters in August 2005 that "both sides" should be taught "so people can understand what the debate is about" (Baker and Slevin 2005). A July 2005 poll showed that 64 percent of Americans believed that creationism should be taught in addition to evolution, and 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism (Goodstein 2005).

In Georgia in 2005, a federal judge ruled in Selman v. Cobb County that disclaimer stickers used on biology textbooks in Cobb County (almost identical stickers are used in Alabama), labeling evolution as "a theory, not a fact," were unconstitutional, the school board having sided with "religiously motivated individuals" (AP 1/13/05). The school board appealed, but settled in December 2006 by agreeing never to use a similar sticker or to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes (AP 12/20/06).

In October 2004, the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania became the first district in the U.S. to require the teaching of ID (in this case the reading of a statement by teachers to students) in biology classes. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and attorneys with the law firm Pepper Hamilton filed a lawsuit against the school board (Kitzmiller v. Dover) on behalf of eleven parents (eight families), contending that ID is "an inherently religious argument" (AP 12/15/04). "The members of this school board have made their own religious beliefs part of the high school's science curriculum," said attorney Eric Rothschild. "This policy is not only unconstitutional, it is bad science" (ACLU 2006).

The school district was represented free of charge by the Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based Christian law firm that bills itself as "the Sword and Shield for People of Faith" (Kaufman 2005a). On the controversy and international media attention, the York Daily Record editorialized that "Dover's board members have only succeeded in dividing our community and turning it into a laughingstock" (9/25/05). Even the ID movement's Discovery Institute, which advocates "teaching the controversy" about evolutionary theory rather than mandating ID instruction in public school, has criticized the Dover board's policy. "They really did it on their own," said Discovery Institute spokesman John West, "and that's unfortunate" (Kaufman 2005a). At the same time, the institute said in a statement, "Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU's effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal" (A. Johnson 2005). (For a law review article on ID and the Constitution, see Brauer, Forrest, and Gey 2005.)

The federal trial began in Harrisburg in September 2005 and concluded with closing arguments on November 4. Four days later, all eight of the Dover school board members who were up for reelection were voted out of office. One of the ousted members opined, "I think voters were tired of the trial" (Buncombe 2005). Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson told the citizens of Dover, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city." Robertson said if they have future problems in Dover, "I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them" (AP 11/10/05).

On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III issued his 139-page ruling (pdf file), calling the ID statement required by the Dover school board unconstitutional as being a religious viewpoint advancing "a particular version of Christianity." He said ID is not science but a "relabeling of creationism," and accused the school board of "breathtaking inanity" in dragging the community "into this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." Jones also accused board members of lying under oath about their religious motivations. Jones's ruling, which the new board voted not to appeal, plus the one million dollars in legal costs that the board in February 2006 agreed to pay to the plaintiffs' attorneys, was expected to have a deterrent effect on other school boards and teachers considering teaching ID. But Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, the Christian law firm that represented the defendents pro bono, said that the movement would not be squelched. "There is more discussion about intelligent design now," he said, "than there ever has been" (Kauffman 2006).

In January 2006, a federal lawsuit was filed against the El Tejon Unified School District in California over a philosophy course on ID, taught by a special-education teacher who was also a minister's wife, using young-Earth creationist materials. The suit, which said the course "was designed to advance religious theories on the origins of life, including creationism and its offshoot, 'intelligent design'," was settled within days when the school agreed to stop teaching the course and promised not to teach it again. A spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which filed the suit on behalf of 11 parents, said, "This course was far from intelligently designed" (Simmons 2006).

In Ohio, the state board of education voted 11-4 in February 2006 to remove from the state's science standards a "critical analysis of evolution" lesson plan that had been considered a leading model of the ID movement's "teach the controvery" approach to evolution. The Discovery Institute's John West called the removal vote an effort "to use the government to suppress ideas you dislike," and "an outrageous slap in the face to the citizens of Ohio" (Rudoren 2006). But Eric Rothschild, the lead attorney for the Dover case plaintiffs, declared in Ohio before the board's vote, "When you see 'critical analysis of evolution,' you really need to look at what's behind that. Who? Why?" Rothschild asked, "Why is there this need for critical analysis of evolution? Why is there no call for critical analysis of plate tectonics?" (Candisky 2006). Martha W. Wise, the board member who proposed the removal motion, said, "It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about the nature of science," and another board member who voted for removal cited the "Dover risk" (meaning the risk of a lawsuit) if the critical analysis lesson plan were allowed to remain in the standards. (Rudoren 2006).

In South Carolina, a new state biology standard was approved in June 2006 that adds the phrase "critically analyze" to guidelines for teaching evolution (Robinson 2006). The same thing had been done in New Mexico in 2003, and similar language was adopted in Minnesota's science standards in 2004 (Discovery Institute 5/17/04). The Discovery Institute has denied the claim that "critical analysis of evolution" is a "guise" for teaching ID, since one can "critique evolution" without discussing "alternative explanations" (Truth Sheet #02-06). Another creationist term that has come into use in the public school curriculum debate is the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory.

In Mississippi, a law was passed in April 2006 stating that no public school teacher shall be prohibited from discussing and answering questions from students on the origin of life (Coffey 2006).

In June 2008, Louisiana, 21 years after its defeat in Edwards v. Aguillard, passed a law allowing local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes when discussing evolution. Though a clause states the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine," a New York Times editorial called the law "Trojan horse legislation" (Barrow 20008).

In 2009, the Texas state board of education adopted state science standards including language, such as the requirement that students examine "all sides of scientific evidence," that opens the way to presentation of creationist claims. Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education (see note 24 below) called the state standards "a triumph of ideology and politics over science." Because of the size of the Texas textbook market (second only to California), the Texas standards could cause treatment of evolution to be diluted in public school biology textbooks all over the country, unless publishers wish to publish two versions. John Holdren, the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology, said of the Texas standards, "We need to be giving our kids a modern education in biology, and the underpinning of modern biology is evolution. And countervailing views that are not really science, if they are taught at all, should be taught in some other part of the curriculum" (Branch 2009).

Outside the U.S., notable disputes over including creationism in science education have arisen in Brazil (Matzke 2004), Holland (Enserink 2005), Italy (Saylor 2004), and Serbia (Reuters 9/7/04, 9/9/04, 9/16/04). On teaching evolution in Mexico, see Lazcano 2005. In England, a new syllabus for biology in mainstream secondary schools beginning in September 2006 caused controversy by asking teachers to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)." James Williams of Sussex University's school of education warned, "This opens a legitimate gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science classes as if they were legitimate theories" (Halpin 2006). The examination board responded to the concern by saying that only a creationist interpretation of the fossil record prior to or contemporary with Darwin would be explained, so that students will "understand the fundamental departure of Darwin's work from the religious norms of his time" (Ekklesia, 5/24/06). In December 2006, the English government told schools that ID materials furnished by the privately funded group Truth in Science should not be used in science lessons (Randerson 2006).

In June 2006, 67 of the world's national science academies issued a joint statement supporting the teaching of evolution, and pointing out that "in certain public systems of education" the scientific evidence for evolution is being "concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science" (InterAcademy Panel, 6/21/06).

For more on ID, see "The Astronomer's Tale," note 31, and "The Biologist's Tale," 213-230 and notes.

16 See "The Cosmologist's Tale," lines 373-395.

17 Guth 1997a. See "The Cosmologist's Tale," lines 361-369.

18 See "Epilogue to the Philosopher's Tale."

19 See "The Philosopher's Tale," note 1.

20 See "The Scholar's Tale," note 7.

21 The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has moved its headquarters from Santee, California, to Dallas, Texas. The ICR has been the flagship organization of the modern American creationist movement. Founded by Baptist fundamentalist Henry M. Morris (Ph.D in hydraulic engineering), the ICR promotes young-Earth creationism (YEC), which it presents as "creation science" (H. Morris and Parker 1987) or "scientific creationism" (H. Morris 1985; for more on Morris, see note 9 above). The ICR participates in conferences, seminars, and other events, and offers a Master of Christian Education degree through its School of Biblical Apologetics. Its publications include the newsletter Acts & Facts and materials for teaching YEC in schools as "science" without any reference to the Bible or religion. Such efforts in public schools have been consistently thwarted by the courts as having a religious intent (see note 15 above). Indeed the ICR's stated principal mission is openly religious: the ICR describes itself "first and foremost" as "a Christian ministry" (J. Morris 1995c), with the focus being on "education," as called for, first, by the "dominion mandate" (Genesis 1:26-28), requiring "scientific research" and "transmission of the accumulating information about God's creation to all succeeding generations," and, secondly, by the "Missionary Mandate" or "Great Commission" for "teaching about God's redemptive work. . . . All true education therefore should be carried out in the context of both creation and redemption, Christ being Author of both mandates" (H. Morris 2005b).

Henry Morris retired from the ICR presidency in 1996, succeeded by his son John D. Morris (Ph.D. in geological engineering), and died in 2006 at age 87 (Schudel 2006). John Morris believes as his father did that the Earth "is only a few thousand years old" (J. Morris 1995b). "Evolution and creation can't really co-exist," he says, "because creation deals with truth and evolution is a lie" (2001b). In years past John Morris led ICR-sponsored expeditions to Mount Ararat in search of Noah's ark (see Ecker 1990, 30, 118, and "The Biochemist's Tale," note 14).

Answers in Genesis (AiG) now rivals, if it has not surpassed, the ICR in importance among YEC organizations. Headed by Ken Ham, AiG holds conferences and other events, opened its $27 million Creation Museum in 2007, and publishes Creation ANSWERS magazine. "The Lord gave me a fire in my bones," Ham says. "The Lord has put this burden in my heart: 'You've got to get this information out'" (AP 5/22/05). In July 2005, AiG co-sponsored the first annual Creation Mega Conference at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, with dozens of public-school teachers among the more than 1,000 attendees (Reany 2005). In 2006 there was a split between Ham's AiG (headquartered in Kentucky) and AiG branches in Australia (headed by Carl Wieland, founder and editor of Creation magazine), Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, with these former branches renamed Creation Ministries International.

Other American creationist organizations include the Creation Research Society (CRS), cofounded by Henry Morris in 1963, and the Center for Scientific Creation (CSC, an offshoot of the ICR) led by Dr. Walter Brown (Ph.D. in mechanical engineering). The Creation-Science Research Center (CSRC), whose purpose is "protect the faith of Christian children from illegal offense against their faith in the God of Creation," is headed by Kelly L. Segraves; its website describes Darwin as "a lost soul ruled by satanic power." (Segraves, for those curious about extraterrestrial intelligence, has stated that UFOs are piloted by "fallen angels and followers of Satan" [1975]. For more on creationists and UFOs, see "The Astronomer's Tale," note 2.)

Reasons to Believe (RTB) is a maverick among American "scientific" creationist organizations in that its founder Hugh Ross (an astronomer) does not preach a young Earth (see Ross 2004 and 1995; for YEC critiques on Ross's "progressive creationism" [see note 8 above], see Sarfati 2004, H. Morris 2004a, and Ham 2004).

The leading intelligent design (ID) organization is the Discovery Institute, with its Center for Science and Culture, in Seattle, Washington. (On the ID movement, see note 15 above; "The Astronomer's Tale," note 31; and "The Biologist's Tale," 217-232, notes 27-28.) The ID-oriented Access Research Network (ARN), formerly Students for Origins Research (SOR), publishes Origins and Design, a quarterly edited by Paul Nelson.

The Creation Science Fellowship (CSF) in Pittsburgh sponsors the quadrennial International Conference on Creationism (ICC) (see Schadewald 1998).

In England, the Creation Science Movement (CSM), founded in 1932 as the Evolution Protest Movement, is "the oldest creation science organization in the world" (Acts & Facts 26[9]:2). In Korea, the Korean Association of Creation Research was founded in 1981 (Hyon 1996), and organizations in Russia include the Society for Creation Science (Lalomov 2001), the Moscow Creation Society, and the St. Petersburg Bible Science Association (Doughy 1997). In Brazil, the Brazilian Creationist Society is headed by Seventh-Day Adventist Ruy Vieira, and the Brazilian Association for Creation Research had several visits from ICR vice president Duane Gish before Gish's retirement (Matzke 2004).

In the 1990s the ICR helped an Islamic fundamentalist group called the Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (BAV), which translates as "Science Research Foundation," launch a creation movement in Turkey (Acts & Facts 27[9]; Shapiro 1999.) In response the Turkish Academy of Sciences [TAS] announced that "certain interests are continuing a war against the secular system and free and modern education." TAS stated that "the theory of evolution, which they want to remove from textbooks, casts light on many problems associated with life, and has found very wide acceptance in the world of science" (Cumhuriyet 9/22/98). BAV was nonetheless considered by 2001 to be "one of the world's strongest antievolution movements outside of North America" and "making inroads in other Muslim nations" (Koenig 2001; see Heneghan 2006 and Masood 2006). BAV has used ICR material in translation, although the Koran gives no time frame for creation, so Islamic creationism is not necessarily young-Earth (Koening 2001; see also Edis 1999 and Sayin and Kence 1999). BAV's leader Adnan Oktar, also known as Adnan Hoca, has published more than 200 antievolution books (e.g., The Atlas of Creation), often distributed free, under the pen name Harun Yahya, which may be a pool of writers (Heneghan 2006; Dean 2007). In May 2008, Oktar was sentenced to three years in prison for "creating an illegal organization for personal gain" (Grove 2008).

22 H. Morris 1999c; Ham 1991b.

23 H. Morris 1985, 117-120. See also "The Astronomer's Tale," note 23, and "The Physicist's Tale," note 27. For discussion of Noah's flood, see "The Biochemist's Tale" (on "kinds") and "The Geologist's Tale," lines 87-153.

24 H. Morris 1989; Phillips 1998. The ICR's concept of two opposing world views (creation vs. evolution) is discussed in "The Philosopher's Tale," lines 58-105.

Creationism's leading foe in this "war" is the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), based in Oakland, California. (See Blakeslee 1999). The NCSE is a clearinghouse for information and advice in defending the teaching of evolution against creationist attacks. The real conflict, says physical anthropologist and NCSE executive director Eugenie C. Scott, is "not between religion and science," but "between biblical literalists and nonliteralists." We should therefore "preserve the middle ground." Given that most Americans are at least nominally Christian, we can aim for one of two possibilities: "a religious population that accepts evolution or a religious population that rejects it" (Scott 1996). The NCSE also plays a leading role in opposition to the neocreationist ID movement (see note 15 above). On how evolution and belief in God can coexist, see "The Astronomer's Tale," note 31; "The Scholar's Tale"; Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub's "God and Evolution"; Gingerich 2006; Roughgarden 2006; Easterbrook 2002; Haught 1999; Miller 1999; and Ruse 2000. On the religious views of the physicist Albert Einstein, see Jammer 2002.

25 Gish 1995a, 50; H. Morris 1976, 39-41; 1984a, 269; Slusher 1981. See "The Physicist's Tale," lines 237-285.

26 H. Morris 1985, 38-46; 1987, 4-5, 204-205. See "The Physicist's Tale," lines 105-218.

27 Gish 1995a, 66-67, 333-353; H. Morris 1997, c; 1976, 51-53; 1977, 29-32; H. Morris and Parker 1987, 2, 11, 225. The Paleoanthropologist (lines 48-170) and the Paleontologist deal with transitional forms. See also Kathleen Hunt's Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. For an extensive treatment of standard creationist arguments, see Mark I. Vuletic's Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism. For reviews of Michael Denton's 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, see Vuletic 1996-1997 and Spieth 1987. For replies to the claims by creationist biologist Jonathan Wells (in his 2000 book Icons of Evolution) that evolutionists misrepresent evidence, see Icons of Anti-Evolution, Icons of Evolution FAQs, Padian and Gishlick 2002, and Scott 2001. (Wells, a member of Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, has stated that he has devoted his life to "destroying Darwinism" [Wells webpage].)

28 On the intelligent design (ID) movement, see note 15 above, and "The Biologist's Tale," 217-232, notes 27-28.

29 British philosopher David Hume debunked the argument from design in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779). See "The Philosopher's Tale," lines 153-209.

Top | Back to GP | Astronomer | Contents | Bibliography | Index | Home