Neo-creationism
Part of a series on | ||||
Creationism | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
History | ||||
Types | ||||
Biblical cosmology | ||||
|
||||
Creation science | ||||
|
||||
Rejection of evolution by religious groups | ||||
Religious views | ||||
|
||||
Part of a series on |
Intelligent design |
---|
Concepts |
Movement |
Campaigns |
|
Authors |
Organisations |
|
Reactions |
|
Creationism |
Neo-creationism is a
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
Motivations
The neo-creationist movement is motivated by the fear that religion is under attack by the study of evolution.
Tactics
Much of the effort of neo-creationists in response to science consists of
Robert T. Pennock argues that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The 'scientific' claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists.... According to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit."[23]
Neo-creationists generally reject the term "neo-creation", alleging it is a pejorative term.
Criticism
All of the following names make explicit the connections between traditional creationism, neo-creationism and
- ISBN 0-19-515742-7)
- John Haught
- ISBN 0-465-04675-4)
- Massimo Pigliucci[42]
- Eugenie C. Scott[43]
- Robert T. Pennock
See also
- Creation–evolution controversy
- Creation myth
- Creation science
- Intelligent design movement
- Social implications of the theory of evolution
- Theistic realism
References
- ^ a b Morris, Henry M. "Neocreationism". icr.org. Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
- ^ Safire, William (August 21, 2005). "On Language: Neo-Creo". The New York Times. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
- ^ . Retrieved 2009-11-12.
- ^ Johnson, Phillip E. (October 2004). "Darwinism is Materialist Mythology, Not Science" (PDF). DarwinReconsidered.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 25, 2011. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
- New York Times. Section 4, Page 1, Column 1. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
- ^ Pigliucci, Massimo (September 2001). "Design Yes, Intelligent No". Skeptical Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2009-04-02. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
- ISBN 0-8407-6848-6.
- ^
ISBN 9780520246508. Retrieved May 25, 2015.
Lawyer Wendell Bird [...] proposed a new 'scientific alternative' to evolution [...]. His view, which he dubbed 'Abrupt Appearance Theory,' was, however, indistinguishable in content from Creation Science. [...] The phrase 'abrupt appearance' was part of the definition of Creation Science in literature presented by the creationist side in the Edwards v. Aguillard case. Bird reworked his brief for the Edwards case into The Origin of Species Revisited, published in 1987. [...] Although mammoth in its scope [...], The Origin of Species Revisited is rarely cited today in creationist literature. it was, and remains, ignored in the scientific literature, and after the mid-1990s virtually disappeared from the political realm as well. it has been supplanted by another 'alternative to evolution' that was evolving parallel to it.
- OL 8238567M.
- ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, p. 136,
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
[Text in wikisource] - ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, p. 30,
Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. (11:8–15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32–34, Sept. 28, 2005).
[Text in wikisource] - ^ Martin, Allie; Parker, Jenni (August 25, 2006). "TV Producer Defends Documentary Exposing Darwin-Hitler Link". agapepress.org. Archived from the original on February 12, 2009.
- ^ Handley, Paul (March 7, 2005). "Scientists battle over anti-Darwin 'Intelligent design' theory". timesofoman.com. Times of Oman. Archived from the original on March 10, 2005. Retrieved March 10, 2005.
- ^ a b Discovery Institute (1998). "The Wedge Document". ncse.com. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
- ^ Weikart, Richard (March 1, 2004). "Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life?". discovery.org. The Human Life Review. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
- ^ a b Richards, Jay W. (July 25, 1999). "Intelligent Design Theory". discovery.org. IntellectualCapital.com. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
- Coral Ridge Ministries. Archived from the original(Television documentary) on August 29, 2006.
- OCLC 36621960.
- ^ Orr, H. Allen (May 23, 2005). "Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't". The New Yorker. Annals of Science. No. 2005–05–30. Archived from the original on May 29, 2005.
- PMID 16670753
- ^ Hurd, Gary (May 4, 2005). "Back to the Quote Mines". pandasthumb.org. Archived from the original on August 9, 2015. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
- OCLC 50913078.
- OL 9452268M. librarything 827088. goodreads 567279. Retrieved September 30, 2014.)
{{cite book}}
:|first=
has generic name (help - ^ Scott, Eugenie C. (February 13, 2001). "Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States". ncse.com. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
- ^ Nkangoh, Wilston (May 19, 2005). "FAQs IDEA Club, University of Texas, Dallas". utdallas.edu. IDEA Club. Archived from the original on February 5, 2012.
- ^ Behe, Michael J. (2006). "Whether Intelligent Design is Science". discovery.org. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. p. 2. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
- List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.
- ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, p. 83 [Text in wikisource]
- ^ AAAS Board of Directors (October 18, 2002). "AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory". aaas.org. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archived from the original on November 13, 2002. [The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID].
- The University of New South Wales. Archived from the originalon 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.
- ^ NCSE. "Voices for evolution. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism". ncse.com. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
- ^ Meyer, Stephen C. (December 1, 2002). "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories". discovery.org. Ignatius Press. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
- ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, p. 88,
.
[Text in wikisource] - ^ Applegate, David (July 2000). "Creationists Open a New Front". agiweb.org/geotimes. American Geological Institute. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
- ^ McCarthy, John (November 5, 2005). "Intelligent Design Advocates Seem Unserious And Insincere". stanford.edu. Department of Computer Science, Stanford University. Archived from the original on November 21, 2005.
- ^ Discovery Institute (1998), The Wedge Strategy (PDF), retrieved September 30, 2014
- ^ Discovery Institute. "From Darwin to Hitler".
- ^ Discovery Institute (July 27, 2004). "Nota Bene July". Archived from the original on September 30, 2007.
- ^ Morris, Henry M. "Design Is Not Enough!". Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
- ^ Ray, Brian D. (April 25, 2006). "Some Baptists Supporting Government-Run Schools". National Home Education Research Institute. Archived from the original on February 5, 2012.
- ^ Baptist Center for Ethics (April 21, 2006). "A Baptist Pastoral Letter Supporting Public Education". Archived from the original on August 10, 2006.
- ^ Pigliucci, Massimo (September 2001). "Design Yes, Intelligent No: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism". csicop.org. Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved September 30, 2014.
- S2CID 85003487. Retrieved 2007-10-14.
Phrases like "intelligent design theory," "abrupt appearance theory," "evidence against evolution," and the like, have sprung up, although the content of many of the arguments is familiar. This view can be called "neocreationism." ... Neocreationists are by no means identical to their predecessors, however.... Neither biblical creationists nor theistic evolutionists.... Most of them are "progressive creationists."
External links
- Neo-Creo New York Times By William Safire