Creation science
|
|
Creation_vs_evolution_debate.jpg
Creation science (or CS) is described by its proponents as a scientific effort to study the Earth, life, and the universe from the perspective of Abrahamic creationism. It is primarily concerned with issues such as the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, evolution, a global flood and the origin of humanity. Its proponents are found primarily among various denominations of Christianity who describe themselves generally as evangelical, conservative or fundamentalist Christians. However, not all Christians subscribe to creation science, and not all Christians who subscribe to Creation science describe themselves as conservative or fundamentalist Christians. Most mainstream Christian churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran faiths have rejected "Creation Science" outright. Mainstream theology considers Genesis a poetic work as opposed to one to be taken literally.
Creationist movements also exist in the Baha'i faith, Islam, and Judaism, however these movements do not use the phrase creation science to describe their beliefs. The term creation science is used predominantly by American Christian groups (as described above) [1] (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_statc.htm) who are the proponents of the philosophy.
The vast majority of scientists consider 'creation science' to be pseudoscience and a misnomer. When the ideas encompassed by creation science are subjected to the scrutiny of scientific criticism or peer-review, they are found to lack scientific foundation, objective criticism of evidence, or scientific reasoning and method. Additionaly, the foundation of Creation Science does not fit the most common definition of science as it relies on scripture as a historically accurate or literally true a priori source. Refer to the section on scientific criticism of creation science.
Creation science relies heavily on the belief that scientists should permit positing supernatural events where naturalistic explanations are found to contradict scripture or are believed to be otherwise inadequate. Proponents take the view that Creation according to Genesis is historically accurate and/or inerrant and that the observable physical evidence is more fully consistent with the account of Genesis than with generally accepted theories of biological evolution and natural history. As such, they interpret physical evidence within the framework of a literal and historical interpretation of Creation according to Genesis and reject all mainstream scientific knowledge at odds with this view.
| Contents |
Philosophy and theology
Template:Creationism2 Creation science is described by its proponents as a synthesis of science and religion, as it attempts to draw on both sources in developing its theories. As such, it differs both from pure creationist theology and from the widely accepted philosophy of science which excludes supernatural claims. It shares many similarities with other pseudosciences which nominally use the guise or trappings of scientific jargon and terminology to mask what most skeptics consider to be a fundamental disconnect with the scientific method and the consensus work of the scientific community.
Developed along the lines of young earth creationist theology, creation science presumes the historical accuracy of creation according to Genesis. Most adherents to creation science believe it to be inerrant. Unlike creationist theology, creation science adopts some features of scientific language and criticism as a means to validate its claims about events in the past. For example, adherents to creation science refer often to supposed "scientific evidence" that they claim is consistent with the young Earth interpretation of Genesis. Oftentimes the interpretations of the evidence does not hold up to scrutiny and has been roundly criticized by those on the mainstream science side of the creation-evolution controversy. Unlike mainstream science creation science holds that the study of natural phenomena can reveal evidence of supernatural events and direct action by God.
"Operational science" and "Origins science"
In addition to allowing for supernatural events in history, creation science proponents also distinguish between what they call "operational science" and "origins science." Operational science, according to creation science advocates, involves the laws and phenomena of nature which are repeatable and testable through experiment; for instance, the laws of gravity, chemistry, and microevolution. However, advocates of creation science assert that issues of "origins science" are different from issues of "operational science," because they involve one-time events which cannot be observed or repeated, but can only be inferred from the evidence. Asserted examples of such issues in origins science are common ancestry, the age of the Earth, historical geology, and physical cosmology in which the ability of scientists to study the issues is limited by the available evidence, because the actual events cannot be observed first-hand. It is argued that in issues of "origins science," conclusions are much more tentative due to the unrepeatable nature of the events, that the conclusions are therefore much more subject to philosophical bias than in "operational science," and that "origins science" therefore admits multiple possible interpretations of the evidence.
The consistent basis for such a bifurcation of science is not clear. The nature of a scientific observation is the point of contention between advocates of creation science and those opposed to it. In mainstream science, all empirical evidence is given equal weight in the consideration of whether a hypothesis is falsified. The creation science proponent distinguishes between evidence in a fashion that is not generally accepted, in general discounting evidence that doesn't tend to support the ideas associated with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Radiometric dating is an often maligned by creation science advocates even though it is tied principally to observations which are repeatable and testable with experiment. "Operational science" would therefore be "any scientific theory that doesn't tend to contradict a creationist interpretation of Genesis" while "Origins science" would be "any scientific theory that does tend to contradict a creationist interpretation of Genesis".
Science and religion
Creation science has been considered by many to be "religion" placing itself in conflict with "science." According to this view, creation science is religious, rather than scientific, because it stems from the Bible, a "religious book." Acceptance of creation is thus "by faith," and not by the application of the scientific method. For example, the National Academy of Sciences wrote:
- "Religious opposition to evolution propels antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion."[2] (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4550_antievolutionism_and_creationi_2_13_2001.asp)
Alternatively, creationists attribute the conflict between the theories to varying philosophical presuppositions which, they argue, affect a scientist's interpretation of the evidence.
For example, David Bergman, a creationist physicist, attributes the conflict to two fundamentally different worldviews: on the one hand, atomism, which excludes supernatural action in the universe and holds that random events occur in nature; on the other hand, Creationism, which holds that the universe depends for its existence on God, and that the laws of nature are a result of his design and plan. Evolution, he argues, is merely a modern iteration of the ancient philosophy of Lucretius articulated in his work, On the Nature of Things. [3] (http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/conflict.pdf)
Under this creationist definition of science, creation science and mainstream science are both "sciences" which are grounded in opposing philosophies, so that the same methods and same evidence lead to opposite conclusions due to the underlying philosophical assumptions of the scientist. This argumentation is rejected as being a poor form of self justification by means of totally redefining science to fit creationists' own ends. Uniformitarianism, for example, is rejected by those supporting creation science by means of redefining science to include accomodations for other ideas about what could happen in the past because any scientific inference contrary to Genesis cannot be true.
Creation science is related to intelligent design which makes similar kinds of justification for its goals. The two ideas differ in that intelligent design proponents claim to not make any theological assumptions, they don't admit to considering Genesis to be an accurate scientific account of origins, nor do they necessarily oppose evolution (evolutionary creationism). Critics note that the intelligent design movement was started (by many of the same individuals previously campaigning for creationism) after attempts to get creation science in public classrooms met major opposition due to constitutional church-state separation issues in the United States.
Science and the supernatural
Creation science is closely linked to the issue of whether scientific endeavor permits the recognition of supernatural phenomena. The normal definition of supernatural events is anything not existing or observable in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws or not physical or material. Science, by necessity, is unable to consider such supernatural phenomena as evidence because a primary tenet of science is that nature, being widely observable, provides the only objective standard from which to evaluate evidence. By definition supernatural phenomena violate the natural laws, and are therefore inherently unfalsifiable and unscientific. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when supernatural claims produce observable results that can be studied scientifically they have been considered and studied [4] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10836918&dopt=Citation) [5] (http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/132/11/903).
Adherents to creation science and proponents of intelligent design hold a different position. According to Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski, the proper application of science permits positing supernatural events, because supernatural phenomena should not be seen as violating the laws of nature, but instead as events reflecting a deeper, more fundamental physical reality than that which we understand. For example, a person on an island who has never seen an airplane fly before may think the airplane is "supernatural," because it appears to him to be "magic." However, from the perspective of greater knowledge, the airplane is fully natural -- it simply operates according to laws of nature which are unknown to the man on the island. This effectively redefines the supernatural to account for the natural, and most scientists would consider such an adjustment to be inappropriate as do many fideists.
In the context of Genesis, creationists believe that Creation according to Genesis is a historically accurate account of the origins of the Earth, and that the physical evidence today is more consistent with that account than with the scientific theories of origins. The fact that the recorded events defy much of our current scientific knowledge is seen as an opportunity to explore and understand the spectacular events recorded in Genesis in order to expand our knowledge of science and history, rather than a reason to deny those events occurred at all. This type of reasoning flies in the face of falsification, trying to justify an account rather than looking for independent empirical evidence.
From the perspective of mainstream science there is no useful definition of 'supernatural.' In most definitions, anything having an effect on nature makes that something a part of nature itself, the same point made by William Dembski. It follows that any explanation for something we see in nature would be considered natural by definition. Since nothing truly supernatural could be observed the only way science could reach a supernatural explanation is to eliminate all natural explanations; but it is impossible to ever know that all possibilities have been eliminated. Even if scientists were to conclude that a supernatural explanation is correct, it would be impossible even in principle to distinguish between one supernatural explanation and another; thus determining the correct supernatural explanation among many is again impossible. It is primarily for this reason that science came to adopt naturalism as a cornerstone of the scientific method. The fact that there are many mutually exclusive supernatural claims with no credible method available to judge their veracity leads to the various faiths insisting that their supernatural explanation be taught as science to the exclusion of any other religious or scientific interpretations.
Creation science and parsimony
The mainstream scientific position is that where multiple explanations are available, each of which explains a phenomenon, scientists should prefer the theory which requires the fewest assumptions. This principle is known as Occam's razor, which suggests that new, more complicated principles or entities should not be posited if existing principles already provide an explanation.
Creation science is often criticized for positing supernatural forces or beings in order to explain events than can be explained without them. The position of mainstream science has been that evolution alone is sufficient to explain life and its appearance, and positing a supernatural creator is unnecessary.
A counterpoint to Occam's razor lies in Chatton's anti-razor, which suggests, "If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on". Karl Menger articulated a similar principle: "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more".
Creationists argue that naturalistical models of the origin of life and macroevolution are inadequate because they fail to effectively explain the origin of life and the origins of irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Since Chatton's anti-razor holds that entities should not be reduced to the point of inadequacy, it is argued, a designer should not be ruled out unless and until naturalistic explanations are adequate. Thus, much of the literature about creation science is devoted to criticizing mainstream science, often taking issues, debates, and small discrepencies discovered by scientists working in the scientific paradigm and declaring that the problems indicate that the entire endeavor is wrong.
Adherents of creation science also suggest that it is no more parsimonious to posit an ostensibly unobserved and unexplained chemical mechanism for the above phenomenon than to posit an unexplained but ostensibly subjectively experienced designer, so that neither is ruled out by Occam's razor until one or the other is comprehensively observed, explained, and/or demonstrated. What the creationist means by "unobserved" or "unexplained" is subject to modification according to exactly how the criticism is levied. A common tactic, for example, is to claim that there is no evolutionary mechanism that can explain a particular biochemical process, and then when a mechanism is proposed, to claim that such a process has never been observed, and then when the process is duplicated in the lab, to claim that such a process wasn't observed in nature. In this way, evidence is continually dismissed as inconclusive by the creationist, leaving the only conclusion, in the eyes of the creationist, to be that God must have done it.
Those criticizing this position argue that Chatton's anti-razor is not a principal tenet of the scientific method and that religious beliefs do not count as valid hypotheses; allowing God as an explaination is not open to verification nor validation. They also argue that creationism as an explanation is not an affirmative proposition. For an explanation to be an affirmative proposition it must explain why something is one way instead of an alternative way in a manner that accounts for or aligns with a broad range of, if not all, evidence and phenomena beyond the subject at hand. But requiring an assumed God to be the explanation posits that the correct description only need account for what is descibed in Genesis and does not address the scientific evidence. Thus, creationism is an entirely unnecessary entity and, by Occam's Razor, eliminated.
Subjects within creation science
Subjects within creation science can be into split into three broad categories, each covering a different area of origins research; creationist cosmologies, flood geology, and creation biology.
Creation biology
Main article: Creation biology
Creation biology states that life was created by God in a finite number of created kinds rather than through biological evolution. It also claims that much of the currently observable speciation took place through inbreeding and harmful mutations during a proposed population bottleneck after the great flood of Noah's ark, which they claim was an actual historical event that happened exactly as described in the Bible.
Creation biology argues against biological evolution (see creation-evolution controversy). Popular arguments against evolution have changed over the years since the publishing of Henry M. Morris's first book on the subject, Scientific Creationism, but these themes often arise: missing links as an indication that evolution is incomplete, arguments based on entropy, complexity, and information theory, arguments claiming that natural selection is an impossible mechanism, and general criticism of the conclusions drawn from historical sciences as lacking experimental basis. The origin of the human species is particularly hotly contested; the fossil remains of hominid ancestors are not considered by advocates of creation biology to be evidence for a speciation event involving homo sapiens.
Flood geology
Main article: Flood geology
Flood geology is based on the belief that many of Earth's geological formations were created by the global flood described in the story of Noah's ark. Fossils and fossil fuels are believed by its followers to have formed from animal and plant matter which was buried rapidly during this flood, while submarine canyon extensions are explained as having formed during a rapid runoff from the continents after the seafloors dropped. Sedimentary strata are described as sediments predominantly laid down after Noah's flood.
In addition to the above ideas that are in opposition to the principles of mainstream geologists, advocates of flood geology reject uniformitarian geology and radiometric dating.
Creationist cosmologies
Main article: Creationist cosmologies
Several attempts have been made to construct a cosmology consistent with a young universe rather than the standard cosmological age of the universe, based on the belief that Genesis describes the creation of the universe as well as the Earth. The primary challenge for young universe cosmologies is that the accepted distances in the universe require millions or billions of years for light to travel to Earth.
Cosmology is not as widely discussed as creation biology or flood geology, for several reasons. First, many creationists, particularly old earth creationists and intelligent design creationists do not dispute that the universe may be billions of years old. Secondly, some creationists who believe that the Earth was created in the timeframe described in a literal interpretation of Genesis believe that Genesis describes only the creation of the Earth, rather than the creation of the entire universe, allowing for both a young Earth and an old universe.
Scientific criticisms of creation science
Creationists often claim that creationism, and more specifically creation science, is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution. This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science, is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
- consistent (internally and externally)
- parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
- useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
- empirically testable and falsifiable
- based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
- correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
- progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
- tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it simply cannot be treated as scientific in any sense of the word. On these points, the National Academy of Sciences said:
- Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. [6] (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZS.html) And most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins. [7] (http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html)
Specific objections raised against creationism as actual science include:
- Creationism is not falsifiable. Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. God being a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation, hence making creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God a posteriori arguments. (See also the section on falsifiability, below)
- Creationism violates the principle of parsimony. Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding supernatural entities to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.
- Creationism is not empirically testable. That creationism is not empirically testable stems from the fact that creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.
- Creationism is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive. Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, the word of God, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that the Truth has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.
In light of its lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method, Creationism, and specifically Creation Science, cannot be said to be scientific.
- The hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from the Bible.
- There is no way to test the theory.
- The underlying assumptions of creationism are not open to change.
Scientists note that Creation Science differs from mainstream science in that it begins with an assumption, then attempts to find evidence to support that assumption. Conversely, science sets out to learn about the world through the collection of empirical evidence and the use of the scientific method.
Historically, the debate of whether Creationism is compatible with science can be traced back to 1874, the influential science historian John William Draper published his 'History of the Conflict between Religion and Science'. In it, he portrayed the entire history of scientific development as a war against religion. This somewhat skewed presentation of historical fact was propagated further by such prestigious followers as Andrew Dickson White in his essay 'A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom'.
Some opponents consider Creation Science to be an ideologically and politically motivated propaganda tool whose purpose is to promote the creationist agenda in society. They allege that the term "Creation Science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion, thereby undeservedly legitimizing creationism by association to science.
Creation science and falsifiability
Creation Science is commonly called unfalsifiable by prominent members of the mainstream scientific community. Falsifiability was proposed by Karl Popper as a criterion for whether an idea should be considered scientific. If no experiment could be devised which would prove a theory false, then the theory was not a function of science, but rather metaphysical or pseudoscience. Popper argued that certain ideas, such as Freudian psychology, were not falsifiable, because any possible observation could be fit into the theory, so that the theory, although not necessarily false, were metaphysical, rather than strictly scientific.
He classified theories into three broad categories based on how falsifiable they were:
- "...There will be well-testable theories, hardly testable theories, and non-testable theories. Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical." Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations (New York: Basic Books, 1963), p. 257.
Many prominent scientists have argued that "Creation Science" is an oxymoron and purely metaphysical, because it is unfalsifiable. For example, Stephen Jay Gould wrote in "Hens' Teeth And Horses' Toes":
- "Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D. from his recent (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?
Later in the same book, he says:
- The individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research. Creationists themselves have been forced to retreat from the more embarrassing items. Noted creationist Henry Morris, for example, has often cited the supposed footprints of dinosaurs and humans together in rocks of the Paluxy River of Texas. But creationist Leonard Brand attributes some of the "human" prints to erosion and others to a three-toed dinosaur. He also adds: "We do know that there was a fellow during the Depression who carved tracks."
Phillip Quinn, a philosopher of religion and science, thinks that being able to falsify creationist arguments automatically means being able to falsify creationism itself, and therefore sees a contradiction between Gould's two quotes above:
- "Unfortunately, the patently false claim that creation science is neither testable nor falsifiable seems well on its way to becoming, for some evolutionary biologists, a rhetorical stick with which to belabor their creationist opponents. In a recent collection of essays, Stephen Jay Gould claims that "'scientific creationism' is a self-contradictory nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified' ... Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that "the individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research." Indeed some of them are! But since they are easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not a serious argument in Gould's anti-creationist polemics." Template:Ref
Creationists acknowledge that some aspects of creationism are unfalsifiable, but assert that other aspects are falsifiable. They claim parts of their beliefs are very difficult to falsify solely because the related events took place in the distant past. Opponents say that all the falsifiable parts have been falsified.
Creationists also argue that the unfalsifiability of an idea does not necessarily mean that the idea is false, but only that contemporary scientists lack the tools to test it effectively. However, this has no bearing on whether or not the arguments of Creationists are true or false, but whether they are scientific.
Creationists see the unfalsifiable aspects of the theory as ambiguities in the idea, rather than cause to dismiss the idea out of hand. Finally, they assert that many aspects of evolutionary theory are also unfalsifiable, such as common ancestry between humans and apes. They claim that no falsifying experiment could be conducted to test that theory, so a theory need not be wholly falsifiable in order to be considered scientific.[8] (http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm)
In the first quote above, Gould disagrees:
- I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs.
About Creationist methodology, he says:
- Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
History
Within the history of creationism, creationism was originally based purely on theology. The vast majority of Church Fathers and Reformers accepted Genesis straightforwardly, and even the few who did not, such as Origen and Augustine, defended an earth that was on the order of thousands of years old.
When geologists revised the age of the Earth to millions of years, some writers looked to studying geology within the Biblical timeframe detailed in the Ussher-Lightfoot calendar. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the leaders were the scriptural geologists in Britain. About a century later, the Canadian George McCready Price, wrote extensively on the subject. However, the concept only revived during the 1960s following the publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb.
Subsequently, creation science has expanded into biology and cosmology. However, efforts to have it legislated to be taught in schools in the United States were eventually halted by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard 1987.
See also
References
Template:Note["The philosopher of science as expert witness", p. 43, in Cushing, J., Delaney, C.F. & Gutting, G., Science and reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984]}}
Bibliography
A history of the revival of this form of Creationism can be found in Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), but gives a somewhat distored picture in that it is limited to 20th century and is concerned only with the movement in the USA, while neglecting significant groups in Great Britain, Europe and Australia. E.g. it ignores the 19th century Scriptural Geologists (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/T_Mortenson.asp#bookinfo) and the virtually universal support for YEC among the Church Fathers and Reformers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#fathers).
Creation science
- Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book ISBN 0-949906-23-9 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
- Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism ISBN 0-89052-003-2 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)
- Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? ISBN 0-89051-081-4 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)
- Mortenson, Terry, The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology — Before Darwin ISBN 0-89051-408-9 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004)
- Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man's Origin, Man's Destiny ISBN 0-87123-356-8 (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)
- Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution ISBN 0-890512-58-2 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)
- Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution 2 ISBN 0-890513-87-2 (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 2002)
- Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Compromise ISBN 0-890514-11-9 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004)
- Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology ISBN 0-932766-54-4 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
- Woodmorappe, John, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study ISBN 0-932766-41-2 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)
- Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods ISBN 0-932766-57-9 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)
- Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory ISBN 9-99213-967-6 (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)
- Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood ISBN 0-87552-338-2 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)
- Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture ISBN 0-8280-1328-4 (Hagarstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1998)
Criticism
- Bates, V. L., 1976, Christian Fundamentalism and the Theory of Evolution in Public School Education: A Study of the Creation Science Movement [Ph.D. dissert.]: University of California, Davis.
- Lewin, R., 1982, Where is the Science in Creation science? Science 215, pp. 142–146.
- Vawter, B., 1983, Creationism: Creative Misuse of the Bible, in Frye, R. M., ed., Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case Against Creation-Science (New York, Scribner's Sons), p. 71–82.
External links
Neutral
- Edwards v. Aguillard (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZS.html) 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling preventing the teaching of creation science in public school science classrooms
Creation science
- Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org)
- Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/)
- Creation Science Evangelism (http://www.drdino.com/)
- The True.Origin Archive (http://www.trueorigin.org/)
- List of Articles Supporting Creation (http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp)
- Creation Research Society (http://www.creationresearch.org/)
- CreationDigest.com (http://www.creationequation.com/)
- Creation Insights (http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/index.htm)
- Center for Scientific Creation (http://www.creationscience.com)
- 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American's Nonsense (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2575) - ApologeticsPress.org Rebuttal
Criticism
- No Answers in Genesis website (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm)
- Creationism vs. Science (http://www.creationtheory.org)
- Talk.Origins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org)
- Index of Creationist claims with rebuttals (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html)
- Talkorigins.org article on What is Creationism? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html)
- National Science Teachers Association (http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10) Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution
- National Association of Biology Teachers (http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp) Statement on Teaching Evolution
- National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncseweb.org/)
- About creationism (http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/cs/creationism/index.htm)
- creationism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/)
- Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/) by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences
- Links to Islamic creationist and anti-creationists websites (http://omnibus.uni-freiburg.de/~riexinge/EvolutionIslam.html)
- Skeptics Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html) Introduction and criticism of creationism.
- Origin Myths (http://www.scicom.lth.se/fmet/myths.html) Introduction to a number of alternative origin myths from varied cultures around the world
- 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF) - Scientific Americanja:創造科学