DOCSLIB.ORG

Scientific Authority in the Creation–Evolution Debates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Scientific Authority in the Creation–Evolution Debates Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:641–660 DOI 10.1007/s12052-010-0242-0 EDUCATION ARTICLE Scientific Authority in the Creation–Evolution Debates Finn R. Pond & Jean L. Pond Published online: 15 July 2010 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010 Abstract At the heart of debates among creationists and toward science—promoting, using, and respecting science, evolutionists are questions about scientific integrity and but wanting to control it and calling upon it to reinforce rigor. Creationists often justify their rejection of biological their view of reality. This ambivalence is evident especially evolution by claiming that the methodologies and inter- when scientific findings run counter to religious or pretations of evolutionary scientists are flawed. A consid- philosophical convictions. A case in point is human eration of creationists’ critiques of the scientific data, evolution, which challenges some religious views of human however, reveals a deficient understanding and appreciation origins. of the nature of the scientific process. It is essential that our Reality, however, is not subject to human decree. It is schools educate students about the character of scientific what it is and will remain so despite any desire that it inquiry. Clarifying the nature and limitation of scientific conform to a particular political, ideological, or theological knowledge for our students will equip our students to dogma. Consequently, we cannot dismiss scientific explan- evaluate evolutionary or creationist arguments critically. ations of natural phenomena because we dislike or Recognizing and teaching both the strengths and limitations disapprove of the universe described. Yet, this is exactly of the scientific process will do much to further the ongoing what some people attempt. Objections to the theory of dialogue between science and religion. evolution motivate various groups to compete for authority over the biological sciences in our nation’s classrooms. Keywords Evolution . Creation . Scientific method . Whether hidden in the language of free speech, fairness, the Intelligent design . Methodological naturalism nature of science, or the search for truth, anti-evolutionists have fought for many years to shape textbook presentations and public school science curricula to counter established Introduction scientific understandings.1 The biological community considers the evidence for Science is a powerful way of knowing about the natural evolution overwhelming and beyond dispute. Numerous world. Technological and engineering successes and statements by scientific organizations unequivocally en- advancements in modern times depend upon the ability of dorse the teaching of evolution as a well-documented and scientific inquiries to reveal the workings of the natural world, of matter and energy, and are therefore evidences of this power. Yet people often display an ambivalent attitude 1 See for example the following articles and books which discuss the teaching of evolution in public schools: Bergman (1999), Terry (2004), Jones (2005), Scott (2007), Antolin and Herbers (2001), Forrest and Gross (2005). Discovery Institute (2005b), F. R. Pond (*) : J. L. Pond Scott and Branch (2006), Scott and Matzke (2007), Forrest and Whitworth University, Gross (2007), Forrest (2007), Discovery Institute (2007), Scott 300 W. Hawthorne Rd., (2009). See also: AntiEvolution.org http://www.antievolution.org/ Spokane, WA 99251, USA cs/ (AntiEvolution.org tracks activity and issues in the creation- e-mail: [email protected] evolution debates). 642 Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:641–660 scientifically important theory.2 A recent poll by the Pew 2% compared to 28% in the USA) had a lower acceptance Research Center and American Association for the Ad- of evolution. vancement of Science indicated that 97% of scientists agree Much of the literature of the creation–evolution debates that humans and other organisms evolved over time, and focuses on the details and interpretation of scientific data, 87% of scientists, compared to 32% of the public, specified but we suggest that the deeper issues of the debates concern that evolution occurred by natural processes (The Pew the nature and practice of science. We contend that a poor Research Center for the People and the Press 2009). understanding of the scientific enterprise fuels to a large Biologists continue to discuss and debate the mechanisms, degree the opposition to evolution that is prevalent in this patterns, and details of evolution, but the certainty of country. Misconceptions about science fall roughly into two evolution is not in question.3 With only negligible dissent, types: (1) misunderstandings about the basic nature of the community declares that “descent with modification” scientific knowledge (i.e., epistemology; how do we know as laid out by Darwin (1859) accurately describes the something in a scientific sense?) and (2) misunderstandings general historical pattern of life on earth. This conclusion about the scientific process (how do we do science?). is built upon countless observations and thousands of Previous work considers the scientific validity of rigorous studies and experiments from all disciplines in creationists’ arguments and asks whether “creation science” the biological sciences over a period of 150 years. Now, and “intelligent design (ID)” movements are legitimate even more than in 1973, the statement of Theodosius science (Ruse 1982;Kitcher1983;Dembski1998c;Pennock Dobzhansky, the great evolutionary geneticist, is true: 1999;Massimo2002; Kitcher 2006). At the heart of this “Nothinginbiologymakessenseexceptinthelightof literature is the demarcation or boundary problem. That is, evolution” (Dobzhansky 1973b). what distinguishes science from non-science? Many authors Nevertheless, polls continue to show widespread distrust argue that creationist and intelligent design arguments fail to of evolutionary science among the American public (Miller meet commonly accepted criteria of science, invoking non- et al. 2006; Berkman et al. 2008; Newport 2009; Keeter and naturalistic explanations and failing to develop testable or Horowitz 2009). Acceptance of evolution correlates with falsifiable hypotheses. The contrasts between the methodol- levels of education (21% for individuals with a high school ogy and rigor of evolutionary science and various forms of education or less, 55% for college graduates, and 74% for “creationist science” clearly reveal why creationism has no individuals with postgraduate degrees; Newport 2009). place within the scientific community (see, for example, Such data suggest that critical reasoning skills, exposure Young and Strode 2009). to evolutionary theory, or deeper understanding of the We look at the scientific legitimacy of creationist and nature of scientific inquiry and scientific evidence might be intelligent design arguments from a different perspective. factors in transforming people’s thinking about evolution. Rather than focus on creationism’s failure as a scientific This cannot be the sole explanation for the low rate of endeavor (its poor scientific reasoning, misrepresentation of acceptance of evolution in the U.S., however, since a 2006 evolutionary arguments, and lack of testable predictions), survey revealed that the U.S. ranked second among 33 we consider how creationists’ arguments promote miscon- countries in scientific literacy (Miller 2006) yet in another ceptions about the process and practice of science. As noted study ranked second lowest among 32 countries in the above, others have expressed concerns about public mis- percentage of persons accepting evolution (Miller et al. conceptions regarding the nature of science and evolution 2006). Only Turkey (which had a scientific literacy rate of in particular. Attention, however, has not focused on the manner in which creationism and intelligent design perpet- uate such misconceptions. This becomes especially impor- 2 Sager. Voices for evolution, 3rd ed., National Center for Science tant because debates about teaching evolution in public Education; Included are statements from the following national schools often take place in a context of poor scientific scientific organizations: American Anthropological Association, literacy. Students are ill equipped to engage critically in American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of Physical Anthropologists, American Astronomical discussions about evolutionary theory and creationism, Society, American Chemical Society, American Geological Institute, unless they understand the nature of scientific inquiry. American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Furthermore, without the ability to recognize scientifically Sciences, American Physical Society, American Psychological Asso- valid arguments and evaluate appropriate evidence, students ciation, American Society of Biological Chemists, American Society of Parasitologists, National Academy of Sciences, Society for the are prey to pseudoscientific rhetoric. Study of Evolution, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; 2009. What constitutes scientific literacy is open to debate, but 3 Perusal of the scientific literature reveals lively and ongoing definitions generally center on levels of scientific knowl- ’ scientific debates in evolutionary science. See also Eliott Sober s edge, understanding of scientific processing and reasoning, collection of articles addressing conceptual issues in the theory and practice of evolutionary biology, now in an updated and revised third and ability
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What's with Evolution Sunday?
    The Rev. Dr. Robert D. Cornwall First Christian Church of Lompoc February 12, 2006 What’s With Evolution Sunday? Genesis 1:1-5 Everybody loves dinosaurs, especially young kids. From Barney the purple T-Rex to Little Foot and his friends, dinosaurs tickle their fancy. Discovery Channel, PBS, the History Channel, all air programs that tell dinosaur stories. Then there is the Jurassic Park franchise, which was a mega-hit. I remember my visit to Dinosaur National Monument when I was about seven. I can still remember the great wall of fossils being excavated. Brett loved the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas. It didn’t have a T-Rex, but it did have a big reptilian-like fish that swam the sea covering Kansas millions of years ago. With so much interest in prehistoric life, it seems odd that nearly half of Americans reject the science that explains the very things that fascinate us. For many people, science is either the enemy of faith or it is redefined in a way that fits a so-called biblical time-line. Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, appeared a century-and-a-half ago, offering natural selection as the theory to explain how things came to be. Theories of evolution have been around for centuries, but Darwin’s theory revolutionized the study of human origins and development. He helped explain why there is so much diversity in earth’s flora and fauna, and we’re still discovering new species deep within jungles, caves and oceans. Now, not everyone liked Darwin’s solution, mainly because it seemed to conflict with the Bible.
    [Show full text]
  • Prospects for Theistic Science
    Dialogue: Article Prospects for Theistic Science Prospects for Theistic Science Roy Clouser This article first tackles the issue of defining what counts as a religious belief, and shows why obtaining such a definition opens the way to discovering a deeper level of interaction between divinity beliefs and the scientific enterprise than the prevailing views of the science/religion relation allow for. This deeper level of interaction is illustrated by applying it to twentieth- century atomic physics. It is then shown why this level of interaction implies a distinctive anti-reductionist perspective from which theists should do science, a perspective in which belief in God acts as a regulative presupposition. Finally, reduction as a strategy for explanation is critiqued and found bankrupt. Roy Clouser mong theists, the most popular view positive content for virtually every science. I [think that] A of the engagement between science And some theists have proposed still other and religion (henceforth the S/R rela- ideas of thicker engagement. For example, religious belief tion) is a minimalist one. They see the role of recent writers have claimed that theism’s religious belief to science as primarily nega- positive contribution to science is not so much engages science tive such that any theory can be acceptable that of providing actual content to theories to a theist so long as it does not outright con- as it is that religious ideas inspire scientific in a way that tradict any revealed truth of Faith. On this ideas. There are permutations on these views, view, conflict between science and religion of course, and a number of mix-and-match is not merely is not only possible but is the only (or the combinations of them are possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals
    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • PAUL KURTZ in MEMORIAM Paul Kurtz, Philosopher, Humanist Leader, and Founder of the Modern Skeptical Movement, Dies at Eighty-Six TOM FLYNN
    Jan Feb 13 2_SI new design masters 11/29/12 11:26 AM Page 5 [ PAUL KURTZ IN MEMORIAM Paul Kurtz, Philosopher, Humanist Leader, and Founder of the Modern Skeptical Movement, Dies at Eighty-Six TOM FLYNN Paul Kurtz, founder and longtime chair At NYU Kurtz studied philosophy of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, under Sidney Hook, who had himself the Council for Secular Humanism, and been a protégé of the pragmatist philoso- the Center for Inquiry, died at the age pher John Dewey. The philosophy of of eighty-six on October 20, 2012. He Dewey and Hook, arguably the greatest was one of the most influential figures American thinkers in the humanist tra- in the humanist and skeptical move- dition, would deeply in fluence Kurtz’s ments from the late 1960s through the thought and activism. Kurtz graduated first decade of the twenty-first century. from NYU in 1948 and earned his PhD Among his best-known creations are in philosophy at Columbia University in the skeptics’ magazine SKEPTICAL IN- 1952. QUIRER, the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry, and the independent pub- Academic Career lisher Prometheus Books. Kurtz taught philosophy at Trinity Col- Jonathan Kurtz, Paul’s son, told SI that lege from 1952 to 1959. He joined the his father had a “‘joyous’ last day, joking, faculty at Union College from 1961 to laughing, etc. He then died suddenly to- 1965; during this period he was also a ward bedtime. There was no suffering.” A visiting lecturer at the New School for joint CFI/CSI/CSH statement marked Social Research.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on Clouser's Claims for Theistic Science
    Dialogue: Response Comments on Clouser’s Claims for Theistic Science Comments on Clouser’s Claims for Theistic Science Hans Halvorson n “Prospects for Theistic Science,” Roy First, Clouser claims that theists and I Clouser sketches a framework for the atheists alike believe that there is a privi- relationship between religious and sci- leged class of self-existent (or “divine”) entific beliefs. In particular, he develops— beings; they differ only on which beings building on previous work1—a neo-Calvin- they identify as divine. Clouser also claims ist view, according to which religious belief that religious beliefs regulate scientific theo- is a presupposition of, and is relevant to, rizing because a scientist will attempt to Hans Halvorson any other body of beliefs. reduce everything to (or, explain everything in terms of) what she takes to be the self- According to Clouser, we should expect existent beings. But this proposal comes into religious beliefs to play a “regulative,” rather tension with Clouser’s claim that the theist than a “constitutive” role with regard to sci- should be a nonreductionist. In particular, entific theorizing. (Indeed, Clouser indicates if Clouser is correct that a scientist will try Clouser’s that religious beliefs do, in fact, regulate to explain everything in terms of what she scientific theorizing—whether or not we are thinks are the self-existent beings, then will proposal aware of it.) That is, while we should not not the theistic scientist attempt to explain typically expect religious beliefs to provide everything in terms of his divinity, viz., the content of scientific theories, we should holds out God? If this is so, then in what sense is the expect religious beliefs to provide a method- theist different from the atheist? In what ological framework within which scientific the promise sense is the theist a nonreductionist? theories are developed and evaluated.
    [Show full text]
  • Is It Possible to Intelligently Design and Then Deny the Inte
    Is It Possible to Intelligently Design and then Deny the Intelligent Desig... http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-it-possible-to-int... Home About Resources Search Uncommon Descent holds that... Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project. read more... Additional Descent Swarm Intelligence vs. Real Intelligence . Can all intelligence be reduced to the local, rule-governed interaction of unintelligent agents? Dawkins reviews Behe in the NYTimes . How many ad hominems can you count? $100,000,000 anonymous gift to University of Chicago … for 800 full scholarships per year to lower-income students. Bravo! THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION: THE SEARCH FOR THE LIMITS OF DARWINISM at Amazon.com … Michael Behe’s newest book is now available at booksellers. programmed by evolution to see design where there really isn’t any … and thus do evolutionary psychologists explain the resurgence of design Charles Colson weighs in on the Gonzalez tenure case Dawkins’s CV One colleague recently claimed that Dawkins’s record of peer-reviewed publications leaves something to be desired.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Answers Book 3
    First printing: February 2010 Copyright © 2009 by Answers in Genesis. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations in articles and reviews. For information write: Master Books®, P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638 ISBN-13: 978-0-89051-579-2 ISBN-10: 0-89051-579-4 Library of Congress Number: 2008903202 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is from the New King James Version of the Bible. Printed in the United States of America Please visit our website for other great titles: www.masterbooks.net For information regarding author interviews, please contact the publicity department at (870) 438-5288. ® ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND SPECIAL THANKS Acknowledgments and special thanks for reviewing or editing chapters: Steve Fazekas (theology, AiG), Frost Smith (biology, editor, AiG), Mike Matthews (editor, AiG), Gary Vaterlaus (science education, editor, AiG), Tim Chaffey (theology, Midwest Apologetics), Dr. John Whitcomb (theology, presi- dent of Whitcomb Ministries), Dr. Larry Vardiman (atmospheric science, chair- man of the department of astro-geophysics at the Institute for Creation Research), Ken Ham (biology, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis), Donna O’Daniel (biology, AiG), Dr. Tim Clarey (geology), Christine Fidler (CEO of Image in the UK), Mark Looy (editor, AiG), Dr. Terry Mortenson (history of geology, AiG), John Upchurch (editor, AiG), Dr. Jason Lisle (astrophysics, AiG), Dr. John Morris (geological engineering, president of the Institute for Creation Research), Dr. Andrew Snelling (geology, director of research at AiG), Dr. David Menton (retired, cell biology, former associate professor of anatomy at Washington Uni- versity School of Medicine, now AiG), Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Seeing and Believing the Never-Ending Attempt to Reconcile
    1 Seeing and Believing The never-ending attempt to reconcile science and religion, and why it is doomed to fail. Jerry A. Coyne, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution By Karl W. Giberson (HarperOne, 248 pp., $24.95) Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul By Kenneth R. Miller (Viking, 244 pp., $25.95) I. Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809--the same day as Abraham Lincoln--and published his magnum opus, On the Origin of Species, fifty years later. Every half century, then, a Darwin Year comes around: an occasion to honor his theory of evolution by natural selection, which is surely the most important concept in biology, and perhaps the most revolutionary scientific idea in history. 2009 is such a year, and we biologists are preparing to fan out across the land, giving talks and attending a multitude of DarwinFests. The melancholy part is that we will be speaking more to other scientists than to the American public. For in this country, Darwin is a man of low repute. The ideas that made Darwin's theory so revolutionary are precisely the ones that repel much of religious America, for they imply that, far from having a divinely scripted role in the drama of life, our species is the accidental and contingent result of a purely natural process. And so the culture wars continue between science and religion. On one side we have a scientific establishment and a court system determined to let children learn evolution rather than religious mythology, and on the other side the many Americans who passionately resist those efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to This House! Day
    The Facilities Team has scheduled a Work Day for February Today & This Week at UUSG 16. We have several interior projects we’d like to address on that uusg.org/calendar Welcome to this house! day. If you are available to help let Kevin O’Neill know. If you wish to see our historic site preserved, our meeting space Sunday, February 10 10:30 am RE Music Art Project improved, or our classrooms enhanced, then please contact Kevin O’Neill. The Facilities Team has a wide range of projects 11:15 am Big Ideas Covenant Group requiring all skill levels, so anyone can help. 11:15 am Finance Team Meeting 11:15 am Green Sanctuary Team Meeting 12:30 pm Opioids & Addiction Discussion 12:30 pm Pathway to Membership Monday, February 11 Contact Information 4:00 pm IYC Tutor Training February 10, 2019 Rev. Jennifer Innis, Interim Co-Minister 7:00 pm Reiki Discussion Group [email protected]; 630-232-2350, ext. 103 Unitarian Universalist Rev. Patrick Price, Interim Co-Minister Tuesday, February 12 [email protected]; 630-232-2350, ext. 102 9:30 am Geneva Girl Scout Leader Meeting Society of Geneva 10:30 am Staff Meeting Becky Hruby, Temporary Congregational Administrator [email protected]; 630-232-2350, ext. 100 7:00 pm Board of Directors Lisa Rittenberry, Administrative Assistant Theme for February: [email protected]; 630-232-2350, ext. 101 Wednesday, February 13 David de Coriolis, Board President 4:00 pm FVRI Opioid Working Group Justice 7:00 pm Choir Rehearsal [email protected] Tracy Dullea, Music Director [email protected] Thursday, February 14 Sandra Anderson, RE Music Director 6:00 pm Youth Outlook [email protected] 6:00 pm Dungeons & Dragons Group (off-site) Jeff Stibal, Technical Director Today’s Worship Team [email protected] Friday, February 15 Cynthia Spiegel, Song Leader In the Pulpit: Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Q:\FINAL VERSIONS of EL TEJON DOCUMENTS\Mem. Supp. Mot. TRO (01-10-2006 FINAL).Wpd
    1 Ayesha N. Khan Richard B. Katskee 2 Sara J. Rose (motions for admission pro hac vice pending) 3 Heather L. Weaver (motion for admission to the Bar of this court pending) AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF 4 CHURCH AND STATE 518 C St., NE 5 Washington, DC 20002 Tel: (202) 466-3234 6 Fax: (202) 466-2587 [email protected] / [email protected] / [email protected] / [email protected] 7 Maurice A. Leiter (Bar No. 123732) 8 John Danos (Bar No. 210964) ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 9 777 S. Figueroa St., 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 10 Tel: (213) 243-4000 Fax: (213) 243-4199 11 [email protected] / [email protected] 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs HURST et al. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 KENNETH HURST, JOAN BALCOME, ) NO. 16 KIRK ROGER TINGBLAD, PHILIP JONES- ) THOMAS, BARRY S. GOLDBERG, SOPHIE ) 17 GOLDBERG, JEANNIE PARENT, KEN and ) PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF JODY VALMASSY, and ANN and RICHARD ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 18 HOWARD, ) SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 19 Plaintiffs, ) AND, IF NECESSARY, PRELIMINARY ) INJUNCTION 20 v. ) ) DATE: 21 STEVE NEWMAN, individually and in his ) TIME: official capacity as a member of the El Tejon ) COURT: 22 Unified School District Board of Trustees; ) PAULA REGAN, individually and in her ) 23 official capacity as a member of the El Tejon ) Unified School District Board of Trustees; ) 24 STACEY GUSTAFSON, individually and in ) her official capacity as a member of the El ) 25 Tejon Unified School District Board of ) Trustees; KITTY JO NELSON, individually ) 26 and in her official capacity as a member of the ) El Tejon Unified School District Board of ) 27 Trustees; PHYLLIS THROCKMORTON, ) individually and in her official capacity as a ) 28 member of the El Tejon Unified School District ) Board of Trustees; JOHN WIGHT, individually ) Mem.
    [Show full text]
  • Apologetic Resources
    APOLOGETIC RESOURCES A Young Earth ministry perspective, namely contrasting Scripture to true science now and during the ages. By Dr. Jim Pagels [email protected] 9/2016 Editor Dr. John Fricke, Emeritus Professor of Biology, Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Copyright This book is offered as an educational resource on a no cost basis. Contents are not to be reproduced for the purpose of sale. Note that all Scriptural passages are taken from the English Standard Version. 1 I HAVE NO GREATER JOY THAN TO HEAR THAT MY CHILDREN WALK IN THE TRUTH III JOHN 1:4 Forward - Although there is much young Earth information available from commercial sources and on the internet, it was the impression of this writer that no resource that deals with basic topical issues correlating the young Earth philosophy and science exists for professional church workers. To this end, Apologetic Resources is being offered. Intended Audience – The intended audience of this reference material is primarily use by professional church workers, i.e., teachers, pastors, youth workers, etc., namely those who choose to uphold the literal interpretation of Genesis and the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. The focus in this regard is Young Earth Creationism and the catastrophic nature of the global Genesis Flood keeping in mind that Genesis 1-11 is foundational to most of the significant doctrines of Holy Scripture. Of course, laymen may well also find this reference a valuable resource. There is obviously a realistic interplay between Scripture, apologetics and true science. The goal of this document is to provide clarity to this interaction.
    [Show full text]