DOCSLIB.ORG

Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science, Evolution, and Creationism EDITORIAL Science, evolution, and creationism Francisco J. Ayala Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, 321 Steinhaus Hall, Irvine, CA 92697 n December 20, 2005, John E. about by chance but rather manifest to the appearance of humans on Earth and Jones III, federal judge for the have been designed for serving certain reveals our species’ biological connections Middle District of Pennsylva- functions and for certain ways of life. with other living things. It provides an nia, issued a 130-page-long de- The second prong of the argument is understanding of the constantly evolving Ocision (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dis- that only an omnipotent Creator could bacteria and viruses and enables the de- trict) declaring that ‘‘The overwhelming account for the perfection and func- velopment of effective new ways to pro- evidence at trial established that ID [intel- tional design of organisms. In the 1990s, tect ourselves against the diseases they ligent design] is a religious view, a mere several authors in the United States re- cause. Evolution has made possible im- re-labeling of creationism, and not a sci- vived the argument from design but provements in agriculture and medicine entific theory . ID is not supported by modified the second prong of the argu- and has been applied in many fields out- any peer-reviewed research, data, or ment by referring to an unspecified ‘‘in- side biology, including forensics and soft- publications.’’ telligent designer,’’ thus avoiding explicit ware engineering; it has stimulated chem- In 1984, the National Academy of Sci- reference to God, so that the argument ists, for example, to use the principles of ences (NAS) published Science and Cre- natural selection for developing new mole- ationism: A View from the National cules with specific functions. Academy of Sciences. A second edition ‘‘Nothing makes sense in Darwin and other 19th-century biolo- was published in 1999. A third edition, gists found compelling evidence for bio- sufficiently modified to deserve a new biology except in the logical evolution in the comparative study title, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, of living organisms, their geographic dis- published on January 4, 2008 (1). light of evolution.’’ tribution, and the fossil remains of extinct Science and Creationism was prepared organisms. Since Darwin’s time, biological by a committee of the NAS in response to disciplines that emerged more recently— statutes passed by the legislatures of, first, from design could be taught in the pub- genetics, biochemistry, ecology, animal the state of Arkansas, and shortly thereaf- lic schools as an alternative to evolution. behavior, neurobiology, and especially ter, the state of Louisiana, that required Judge Jones, like so many other inde- molecular biology—have supplied power- that ‘‘creation science’’ be taught in public pendent observers, saw through this ful additional evidence and detailed con- schools together with evolution. The Loui- hypocritical subterfuge and determined, firmation. Accordingly, evolutionists are siana ‘‘Creation Act’’ was appealed all the moreover, that the argument lacks any no longer concerned with obtaining evi- way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in scientific cogency whatsoever. dence to support the fact of evolution. 1987 (Edwards v. Aguilard) concluded that Science, Evolution, and Creationism con- Rather, evolutionary research nowadays the act’s ‘‘primary purpose was to change sists of three main chapters. The first seeks to understand further and in more the public school science curriculum to chapter briefly describes the process of detail how the process of evolution occurs. provide persuasive advantage to a particu- evolution and the nature of science in Yet, the evidence from paleontology and lar religious doctrine that rejects the fac- contrast to other forms of knowledge. The the older disciplines continues to accumu- tual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, second chapter surveys the scientific evi- late, such as the discovery published in the Act is designed either to promote the dence that supports evolution from di- 2006 and described in Science, Evolution, theory of creation science that embodies a verse disciplines that include astronomy, and Creationism of Tiktaalik,afishthat particular religious tenet or to prohibit the paleontology, comparative anatomy, bio- lived in shallow freshwater streams and teaching of a scientific theory disfavored geography, molecular biology, genetics, swamps approximately 380 million years by certain religious sects. In either case, and anthropology. The third chapter ex- ago (4, 5). Tiktaalik is a nearly precise the Act violates the First Amendment’’ (1, amines intelligent design and other cre- intermediate between typical fish and the p. 45). Science and Creationism was made ationist perspectives so as to point out the first known four-legged animals from part of an ‘‘amicus brief’’ submitted to the scientific and legal reasons against teach- which would evolve all animals that live Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguilard by ing creationism in public school science on the land from frogs to reptiles, to the NAS, with the endorsement of the classes. The text concludes with a selec- birds, and to mammals, including humans. American Association for the Advance- tion of frequently asked questions and No intermediate fossils between humans ment of Science and other organizations. additional readings. and apes were known in Darwin’s time. Now, thousands of remains are known Argument from Design Evolution and Natural Selection that belong to the human lineage after it The ‘‘argument from design’’ for the In 1973, the eminent evolutionist Theodo- separated from the lineage that goes to existence of God, based on the complex sius Dobzhansky famously asserted that the apes. Biological evolution is part of a com- organization of living things, was elabo- ‘‘Nothing makes sense in biology except in pelling historical narrative that scientists rated by English clergyman William Pa- the light of evolution’’ (3). Biological evo- have constructed over the last few cen- ley in his Natural Theology, published in lution is the central organizing principle of turies. The narrative begins with the for- 1802 (2). Paley’s argument from design modern biology. Evolution provides a sci- mation of the universe, the solar system, is two-tined. The first prong asserts that entific explanation for why there are so and the Earth, where conditions occur humans, as well as all sorts of organ- many different kinds of organisms on suitable for life to evolve. There are the- isms, in their wholes, in their parts, and Earth and gives an account of their simi- in their relations to one another and to larities and differences (morphological, their environment, could not have come physiological, and genetic). It accounts for © 2008 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.0711608105 PNAS ͉ January 8, 2008 ͉ vol. 105 ͉ no. 1 ͉ 3–4 Downloaded by guest on October 5, 2021 ories that seek to account for how life aspects of the human experience. Scien- tion. It should be helpful to ‘‘school originated on Earth, but none of them tific explanations are based on evidence board members, science teachers and has gathered enough supporting evi- drawn from examining the natural world other education leaders, policy makers, dence to be generally accepted by scien- and rely exclusively on natural processes legal scholars, and others in the commu- tists. But natural selection, discovered to account for natural phenomena. Sci- nity who are committed to providing by Darwin, has been convincingly dem- entific explanations are subject to em- students with quality science education.’’ onstrated as the process that accounts pirical tests by means of observation and Moreover, as stated in the preface, Sci- for the adaptive configuration and func- experimentation and are subject to the ence, Evolution, and Creationism ‘‘is also tion of organisms (for their ‘‘design’’). possibility of modification and rejection. directed to the broader audience of Darwin’s greatest contribution to sci- Religious faith, in contrast, does not de- high-school and college students as well ence is not that he accumulated evi- pend on empirical tests and is not sub- as adults who wish to become more fa- dence demonstrating the evolution of ject to the possibility of rejection based miliar with the many strands of evidence life, but that he discovered natural se- on empirical evidence. The significance supporting evolution and to understand lection, the process that accounts for the and purpose of the world and human why evolution is both a fact and a pro- design of organisms and their wonderful life, as well as issues concerning moral cess that accounts for the diversity of life on Earth.’’ adaptations to survive and reproduce in and religious values, are of great impor- A related document, You Say You Want the environments where they live, in- tance to many people, perhaps a major- an Evolution? A Role for Scientists in Sci- cluding wings for flying, legs for run- ity of humans, but these are matters that ence Education, recently has been made transcend science. ning, eyes to see, and kidneys that public (7). This document is sponsored by regulate the composition of the blood. Many people have questions about 17 scientific societies, representing the biological evolution. They may have Evolution and Religion physical, chemical, biological, and social been told that scientific understanding sciences and science teachers’ communi- Scientists and religious authors have of evolution is incorrect or at least ties. It presents the results of a recent ex- written eloquently about their awe and doubtful. They may be skeptical that a tensive survey of the public acceptance of wonder at the history of the universe natural process could account for the evolution as a function of the level of edu- and of life on this planet, explaining astonishing diversity of the living world cation and other variables.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Critical Analysis of Article "21 Reasons to Believe the Earth Is Young" by Jeff Miller
    1 Critical analysis of article "21 Reasons to Believe the Earth is Young" by Jeff Miller Lorence G. Collins [email protected] Ken Woglemuth [email protected] January 7, 2019 Introduction The article by Dr. Jeff Miller can be accessed at the following link: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5641 and is an article published by Apologetic Press, v. 39, n.1, 2018. The problems start with the Article In Brief in the boxed paragraph, and with the very first sentence. The Bible does not give an age of the Earth of 6,000 to 10,000 years, or even imply − this is added to Scripture by Dr. Miller and other young-Earth creationists. R. C. Sproul was one of evangelicalism's outstanding theologians, and he stated point blank at the Legionier Conference panel discussion that he does not know how old the Earth is, and the Bible does not inform us. When there has been some apparent conflict, either the theologians or the scientists are wrong, because God is the Author of the Bible and His handiwork is in general revelation. In the days of Copernicus and Galileo, the theologians were wrong. Today we do not know of anyone who believes that the Earth is the center of the universe. 2 The last sentence of this "Article In Brief" is boldly false. There is almost no credible evidence from paleontology, geology, astrophysics, or geophysics that refutes deep time. Dr. Miller states: "The age of the Earth, according to naturalists and old- Earth advocates, is 4.5 billion years.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Beliefs Versus Knowledge: a Necessary Distinction for Explaining, Predicting, and Assessing Conceptual Change
    Beliefs Versus Knowledge: A Necessary Distinction for Explaining, Predicting, and Assessing Conceptual Change Thomas D. Griffin ([email protected]) Stellan Ohlsson ([email protected]) Department of Psychology, 1007 West Harrison Street (M/C 285) Chicago, IL 60607, U.S.A. Abstract needed to explain how new knowledge representations can be created that will not be distorted by the Empirical research and theoretical treatments of conflicting prior concepts. They suggest that activation conceptual change have paid little attention to the of conflicting prior concepts activates related abstract distinction between knowledge and belief. The concepts that are not in direct conflict with the new distinction implies that conceptual change involves both knowledge acquisition and belief revision, and highlights information, and that can be utilized in constructing an the need to consider the reasons that beliefs are held. We accurate representation of the new information. These argue that the effects of prior beliefs on conceptual aspects of the conceptual change process become more learning depends upon whether a given belief is held for important when we consider how beliefs differ from its coherence with a network of supporting knowledge, knowledge. or held for the affective goals that it serves. We also contend that the nature of prior beliefs will determine the Belief Versus Knowledge relationship between the knowledge acquisition and the belief revision stages of the conceptual change process. The present paper defines knowledge as the Preliminary data suggests that prior beliefs vary in comprehension or awareness of an idea or proposition whether they are held for knowledge or affect-based ("I understand the claim that humans evolved from reasons, and that this variability may predict whether a early primates").
    [Show full text]
  • Is Creationism Still Valid in the New Millennium? George T
    Perspective Digest Volume 10 Article 5 Issue 3 Summer 2005 Is Creationism Still Valid in the New Millennium? George T. Javor Loma Linda University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Javor, George T. (2005) "Is Creationism Still Valid in the New Millennium?," Perspective Digest: Vol. 10 : Iss. 3 , Article 5. Available at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol10/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Perspective Digest by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Javor: Is Creationism Still Valid in the New Millennium? BY GEORGE T. JAVOR* when they show that their explana- The supposed conflict between tions work better than those of evo- religion and science is a recent lutionists. Their goal should be to invention and a distortion of histor- develop their paradigm so well that ical realities by a class of historians people will have to admit, “Nothing whose agenda was to destroy the in biology makes sense except in the influence of religion. The currently light of creationism.” popular secularism in science may IS CREATIONISM STILL With that as a background, con- only be a detour in the history of sci- sider a few aspects of Creationism ence. still valid for 21st century thinking Christians. What are the Perceived Liabilities VALID IN THE of Creationism? Is Creationism a Religiously Creationism originated in a pre- Motivated Paradigm? scientific world, where myths Yes.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionism, Creationism, and Treating Religion As a Hobby
    Duke Law Journal VOLUME 1987 DECEMBER NUMBER 6 EVOLUTIONISM, CREATIONISM, AND TREATING RELIGION AS A HOBBY STEPHEN L. CARTER* Contemporary liberalism faces no greater dilemma than deciding how to deal with the resurgence of religious belief. On the one hand, liberals cherish religion, as they cherish all matters of private conscience, and liberal theory holds that the state should do nothing to discourage free religious choice. At the same time, contemporary liberals are com- ing to view any religious element in public moral discourse as a tool of the radical right for the reshaping of American society, and that re- shaping is something liberals want very much to discourage. In truth, liberal politics has always been uncomfortable with reli- gious fervor. If liberals cheered the clerics who marched against segrega- tion and the Vietnam War, it was only because the causes were considered just-not because the clerics were devout. Nowadays, people who bring religion into the making of public policy come more fre- quently from the right, and the liberal response all too often is to dismiss them as fanatics. Even the religious left is sometimes offended by the mainstream liberal tendency to mock religious belief. Not long ago, the magazine Sojourners-publishedby politically liberal Christian evangeli- cals-found itself in the unaccustomed position of defending the evangel- * Professor of Law, Yale University. A nearly identical version of this essay was delivered at the Third Annual Duke Law Journal Lecture on February 26, 1987. For publication, I have added a sprinkling of footnotes (most of them citations), clarifed a few points that I learned from the ques- tion-and-answer session had not been put as precisely as they might have, and reintroduced a brief discussion, deleted at the podium, of the work of Mark Yudof and Bruce Ackerman.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching the Theories of Evolution and Scientific Creationism in the Public Schools: the First Amendment Religion Clauses and Permissible Relief
    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 15 1982 Teaching the Theories of Evolution and Scientific Creationism in the Public Schools: The First Amendment Religion Clauses and Permissible Relief J. Greg Whitehair University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation J. G. Whitehair, Teaching the Theories of Evolution and Scientific Creationism in the Public Schools: The First Amendment Religion Clauses and Permissible Relief, 15 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 421 (1982). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol15/iss2/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TEACHING THE THEORIES OF EVOLUTION AND SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: THE FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGION CLAUSES AND PERMISSIBLE RELIEF Traditional methods of religious training and transmission of moral values have been irreversibly altered by the changing role of the family, the church, and the public school.1 The expanding role of the public school in this training triggers concern that these traditional moral and religious values are being displaced.1 As a result, the appropriate role of religion in the public schools has become the subject of ongoing, heated debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change
    religions Article Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change K. L. Marshall New College, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH1 2LX, UK; [email protected] Abstract: In the century since the Scopes Trial, one of the most influential dogmas to shape American evangelicalism has been that of young-earth creationism. This article explains why, with its arm of “creation science,” young-earth creationism is a significant factor in evangelicals’ widespread denial of anthropogenic climate change. Young-earth creationism has become closely intertwined with doctrines such as the Bible’s divine authority and the Imago Dei, as well as with social issues such as abortion and euthanasia. Addressing this aspect of the environmental crisis among evangelicals will require a re-orientation of biblical authority so as to approach social issues through a hermeneutic that is able to acknowledge the reality and imminent threat of climate change. Citation: Marshall, K. L. 2021. Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Keywords: evangelicalism; creation science; young-earth creationism; climate change; Answers in Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Genesis; biblical literalism; biblical authority; Noahic flood; dispensational theology; fundamentalism Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change. Religions 12: 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020133 1. Introduction Academic Editors: Randall Balmer The 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial is often referenced as a metonymy for American and Edward Blum Protestantism’s fundamentalist-modernist controversy that erupted in the years following World War I. William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer and politician who argued in favor of Received: 25 January 2021 biblical creationism1—in keeping with his literal understanding of the narratives in Genesis Accepted: 12 February 2021 Published: 20 February 2021 1 and Genesis 2—was vindicated when the judge ruled that high school biology teacher John Scopes had indeed broken the law by teaching Darwinian evolution in a public school.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Kent Greenwalt
    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 17 Article 2 Issue 2 Symposium on Religion in the Public Square 1-1-2012 Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Kent Greenwalt Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Kent Greenwalt, Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design, 17 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 321 (2003). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol17/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS IDEAS: EVOLUTION, CREATIONISM, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN KENT GREENAWALT* I. INTRODUCTION The enduring conflict between evolutionary theorists and creationists has focused on America's public schools. If these schools had no need to teach about the origins of life, each side might content itself with promoting its favored worldview and declaring its opponents narrow-minded and dogmatic. But edu- cators have to decide what to teach, and because the Supreme Court has declared that public schools may not teach religious propositions as true, the First Amendment is crucially implicated. On close examination, many of the controversial constitu- tional issues turn out to be relatively straightforward, but others, posed mainly by the way schools teach evolution and by what they say about "intelligent design" theory, push us to deep questions about the nature of science courses and what counts as teaching religious propositions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Creationism
    The evolution of creationism David R. Montgomery, Quaternary Research Center and Dept. of (354–413), Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), and John Calvin (1509– Earth and Space Sciences, Box 351310, University of Washington, 1564) all endorsed reason as the way to learn about the world. Seattle, Washington 98195-1310, USA, [email protected] Augustine was among the first to caution against advocating for biblical interpretations that conflicted with what one could I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed observe for oneself. Centuries later, Aquinas praised the pursuit of us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their knowledge and insight gained from experience reading God’s use. —Galileo Galilei other book—nature. Writing at the time of the Reformation, Calvin, too, considered ABSTRACT the revelations of both nature and the Bible as fundamental truths. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), Calvin For centuries, natural philosophers, their scientific successors, explicitly embraced the idea of respecting natural truths revealed and theologians alike sought to explain the physical and natural through the study of nature: “If we regard the Spirit of God as the world. The now common cultural narrative of perpetual conflict sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor between science and religion simplifies the arguments and despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the struggles of the past and overlooks cross-pollination between Spirit of God” (McNeill, ed., 1960, p. 273–274). those who embraced faith and reason as the keys to understanding Calvin believed in keeping an open mind when it came to earth history.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Face of Creationism: the Establishment Clause and the Latest Efforts to Suppress Evolution in Public Schools
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 54 Issue 6 Issue 6 - November 2001 Article 7 11-2001 The New Face of Creationism: The Establishment Clause and the Latest Efforts to Suppress Evolution in Public Schools Deborah A. Reule Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Deborah A. Reule, The New Face of Creationism: The Establishment Clause and the Latest Efforts to Suppress Evolution in Public Schools, 54 Vanderbilt Law Review 2555 (2001) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol54/iss6/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The New Face of Creationism: The Establishment Clause and the Latest Efforts to Suppress Evolution in Public Schools 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 2556 II. HISTORY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ....................... 2563 A. The Three Tests .................................................... 2565 1. The Lemon Test ......................................... 2565 2. The Endorsement Test .............................. 2567 3. The Coercion Test ...................................... 2568 B. Anti-evolution Legislation.................................... 2569 C. Balanced-TreatmentLegislation ........................... 2572 D. Recent Legislative Action
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Scientific Creationism in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Response
    The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism Volume 2 Print Reference: Volume 2:I, Pages 143-146 Article 26 1990 The Impact of Scientific Creationism in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Response A. James Melnick Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or reflect the views of DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to [email protected]. Browse the contents of this volume of The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. Recommended Citation Melnick, A. James (1990) "The Impact of Scientific Creationism in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Response," The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism: Vol. 2 , Article 26. Available at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol2/iss1/26 THE IMPACT OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM IN THE SOVIET UNION AND THE SOVIET RESPONSE A. JAMES MELNICK P.O. BOX 2567 SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22152 ABSTRACT Increasing references to scientific creationism in Soviet athei stic publications indicate that it is having an impact. Attacks on creationism in Soviet publications have not ended with gla snost', but concurrently, this policy-- which allows greater press freedoms and more ; mportat i on of mater; a 1 pub 1 i shed in the Wes t - -may eventua 11y expose more persons in the Soviet Union than ever before to the concepts of scientifi c creationism.
    [Show full text]