DOCSLIB.ORG

Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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................................................................................................... 4 I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF CREATION THEORY AND THE CONSTITUTION .......... 6 A. The Supreme Court and Creationism............................................... 7 B. The Evolution of Creationism......................................................... 13 1. The First Edwards Factor: The Conflict Between “Creation Science” and Mainstream Science....................... 14 2. The Second Edwards Factor: The Historical Linkage Between Creationism and Religion........................................ 15 3. The Third Edwards Factor: The Inherently Religious Nature of a Supreme Being..................................................... 18 C. The Further Evolution of Creationism: The “Intelligent Design” Movement.......................................................................... 19 * Matthew J. Brauer is Research Staff, Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University; B.A. (1988), University of California, Berkeley; M.S. (1988), University of Texas; Ph.D. (2000), University of Texas. Barbara Forrest is Professor of Philosophy, Department of History and Political Science, Southeastern Louisiana University; B.A. (1974), Southeastern Louisiana University; M.A. (1978), Louisiana State University; Ph.D. (1988), Tulane University. Steven G. Gey is David and Deborah Fonvielle and Donald and Janet Hinkle Professor of Law, Florida State University; B.A. (1978), Eckerd College; J.D. (1982), Columbia University. The authors appreciate comments and support from Dennis D. Hirsch, Capital University Law School; Daniel Brumbaugh, American Museum of Natural History; Robert T. Pennock, Michigan State University; and Glenn Branch, National Center for Science Education. 1 Washington University Open Scholarship p 1 Brauer Forrest Gey book pages.doc 9/1/2005 2:31 PM 2 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY [VOL. 83:1 II. INTELLIGENT DESIGN’S RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND RELEVANT PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES........................................................................... 24 A. Intelligent Design as Religion......................................................... 27 1. ID’s Religious Roots ............................................................... 27 2. ID’s Religious Essence ........................................................... 32 3. Intelligent Design’s Religious Structure and Content........... 38 4. ID's Rejection of Naturalism .................................................. 44 a. Error 1: MN as Arbitrary and A Priori......................... 48 b. Error 2: MN’s Supposed Entailment of PN (and Atheism) ....................................................................... 52 c. Error 3: A Thinly Disguised Supernaturalism .............. 58 5. ID’s Religious Motivation and Goals .................................... 59 B. ID as Traditional Creationism........................................................ 69 1. ID’s Creationist Supporters ................................................... 74 III. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN .............................................................................. 75 A. What Constitutes Controversy?...................................................... 77 1. The “Endosymbiosis” Controversy ....................................... 77 2. The “HIV/AIDS” Controversy ............................................... 79 3. The “Origins Controversy”.................................................... 80 4. Inventing a Controversy ......................................................... 82 B. Intelligent Design’s Contributions to the “Origins Controversy” ................................................................................... 85 1. Retreat from Objectivity: The Pseudo-scientific Methodology of ID.................................................................. 85 2. Retreat from Rigor: The Vagueness of ID Theories.............. 90 3. Retreat from Exposure: How ID Shields Itself from Scientific Criticism.................................................................. 94 C. A Vast Scientific Wasteland ............................................................ 97 1. Why teach ID? ........................................................................ 97 2. How to teach ID?.................................................................... 98 D. Science in the Subjunctive Mood .................................................. 100 IV. THE CONSTITUTIONAL FLAWS OF “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”.................. 101 A. Intelligent Design and the Epperson/Edwards Schematic........... 101 B. The New Legal Battlegrounds Over Intelligent Design Creationism ................................................................................... 105 1. Intelligent Design in State Science Standards and Achievement Tests................................................................. 106 2. The Defeat of the Santorum Amendment and its Aftermath ...................................................................... 111 https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 p 1 Brauer Forrest Gey book pages.doc 9/1/2005 2:31 PM 2005] IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM SCIENCE? 3 3. Textbook Disclaimers ................................. 115 4. Textbook Adoption Controversies........................................ 118 C. The Intelligent Design Plan for Circumventing Edwards and Epperson ................................................................................... 120 1. If It Isn’t Religion, Then What Is It? .................................... 120 2. Intelligent Design and the Problem of Religious Speech by the Government ................................................................ 130 3. Is it Science Yet? ................................................................... 144 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 149 ABSTRACT On several occasions during the last eighty years, states have attempted to either prohibit the teaching of evolution in public school science classes or counter the teaching of evolution with mandatory references to the religious doctrine of creationism. The Supreme Court struck down examples of the first two generations of these statutes, holding that they violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A third generation of creationist legislation is now being proposed. Under this new generation of creationism legislation, science teachers would present so-called “intelligent design” theory as an alternative to evolution. Intelligent design theory asserts that a supernatural intelligence intervened in the natural world to dictate the nature and ordering of all biological species, which do not evolve from lower-to higher-order beings. This article considers whether these intelligent design creationism proposals can survive constitutional scrutiny. The authors analyze the religious, philosophical, and scientific details of intelligent design theory, and assess these details in light of the constitutional doctrine developed by the Court in its previous creationism decisions. The Article discusses several factors that pose problems for intelligent design theory, including the absence of objective scientific support for intelligent design, evidence of strong links between intelligent design and religious doctrine, the use of intelligent design to limit the dissemination of scientific theories that are perceived as contradicting religious teachings, and the fact that the irreducible core of intelligent design theory is what the Court has called the “manifestly religious” concept of a God or Supreme Being. Based on these details, the authors conclude that intelligent design theory cannot survive scrutiny under the constitutional framework used by the Court to invalidate earlier creationism mandates. Washington University Open Scholarship p 1 Brauer Forrest Gey book pages.doc 9/1/2005 2:31 PM 4 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY [VOL. 83:1 INTRODUCTION
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • The Mystery of Life's Origin
    The Mystery of Life’s Origin The Continuing Controversy CHARLES B. THAXTON, WALTER L. BRADLEY, ROGER L. OLSEN, JAMES TOUR, STEPHEN MEYER, JONATHAN WELLS, GUILLERMO GONZALEZ, BRIAN MILLER, DAVID KLINGHOFFER Seattle Discovery Institute Press 2020 Description The origin of life from non-life remains one of the most enduring mysteries of modern science. The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy investigates how close scientists are to solving that mystery and explores what we are learning about the origin of life from current research in chemistry, physics, astrobiology, biochemistry, and more. The book includes an updated version of the classic text The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen, and new chapters on the current state of the debate by chemist James Tour, physicist Brian Miller, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, biologist Jonathan Wells, and philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer. Copyright Notice Copyright © 2020 by Discovery Institute, All Rights Reserved. Library Cataloging Data The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L, Olsen, James Tour, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, Brian Miller, and David Klinghoffer 486 pages, 6 x 9 x 1.0 inches & 1.4 lb, 229 x 152 x 25 mm. & 0.65 kg Library of Congress Control Number: 9781936599745 ISBN-13: 978-1-936599-74-5 (paperback), 978-1-936599-75-2 (Kindle), 978-1-936599-76-9 (EPUB) BISAC: SCI013040 SCIENCE / Chemistry / Organic BISAC: SCI013030 SCIENCE / Chemistry / Inorganic BISAC: SCI007000 SCIENCE / Life Sciences / Biochemistry BISAC: SCI075000 SCIENCE / Philosophy & Social Aspects Publisher Information Discovery Institute Press, 208 Columbia Street, Seattle, WA 98104 Internet: http://www.discoveryinstitutepress.com/ Published in the United States of America on acid-free paper.
    [Show full text]
  • A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada Jason R
    Document generated on 10/02/2021 4:16 p.m. Geoscience Canada A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada Jason R. Wiles Volume 33, Number 3, September 2006 Article abstract The rejection of biological and geological evolution is a pervasive problem in URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/geocan33_3com01 science education. Recent events in the United States have brought anti-evolution activity to the forefront in media coverage of science education, See table of contents but Canadians are often unaware that such creationist, anti-evolution activity is present in Canada as well. In this article, various foreign and Canadian-based anti-evolution efforts that threaten biology and geoscience education are Publisher(s) discussed. These creationist organizations and their activities may adversely influence Canadian science curricula and public understanding of evolution The Geological Association of Canada and science in general. ISSN 0315-0941 (print) 1911-4850 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Wiles, J. R. (2006). A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada. Geoscience Canada, 33(3), 135–140. All rights reserved © The Geological Association of Canada, 2006 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revelation of God, East and West: Contrasting Special Revelation in Western Modernity with the Ancient Christian East
    Open Theology 2017; 3: 565–589 Analytic Perspectives on Method and Authority in Theology Nathan A. Jacobs* The Revelation of God, East and West: Contrasting Special Revelation in Western Modernity with the Ancient Christian East https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2017-0043 Received August 11, 2017; accepted September 11, 2017 Abstract: The questions of whether God reveals himself; if so, how we can know a purported revelation is authentic; and how such revelations relate to the insights of reason are discussed by John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, G. W. Leibniz, and Immanuel Kant, to name a few. Yet, what these philosophers say with such consistency about revelation stands in stark contrast with the claims of the Christian East, which are equally consistent from the second century through the fourteenth century. In this essay, I will compare the modern discussion of special revelation from Thomas Hobbes through Johann Fichte with the Eastern Christian discussion from Irenaeus through Gregory Palamas. As we will see, there are noteworthy differences between the two trajectories, differences I will suggest merit careful consideration from philosophers of religion. Keywords: Religious Epistemology; Revelation; Divine Vision; Theosis; Eastern Orthodox; Locke; Hobbes; Lessing; Kant; Fichte; Irenaeus; Cappadocians; Cyril of Alexandria; Gregory Palamas The idea that God speaks to humanity, revealing things hidden or making his will known, comes under careful scrutiny in modern philosophy. The questions of whether God does reveal himself; if so, how we can know a purported revelation is authentic; and how such revelations relate to the insights of reason are discussed by John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, G.
    [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]
  • What Is Intelligent Design (ID)?
    Access Research Network Frequently Asked Questions About Intelligent Design Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design by Mark Hartwig Access Research Network What is intelligent design (ID)? ....................................................................................................... 2 How can you tell if something is designed? Isn’t that pretty subjective? ......................................... 4 How does intelligent design apply to biology? ................................................................................ 6 Haven’t scientists shown that biological systems evolved through strictly natural processes? ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 How do you assess the evidence for and against naturalistic evolution? .......................................11 Doesn’t the fossil evidence support naturalistic evolution? ............................................................12 Can’t we actually see evolution in action? .....................................................................................13 What about the molecular evidence? .............................................................................................14 What about the evidence from embryology? ................................................................................. 15 What about the evidence from homology? .................................................................................... 16 Doesn’t
    [Show full text]
  • The Demarcation Problem
    Part I The Demarcation Problem 25 Chapter 1 Popper’s Falsifiability Criterion 1.1 Popper’s Falsifiability Popper’s Problem : To distinguish between science and pseudo-science (astronomy vs astrology) - Important distinction: truth is not the issue – some theories are sci- entific and false, and some may be unscientific but true. - Traditional but unsatisfactory answers: empirical method - Popper’s targets: Marx, Freud, Adler Popper’s thesis : Falsifiability – the theory contains claims which could be proved to be false. Characteristics of Pseudo-Science : unfalsifiable - Any phenomenon can be interpreted in terms of the pseudo-scientific theory “Whatever happened always confirmed it” (5) - Example: man drowning vs saving a child Characteristics of Science : falsifiability - A scientific theory is always takes risks concerning the empirical ob- servations. It contains the possibility of being falsified. There is con- firmation only when there is failure to refute. 27 28 CHAPTER 1. POPPER’S FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION “The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation” (6) - Example: Einstein 1919 1.2 Kuhn’s criticism of Popper Kuhn’s Criticism of Popper : Popper’s falsifiability criterion fails to char- acterize science as it is actually practiced. His criticism at best applies to revolutionary periods of the history of science. Another criterion must be given for normal science. Kuhn’s argument : - Kuhn’s distinction between normal science and revolutionary science - A lesson from the history of science: most science is normal science. Accordingly, philosophy of science should focus on normal science. And any satisfactory demarcation criterion must apply to normal science. - Popper’s falsifiability criterion at best only applies to revolutionary science, not to normal science.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Creation and God As One, Creator, and Trinity in Early Theology Through Augustine and Its Theological Fruitfulness in the 21St Century
    Creation and God as One, Creator, and Trinity in Early Theology through Augustine and Its Theological Fruitfulness in the 21st Century Submitted by Jane Ellingwood to the University of Exeter as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology in September 2015 This dissertation is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the dissertation may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: _________Jane Ellingwood _________________________ 2 Abstract My primary argument in this thesis is that creation theologies significantly influenced early developments in the doctrine of the Trinity, especially in Augustine of Hippo’s theology. Thus this is a work of historical theology, but I conclude with proposals for how Augustine’s theologies of creation and the Trinity can be read fruitfully with modern theology. I critically analyse developments in trinitarian theologies in light of ideas that were held about creation. These include the doctrine of creation ‘out of nothing’ and ideas about other creative acts (e.g., forming or fashioning things). Irenaeus and other early theologians posited roles for God (the Father), the Word / Son, the Spirit, or Wisdom in creative acts without working out formal views on economic trinitarian acts. During the fourth century trinitarian controversies, creation ‘out of nothing’ and ideas about ‘modes of origin’ influenced thinking on consubstantiality and relations within the Trinity.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer
    Evo Edu Outreach DOI 10.1007/s12052-008-0109-9 BOOK REVIEW Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer. New York: Henry Holt, 2006. Pp. xxii + 199. S/b $14.00 Tania Lombrozo # The Author(s) 2008. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com The first decade of the twenty-first century will be a curious a brief but lucid overview of key evolutionary ideas. He chapter in the future history of evolutionary thought. In emphasizes that the source of resistance to evolution is rarely 2005, resistance to evolution manifested in the highly the scientific details but rather the perceived consequences of publicized trial of Dover, Pennsylvania over teaching evolution: atheism, ethical nihilism, and a lack of meaning. Intelligent Design in public schools. Only four years later, What people care about “is whether teaching evolution will in 2009, universities, museums, and individuals across the make their kids reject God, allow criminals and sinners to globe celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of blame their genes for their actions, and generally cause society Darwin’s Origin of Species. Released in the interlude, to fall apart” (p. 25). But according to Shermer, an even Michael Shermer’s Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against greater threat to the theory of evolution is misunderstanding. Intelligent Design takes on the challenge these landmark A large proportion of the public not only misunderstands dates represent: how a thoroughly vetted and accepted evolutionary theory but also aspects of science and the scientific theory can be the source of so much cultural scientific process—for example, that calling evolution a conflict.
    [Show full text]