DOCSLIB.ORG

Scientific Controversies and Boundary Disputes: the Intelligent Design Movement Network

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Scientific Controversies and Boundary Disputes: the Intelligent Design Movement Network Scientific Controversies and Boundary Disputes: The Intelligent Design Movement Network by Jared Scott Coopersmith B.A., University of Pittsburgh, 2003 M.A., University of Pittsburgh, 2005 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2012 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences This dissertation was presented by Jared Coopersmith It was defended on January 17, 2012 and approved by Thomas Fararo, Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Sociology Akiko Hashimoto, Associate Professor, Sociology Charles Jones, Lecturer, Geology and Planetary Science John Marx, Professor Emeritus, Sociology Dissertation Advisor: Patrick Doreian, Professor Emeritus, Sociology ii Copyright © by Jared Coopersmith 2012 iii Scientific Controversies and Boundary Disputes: The Intelligent Design Movement Network Jared Coopersmith, Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, 2012 Although anti-evolutionism has existed for well over a century, recent evolutionary critics have used non-theistic arguments to attempt to show that Darwinian evolution could not have produced some examples of biological complexity. Called “intelligent design” (ID) theory this movement claims to present genuine scientific facts that prove the inability of evolution to produce most biological structures, thus necessitating the infusion of ‘intelligently-designed’ structure or information into biological life. Despite claims of scientific legitimacy by the ID movement, evolutionary scientists, professional scientific associations, and scientific proponents have widely dismissed ID arguments as non-scientific reasoning dressed up in the terminology of science. Using Gieryn’s theory of boundary-work together with Frickel and Gross’ theory of scientific/intellectual movements (SIM), I examined the institutional relationship, if any, between science and the ID movement, using the inter-organizational network of ties between ID organizations and organizations representing other fields. I used several network theoretic measures to examine the extent of ties between the ID, creation science, and science fields. I found very sparse connections between ID and science, indicating strong institutional boundary- work by scientists. While there was some overlap between ID and creation science, I found considerable evidence that these two movements have distinct intellectual cultures. My findings suggest that, regardless of their origins, the intelligent design and creation science movements are two independent organizational communities. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ X PREFACE....................................................................................................................................XI 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 CREATIONISM AND THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN MOVEMENT......................... 7 2.1 EARLY CREATIONISM........................................................................................... 8 2.2 CREATION SCIENCE............................................................................................. 10 2.3 NEOCREATIONISM ............................................................................................... 13 3.0 SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES AND BOUNDARY-WORK .................................. 24 3.1 BOUNDARY-WORK FROM THE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT............. 35 3.2 BOUNDARY-WORK FROM THE ID MOVEMENT.......................................... 38 3.3 BOUNDARY-WORK IN THIS STUDY................................................................. 45 4.0 SCIENTIFIC/INTELLECTUAL MOVEMENTS.......................................................... 47 5.0 RESEARCH QUESTIONS............................................................................................... 65 6.0 DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................................... 69 6.1 STAGE 1: WEBSITE CITATION LISTS .............................................................. 69 6.2 STAGE 2: INDIVIDUALS RECOGNIZED BY ORGANIZATIONS................. 79 7.0 THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORK............. 88 7.1 MAINSTREAM SCIENCE SUBNETWORK........................................................ 96 v 7.2 PRO-SCIENCE SUBNETWORK ........................................................................... 98 7.3 SCIENCE-RELIGION SUBNETWORK ............................................................. 101 7.4 BIOETHICS SUBNETWORK............................................................................... 103 7.5 PSEUDO-SCIENCE SUBNETWORK.................................................................. 105 7.6 INTELLIGENT DESIGN/CREATION SCIENCE SUBNETWORK ............... 107 8.0 CENTRALITY ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 114 8.1 DEGREE CENTRALITY....................................................................................... 116 8.2 CLOSENESS CENTRALITY................................................................................ 123 8.3 BETWEENNESS CENTRALITY ......................................................................... 128 8.4 CENTRALITY CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ......................................... 135 8.4.1 Boundary-work and centrality ................................................................... 143 9.0 ORGANIZATIONS WITH NO INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CONNECTIONS .. 146 10.0 CUT VERTEX AND M-SLICE ANALYSIS .............................................................. 151 10.1 CUT-VERTICES................................................................................................... 151 10.2 M-SLICE ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 158 10.3 CUT-VERTEX AND M-SLICE CONCLUSION............................................... 169 11.0 ERGM ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 170 11.1 ERGM CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ..................................................... 183 12.0 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................... 188 12.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION ............................................... 194 13.0 EPILOGUE .................................................................................................................... 200 APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................ 202 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................ 205 vi APPENDIX C............................................................................................................................ 253 APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................ 260 BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................... 264 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Inter-organizational network organizations by organizational field categories.............. 93 Table 2. Connected organizations with zero betweenness centrality ......................................... 133 Table 3. Intelligent design and creation science organizations' centrality scores....................... 142 Table 4. Organizations with no inter-organizational linkages.................................................... 146 Table 5. Inter-organizational Network Cut Vertices................................................................... 153 Table 6. Inter-organizational network m-slices .......................................................................... 160 Table 7. Inter-organizational network organizations by organizational categories used in ERGM analysis........................................................................................................................................ 172 Table 8. Inter-organizational network ERGM model 18............................................................ 178 Table 9. Intelligent design and creation science subnetworks ERGM analysis ......................... 186 Table 10: Inter-organizational network degree centrality........................................................... 253 Table 11: Inter-organizational network closeness centrality ...................................................... 256 Table 12: Inter-organizational network betweenness centrality ................................................. 258 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Website Citation Collection Steps................................................................................. 76 Figure 2. Inter-organizational Network ........................................................................................ 89 Figure 3. Mainstream science subnetwork.................................................................................... 97 Figure 4. Pro-science subnetwork............................................................................................... 100 Figure 5. Science-Religion subnetwork.....................................................................................
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]
  • Wrangell St. Elias News March & April 2010 Page 1
    WRANGELL ST. ELIAS NEWS MARCH & APRIL 2010 PAGE 1 Wrangell St. Elias News “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” Volume Nineteen Issue Two March & April 2010 $2.50 A winter “Mail Day”—McCarthy style our mail pilot tries ail days in McCa- again the next day. rthy look much Copper Valley Air Mdifferent than Service has a variety of mail day delivery in the “big airplanes and pilots. city.” Dave Parmenter, own- First, it is not 5 or 6 days a er, is often our “mail week but twice a week; that pilot.” Dave is pictured is, unless the weather keeps here as he prepares to our mail pilot on the ground unload his Cessna 185 in Glennallen, about 125 with all our mail day WSEN staff photo miles west of our community. goodies. Wheel skies Dave—our mail pilot. are still a “must” dur- ing the latter part of or just seek out those warmer February. climes. Winter mail days Transportation to mail is are usually sparsely usually by snowmachine with attended by local sleds to haul incoming boxes. residents. The (continued on page 11) McCarthy/Ken nicott area population is only about 50- 60 year round WSEN staff photo folks and work Bonnie Kenyon, Howard Haley, Jim Edwards is seasonal— and Mike Monroe. mostly in the summer Wednesdays and Fridays months. In recent are the scheduled days for years, the majority of us both incoming and outgoing take advantage of the WSEN staff photo mail. For the most part, if one slower-paced winter Park Ranger Stephens Harper meets incoming of those days is missed due to months to travel and passenger, Erica Edmonds who is the new adverse weather conditions, visit family and friends Kennecott Interpretive Ranger.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientists Dissent List
    A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This was last publicly updated February 2019. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position. Philip Skell* Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences Lyle H. Jensen* Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India) Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia) Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine) Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel) Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK) Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University David W.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • ANG 5012, Section 6423 Spring 2017 FANTASTIC ANTHROPOLOGY and FRINGE SCIENCE
    ANG 5012, section 6423 Spring 2017 FANTASTIC ANTHROPOLOGY AND FRINGE SCIENCE Time: Mondays, periods 7-9 (1:55 – 4:55) Place: TUR 2303 Instructor: David Daegling, Turlington B376 352-294-7603 [email protected] Office Hours: M 10:30 – 11:30 AM; W 1:00 – 3:00 PM. COURSE OBJECTIVES: This course examines the articulation and perpetuation of so-called paranormal and fringe scientific theories concerning the human condition. We will examine these unconventional claims with respect to 1) underlying belief systems, 2) empirical and logical foundations, 3) persistence in the face of refutation, 4) popular treatment by mass media and 5) institutional reaction. The course is divided into five parts. Part I explores forms of inquiry and considers the demarcation of science from pseudoscience. Part II concerns unconventional theories of human evolution. Part III investigates unorthodox ideas of human biology. Part IV examines claims of extraterrestrial and supernatural contact in the world today. Part V further scrutinizes institutional reaction to fringe science, popular coverage of science, and the culture of science in the contemporary United States. COURSE REQUIREMENTS: Attendance is mandatory. Unexcused absences (i.e., other than medical or family emergency) result in a half grade reduction of your final grade. Participation in group and class discussions is required (50% of your final grade). In addition, written work is required for each of the five parts of the course (50% of your grade). These will take the form of essays and short papers to be completed concurrently with our discussions of these topics. Late papers are subject to a full letter grade reduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Leonardo Da Vinci and Perpetual Motion
    Leonardo da Vinci and Perpetual Motion Allan A. Mills CELEBRATING LEONARDO DA VINCI CELEBRATING umankind has always sought to reduce the the same wheel, then the machine H ABSTRACT need for its own manual labor. Draught animals were one might turn “forever.” solution, but much more beguiling was the concept of ma- A number of empirical attempts Leonardo da Vinci illustrated chines that would work “by themselves,” with no obvious prime to achieve such a hydraulic chimera several traditional forms of mover [1]. Even in ancient times, it appears that at least two perhaps were made but went un- “perpetual-motion machine” in categories had been proposed: the self-pumping waterwheel recorded because they never worked. small pocket books now known and the mechanical overbalancing wheel. None of course Drawings and plans of self-pumping as the Codex Forster. He was well aware that these designs, worked, and as science and technology progressed it became wheels persisted into the 18th cen- based on waterwheel/pump apparent that any such device was theoretically impossible. tury and even into modern times combinations, mechanical However, before this understanding was fully achieved and as amusing artifacts of linear per- overbalancing hammers or became well known, many technologists and hopeful inven- spective [3]. Progress in the under- rolling balls, would not—and could not—work. tors [2] felt obliged to devote time to this hoary problem. standing of efficiency, friction and Among the former was Leonardo da Vinci. Well aware of the the conservation of energy gradu- futility of all suggestions for achieving “perpetual motion,” he ally vindicated the practical knowl- simply recorded—and refuted—ideas that were prevalent in edge that, no matter how ingenious, his time.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]
  • The Museum of Unworkable Devices
    The Museum of Unworkable Devices This museum is a celebration of fascinating devices that don't work. It houses diverse examples of the perverse genius of inventors who refused to let their thinking be intimidated by the laws of nature, remaining optimistic in the face of repeated failures. Watch and be amazed as we bring to life eccentric and even intricate perpetual motion machines that have remained steadfastly unmoving since their inception. Marvel at the ingenuity of the human mind, as it reinvents the square wheel in all of its possible variations. Exercise your mind to puzzle out exactly why they don't work as the inventors intended. This, like many pages at this site, is a work in progress. Expect revisions and addition of new material. Since these pages are written in bits and pieces over a long period of time, there's bound to be some repetition of ideas. This may be annoying to those who read from beginning to end, and may be just fine for those who read these pages in bits and pieces. Galleries The Physics Gallery, an educational tour. The physics of unworkable devices and the physics of the real world. The Annex for even more incredible and unworkable machines. Advanced Concepts Gallery where clever inventors go beyond the classical overbalanced wheels. New Acquisitions. We're not sure where to put these. Will They Work? These ideas don't claim perpetual motion or over-unity performance, nor do they claim to violate physics. But will they work? Whatever Were They Thinking? The rationale behind standard types of perpetual motion devices.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation Evidences Museum in Glen Rose, and Director of International Expeditions Looking for Living Dinosaurs
    DR. BAUGH, CREATION IN SYMPHONY Tape 1, Sessions 1 & 2 Creation in Symphony: THE EVIDENCE Session 1 Evolution Won’t Work (voice - intro) 150 years ago the theory of evolution found reception in the mind of western man. It was not a new idea. It had been introduced in religious political documents in ancient Babylon, and later in secular contemplations of developing Greece. Erasmus Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. His grandson, Charles, introduced the concept to the secular academic community, which was eager to embrace a non-theistic doctrine. This doctrine removed the need for a Creator in the natural world, and the need for accountability in the spiritual world. The text of this video series shows that evolution does not work in theory, or in laboratory research. The evidence is heavily in favor of special creation. In this series of lectures a complete Creation model has been developed, with extensive technical references. Prepare to have your mind dramatically expanded, and your faith academically justified, as our speaker, Dr. Carl Baugh, takes you on a fascinating journey from the microscopic to the galactic. Discover creation in symphony. (Baugh) Hello, I’m Carl Baugh, director of Creation Evidences Museum in Glen Rose, and director of international expeditions looking for living dinosaurs. Welcome to the discussion today. We’re going to discuss very intimate questions, which have to do with your past, your present and your future, and that of all of mankind. We’re going to talk about dinosaurs. Tyrannosaurus Rex. Pachycephalosaurus.
    [Show full text]