Your browser does not fully support modern features. Please upgrade for a smoother experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 handwiki Sirius Huang -- 11342 2022-11-10 01:40:26

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
HandWiki. Creation–Evolution Controversy. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/33890 (accessed on 03 October 2026).
HandWiki. Creation–Evolution Controversy. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/33890. Accessed October 03, 2026.
HandWiki. "Creation–Evolution Controversy" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/33890 (accessed October 03, 2026).
HandWiki. (2022, November 10). Creation–Evolution Controversy. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/33890
HandWiki. "Creation–Evolution Controversy." Encyclopedia. Web. 10 November, 2022.
Creation–Evolution Controversy
Edit
The content is sourced from: https://handwiki.org/wiki/Unsolved:Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy

The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) involves an ongoing, recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. Species were once widely believed to be fixed products of divine creation in accordance with creationism, but since the mid-19th century evolution by natural selection has been established as an empirical scientific fact. The debate is religious, not scientific: in the scientific community, evolution is accepted as fact and efforts to sustain the traditional view are almost universally regarded as pseudoscience. While the controversy has a long history, today it has retreated to be mainly over what constitutes good science education, with the politics of creationism primarily focusing on the teaching of creationism in public education. Among majority-Christian countries, the debate is most prominent in the United States, where it may be portrayed as part of a culture war. Parallel controversies also exist in some other religious communities, such as the more fundamentalist branches of Judaism and Islam. In Europe and elsewhere, creationism is less widespread (notably, the Catholic Church and Anglican Communion both accept evolution), and there is much less pressure to teach it as fact. Christian fundamentalists repudiate the evidence of common descent of humans and other animals as demonstrated in modern paleontology, genetics, histology and cladistics and those other sub-disciplines which are based upon the conclusions of modern evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and other related fields. They argue for the Abrahamic accounts of creation, and, in order to attempt to gain a place alongside evolutionary biology in the science classroom, have developed a rhetorical framework of "creation science". In the landmark Kitzmiller v. Dover, the purported basis of scientific creationism was exposed as a wholly religious construct without formal scientific merit. The Catholic Church now recognizes the existence of evolution (see Catholic Church and evolution). Pope Francis has stated: "God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life...Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve." The rules of genetic evolutionary inheritance were first discovered by a Catholic priest, the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel, who is known today as the founder of modern genetics. According to a 2014 Gallup survey, "More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades. Half of Americans believe humans evolved, with the majority of these saying God guided the evolutionary process. However, the percentage who say God was not involved is rising." A 2015 Pew Research Center survey found "that while 37% of those older than 65 thought that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, only 21% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 29 agreed." The debate is sometimes portrayed as being between science and religion, and the United States National Academy of Sciences states:

evolutionary biology natural selection cosmology

References

  1. Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 34–35
  2. van Wyhe, John (2006). "Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist". John van Wyhe. http://darwin-online.org.uk/darwin.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  3. Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 321–323, 503–505
  4. Dixon 2008, p. 77
  5. van Wyhe 2006
  6. Hale, Piers (July 2012). "Darwin's Other Bulldog: Charles Kingsley and the Popularisation of Evolution in Victorian England". Science & Education 21 (7): 977–1013. doi:10.1007/s11191-011-9414-8. ISSN 0926-7220. Bibcode: 2012Sc&Ed..21..977H. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304022916/http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/H/Piers.J.Hale-1/DARWIN'S%20OTHER%20BULLDOG%202011.pdf. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  7. AAAS 2006
  8. Baxter, Craig; Darwin Correspondence Project (research collaborator). "Re: Design". Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/dramatisation-script. Retrieved 2014-08-27.  "Dramatisation of the correspondence". Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/dramatisation-of-the-correspondence. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  9. Gray 1876
  10. Hodge 1874, p. 177
  11. Numbers 1992, p. 14
  12. Burns et al. 1982, p. 965
  13. Huxley 1902
  14. Witham 2002
  15. Barbour 1997, pp. 58, 65
  16. Numbers 1992, pp. 13–15
  17. Numbers 1992, p. 17
  18. Numbers 1992, p. 18, noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views rarely found expression in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788–1871), David Nevins Lord (1792–1880), and E. G. White (1829–1915). The observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807–1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807–1884); John William Dawson (1820–1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818–1907); George D. Armstrong (1813–1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797–1878); James Dwight Dana (1813–1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and Amherst College geologist, (1793–1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818–1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?–1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838–1922); Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist.
  19. Salhany 1986, p. 32
  20. Numbers 2006, pp. 162–164.
  21. Numbers 2006, p. 161
  22. Withnall, Adam (2014-10-28). "Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'". The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html. Retrieved 10 July 2015. 
  23. Buescher, John. "A History of Fundamentalism". Fairfax, VA: George Mason University; United States Department of Education. http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24092. Retrieved 2011-08-15. 
  24. Nagata, Judith (June 2001). "Beyond Theology: Toward an Anthropology of 'Fundamentalism'". American Anthropologist 103 (2): 481–498. doi:10.1525/aa.2001.103.2.481.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1525%2Faa.2001.103.2.481
  25. Numbers 2006, p. 162
  26. Numbers 2006, pp. 355–356
  27. Salhany 1986, p. 32–34
  28. Similar legislation passed in two other states prior to the Scopes trial – in Oklahoma and in Florida. After the Scopes trial of July 1925 legislators abandoned efforts to enact "Butler Acts" in other jurisdictions. See: Pierce, J. Kingston (August 2000). "Scopes Trial". American History. ISSN 1076-8866. http://www.historynet.com/scopes-trial.htm. Retrieved 2014-08-27.  Describes the Florida and Oklahoma acts. Cole, Fay-Cooper (December 31, 2008). "50 Years Ago: A Witness at the Scopes Trial". Scientific American. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/50-years-ago-scope-trial-witness/. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  29. "Decision on Scopes' Appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee". Kansas City, MO: Curators of the University of Missouri. January 17, 1927. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/statcase.htm. Retrieved 2014-08-27.  The statute required a minimum fine of $100, and the state Constitution required all fines over $50 to be assessed by a jury.
  30. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was not, at the time of the Scopes decision in the 1920s, deemed applicable to the states. Thus, Scopes' constitutional defense on establishment grounds rested solely on the state constitution. See: Court Opinion of Scopes' Trial 1927. See generally Incorporation doctrine and Everson v. Board of Education (seminal U.S. Supreme Court opinion finally applying the Establishment Clause against states in 1947). Kerr, Orin (July 26, 2005). "State v. Scopes". Los Angeles, CA: UCLA School of Law. http://www.volokh.com/posts/1122414938.shtml. "The constitutional case was largely based on state constitutional law; this was before most of the Bill of Rights had been incorporated and applied to the states."  Review of Edward J. Larson's book Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion (1997). Cantwell v. Connecticut. 1940 Supreme Court case stating that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore applicable against the states. Cookson 2003, p. 132. Explains incorporation doctrine relative to First Amendment. "BRIA 7 4 b The 14th Amendment and the 'Second Bill of Rights'". Los Angeles, CA: Constitutional Rights Foundation. http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-7-4-b-the-14th-amendment-and-the-second-bill-of-rights. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  31. The Court accordingly did not address the question of whether the teaching of creationism in the public schools was unconstitutional.
  32. Court Opinion of Scope's Trial 1927. The Court stated in its opinion that "England and Scotland maintained State churches as did some of the Colonies, and it was intended by this clause of the Constitution [the Religious Preference Clause] to prevent any such undertaking in Tennessee."
  33. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Context, p. 19.
  34. Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals". Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  35. Flank, Lenny (March 2006). "The History of Creationism". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar06.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  36. Elsberry, Wesley R. "The Scopes Trial: Frequently Rebutted Assertions". Palmetto, FL: Wesley R. Elsberry. http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/scopes/scopes.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  37. Nelkin 2000, p. 242
  38. *Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (U.S. November 12, 1968). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=393&page=97
  39. Larson 2003, p. 103
  40. Larson 2004, pp. 248, 250
  41. Dobzhansky, Theodosius (March 1973). "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". The American Biology Teacher 35 (3): 125–129. doi:10.2307/4444260.  https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F4444260
  42. Larson 2004, p. 251
  43. Larson 2004, p. 252
  44. Larson 2004, p. 255
  45. Numbers 1992, pp. xi, 200–208
  46. Numbers 1992, pp. 284–285
  47. Numbers 1992, pp. 284–286
  48. Larson 2004, pp. 255–256: "Fundamentalists no longer merely denounced Darwinism as false; they offered a scientific-sounding alternative of their own, which they called either 'scientific creationism (as distinct from religious creationism) or 'creation science' (as opposed to evolution science)."
  49. Larson 2004, pp. 254–255
  50. Numbers 1998, pp. 5–6
  51. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Introduction, pp. 7–9.
  52. "Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute". Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. August 28, 2002. http://ncse.com/creationism/general/evolving-banners-at-discovery-institute. Retrieved 2009-04-07. 
  53. "CSC – Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?". Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign. Retrieved 2007-05-13. 
  54. "Some question group's move with elections nearing". 6 News Lawrence (Lawrence, KS: 6News Lawrence; Lawrence Journal-World). July 7, 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-07-14. https://web.archive.org/web/20060714233945/http://www.6newslawrence.com/news/2006/jul/07/many_question_groups_move_elections_nearing/. 
  55. "Evolution's foes lose ground in Kansas". NBCNews.com. Associated Press. August 2, 2006. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14137751. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  56. "Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence". International Herald Tribune. Associated Press (New York: The New York Times Company). February 13, 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-05-25. https://web.archive.org/web/20070525044215/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/13/america/NA-GEN-US-Kansas-Evolution-History.php. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  57. "Timeline: How Creationism Has 'Evolved'". Washington, D.C.: People for the American Way. 2006. http://www.pfaw.org/issues/religious-liberty/timeline-how-creationism-has-evolved. Retrieved 2012-05-01. 
  58. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.
  59. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 89, support the view that "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."
  60. "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution". Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-02-21. https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf. Retrieved 2014-07-31. "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." 
  61. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Disclaimer, p. 49: "In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."
  62. Mooney, Chris (December 2002). "Survival of the Slickest". The American Prospect 13 (22). http://prospect.org/article/survival-slickest. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists 'continue to investigate and critically analyze' aspects of Darwin's theory.". 
  63. Dembski, William A. (February 27, 2001). "Teaching Intelligent Design – What Happened When? A Response to Eugenie Scott". New York: Metanexus Institute. http://www.metanexus.net/essay/teaching-intelligent-design-what-happened-when-response-eugenie-scott. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy."  Dembski's response to Eugenie Scott's February 12, 2001, essay published by Metanexus, "The Big Tent and the Camel's Nose."
  64. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 134.
  65. Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit (April 3, 2009). "New Texas Standards Question Evolution, Fossil Record". Science 324 (5923): 25. doi:10.1126/science.324.5923.25a. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 19342560. Bibcode: 2009Sci...324...25B.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.324.5923.25a
  66. Verderame, John (May 10, 2001). "Creation Evangelism: Cutting Through the Excess". Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis Ministries International. https://answersingenesis.org/gospel/world-missions/creation-evangelism-cutting-through-the-excess/. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  67. Simon, Stephanie (February 11, 2006). "Their Own Version of a Big Bang". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/print/2006/feb/11/nation/na-creation11. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  68. Dewey 1994, p. 31, and Wiker 2003, summarizing Gould.
  69. Graffin, Gregory W and Profine, William B "Evolution, Religion and Free Will" (American Scientist Vol 95, July–August 2007)
  70. http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/200852181196485-2007-07Macroscope.pdf accessed 11 August 2016
  71. Larson 2004, p. 258: "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position."
  72. Martz & McDaniel 1987
  73. "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Washington, D.C.: Biological Society of Washington. October 4, 2004. Archived from the original on 2007-09-26. https://web.archive.org/web/20070926214521/http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  74. Peters, Ted; Hewlett, Martinez (December 22, 2005). "The Evolution Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What?". Berkeley, CA: Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary. http://www.plts.edu/docs/ite_evol_fighting.pdf. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  75. Bumiller, Elisabeth (August 3, 2005). "Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html. Retrieved 2007-02-03. 
  76. Scott, Eugenie Carol (with foreword by Niles Eldredge) (2004). Evolution vs. Creationism: an Introduction. Berkeley & Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. p. xii. ISBN 978-0-520-24650-8. https://archive.org/details/evolutionvscreat00scot/page/. Retrieved 3 June 2014. "Creationism is about maintaining particular, narrow forms of religious belief – beliefs that seem to their adherents to be threatened by the very idea of evolution." 
  77. NAS 1999, p. ix https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/1#ix
  78. "Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html. Retrieved 2014-09-18. 
  79. Ruse, Michael (1982). "Creation Science Is Not Science". Science, Technology, & Human Values 7 (40): 38–47. doi:10.1177/016224398200700313. http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/3330/ruseandlaudan-demarcation.pdf. 
  80. Sarkar & Pfeifer 2006, p. 194 https://books.google.com/books?id=od68ge7aF6wC&pg=PA194
  81. Scott, Eugenie C.; Cole, Henry P. (1985). "The elusive basis of creation "science"". The Quarterly Review of Biology 60 (1): 21–30. doi:10.1086/414171.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1086%2F414171
  82. Kathryn Applegate and J. B. Stump, eds., How I Changed My Mind About Evolution (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016)
  83. Scott 2005, p. 65
  84. Scott 2005, pp. 65–66
  85. Johnson 1998; Hodge 1874, p. 177; Wiker 2003; Peters & Hewlett 2005, p. 5. Peters and Hewlett argue that the atheism of many evolutionary supporters must be removed from the debate.
  86. Lenski, Richard E. (September 2000). "Evolution: Fact and Theory". Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Biological Sciences. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  87. Johnson 1998
  88. Einstein, Albert (November 9, 1930). "Religion and Science". The New York Times Magazine: 1–4. ISSN 0028-7822. http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-30. 
  89. Dawkins, Richard (January–February 1997). "Is Science a Religion?". The Humanist 57 (1). ISSN 0018-7399. Archived from the original on 2002-08-22. https://web.archive.org/web/20020822070505/http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  90. Johnson 1993, p. 63 Tolson, Jay (September 5, 2005). "Religion in America: Intelligent Design on Trial". U.S. News. Archived from the original on 2006-06-21. https://web.archive.org/web/20060621204443/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050928/28religion.htm. Retrieved 2014-08-27.  Moran, Laurence (1993). "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27.  Selman v. Cobb County School District, 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006). Dawkins, Richard (December 3, 2004). "Richard Dawkins on the Argument for Evolution". Now with Bill Moyers (Interview). Interviewed by Bill Moyers. PBS. Retrieved 2006-01-29.
  91. NAS 1999, p. 2 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2
  92. Gould, Stephen Jay (May 1981). "Evolution as Fact and Theory". Discover 2 (5): 34–37. ISSN 0274-7529. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html. Retrieved 2007-01-17. 
  93. Numbers 2006, p. 274: "To solve the age-old problem of distinguishing science from metaphysics or pseudoscience, Popper invoked the criterion of falsifiability as a substitute for the less rigorous test of verifiability."
  94. Hansson, Sven Ove (2012) [First published September 3, 2008]. "Science and Pseudo-Science". in Zalta, Edward N. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/pseudo-science/#KarPop. Retrieved 2014-08-27. "Popper described the demarcation problem as the 'key to most of the fundamental problems in the philosophy of science.' He refuted verifiability as a criterion for a scientific theory or hypothesis to be scientific, rather than pseudoscientific or metaphysical. Instead he proposed as a criterion that the theory be falsifiable, or more precisely that 'statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations'. Popper presented this proposal as a way to draw the line between statements belonging to the empirical sciences and 'all other statements – whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudoscientific'. It was both an alternative to the logical positivists' verification criteria and a criterion for distinguishing between science and pseudoscience.". 
  95. Numbers 1992, p. 247 Wilkins, John S. (1997). "Evolution and Philosophy: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  96. Popper 1976, pp. 168, 172, quoted in Kofahl, Robert E. (May 22, 1981). "Popper on Darwinism". Science 212 (4497). doi:10.1126/science.11643641. ISSN 0036-8075. Bibcode: 1981Sci...212..873K.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.11643641
  97. Unknown sociologist quoted in Numbers 1992, p. 247
  98. Kofahl, Robert E. (June 1989). "The Hierarchy of Conceptual Levels For Scientific Thought And Research". Creation Research Society Quarterly 26 (1). http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum26_1.html. Retrieved 2007-01-29,  as quoted by Numbers 1992, p. 247
  99. Lewin, Roger (January 8, 1982). "Where Is the Science in Creation Science?". Science 215 (4529): 142–144, 146. doi:10.1126/science.215.4529.142. PMID 17839530. Bibcode: 1982Sci...215..142L.  "Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory," wrote Gish in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981). "This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)." https://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.215.4529.142
  100. Numbers 2006, p. 274
  101. Kofahl 1981
  102. Isaak, Mark, ed (November 2, 2005). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA211.1: Popper on natural selection's testability". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html. Retrieved 2012-06-05. 
  103. Popper, Karl (December 1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica 32 (3–4): 339–355. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1978.tb01321.x. ISSN 1746-8361. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/natural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27.  Massimo Pigliucci (September–October 2004). "Did Popper Refute Evolution?". Skeptical Inquirer. ISSN 0194-6730. http://www.lehman.edu/deanhum/philosophy/platofootnote/PlatoFootnote.org/Outreach_files/2004-Did%20Popper%20refute%20evolution%3F-Skeptical%20Inquirer.pdf. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  104. Ruse 1999, pp. 13–37, which discusses conflicting ideas about science among Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and their disciples.
  105. As quoted by Wallis 2005, p. 32. Also see Dawkins 1986 and Dawkins 1995
  106. Wallis, Claudia (August 7, 2005). "The Evolution Wars". Time (magazine). http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-1,00.html. Retrieved 2007-01-31none , p. 6. Richard Dawkins quoting J. B. S. Haldane.
  107. Dorman, Clark (January 30, 1996). "McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html. Retrieved 2007-01-31. 
  108. Ham 1987
  109. Dembski 1998
  110. Morris, Henry M. (February 2001). "Evolution Is Religion—Not Science". Impact (332): i–iv. OCLC 8153605. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-332.pdf. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  111. Morris 1974
  112. Wiker, Benjamin D. (July–August 2003). "Part II: The Christian Critics — Does Science Point to God?". Crisis Magazine. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2003/part-ii-the-christian-critics-does-science-point-to-god. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  113. Scott 2005
  114. Isaak, Mark, ed (February 15, 2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA611: Evolution sacrosanct?". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA611.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  115. Kutschera, Ulrich; Niklas, Karl J. (June 2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften 91 (6): 255–276. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. ISSN 0028-1042. PMID 15241603. Bibcode: 2004NW.....91..255K.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00114-004-0515-y
  116. Ham, Ken (November 1983). "Creation Evangelism (Part II of Relevance of Creation)". Ex Nihilo 6 (2): 17. ISSN 0819-1530. http://creation.com/creation-evangelism-part-ii-of-relevance-of-creation. Retrieved 2014-08-27.  "Why has the Lord raised up Creation Science ministries worldwide? Why is it necessary to have such organizations? One thing we have come to realize in Creation Science is that the Lord has not just called us to knock down evolution, but to help in restoring the foundation of the Gospel in our society. We believe that if the churches took up the tool of Creation Evangelism in society, not only would we see a stemming of the tide of humanistic philosophy, but we would also see the seeds of revival sown in a culture which is becoming increasingly more pagan each day. [...] It is also worth noting the comment in the book, 'By Their Blood-Christian Martyrs of the 20th Century' (Most Media) by James and Marti Helfi, on page 49 and 50: 'New philosophies and theologies from the West also helped to erode Chinese confidence in Christianity. A new wave of so-called missionaries from mainline Protestant denominations came teaching evolution and a non-supernatural view of the Bible. Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Northern Baptist schools were especially hard hit. Bertrand Russell came from England preaching atheism and socialism. Destructive books brought by such teachers further undermined orthodox Christianity. The Chinese Intelligentsia who had been schooled by Orthodox Evangelical Missionaries were thus softened for the advent of Marxism.' Evolution is destroying the Church and society, and Christians need to be awakened to that fact!" [emphasis in the original]
  117. Curtis, Gary N.. "Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences". Greencastle, IN: Gary Curtis. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27.  "…I want to list seventeen summary statements which, if true, provide abundant reason why the reader should reject evolution and accept special creation as his basic world-view. … 13. Belief in special creation has a salutary influence on mankind, since it encourages responsible obedience to the Creator and considerate recognition of those who were created by Him. … 16. Belief in evolution and animal kinship leads normally to selfishness, aggressiveness, and fighting between groups, as well as animalistic attitudes and behaviour by individuals." — Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (Creation-Life Publishers, 1972), pp. vi–viii
  118. Johnson 1993, p. 69. Johnson cites three pages spent in Isaac Asimov's New Guide to Science that take creationists to task, while only spending one half page on evidence of evolution.
  119. Timmer, John (May 7, 2008). "Evolution: what's the real controversy?". https://arstechnica.com/science/2008/05/evolution-whats-the-real-controversy/. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  120. Wise, Kurt. "The Discontinuity of Life". Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-discontinuity-of-life/. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  121. Luskin, Casy (May 12, 2009), A Primer on the Tree of Life, Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute, http://www.discovery.org/a/10651, retrieved 2014-08-06 
  122. Morris, Henry M. (May 2002). "Evolution Versus the People" (PDF). Back to Genesis (161): a–c. OCLC 26390403. http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-versus-people/. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  123. Stringer & Andrews 2005
  124. Relethford 2004
  125. "Toumaï the Human Ancestor". All Things Considered (NPR). July 10, 2002. Archived from the original on 2002-08-05. https://web.archive.org/web/20020805134540/http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/july/toumai/index.html. Retrieved 2009-02-21. 
  126. Britten, Roy J. (October 15, 2002). "Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels". PNAS 99 (21): 13633–13635. doi:10.1073/pnas.172510699. ISSN 0027-8424. PMID 12368483. Bibcode: 2002PNAS...9913633B.  http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=129726
  127. Varki, Ajit; Altheide, Tasha K. (December 2005). "Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack". Genome Research 15 (12): 1746–1758. doi:10.1101/gr.3737405. ISSN 1549-5469. PMID 16339373.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1101%2Fgr.3737405
  128. Hecht, Jeff (May 19, 2003). "Chimps are human, gene study implies". New Scientist. ISSN 0262-4079. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3744-chimps-are-human-gene-study-implies.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27.  Wildman, Derek E.; Uddin, Monica; Guozhen Liu et al. (June 10, 2003). "Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo". PNAS 100 (12): 7181–7188. doi:10.1073/pnas.1232172100. ISSN 0027-8424. PMID 12766228. Bibcode: 2003PNAS..100.7181W. 
  129. Foley, Jim (April 30, 2003). "Was Java Man a gibbon?". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gibbon.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  130. Isaak 2007: See disputes over the classification of Neanderthals.
  131. Foley, Jim (October 28, 2005). "Comparison of all skulls". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  132. Mark Isaak (12 January 2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook. University of California Press. pp. 52–53. ISBN 978-0-520-24926-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=dGFJXLEWogEC&pg=PA52. 
  133. Kutschera, Ulrich; Niklas, KarlJ. (17 March 2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften 91 (6): 255–76. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. PMID 15241603. Bibcode: 2004NW.....91..255K.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00114-004-0515-y
  134. Morris, Henry M. (1977). The Genesis record : a scientific and devotional commentary on the book of Beginnings (27th ed.). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-8010-6004-5. https://archive.org/details/genesisrecordsc00morr/page/63. 
  135. Awbrey, Frank T. (Summer 1981). "Defining "Kinds" — Do Creationists Apply a Double Standard?". Creation Evolution Journal 2 (3): 1–6. http://ncse.com/cej/2/3/defining-kinds-do-creationists-apply-double-standard. Retrieved 31 March 2016. 
  136. Bishlick, Alan; College, Gustavus Adolphus (July–August 2006). "Baraminology". Reports of the National Center for Science Education 26 (4): 17–21. http://ncse.com/rncse/26/4/baraminology. Retrieved 31 March 2016. 
  137. Morris 1985, pp. 78–90
  138. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York & International Bible Students Association 1985, pp. 57–59
  139. Gould, Stephen Jay (May 1994). "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past". Natural History 103 (4): 8–15. ISSN 0028-0712. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_leviathan.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27.  Gould quotes from Hayward 1985.
  140. Fordyce, R. Ewan; Barnes, Lawrence G. (May 1994). "The Evolutionary History of Whales and Dolphins". Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 22: 419–455. doi:10.1146/annurev.ea.22.050194.002223. ISSN 1545-4495. Bibcode: 1994AREPS..22..419F.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.ea.22.050194.002223
  141. Hoagland, Dodson & Hauck 2001, p. 298
  142. IAP Member Academies (June 21, 2006). "IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution". Trieste, Italy: The World Academy of Sciences. http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  143. del Peloso, E. F.; da Silva, L.; de Mello, G. F. Porto (April 2005). "The age of the Galactic thin disk from Th/Eu nucleocosmochronology". Astronomy and Astrophysics 434 (1): 275–300. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20047060. ISSN 0004-6361. Bibcode: 2005A&A...434..275D.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1051%2F0004-6361%3A20047060
  144. Humphreys, D. Russell (October 2002). "Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World". Impact (352): i–iv. OCLC 8153605. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-352.pdf. Retrieved 2014-05-08. 
  145. Henke, Kevin R. (June 20, 2010). "Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion 'Dates': Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data". Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27.  Original version: March 17, 2005; Revisions: November 24, 2005; July 25, 2006 and June 20, 2010.
  146. Meert, Joseph G. (February 6, 2003). "R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research". Gainesville, Florida: Joseph Meert. http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  147. Dating methods discussed were potassium–argon dating, argon–argon dating, rubidium–strontium dating, samarium–neodymium dating, lutetium–hafnium, rhenium–osmium dating, and uranium–lead dating.
  148. Wiens, Roger C. (2002). "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective". Ipswich, MA. pp. 20–21. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2020. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  149. Chang, Kenneth (February 21, 2006). "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html. Retrieved 2014-02-11. 
  150. Pieret, John, ed (October 31, 2006). "The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html. Retrieved 2007-01-23. 
  151. Stear, John (May 16, 2005). "The incomprehensible creationist – the Darwin 'eye' quote revisited". Melbourne: Australian Skeptics Science and Education Foundation. http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/darwin_eye_quote_revisited.htm. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  152. Phillips 2006
  153. Annas, George J. (May 25, 2006). "Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom". The New England Journal of Medicine 354 (21): 2277–2281. doi:10.1056/NEJMlim055660. ISSN 0028-4793. PMID 16723620. "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned.".  https://dx.doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJMlim055660
  154. See: List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (M.D. Pa. December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 83. The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. The four-day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7,733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. AAAS 2002. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists "...urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science." National Center for Science Education: List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences. http://www.science.org.au/reports/intelligent-design.html
  155. Via, Sara (Lecturer); Holman, Emmett (Respondent) (April 20, 2006). The Origin of Species: What Do We Really Know? (Speech). AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion. Washington, D.C. Archived from the original on 2006-04-21. Retrieved 2014-08-27. https://web.archive.org/web/20060421015554/http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/02_Events/Lectures/2006/02_Lecture_2006_0420.shtml
  156. Woods 2005, pp. 67–114, Chapter five: "The Church and Science"
  157. * Morris, Henry M. (January 1982). "Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past". Acts & Facts 11 (1). ISSN 1094-8562. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185. Retrieved 2007-01-20. 
  158. Isaak, Mark, ed (November 25, 2005). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA114: Creationist scientists". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  159. Ayala, Francisco J. (January–February 1977). "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Journal of Heredity 68 (1): 3–10. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a108767. ISSN 0022-1503. PMID 325064.  Ayala stated that "Dobzhansky was a religious man." https://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Foxfordjournals.jhered.a108767
  160. Isaak, Mark, ed (February 22, 2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA114.22: Pasteur and creationism". Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  161. Robinson, Bruce A. (February 11, 2014). "Conflicts & occasional agreements in 'truth' between science and religion". Kingston, Ontario: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/sci_rel.htm. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  162. Dawkins, Richard (May 15, 2006). "Why I Won't Debate Creationists". Washington, D.C.: Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Archived from the original on 2007-07-13. https://web.archive.org/web/20070713004332/http://richarddawkins.net/article%2C119%2CWhy-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists%2CRichard-Dawkins. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  163. Shermer, Michael (May 10, 2004). "Then a Miracle Occurs: An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith". eSkeptic. ISSN 1556-5696. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-05-10/#miracle. Retrieved 2014-07-31. 
  164. Pigliucci 2002, p. 102
  165. Luvan, Dylan (September 24, 2012). "Bill Nye warns: Creation views threaten US science". Associated Press. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bill-nye-warns-creation-views-threaten-us-science. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  166. "Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children" on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU
  167. Boyle, Alan (February 5, 2014). "Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate". NBC News. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/bill-nye-wins-over-science-crowd-evolution-debate-n22836. Retrieved 2014-02-06. 
  168. Kopplin, Zack (February 4, 2014). "Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists". The Guardian (London: Guardian Media Group). https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/04/bill-nye-science-guy-evolution-debate-creationists. Retrieved 2014-02-06. 
  169. "Bill Nye debates Ken Ham FULL – Comments Enabled" on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9yQEG7mlTU
  170. Shermer 2002, p. 153
  171. Humes, Edward (February 18, 2007). "Unintelligent designs on Darwin". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Pittsburgh, PA: Tribune-Review Publishing Company). http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_493631.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  172. Le Page, Michael (April 19, 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist 198 (2652): 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7. ISSN 0262-4079. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826523.000-evolution-myths-it-doesnt-matter-if-people-dont-grasp-evolution.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  173. Hecht, Jeff (August 19, 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?". New Scientist 191 (2565): 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X. ISSN 0262-4079. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  174. Pitock, Todd (June 21, 2007). "Science and Islam in Conflict". Discover 28 (6): 36–45. ISSN 0274-7529. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/science-and-islam/. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  175. Katz, Gregory (February 16, 2008). "Clash Over Creationism Is Evolving In Europe's Schools". The Tampa Tribune. Associated Press (Tampa, FL: Tampa Media Group, Inc.). http://tbo.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=TB&date=20080216&category=ARTICLE&lopenr=302169997&Ref=AR&profile=1070. Retrieved 2008-02-17. 
  176. Edis, Taner (November–December 1999). "Cloning Creationism in Turkey". Reports of the National Center for Science Education 19 (6): 30–35. ISSN 2158-818X. http://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/cloning-creationism-turkey. Retrieved 2008-02-17. 
  177. "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension". BBC News (London: BBC). September 9, 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3642460.stm. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  178. Highfield, Roger (October 2, 2007). "Creationists rewrite natural history". The Daily Telegraph (London: Telegraph Media Group). https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3309018/Creationists-rewrite-natural-history.html. Retrieved 2008-02-17. 
  179. Blancke, Stefaan (December 2010). "Creationism in the Netherlands". Zygon 45 (4): 791–816. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01134.x. ISSN 0591-2385. https://www.academia.edu/212996. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  180. "Recognition for Our Noodly Friend". New Scientist 196 (2629): 112. November 10, 2007. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(07)62868-1. ISSN 0262-4079. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626292.900-feedback.html. Retrieved 2014-08-27. 
  181. "Evolution abroad". Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. March 4, 2011. http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/evolution-abroad-006522. Retrieved 2014-05-02. 
  182. Numbers 1998
  183. Hennessy, Carly (May 30, 2010). "Creationism to be taught in Queensland classrooms". Herald Sun (Melbourne: The Herald and Weekly Times). http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/creationism-to-be-taught-in-queensland-classrooms/story-e6frf7l6-1225873019548. Retrieved 2010-07-22. 
  184. Plimer 1994
  185. Campbell, Richard (producer); Smith, Robyn (researcher); Plimer, Ian (July 17, 2007). "'Telling Lies for God'? One Man's Crusade". Quantum. Transcript. Retrieved 2008-02-05. http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/97lies.htm
  186. "In the beginning". The Economist (London: The Economist Newspaper Limited). April 19, 2007. http://www.economist.com/node/9036706?story_id=9036706. Retrieved 2007-04-25.  This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.
  187. Burton, Elise K. (May–June 2010). "Teaching Evolution in Muslim States:Iran and Saudi Arabia Compared". Reports of the National Center for Science Education 30 (3): 25–29. ISSN 2158-818X. https://www.academia.edu/870964. Retrieved 2014-01-13. 
  188. Sang-yong Song, "The Creation Science Movement in Korea: A Perspective from the History and Philosophy of Science" International Journal of Korean History, vol. 23(2018), pp. 13–35 https://ijkh.khistory.org/upload/pdf/ijkh-23-2-13.pdf
More
©Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons-Attribution ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Religion
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
HandWiki
View Times: 4.8K
Entry Collection: HandWiki
Revision: 1 time (View History)
Update Date: 10 Nov 2022
Table of Contents
    Notice
    You are not a member of the advisory board for this topic. If you want to update advisory board member profile, please contact office@encyclopedia.pub.
    OK
    Confirm
    Only members of the Encyclopedia advisory board for this topic are allowed to note entries. Would you like to become an advisory board member of the Encyclopedia?
    Yes
    No
    ${ textCharacter }/${ maxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    There is no comment~
    ${ textCharacter }/${ maxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    ${ selectedItem.replyTextCharacter }/${ selectedItem.replyMaxCharacter }
    Submit
    Cancel
    Confirm
    Are you sure to Delete?
    Yes No
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback