The Evolution of Creationist Movements (original) (raw)
Related papers
Creationism in Twentieth-century America: The Antievolution Pamphlets of William Bell Riley
1995
This volume consists of nine antievolution pamphlets that Riley wrote and published in the interwar years. The introduction provides a brief synopsis of Riley's antievolutionist ideas and activities, with some effort to place this work in the larger context of Riley's career, and includes discussion of these pamphlets. 1 William Bell Riley was born on March 22, 1861, in Green County, Indiana. The Civil War broke out soon thereafter, and his father, a native Southerner, moved the family across the Ohio into Kentucky. At an early age Riley was put to work on the family tobacco farm, but the ambitious and bright young man had no intention of spending his life plowing the fields. Enthralled with the trials he witnessed in the county courthouse, Riley originally planned to become an attorney. But at the age of twenty, Riley, whose parents were devout evangelicals, surrendered to a "divine call" to become a preacher. Riley scraped together the funds to attend Hanover College, a small Presbyterian school in Indiana. Graduating in 1885 (ranking first in debate, it should be noted), he immediately went on to Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, where the conservative theology ofhis childhood was reinforced. After graduation in 1888 Riley served as a pastor in Lafayette, Indiana, followed by a lX not exist: evolutionists could provide no proof that life can originate from nothing, nor could they give a single example of "one species actually evolving into another." 4 Not only was evolution unscientific, but, as Riley goes on to argue in "The Evolution Controversy!," the theory "doesn't harmo-conceded that the Bible allowed for an ancient earth and pre-Edenic life." 9 (That Riley may have changed his mind on this point is also significant-see below.) Riley opposed the teaching of evolution because it was both unscientific and un-Christian. But it is interesting to note that Riley often devoted the most attention and the most passion to
Science and creationism: a response to Kenneth Tobin
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2009
In his December editorial on Michael Reiss, Kenneth Tobin (Cult Stud Sci Educ 3:793–798, 2008), raises some very important questions for science and science teachers regarding science education and the teaching of creationism in the classroom. I agree with him that students’ creationist ideologies should be treated not as misconceptions but as worldviews. Because of creationism’s peculiarly strong political links though, I argue that such discussion must address three critical and interconnected issues, including the uncertain state of teaching evolution in public schools nationally, the political convergence of the creationist political beliefs with bigoted worldviews, and creationism’s inherent contrariness to science and human progress. I suggest that we as science educators therefore not consider all sides to be equally right and to instead take side against the politics of creationism. I also argue that we need much more serious discussion on how to better teach science to students who hold creationist worldviews, and that science educators such as Reiss need to be part of that.
The Quarterly Review of Biology, 2015
One of the major problems in discussing evolution and creationism is the poor understanding among the public of the wider relationship of Christianity and science. With regard to Evangelicals and evolution, the understanding is even worse! Inaccuracies and misconceptions abound. Hence After the Monkey Trial, Christopher M Rios's book on how both British and American Evangelical scientists approached evolution in the era before creationism took center stage among Evangelicals, is most useful. Rios focuses on two groups founded in the 1940s, the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) and the Research Scientists' Christian Fellowship (RSCF), exploring how they and their members dealt with the broader issues of science as well as evolution, taking the story up to 1985, shortly before the RSCF mutated into Christians in Science (CIS).
2003
Judge William Overton’s Memorandum Opinion in the case of Rev. Bill McLean et. al. v. The Arkansas Board of Education et. al. occasioned a small flurry of papers by philosophers of science debating the merits of the judicial decision. Almost twenty years have now elapsed since the conclusion of the trial, and the time seems ripe for a retrospective assessment of the merits of the judge’s decision, and of the criticisms of that decision which were made by the philosophers of science in question. Although I think that there wasn’t much wrong with the judge’s opinion, I propose to argue that the claims made by the various philosophers were also substantially correct. This might sound surprising, given the heat generated by the discussion. However, it seems to me that what happened was a classic case of misunderstanding: people talked straight past each other because they placed different construals on the key terms involved.
Evolution vs. Creationism. An introduction
Science Education, 2006
Evolution vs. Creationism. An Introduction, by Eugenie C. Scott. Foreword by Niles Eldredge. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA, 2005. xxiv + 272 pp. ISBN 0-520-24650-0. "The social movement known as creationism has had a long history and a variety of manifestations through time. To understand it takes considerable study" (p. 135). So states the author in part three of this book. After reading this volume I could not agree more. Let me say at the outset that this is quite an extraordinary book, and one I predict is destined to become a classic. Eugenie Scott brings to bear her encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the conflict, passion for the subject, and deep understanding of the legal framework tempered by her long involvement as Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. This work provides a well-balanced synthesis of the complexities of science, religion, jurisprudence, and education as they pertain to understanding the continuing dichotomy between evolution and creationism. Perhaps its greatest strength, however, is that all this information is so expertly brought together under one cover. Scott has made a concerted effort to write for an audience that includes "bright high school students and college undergraduates" (p. xvii). The book is organized into three main sections: Science, Evolution, Religion, and Creationism; A History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy; and Selections From the Literature. In the third section, readers will find a plethora of information, including primary scientific literature, important legal opinions, legislative bills, committee reports, and obscure historical documents. Most of these selections are well chosen and provide the reader with a rich perspective of the ongoing debate. Unfortunately, many articles from the creationist literature were not included because permission to publish them was refused. Scott does her best to summarize those articles she considers important and encourages readers to explore them in their entirety. True to the spirit of the book, the final section contains an impressive and perhaps unparalleled collection of references for further exploration. In the Introduction, the author erects "three pillars of creationism" under which is claimed all arguments should fall: evolutionary theory is flawed, evolution and religion are incompatible, and fairness to both sides. As the book unfolds, all arguments do indeed appear to fall into one of these three categories. With Scott's scientific background, it is not perhaps surprising that the strongest sections are those which elaborate on the nature of science, evolutionary theory (chapters 1 and 2), and biological patterns and processes (chapter 8), although these are not without fault. The section that elaborates the principals of biological evolution is, in general, extremely well done and puts to rest any suggestion that "evolutionary theory is flawed." While the example illustrating natural selection using rabbits and myxomatosis is well presented, it should be pointed out that rabbits are not in fact rodents, but lagomorphs. Some other minor but important concerns include the correct use of terminology. A very important