neo-creationism

The neo-creationist movement is motivated by the fear that religion is under attack by the study of evolution.{{cite book |last1=Colson |first1=Charles |author-link=Charles W. Colson |last2=Pearcey |first2=Nancy |author-link2=Nancy Pearcey |date=September 20, 1999 |title=How Now Shall We Live? |publisher=Tyndale House Publishers |isbn=0842336079 |oclc=42999968 |ol=8238567M |lccn=2001265761}}{{Citation |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |quote=Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. |at=p. 136}} [Text in wikisource]{{Citation |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |quote=Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. (11:8–15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32–34, Sept. 28, 2005). |at=p. 30}} [Text in wikisource] An argument common to neo-creationist justifications is that society has suffered "devastating cultural consequences"{{cite web |url=http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/252006b.asp |title=TV Producer Defends Documentary Exposing Darwin-Hitler Link |last1=Martin |first1=Allie |last2=Parker |first2=Jenni |date=August 25, 2006 |website=agapepress.org |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090212115843/http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/252006b.asp |archive-date=February 12, 2009}}{{cite web|url=http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=11764 |title=Scientists battle over anti-Darwin 'Intelligent design' theory |last1=Handley |first1=Paul |date=March 7, 2005 |website=timesofoman.com |publisher=Times of Oman |access-date=March 10, 2005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050310095036/http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=11764 |archive-date=March 10, 2005 }}{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document |title=The Wedge Document |author=Discovery Institute |year=1998 |website=ncse.com |access-date=September 29, 2014}} from adopting materialism and that science is the cause of this decay into materialism since science seeks only natural explanations. They believe that the theory of evolution implies that humans have no spiritual nature, no moral purpose, and no intrinsic meaning, and thus that acceptance of evolution devalues human life{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2172 |title=Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life? |last1=Weikart |first1=Richard |date=March 1, 2004 |website=discovery.org |publisher=The Human Life Review |access-date=September 29, 2014}} directly leading to the atrocities committed by Hitler's Nazi regime, for example.{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/16 |title=Intelligent Design Theory |last1=Richards |first1=Jay W. |date=July 25, 1999 |website=discovery.org |publisher=IntellectualCapital.com |access-date=September 29, 2014}}{{cite web |url=http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/ |title=Darwin's Deadly Legacy |format=Television documentary |last1=Kennedy |first1=James |author-link=James Kennedy (televangelist) |date=August 26, 2006 |website=truthinaction.org |publisher=Coral Ridge Ministries |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060829011506/http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/ |archive-date=August 29, 2006 }} The movement's proponents seek to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". Phillip E. Johnson, 'father' of the intelligent design movement, states the movement's goal is to "affirm the reality of God".{{cite book |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |year=1997 |title=Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds |location=Downers Grove, IL |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=0-8308-1360-8 |lccn=97012916 |oclc=36621960 |ref=Johnson 1997 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/defeatingdarwini00john_0/page/91 91]–92 |url=https://archive.org/details/defeatingdarwini00john_0 |url-access=registration }}

Much of the effort of neo-creationists in response to science consists of polemics highlighting gaps in understanding or minor inconsistencies in the literature of biology, then making statements about what can and cannot happen in biological systems.{{cite magazine |last=Orr |first=H. Allen |title= Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't|url=http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact |series=Annals of Science |magazine=The New Yorker |date=May 23, 2005 |issue=2005–05–30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050529015150/http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact |archive-date=May 29, 2005 }}{{Citation |url= |title=Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action |periodical=Journal of Clinical Investigation |volume=116 |issue=5|pages=1134–1138 |year=2006|doi=10.1172/JCI28449 | last1 = Attie | first1 = A. D.|pmc=1451210 |pmid=16670753}}{{cite web |url=http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/back_to_the_quo.html |title=Back to the Quote Mines |last1=Hurd |first1=Gary |date=May 4, 2005 |website=pandasthumb.org |access-date=September 29, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150809025945/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/back_to_the_quo.html |archive-date=August 9, 2015 }} Critics of neo-creationism suggest that neo-creationist science consists of quote-mining the biological literature (including outdated literature) for minor slips, inconsistencies or polemically promising examples of internal arguments. These internal disagreements, fundamental to the working of all natural science, are then presented dramatically to lay audiences as evidence of the fraudulence and impending collapse of "Darwinism".{{cite book |title=Creationism's Trojan Horse

|last1=Forrest |first1=Barbara |author-link=Barbara Forrest

|last2=Gross |first2=Paul R. |author-link2=Paul R. Gross

|isbn=0-19-515742-7

|oclc=50913078

|date=January 8, 2004

|publisher=Oxford University Press

}} Critics suggest that neo-creationists routinely employ this method to exploit the technical issues within biology and evolutionary theory to their advantage, relying on a public that is not sufficiently scientifically literate to follow the complex and sometimes difficult details.

Robert T. Pennock argues that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The 'scientific' claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists.... According to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit."{{cite book |last=Pennock |first=Robert T. (ed.) |author-link=Robert T. Pennock |date=December 1, 2001 |title=Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives |url=https://archive.org/details/intelligentdesig00robe |url-access=registration |location=Cambridge, Mass. |publisher=MIT Press |page=[https://archive.org/details/intelligentdesig00robe/page/322 322] |isbn=9780262661249 |access-date=September 30, 2014 |ol=9452268M |oclc=539676227 |id=[http://www.librarything.com/work/827088 librarything 827088]. [http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/567279 goodreads 567279] |lccn=2001031276}}

Eugenie Scott describes neo-creationism as "a mixed bag of antievolution strategies brought about by legal decisions against equal time laws".{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/antievolutionism-creationism-united-states |title=Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |date=February 13, 2001 |website=ncse.com |publisher=National Center for Science Education |access-date=September 30, 2014}} Those legal decisions, McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard, doomed the teaching of creation science as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes. Scott considers intelligent design, and the various strategies of design proponents like Teach the Controversy and Critical Analysis of Evolution, as leading examples of neo-creationism.

Neo-creationists generally reject the term "neo-creation", alleging it is a pejorative term.{{cite web |url=http://www.utdallas.edu/orgs/idea/faqs.htm |title=FAQs IDEA Club, University of Texas, Dallas |first=Wilston |last=Nkangoh |date=May 19, 2005 |website=utdallas.edu |publisher=IDEA Club |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205175824/http://www.utdallas.edu/orgs/idea/faqs.htm |archive-date=February 5, 2012}} Any linkage of their views to creationism would undermine their goal of being viewed as advocating a new form of science. Instead, they identify themselves to their non-scientific audience as conducting valid science, sometimes by redefining science to suit their needs.{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697 |title=Whether Intelligent Design is Science |last=Behe |first=Michael J. |year=2006 |website=discovery.org |publisher=Discovery Institute |access-date=September 30, 2014 |page=2 |location=Seattle, WA}} This is rejected by the vast majority of actual science practitioners.Wikipedia. List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.{{Citation |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |at=p. 83}} [Text in wikisource]{{cite web |url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml |title=AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory |author=AAAS Board of Directors |date=October 18, 2002 |website=aaas.org |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021113213410/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml |archive-date=November 13, 2002}} [The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID].{{cite web |url=http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |title=Intelligent design is not science - Scientists and teachers speak out |author=UNSW |date=October 20, 2005 |website=unsw.edu.au |publisher=The University of New South Wales |location=Sydney, Australia |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110410005235/http://www2.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |archive-date=April 10, 2011 |quote=A coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers has called on all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory.}}{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/science |title=Voices for evolution. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism |author=NCSE |website=ncse.com |publisher=National Center for Science Education |access-date=September 30, 2014}} Nevertheless, neo-creationists profess to present and conduct valid science which is equal, or superior to, the theory of evolution,{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1780 |title=The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories |last1=Meyer |first1=Stephen C. |date=December 1, 2002 |website=discovery.org |publisher=Ignatius Press |access-date=September 30, 2014}} but have yet to produce recognized scientific research and testing that supports their claims.{{Citation |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |quote=. |at=p. 88}} [Text in wikisource] Instead, the preponderance of neo-creationist works are publications aimed at the general public and lawmakers and policymakers. Much of that published work is polemical in nature, disputing and controverting what they see as a "scientific orthodoxy" which shields and protects "Darwinism" while attacking and ridiculing alleged alternatives like intelligent design.{{cite web |url=http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/july00/scene.html |title=Creationists Open a New Front |last1=Applegate |first1=David |date=July 2000 |website=agiweb.org/geotimes |publisher=American Geological Institute |access-date=September 30, 2014}}{{cite web |url=http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/commentary.html |title=Intelligent Design Advocates Seem Unserious And Insincere |last1=McCarthy |first1=John |date=November 5, 2005 |website=stanford.edu |publisher=Department of Computer Science, Stanford University |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051121145014/http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/commentary.html |archive-date=November 21, 2005}} Examples of neo-creationist polemics include the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document,{{Citation |author=Discovery Institute |year=1998 |title=The Wedge Strategy |url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/The_Wedge_Strategy.pdf |access-date=September 30, 2014}} the book Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, and the book From Darwin to Hitler by Richard Weikart.{{cite web |url=http://www.darwintohitler.com |title=From Darwin to Hitler |author=Discovery Institute}} Research for Weikart's book was funded by the Discovery Institute, and is promoted through the institute.{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=2191 |title=Nota Bene July |date=July 27, 2004 |author=Discovery Institute |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033334/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC&id=2191 |archive-date=September 30, 2007}} Both Johnson and Weikart are affiliated with the Discovery Institute; Johnson is program advisor, and Weikart is a fellow.

All of the following names make explicit the connections between traditional creationism, neo-creationism and intelligent design. Not all critics of neo-creationism are on the evolution side of the debate. Henry M. Morris, a notable young earth creationist, accepted the term but opposed the logic of neo-creationism for the very reason that it does not embrace the Bible.{{cite web |url=http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=859 |title=Design Is Not Enough! |last=Morris |first=Henry M. |author-link=Henry M. Morris |publisher=Institute for Creation Research |access-date=September 30, 2014}} The Baptist Center for Ethics calls for "Baptists to recommit themselves to the separation of church and state, which will keep public schools free from coercive pressure to promote sectarian faith, such as state-written school prayers and the teaching of neo-creationism..."{{cite web |url=http://www.nheri.org/content/view/195/71/ |title=Some Baptists Supporting Government-Run Schools |last1=Ray |first1=Brian D. |date=April 25, 2006 |publisher=National Home Education Research Institute |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205212616/http://www.nheri.org/content/view/195/71/ |archive-date=February 5, 2012}}{{cite web |url=http://www.ethicsdaily.com/static.cfm?mode=public_education_letter |title=A Baptist Pastoral Letter Supporting Public Education |author=Baptist Center for Ethics |date=April 21, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060810140618/http://www.ethicsdaily.com/static.cfm?mode=public_education_letter |archive-date=August 10, 2006}}

• Barbara Forrest, co-author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design ({{ISBN|0-19-515742-7}})
• Georgetown University theologian John Haught
• Journalist Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science ({{ISBN|0-465-04675-4}})
• Massimo Pigliucci{{cite web |url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/design_yes_intelligent_no_a_critique_of_intelligent_design_theory_and_neocr/ |title=Design Yes, Intelligent No: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism |last=Pigliucci |first=Massimo |author-link=Massimo Pigliucci |date=September 2001 |website=csicop.org |publisher=Skeptical Inquirer |access-date=September 30, 2014}}
• Eugenie C. Scott{{cite journal

|title=Creationists and the Pope's Statement

|author=Eugenie C. Scott

|author-link=Eugenie Scott

|journal=Quarterly Review of Biology

|volume=72

|issue=4

|date=December 1997

|pages=403

|doi=10.1086/419952

|s2cid=85003487

|url=http://ncse.com/religion/creationists-popes-statement

|access-date=2007-10-14

|quote=Phrases like "intelligent design theory," "abrupt appearance theory," "evidence against evolution," and the like, have sprung up, although the content of many of the arguments is familiar. This view can be called "neocreationism." ... Neocreationists are by no means identical to their predecessors, however.... Neither biblical creationists nor theistic evolutionists.... Most of them are "progressive creationists."

|url-access=subscription}}

• Robert T. Pennock

• Creation–evolution controversy
• Creation myth
• Creation science
• Intelligent design movement
• Social implications of the theory of evolution
• Theistic realism

{{reflist|2}}

• [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21ONLANGUAGE.html?position=&ei=5090&en=f2de0d764cc7e0e8&ex=1282276800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1132902202-gyP0H4EZfG7IeNHPMWlcBw Neo-Creo] New York Times By William Safire

{{Creationism topics}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Neo-Creationism}}

Category:Creationism

Category:Pseudoscience