Neo-creationism

Motivations

The neo-creationist movement is motivated by the fear that religion is under attack by the study of evolution. An argument common to neo-creationist justifications is that society has suffered "devastating cultural consequences" 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 directly leading to the atrocities committed by Hitler's Nazi regime, for example. 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".

Tactics

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. 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of neo-creationism suggest that neo-creationist science consists of quote-mining the biological literature (including outdated literature) for minor slips, inconsistencies or polemically promising examples of internal arguments.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

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."

Eugenie Scott describes neo-creationism as "a mixed bag of antievolution strategies brought about by legal decisions against equal time laws". 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. 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. This is rejected by the vast majority of actual science practitioners. Nevertheless, neo-creationists profess to present and conduct valid science which is equal, or superior to, the theory of evolution, but have yet to produce recognized scientific research and testing that supports their claims. 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. Examples of neo-creationist polemics include the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, the book Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, and the book From Darwin to Hitler by Richard Weikart. Research for Weikart's book was funded by the Discovery Institute, and is promoted through the institute. Both Johnson and Weikart are affiliated with the Discovery Institute; Johnson is program advisor, and Weikart is a fellow.

Criticism

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 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..."

• Barbara Forrest, co-author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design ()
• Georgetown University theologian John Haught
• Journalist Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science ()
• Massimo Pigliucci
• Eugenie C. Scott{{cite journal |author-link=Eugenie Scott |access-date=2007-10-14 |url-access=subscription}}
• Robert T. Pennock

References

References

1. Morris, Henry M.. "Neocreationism". [[Institute for Creation Research]].
2. Safire, William. (August 21, 2005). "On Language: Neo-Creo". The New York Times.
3. Johnson, Phillip E.. (October 2004). "Darwinism is Materialist Mythology, Not Science".
4. Laurie, Goodstein. (December 4, 2005). "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker". [[New York Times]].
5. Pigliucci, Massimo. (September 2001). "Design Yes, Intelligent No". [[Skeptical Inquirer]].
6. (September 20, 1999). "How Now Shall We Live?". Tyndale House Publishers.
7. "[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]".
8. "[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]".
9. (August 25, 2006). "TV Producer Defends Documentary Exposing Darwin-Hitler Link".
10. (March 7, 2005). "Scientists battle over anti-Darwin 'Intelligent design' theory". Times of Oman.
11. Discovery Institute. (1998). "The Wedge Document".
12. (March 1, 2004). "Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life?". The Human Life Review.
13. (July 25, 1999). "Intelligent Design Theory". IntellectualCapital.com.
14. (August 26, 2006). "Darwin's Deadly Legacy". [[Coral Ridge Ministries]].
15. Johnson, Phillip E.. (1997). "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds". InterVarsity Press.
16. Orr, H. Allen. (May 23, 2005). "Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't".
17. (2006). "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action".
18. (May 4, 2005). "Back to the Quote Mines".
19. Pennock, Robert T. (ed.). (December 1, 2001). "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives". MIT Press.
20. Scott, Eugenie C.. (February 13, 2001). "Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States". [[National Center for Science Education]].
21. Nkangoh, Wilston. (May 19, 2005). "FAQs IDEA Club, University of Texas, Dallas". IDEA Club.
22. Behe, Michael J.. (2006). "Whether Intelligent Design is Science". Discovery Institute.
23. Wikipedia. [[List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design]].
24. "[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]".
25. AAAS Board of Directors. (October 18, 2002). "AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory". American Association for the Advancement of Science.
26. UNSW. (October 20, 2005). "Intelligent design is not science - Scientists and teachers speak out". [[The University of New South Wales]].
27. NCSE. "Voices for evolution. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism". National Center for Science Education.
28. (December 1, 2002). "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories". Ignatius Press.
29. "[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]".
30. (July 2000). "Creationists Open a New Front". American Geological Institute.
31. (November 5, 2005). "Intelligent Design Advocates Seem Unserious And Insincere". Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.
32. Discovery Institute. (1998). "The Wedge Strategy".
33. Discovery Institute. "From Darwin to Hitler".
34. Discovery Institute. (July 27, 2004). "Nota Bene July".
35. Morris, Henry M.. "Design Is Not Enough!". [[Institute for Creation Research]].
36. (April 25, 2006). "Some Baptists Supporting Government-Run Schools". National Home Education Research Institute.
37. Baptist Center for Ethics. (April 21, 2006). "A Baptist Pastoral Letter Supporting Public Education".
38. Pigliucci, Massimo. (September 2001). "Design Yes, Intelligent No: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism". Skeptical Inquirer.