<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Lazarus12</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Lazarus12"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Lazarus12"/>
	<updated>2026-09-30T18:52:11Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&amp;diff=2201121</id>
		<title>Intelligent design</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&amp;diff=2201121"/>
		<updated>2026-08-05T17:35:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;:''Not to be confused with [[creationism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design''' '''(ID)''' is the empirically testable&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes&amp;quot; source: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause. It is a theory of design detection, has been applied in various fields or subjects such as protein science, genetics, flagellum-chemotaxis system, glycolysis, vertebrate limbs and joints, feathers, and brain blood flow; and has rigorous methodologies found in systems biology and systems engineering.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Luskin C, Reeves E, Miller B, McLatchie J (2026) &amp;quot;The Broad Utility of the Theory of Intelligent Design to Guide Scientific Research&amp;quot;. BIO-Complexity 2026 (4):1-46. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2026.4. [https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2026.4/BIO-C.2026.4]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined] As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, &amp;quot;ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are &amp;quot;inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]&amp;quot; but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9151&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is worldview diversity among proponents and intelligent design is a secular, or even non-religious, theory. Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist who co-discovered [[natural selection]] along with [[Charles Darwin]], eventually came to see that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution, and in particular wrote about the advancements of research on the cell in the chapter &amp;quot;Mystery of the Cell&amp;quot; along with observations on man as being designed with purpose.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Some intelligent design proponents such as Michael Behe carry on the ''intelligent evolution'' espoused by Alfred Russel Wallace.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Another prominent ID proponent is David Berlinski who is actually an agnostic atheist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20150312200118/https://www.discovery.org/a/4536/ Agnostic takes New Atheists to Task for Trying to Hijack Science Author David Berlinski's New Book The Devil's Delusion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David Berlinski. 2009. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. Basic Books. ISBN, 0786751479&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Other atheist defenders have been Bradley Monton.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, 2009, Broadview Press, ISBN 9781551118635.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, design principles are compatible with biology since design is already used in biological fields (e.g. breeding, artificial selection, farming, synthetic biology, systems biology, etc).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Castle, S.D., Stock, M. &amp;amp; Gorochowski, T.E. Engineering is evolution: a perspective on design processes to engineer biology. Nature Communications 15, 3640 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48000-1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kevin A. Janes, Preethi L. Chandran, Roseanne M. Ford, Matthew J. Lazzara, Jason A. Papin, Shayn M. Peirce, Jeffrey J. Saucerman, Douglas A. Lauffenburger, An engineering design approach to systems biology, Integrative Biology, Volume 9, Issue 7, July 2017, Pages 574–583, https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ib00014f&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Intelligent design theory does have extensive peer-reviewed publications.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2024/05/Peer-Reviewed-and-Mainstream-Articles-Page-Update-May-2024_FinalPDF.pdf  LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED AND MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN 2024]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial,  and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]).  With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature.  That is, without necessarily &amp;quot;proving&amp;quot; actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such a [[design inference]] supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of ''intelligent'' design.  As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of [[evolution]] such as chemical and Darwinian evolution &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Darwinian Evolution: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. The theory postulates that evolutionary change is the result of material causes [i.e., unintelligent causes due to the interactions of matter, energy, and the forces of nature], driven primarily by random variation and natural selection.  The forces include gravity, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces that define the structure of atoms. With respect to explaining the cosmos, the laws of chemistry and physics such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics dictate that material causes operate in generally periodic or regular patterns at best, and in entropy-increasing randomness at worst. ''See'', &amp;quot;Thirty-eight Nobel Laureates, ''Nobel Laureates Initiative,'' (The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, September 9, 2005), stressing to Kansas State Board of Education: “[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the design exhibited in our universe is merely ''apparent'' design, i.e., ''unintelligent'' design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As used in this article, &amp;quot;materialism&amp;quot; is used synonymously with &amp;quot;naturalism&amp;quot;. Naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that material causes alone are adequate to account for all natural phenomena and that teleological (design) conceptions of nature are invalid.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ('''[[SETI]]'''). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, notes at [http://www.discovery.org/a/1671 A Note to Teachers Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins May 1, 1993], the problem with limiting explanations to only &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot; causes: &amp;quot;Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial.  All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to [[Subjectivism|subjective]] historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory.  They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its many strengths, many [[Young Earth Creationism|biblical creationists]], while acknowledging those strengths, criticize the Intelligent Design theory for refusing to specify the identity of the designer, refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture, and for accepting long ages and a theistic theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Whitcomb&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PurdomChapter13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Origins Science ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''[[Origins science]]''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation.  Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence.  Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design.  Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design.  Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inference is most reasonable.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Ernst Mayr]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 12.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a more detailed description of the method for investigating and explaining origins Mayr said: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.  ''Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.''  Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought'', p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American) emphasis added.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mayr's statement does not define &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot;, but his point is valid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Evolution&amp;quot; is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is the lack of a precise definition.  If &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used to mean &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is uncontroversial.  However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is meant &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;, then Mayr is correct -- &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation.  As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The '''[[National Academy of Sciences]]''' (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; as science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning.  If &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used to mean &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is scientific and verifiable by experimentation.  However, if by &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is meant &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes.  However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; would not be science).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, (1998), p. 55.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the NAS responds to the question, &amp;quot;How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not &amp;quot;off limits&amp;quot; for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the '''[[SETI]]''' project, forensics, and intelligent design are removed from the realm of science.  Such disciplines propose hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses is often only effective by proposing competing hypotheses and objectively analyzing the evidence to determine which hypothesis correlates best with the evidence. As '''Carol Cleland''' elaborates in her paper entitled ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'', in actual practice historical researchers tend to search for “positive evidence—a smoking gun.”  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11), pp. 987-990.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Ms. Cleland explores the necessary role of hypothesis testing for scientific disciplines not amenable to classical experimental testing. Hypothesis testing by formulating multiple competing hypotheses is essential in the context of historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, and biogenesis. According to Cleland, “A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the other.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11) p. 988.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Methods of Intelligent Design Detection ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Design inference]], [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Fire-investigator.jpg|150px|right|thumbnail|Design detection is used in a variety of [[science]]s including [[forensic]] science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes.  Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.  It is also used in archeology, anthropology, cryptanalysis, copyright infringement, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for function or purpose in genetic sequences.  It is key to the current debate over the origin of the cosmos and life.  Are these “effects” or patterns that arose long ago the product of an intelligent or material cause?   Are the effects designs, i.e., the result of intelligent manipulation, or just occurrences?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable.  Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell?  Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started?  To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Inferring design====&lt;br /&gt;
Design is often inferred intuitively. However, there are formal ways to establish a [[Design inference]]. For example, logical and/or mathematical assessment of both ''small probabilities'' and ''specifications'' on any phenomenon or event, and the resulting elimination of chance as a viable explanation for the phenomenon or event.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. Page 70&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Chance'' can occur as a side effect of design (e.g. car accidents occur even when cars, controls, and roads are designed). Chance can also be a an unguided natural phenomenon (e.g. earthquake, landslide, etc).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. Page 75-85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In order to narrow down if something is designed or natural, specifications should be present. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Specifications'' &amp;quot;are patterns that identify events and that have short or simple descriptions. But descriptions can be represented in bits.&amp;quot; Also, &amp;quot;Design inferences engage in a balancing act between the complexity of events and the simplicity of descriptions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. pages 132-133&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term '''specified complexity''' is term used and endorsed by eminent scientists such as Francis Crick, Paul Davies, Leslie Orgel, and even Richard Dawkins, sometimes using the very term and at other times using &amp;quot;complexity&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;specification&amp;quot; in the same breath. The actual term &amp;quot;specified complexity&amp;quot; goes back to biologist Leslie Orgel in 1973 in connection to origin of life research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. page 258-266&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====In biology====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Generegulatory_networkS_cerevisiae.png|250px|thumb|right|Example of a Gene Regulatory Network (GRN) in a single cell bacteria called ''S. cerevisiae'' where Transcription factors (large blue circles) and other genes (small green circles) have complex chemical interactions in the cell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ma S, Kemmeren P, Gresham D, Statnikov A (2014) De-Novo Learning of Genome-Scale Regulatory Networks in S. cerevisiae. PLOS ONE 9(9): e106479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106479&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cells display a highly specified and complex set of chemical interactions. For example, '''gene regulatory networks''' highlight complex chemical interactions that occur per second in each cell. Resembling chemical manufacturing and synthesis of biological matter. Gene regulatory networks are segments within DNA that govern the rate and products of genes, controlling essential processes such as transcription and translation to prevent the production of harmful or ineffective gene products and also display how segments of cellular activity is automatically controlled by information embedded in DNA.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/gene-regulatory-network Gene Regulatory Networks] Science Direct Journals  &amp;quot;Gene regulatory networks are segments within DNA that govern the rate and products of genes, controlling essential processes such as transcription and translation to prevent the production of harmful or ineffective gene products.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gene regulatory networks are visualizations of thousands of genes that are expressed and work in concert to ensure the cell's function, fitness, and survival whereby each gene is expressed at the proper time and in the proper amounts to ensure the appropriate function in each cell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Macneil LT, Walhout AJ. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3083081/ Gene regulatory networks and the role of robustness and stochasticity in the control of gene expression]. Genome Res. 2011 May;21(5):645-57. doi: 10.1101/gr.097378.109.&amp;quot;In any given cell, thousands of genes are expressed and work in concert to ensure the cell's function, fitness, and survival. Each gene, in turn, must be expressed at the proper time and in the proper amounts to ensure the appropriate functional outcome. The regulation and expression of some genes are highly robust; their expression is controlled by invariable expression programs. For instance, developmental gene expression is extremely similar in a given cell type from one individual to another. The expression of other genes is more variable: Their levels are noisy and are different from cell to cell and from individual to individual. This can be highly beneficial in physiological responses to outside cues and stresses. Recent advances have enabled the analysis of differential gene expression at a systems level. Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) involving interactions between large numbers of genes and their regulators have been mapped onto graphic diagrams that are used to visualize the regulatory relationships.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading chemist Felix Franks&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To translate the dictionary definition into scientific terms, life processes, as we understand them, must encompass all of the following functions in sequence: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes ===&lt;br /&gt;
Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces.  These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics.  These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose.  In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist '''Douglas J. Futuyma''', they lack forward looking &amp;quot;foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;“Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. ......Darwin undid the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle, and put variation in its place. He helped to replace a static conception of the world with the vision of a world of ceaseless change. Above all, his theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot;  It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot; questions by citing purpose. Only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.  Thus questions like &amp;quot;Why do plants have flowers?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Why are there apple trees?&amp;quot;? or plagues, or storms? were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, '''Evolutionary Biology''', Third Edition,(Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1998) p. 5, 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man.  The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they can't comprehend it. Unintelligent material causes are not merely blind watchmakers, they are mindless, purposeless, and meaningless. Lacking a mind, they lack the capacity to “make” anything.  Unintelligent material causes can adequately account for physical systems like the occurrence of rocks, rivers, wind and rain.  However, it is not clear how they account for time-dependent living systems or themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter.   An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till.  Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The starting and stopping of matter may also be produced by interactions due to the properties of atoms, electrons and molecules.  In a snowflake, the particular chemical properties of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms at a specific temperature and pressure, necessitate that they join together and stop in regular hexagonal lattices. Crystals of salt and other minerals “grow” through the stopping of atoms otherwise in motion until the source of new material is depleted or the conditions conducive to the growth change. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With this combination of law and chance, unintelligent material causes produce patterns both random and regular.  Sand dunes and snowflakes exhibit regular and periodic patterns driven by constant forces.  Random patterns also arise as systems are suddenly interrupted as in the case of an auto accident or a melting glacier that drops an unsorted load. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although material causes can move matter uniformly and also start it and stop it suddenly, physical systems generally move from states of order to states of disorder per the second law of thermodynamics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Capacity of Intelligent Causes===&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world.  Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers.  We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence.  The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders.  Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose.  Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future.  Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither.  Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose.  Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a bird's nest, a beaver's dam or an aqueduct.     &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces.   Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose.  The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful.  The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct.  But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole.  This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning.   Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose.  Minds tie events together to for a purpose.  Material causes do not.  When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling. &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, [[Thomas Aquinas]], noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end....... Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;St. Thomas Aquinas, '''The Summa Theologica''', (1265-1274).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus design detection begins with a search for purpose.  If a pattern exhibits an apparent purpose, the inquiry turns to whether the apparent purpose is just an illusion.  Perhaps the pattern can be adequately explained by unintelligent material causes alone.  If not, then logic suggests that mind may be the more adequate explanation for the pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Formal Design Detection Methodology===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Formal design detection is not often used.  Design detection methodology is not often employed because the human mind has an inherent capacity to distinguish between patterns arranged by a mind for a purpose and those that have not.  Scientists have found that minds engage in subconscious pattern matching, which is a means of intuitively distinguishing between designs and occurrences.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Formal analysis is employed when a dispute arises about the cause of a pattern.  Examples include investigations of deaths and peculiar fires that look for signs of murder or arson. Archaeologists debate over whether a rock is a rock or an artifact.   Astronomers analyze radio and light waves in search of messages from alien minds.  So far all of the tests of extraterrestrial radio waves for intelligence have been negative.  The cause of life and its diversity are major areas of dispute as much is at stake.  Religious and other world views depend on the best explanation for those events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Formal Design Detection -- ''The Explanatory Filter''====&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|Dr. [[William Dembski]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science &amp;amp; Theology'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1194228951&amp;amp;sr=1-2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1194229141&amp;amp;sr=1-7&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary.  One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the &amp;quot;[[explanatory filter]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski describes his three-part '''explanatory filter''' together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter.   The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law?  If not, can it be explained by chance.  If chance and necessity can't explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose?  If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can't be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Informal Design Detection Methodology===&lt;br /&gt;
====Intuition, Common Sense and Confirmation====&lt;br /&gt;
An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention.  We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect.  If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it.  Common sense reflects a judgment about the most prudent of a set of possible choices.  If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things.  The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archaeologists.  No one expects an archaeologist to provide a rigorous &amp;quot;proof&amp;quot; that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being.  The archaeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question.  As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say ''res ipsa loquitur'', or &amp;quot;the thing speaks for itself&amp;quot;.  There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems.  We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:WilliamPaley3.jpg|thumb|230px|left|William Paley]]&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by William Paley in his famous &amp;quot;watchmaker analogy&amp;quot;. William Paley (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book ''Natural Theology''.  Paley states his analogy: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the &amp;quot;what&amp;quot; of design with the &amp;quot;who&amp;quot; in biological systems is the tactic of those philosophically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a &amp;quot;divine foot in the door&amp;quot; of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Anthropic principle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Phillip_johnson_arn.gif|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Phillip E. Johnson]], Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus]]&lt;br /&gt;
Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The term &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; is used in its &amp;quot;strong form&amp;quot; to describe those who hold and defend the position that all the variety of life is the result solely of naturalistic processes. Therefore, the term refers to those who rule out any intelligent causation for any aspect of life (if intelligence plays any role whatsoever, then whatever the theory, it is a form of intelligent design). While everyone is an &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; if &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is defined in its weak form as simply &amp;quot;change over time&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; such as finch beak variation, not everyone is an &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; if &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used, as herein, to mean &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;.  Evolutionists who oppose Intelligent Design believe that unintelligent processes of physics and chemistry can explain the creation of every novel and beneficial feature of the various species, including wings, eyes, and brains. Darwinism is the leading naturalistic evolutionary theory, holding that all life forms descended as modified forms of previous life forms in an unguided, unintelligent process, i.e., Darwin's &amp;quot;descent with modification&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the '''''existence''''' of design in nature, but the '''''cause''''' of design in nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: '''''unintelligent''''' causes and '''''intelligent causes'''''. '''Unintelligent causes''' include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the &amp;quot;appearance&amp;quot; of design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design proponent [[Phillip E. Johnson]] illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Francis Crick.jpg|thumb|px130|left|[[Francis Crick]], co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent causes''' include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question is not, therefore, &amp;quot;is there evidence of design in nature?&amp;quot;  Rather, the scientific question is, &amp;quot;Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?&amp;quot;  Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism).  The question simply asks, &amp;quot;in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. '''Cosmological''' evidence for design is described at '''[[Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology]]''' section.  '''Biological''' evidence for intelligent design includes '''''general evidence''''' and '''''special evidence''''', and both are discussed at '''[[General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology]]'''.  For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the '''[[Evidence Filter]]'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropic principle ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Anthropic principle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a strong body of evidence for a Designer that comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creation.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life The universe is finely tuned for life] by Jonathan Sarfati&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anthropic principle states that the reason the constants of nature appear so finely tuned to life, is that if it were otherwise, life such as ourselves would not have developed. Hence we should not be surprised that the laws of physics are enable life such as ourselves to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[Atheism|atheist]] Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] states, &amp;quot;commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creation.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|[[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only ''unintelligent'' causes can be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Forensic sciences''':  [[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime.  For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Archeology''':  Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection.  Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Cryptanalysis''':  Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking.  Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Arson investigation''':  Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence''': The name says it all.  These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification.  No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Intelligent design theorists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent [[origin of life]] researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Religious Implications of Origins Science ==&lt;br /&gt;
Any theory of origins unavoidably impacts religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;One should not make the mistake of equating &amp;quot;religion&amp;quot; with only traditional theistic religions like [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], or [[Islam]].  As used herein the term is used as defined in the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science: Religion: A broad range of theistic and non-theistic religions and religious belief systems.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As stated in Article II.C of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligentdesignnetwork.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact religion, ethics, morality, government and politics.  The implications of materialistic explanations (such as Darwinism) of origins support the central tenets of non-theistic religions,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Non-theistic religions are religions and belief systems that presuppose that no God intervenes in the natural world and that material causes, such as unguided evolutionary change, are adequate to explain natural phenomena.  Non-theistic religions include [[atheism]], [[Secular Humanism]], and [[Scientism]], as well as some forms of [[Buddhism]] and other eastern religions.  By way of example, the Humanist Manifesto I sets forth the first two &amp;quot;affirmations&amp;quot; of religious humanism as &amp;quot;FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created; and, SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.&amp;quot; Thus, Darwinism supports the central tenets of a religious belief.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while the implications of teleological&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Teleological: Exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature. ''See'', Merriam-Webster Online&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explanations (such as Intelligent Design) support the central tenets of theistic religions. Both theistic and non-theistic religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article II.C&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Atheism.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, it should not be surprising that most theists are sympathetic to intelligent design because the science of intelligent design supports the theology of theistic religions like [[Christianity]]. Likewise, it is not surprising that virtually all atheists are Darwinists because the science of Darwinism supports the theology of non-theistic religions such as religious humanism (having a theology of atheism). The simple fact is that worldviews and interpretations of evidence go hand in hand. If, for example, your world view prohibits explanations involving intelligent design, then you will reject intelligent design in spite of the evidence, not because of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this reason, as stated in Article III.A. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', if '''truth''' is the goal:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Institutions of science should ignore religious and ethical implications of competing historical hypotheses and strive for '''objectivity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Objective: Not influenced by personal bias or prejudice; based on facts.  An objective position is one that is Secular, Neutral, and Non-ideological.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in the conduct and teaching of origins science.  Institutional objectivity may be achieved by encouraging healthy competition among scientists holding differing scientific views regarding origins, consistent with the scientific method.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article III.A&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is because, as stated in Article II.B. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of '''abductive'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Abduction, or abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations.  See, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of historical hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article II.B&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Objections to Intelligent Design==&lt;br /&gt;
===Creationist Objections to Intelligent Design===&lt;br /&gt;
Many Biblical creationists and other theists object to Intelligent Design as failing to identify the alleged designer and refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Whitcomb&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Whitcomb, John C., Ph.D. (2006). [https://www.icr.org/article/history-impact-book-the-genesis-flood/ The History and Impact of the Book, &amp;quot;The Genesis Flood&amp;quot;]. ''ICR.org'' (from ''Acts &amp;amp; Facts. 35 (5)''). Retrieved October 26, 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This objection is expressed well by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. of '''[[Answers in Genesis]]''' in an article entitled '''''Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter?'''''  Dr. Purdom sums up the major objection:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]], Dr. [[Carl Wieland]], notes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CMI IDM&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560 CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Referring to Intelligent Design as the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), Weiland pinpoints the specific objection as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See the 2004 book by CMI speaker Gary Bates: Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. [footnote in original]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CMI IDM&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the fair criticisms listed above, biblical creationists also criticize the intelligent design theory for continuing to accept long ages and the theory of evolution along with the existence of some designer.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PurdomChapter13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Purdom, Georgia, Dr. (May 6, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-design-movement-christian/ Chapter 13 - Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian?]. ''Answers in Genesis'' (from ''The New Answers Book 2''). Retrieved October 25, 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Response to Creationist Objections====&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Wieland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves.  And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation &amp;quot;reflect on each other,&amp;quot; they would disagree that &amp;quot;the Creator and His creation cannot be separated.&amp;quot;  The &amp;quot;separation&amp;quot; is epistemological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot;, and just as an archaeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically.  Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature.  That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method.  But science can say little about who the designer is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled '''''Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn't Identify the Designer'''''.  Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
David DeWolf, John West and I also address this issue in our recent Montana Law Review article:&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to stress that the refusal of ID proponents to draw scientific conclusions about the nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical. ID is primarily a historical science, meaning it uses principles of uniformitarianism to study present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record in order to infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied. ID starts with observations from “uniform sensory experience” showing the effects of intelligence in the natural world. As Pandas explains, scientists have uniform sensory experience with intelligent causes (i.e. humans), thus making intelligence an appropriate explanatory cause within historical scientific fields. However, the “supernatural” cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=4306, citing David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” 68 Montana Law Review 7, 30 (Spring, 2007) (internal citations removed).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Further, it appears that Dr. Weiland's concern that &amp;quot;[a]cceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions&amp;quot; is unfounded.  Certainly some who are honestly convinced of true intelligent design might entertain &amp;quot;sci-fi notions,&amp;quot; but the evidence supports the opposite—i.e., those convinced of design are more likely to entertain thoughts of a supernatural God.  Like Aristotle of ancient Greece, those who reasonably and honestly are convinced of true design in nature are more likely to follow the pattern Dr. Pordum highlighted from Romans 1:18-20.  That is, the creation speaks to a supernatural, infinite, eternal creator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Take the example of former atheist Anthony Flew, as discussed by intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson, in an article entitled '''''Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects'''''.  First Johnson reiterates:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;discovery.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/3914&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, Johnson notes with respect to the practical effects of such an open philosophy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
One early sign of the way the world is headed came in December 2004, when there was much comment in newspapers and internet discussion groups about famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew had just announced that he had converted to philosophical theism (though not to Christianity or any other specific religion, at least as yet), on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which had convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe. Flew seems to have investigated the phenomenon of design in the natural world for reasons similar to my own. He wanted to decide for himself whether evidence and logic point in the direction of a creating intelligence, or whether God is nothing more than a subjective idea created by human imagination. Perhaps these questions about the reality of god are religious in nature, but they are important questions that deserve to be investigated dispassionately instead of being barred from consideration because powerful groups define “science” as committed a priori to naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although as yet Flew does not adhere to Christianity or any other creedal faith, he has taken a giant step in that direction. In an article in the London Independent for December 27, 2004, an Oxford University theologian wrote: “What kind of God could it [i.e. Flew’s designer] refer to? One who created the universe–elementary particles, strong and weak forces, atoms and molecules, yet, for example, has no relation to the emergence of a clever humanity? Or could it be a God who was intelligent enough to create galaxies, and amazingly intricate systems like DNA, yet not intelligent enough to communicate with humankind? Although Flew does not believe in revelation, and may not feel that the Book of Genesis provides a useful account of creation, he does not seem to have quite this kind of minimalist God in mind either. In fact when pressed as to whether his ‘First Cause’ embraced omniscience, Flew admits that a First Cause, if there is one, has clearly produced everything that is going on, and this implies creation ‘in the beginning.’”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;discovery.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists leave the identity of the designer open as a matter of scientific discipline. Even though everyone, including creationists must rely on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) to know specifics about the designer, everyone can know the fact of design based on general revelation (i.e., nature).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Methodological Naturalist Objections to Intelligent Design===&lt;br /&gt;
Many scientists object to intelligent design on the basis that intelligent design &amp;quot;is not science.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The validity of this objection depends on what is meant by the terms &amp;quot;intelligent design&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;science&amp;quot;.  If &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; is defined objectively (as in Websters dictionary: 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and &amp;quot;intelligent design&amp;quot; is defined as in this article, then intelligent design is clearly, without question &amp;quot;science&amp;quot;, and the objection of methodological naturalists is overcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;methodological naturalism&amp;quot; describes a form of science in which science is assumed to be necessarily practiced as if naturalism were itself true (see also [[scientific materialism]]).  Of course, &amp;quot;naturalism&amp;quot;, which is a philosophy that holds there is no immaterial substance in the universe, i.e., all is matter alone, is an assumption-based philosophy.  &amp;quot;Naturalism&amp;quot;, like &amp;quot;materialism&amp;quot; as a philosophy holds that there is no supernatural in the universe, no spirit, no soul, and, of course, no God.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Methodological naturalists are scientists that, while perhaps not themselves being full-fledged naturalists (although growing numbers are), insist that science be practiced as if naturalism were true.  If this method of practicing science is adhered to, then intelligent design cannot be science, because intelligent design posits the possibility of a ''supernatural'' designer.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One way to illustrate the objection is this:  Consider two definitions of science:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.  Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.  Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot;, which assumes there ''are'' natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as ''the'' definition for science.  However, the &amp;quot;natural causes alone&amp;quot; criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there ''is'' a natural cause for all natural phenomena.  If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth.  The insistence on only &amp;quot;natural causes&amp;quot; imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on '''''knowledge''''', but an '''''assumption'''''.  Therefore, methodological naturalists &amp;quot;define out&amp;quot; of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Response to Naturalist Objection====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simple response to methodological naturalism, which is the only principled basis for excluding intelligent design from science, is that methodological naturalism improperly and unnecessarily restricts the realm of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By any objective definition of science, including dictionary definitions, intelligent design is science.  But the controversy begs a larger question.  Historically, the practice of science can be considered in two broad categories.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Francis_Bacon.jpg|thumbnail|150px|[[Francis Bacon]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
First there is the inductive method espoused by [[Francis Bacon]].  Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let &amp;quot;evidence lead the inquiry&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See, Cornelius G. Hunter, ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, (Brazos Press, 2007), p. 15.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process.  Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, there is the deductive method espoused by René Descartes.  Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See, Hunter, p. 17.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism,'' Descartes proposed a method of science in which &amp;quot;What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations.  Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; depends on what approach one takes to science.  If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science.  Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry.  Methodological naturalists place the &amp;quot;natural causes only&amp;quot; constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists maintain that the &amp;quot;natural causes only&amp;quot; constraint might be correct for operational science, but for historical sciences in which one is attempting to reconstruct a historical narrative based on present-day evidence, such a constraint does not make sense. For one thing, intelligent design theorists maintain that there is a difference between inductive and/or deductive sciences (each of which can be used in experimental sciences), and the &amp;quot;historical sciences&amp;quot;. Intelligent design is scientific in both inductive and historical sciences (and deductive, without limiting biases), but can have its greatest value as a historical science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The broad categories of &amp;quot;experimental sciences&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;historical sciences&amp;quot; ask different kinds of questions and use different kinds of methods. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates. The historical sciences, on the other hand, ask different kinds of questions. Rather than trying to understand how the natural world operates, the historical sciences seek to understand how things came to be. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer develops this line of thought fully in an article entitled ''Science and the Laws of Nature''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The distinction between experimental and historical sciences is not an ID-inspired idea. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend the historical nature of evolution. In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'', the NAS responds to the question, &amp;quot;How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?&amp;quot;: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not &amp;quot;off limits&amp;quot; for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' (Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With respect to hypothesis testing, see, Carol Cleland, '''''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method''''', (''Geology'', November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11, 987-990). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact is that historical sciences operate by different methods, including different methods of testing, than do experimental sciences. Historical sciences attempt to construct a historical narrative to explain current observed phenomena. The only way to &amp;quot;test&amp;quot; historical narratives is by comparing with competing historical narratives to see which one more closely aligns with the observed phenomena. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design, therefore, is not only science, but as a competing historical narrative, it is a valuable scientific challenge to the naturalistic historical narrative of Darwinism. Without it, Darwinism ceases being science, and becomes an unchallengeable dogma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History of Intelligent Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Aristotle.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Aristotle]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In many respects the history of intelligent design corresponds to the history of science in general; since the days of [[Aristotle]] most scientists have assumed design based on the clear evidence at hand.  Moreover, the history of the modern intelligent design movement must be seen in the context of the ages-old tension between materialistic science and non-materialistic science.  For a timeline directed specifically to the history of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy, see the '''IDEA Center's''' ''&amp;quot;Primer: History of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy&amp;quot;.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Plato and Aristotle both argued that nature is ''teleological'', a term that comes from the Greek ''telos'' meaning &amp;quot;directed by goal or purpose&amp;quot;.  In other words, the evidence of nature leads logically to the idea that behind the purely natural is some kind of rational, non-natural order, something Plato referred to as &amp;quot;Form&amp;quot; and which Aristotle referred to as &amp;quot;Idea&amp;quot;.  Both were led to their conclusions by the commonsense notion that if the world really did consist of chance configurations of atoms, then knowledge would be impossible. (See Nancy Pearcey, ''Total Truth'', Appendix 3, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;390.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nancy R. Pearcey, ''Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity'' (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004)(https://www.amazon.com/Total-Truth-Liberating-Christianity-Captivity/dp/1581347464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1195005366&amp;amp;sr=1-1)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Pearcey.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Nancy Pearcey]]&lt;br /&gt;
Modern intelligent design theory is simply a response to the resurgence of dominant materialistic thought, primarily as expressed by institutions of science such as universities and various academies of science.  As '''Nancy Pearcey''' states: &amp;quot;By tracing the debate over Darwinism all the way back to [[Epicurus]] (a Greek materialist) we can place the theory in a much larger context.  Darwinism was not entirely new, invented out of whole cloth.&amp;quot;  Likewise, the modern intelligent design movement can be placed in a larger context as a challenge to modern materialistic thought as enforced in modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more indepth study of the history of intelligent design, see '''William Dembski's''' work entitled ''Intelligent Design''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In particular, Dembski's bibliography and comments are reproduced here:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bibliography&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beckwith, Francis J. Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. Lanham, Md., 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, 1996.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York, 1986.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski, William A. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md., 2002.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forrest, Barbara. “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream.” In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, edited by Robert T. Pennock, pp. 5–53, Cambridge, Mass., 2001. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giberson, Karl W. and Donald A. Yerxa. Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, Md., 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hunter, Cornelius G. Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manson, Neil A., ed. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. London, 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. San Francisco, 1999. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rea, Michael C. World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism. Oxford, 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Witham, Larry. By Design: Science and the Search for God. San Francisco, 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Bibliographic Essay&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[[Larry Witham]] provides the best overview of intelligent design, even-handedly treating its scientific, cultural, and religious dimensions. As a journalist, Witham has personally interviewed all the main players in the debate over intelligent design and allows them to tell their story. For intelligent design’s place in the science and religion dialogue, see Giberson and Yerxa.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;For histories of the intelligent design movement, see Woodward (a supporter) and Forrest (a critic).&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;See Behe and Dembski to overview intelligent design’s scientific research program. For a critique of that program, see Miller. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;For an impassioned defense of Darwinism against any form of teleology or design, see Dawkins. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Manson’s anthology situates intelligent design within broader discussions about teleology. Rea probes intelligent design’s metaphysical underpinnings. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Hunter provides an interesting analysis of how intelligent design and Darwinism play off the problem of evil. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Beckwith examines whether intelligent design is inherently religious and thus, on account of church-state separation, must be barred from public school science curricula.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Global intelligence design movement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Global intelligent design movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Evolution News and Views'' reported concerning the intelligent design movement:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Along with the absurd stereotype that support for ID is limited to right-wing fundamentalist Christians … there’s also the Darwinist agitprop point that advocates of the theory are rare outside the United States. Hardly! An unacknowledged strength of the ID movement is its international character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asia is an up-and-coming ID hot spot, as ENV has reported. See here for Signature in the Cell and Explore Evolution [links omitted for Discoveroid books] in their recent and handsome Korean editions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europe and Asia aside, how about Brazil? From South America’s most populous nation, accounting for half the continent’s total population, comes news of the First Brazilian Intelligent Design Congress, scheduled for November 14–16 this year at [details of the event].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/intelligent_des_20090211.html Intelligent Design's Secret Weapon: The World] by David Klinghoffer October 3, 2014 11:53 AM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Resources==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Quick Start ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a quick, concise overview of what intelligent design is all about, link to the following relatively short articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution'''''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://idnetohio.cinti.net/media/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Written by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert (of '''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''),&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; this article is a one-stop mini-compendium on what intelligent design is, what it claims, and why it's important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''The Evolution Controversy: Understanding the Basic Issues in the Debate Between Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design'''''. By Jody F. Sjogren, Robert P. Lattimer, and Douglas D. Rudy, and presented by Science Excellence for all Ohioans (SEAO).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.sciohio.org/start.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Read and understand this and you will, as the title says, understand the basic issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.'''''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science - MainPage&amp;amp;id=2177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By Stephen C. Meyer of the Center for Science &amp;amp; Culture,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;http://www.discovery.org/csc&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/csc/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; this article first appeared in the peer reviewed Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington, August 20, 2005. Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Web Based Resources===&lt;br /&gt;
====The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture====&lt;br /&gt;
'''The Center for Science and Culture'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;http://www.discovery.org/csc&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is a '''[[Discovery Institute]]''' program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to scientific research and scholarship, the Center's '''Evolution News and Views''' blog&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; presents analysis of that relevant news coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A related website, '''intelligentdesign.org'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesign.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; provides up-to-date information and learning resources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Access Research Network====&lt;br /&gt;
The '''[[Access Research Network]] (ARN)'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arn.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology and society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''ARN's''' articles and publications cover a host of issues which focus on such topics as intelligent design theory, genetic engineering, euthanasia, computer technology, environmental issues, creation/evolution, fetal tissue research and medical issues. ARN provides information needed to orient one's self in today's scientific and technological world in order to make informed decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Intelligent Design Network====&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science.  Objectivity results from the use of the [[scientific method]] without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Intelligent Design Network produced a Statement of Objectives &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligentdesignnetwork.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; regarding origins science. The Statement acknowledges that explanations of the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity are scientifically controversial. Further, due to its controversial nature, Origins Science  requires a scientific enterprise guided by '''scientific objectivity'' rather than a preconceived view of origins, whether Materialistic (e.g., Darwinism) or Teleological (e.g., creationism). For this reason, according to the Statement, government and public education institutions supporting Origins Science should strive for objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ideacenter.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested. The Center's primary focus is to help students form &amp;quot;IDEA Clubs&amp;quot; on university and high school campuses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ID the Future====&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent Design's &amp;quot;Super Blog&amp;quot;, '''ID the Future'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.idthefuture.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; offers podcasts as part of its mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design (ID). IDTF provides listeners with the most current news and views on evolution and ID through brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from '''Discovery Institute''' senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Uncommon Descent====&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligent design weblog of [[William Dembski]], Denyse O'Leary, and friends, '''Uncommon Descent'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; holds that...&lt;br /&gt;
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution—an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Real Science Radio====&lt;br /&gt;
Denver-based Real Science Radio has interviewed a dozen scientists and scholars associated with Seattle's Discovery Institute including [[Michael Behe]], Paul Nelson, [[Stephen Meyer]], [[Richard Sternberg]], Ann Gauger, and Doug Axe, all listed on RSR's single Intelligent Design page.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://rsr.org/id/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Post-Darwinist====&lt;br /&gt;
Toronto-based '''Denyse O'Leary's''' blog,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; covering the intelligent design movement from a journalist/author's perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Books, Tapes, DVD's===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Discovery Institute====&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture''' &amp;quot;Essential Readings&amp;quot; list&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; includes links to books and articles by leading intelligent design proponents. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Access Research Network====&lt;br /&gt;
Books available from '''Access Research Network's'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arn.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; book catalog&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;astore.amazon.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://astore.amazon.com/a0ed97-20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and videos/tapes (including DVD's)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;astore.amazon.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arn.org/origins-101.html ARN Videos]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; include the latest information on the subject of intelligent design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Intelligent design movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and reason]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Living fossil]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ IntelligentDesign.org]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Intelligent Design| ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Political Theory]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&amp;diff=2201120</id>
		<title>Intelligent design</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&amp;diff=2201120"/>
		<updated>2026-08-05T17:33:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;:''Not to be confused with [[creationism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design''' '''(ID)''' is the empirically testable&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes&amp;quot; source: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause. It is a theory of design detection, has been applied in various fields or subjects such as protein science, genetics, flagellum-chemotaxis system, glycolysis, vertebrate limbs and joints, feathers, and brain blood flow; and has rigorous methodologies following systems biology and systems engineering.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Luskin C, Reeves E, Miller B, McLatchie J (2026) &amp;quot;The Broad Utility of the Theory of Intelligent Design to Guide Scientific Research&amp;quot;. BIO-Complexity 2026 (4):1-46. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2026.4. [https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2026.4/BIO-C.2026.4]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, &amp;quot;ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are &amp;quot;inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]&amp;quot; but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9151&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is worldview diversity among proponents and intelligent design is a secular, or even non-religious, theory. Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist who co-discovered [[natural selection]] along with [[Charles Darwin]], eventually came to see that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution, and in particular wrote about the advancements of research on the cell in the chapter &amp;quot;Mystery of the Cell&amp;quot; along with observations on man as being designed with purpose.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Some intelligent design proponents such as Michael Behe carry on the ''intelligent evolution'' espoused by Alfred Russel Wallace.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Another prominent ID proponent is David Berlinski who is actually an agnostic atheist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20150312200118/https://www.discovery.org/a/4536/ Agnostic takes New Atheists to Task for Trying to Hijack Science Author David Berlinski's New Book The Devil's Delusion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David Berlinski. 2009. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. Basic Books. ISBN, 0786751479&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Other atheist defenders have been Bradley Monton.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, 2009, Broadview Press, ISBN 9781551118635.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, design principles are compatible with biology since design is already used in biological fields (e.g. breeding, artificial selection, farming, synthetic biology, systems biology, etc).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Castle, S.D., Stock, M. &amp;amp; Gorochowski, T.E. Engineering is evolution: a perspective on design processes to engineer biology. Nature Communications 15, 3640 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48000-1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kevin A. Janes, Preethi L. Chandran, Roseanne M. Ford, Matthew J. Lazzara, Jason A. Papin, Shayn M. Peirce, Jeffrey J. Saucerman, Douglas A. Lauffenburger, An engineering design approach to systems biology, Integrative Biology, Volume 9, Issue 7, July 2017, Pages 574–583, https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ib00014f&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Intelligent design theory does have extensive peer-reviewed publications.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2024/05/Peer-Reviewed-and-Mainstream-Articles-Page-Update-May-2024_FinalPDF.pdf  LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED AND MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN 2024]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial,  and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]).  With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature.  That is, without necessarily &amp;quot;proving&amp;quot; actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such a [[design inference]] supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of ''intelligent'' design.  As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of [[evolution]] such as chemical and Darwinian evolution &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Darwinian Evolution: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. The theory postulates that evolutionary change is the result of material causes [i.e., unintelligent causes due to the interactions of matter, energy, and the forces of nature], driven primarily by random variation and natural selection.  The forces include gravity, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces that define the structure of atoms. With respect to explaining the cosmos, the laws of chemistry and physics such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics dictate that material causes operate in generally periodic or regular patterns at best, and in entropy-increasing randomness at worst. ''See'', &amp;quot;Thirty-eight Nobel Laureates, ''Nobel Laureates Initiative,'' (The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, September 9, 2005), stressing to Kansas State Board of Education: “[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the design exhibited in our universe is merely ''apparent'' design, i.e., ''unintelligent'' design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As used in this article, &amp;quot;materialism&amp;quot; is used synonymously with &amp;quot;naturalism&amp;quot;. Naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that material causes alone are adequate to account for all natural phenomena and that teleological (design) conceptions of nature are invalid.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ('''[[SETI]]'''). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, notes at [http://www.discovery.org/a/1671 A Note to Teachers Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins May 1, 1993], the problem with limiting explanations to only &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot; causes: &amp;quot;Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial.  All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to [[Subjectivism|subjective]] historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory.  They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its many strengths, many [[Young Earth Creationism|biblical creationists]], while acknowledging those strengths, criticize the Intelligent Design theory for refusing to specify the identity of the designer, refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture, and for accepting long ages and a theistic theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Whitcomb&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PurdomChapter13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Origins Science ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''[[Origins science]]''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation.  Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence.  Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design.  Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design.  Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inference is most reasonable.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Ernst Mayr]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 12.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a more detailed description of the method for investigating and explaining origins Mayr said: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.  ''Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.''  Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought'', p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American) emphasis added.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mayr's statement does not define &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot;, but his point is valid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Evolution&amp;quot; is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is the lack of a precise definition.  If &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used to mean &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is uncontroversial.  However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is meant &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;, then Mayr is correct -- &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation.  As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The '''[[National Academy of Sciences]]''' (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; as science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning.  If &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used to mean &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is scientific and verifiable by experimentation.  However, if by &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is meant &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes.  However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; would not be science).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, (1998), p. 55.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the NAS responds to the question, &amp;quot;How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not &amp;quot;off limits&amp;quot; for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the '''[[SETI]]''' project, forensics, and intelligent design are removed from the realm of science.  Such disciplines propose hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses is often only effective by proposing competing hypotheses and objectively analyzing the evidence to determine which hypothesis correlates best with the evidence. As '''Carol Cleland''' elaborates in her paper entitled ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'', in actual practice historical researchers tend to search for “positive evidence—a smoking gun.”  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11), pp. 987-990.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Ms. Cleland explores the necessary role of hypothesis testing for scientific disciplines not amenable to classical experimental testing. Hypothesis testing by formulating multiple competing hypotheses is essential in the context of historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, and biogenesis. According to Cleland, “A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the other.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11) p. 988.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Methods of Intelligent Design Detection ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Design inference]], [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Fire-investigator.jpg|150px|right|thumbnail|Design detection is used in a variety of [[science]]s including [[forensic]] science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes.  Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.  It is also used in archeology, anthropology, cryptanalysis, copyright infringement, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for function or purpose in genetic sequences.  It is key to the current debate over the origin of the cosmos and life.  Are these “effects” or patterns that arose long ago the product of an intelligent or material cause?   Are the effects designs, i.e., the result of intelligent manipulation, or just occurrences?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable.  Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell?  Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started?  To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Inferring design====&lt;br /&gt;
Design is often inferred intuitively. However, there are formal ways to establish a [[Design inference]]. For example, logical and/or mathematical assessment of both ''small probabilities'' and ''specifications'' on any phenomenon or event, and the resulting elimination of chance as a viable explanation for the phenomenon or event.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. Page 70&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Chance'' can occur as a side effect of design (e.g. car accidents occur even when cars, controls, and roads are designed). Chance can also be a an unguided natural phenomenon (e.g. earthquake, landslide, etc).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. Page 75-85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In order to narrow down if something is designed or natural, specifications should be present. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Specifications'' &amp;quot;are patterns that identify events and that have short or simple descriptions. But descriptions can be represented in bits.&amp;quot; Also, &amp;quot;Design inferences engage in a balancing act between the complexity of events and the simplicity of descriptions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. pages 132-133&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term '''specified complexity''' is term used and endorsed by eminent scientists such as Francis Crick, Paul Davies, Leslie Orgel, and even Richard Dawkins, sometimes using the very term and at other times using &amp;quot;complexity&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;specification&amp;quot; in the same breath. The actual term &amp;quot;specified complexity&amp;quot; goes back to biologist Leslie Orgel in 1973 in connection to origin of life research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. page 258-266&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====In biology====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Generegulatory_networkS_cerevisiae.png|250px|thumb|right|Example of a Gene Regulatory Network (GRN) in a single cell bacteria called ''S. cerevisiae'' where Transcription factors (large blue circles) and other genes (small green circles) have complex chemical interactions in the cell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ma S, Kemmeren P, Gresham D, Statnikov A (2014) De-Novo Learning of Genome-Scale Regulatory Networks in S. cerevisiae. PLOS ONE 9(9): e106479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106479&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cells display a highly specified and complex set of chemical interactions. For example, '''gene regulatory networks''' highlight complex chemical interactions that occur per second in each cell. Resembling chemical manufacturing and synthesis of biological matter. Gene regulatory networks are segments within DNA that govern the rate and products of genes, controlling essential processes such as transcription and translation to prevent the production of harmful or ineffective gene products and also display how segments of cellular activity is automatically controlled by information embedded in DNA.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/gene-regulatory-network Gene Regulatory Networks] Science Direct Journals  &amp;quot;Gene regulatory networks are segments within DNA that govern the rate and products of genes, controlling essential processes such as transcription and translation to prevent the production of harmful or ineffective gene products.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gene regulatory networks are visualizations of thousands of genes that are expressed and work in concert to ensure the cell's function, fitness, and survival whereby each gene is expressed at the proper time and in the proper amounts to ensure the appropriate function in each cell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Macneil LT, Walhout AJ. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3083081/ Gene regulatory networks and the role of robustness and stochasticity in the control of gene expression]. Genome Res. 2011 May;21(5):645-57. doi: 10.1101/gr.097378.109.&amp;quot;In any given cell, thousands of genes are expressed and work in concert to ensure the cell's function, fitness, and survival. Each gene, in turn, must be expressed at the proper time and in the proper amounts to ensure the appropriate functional outcome. The regulation and expression of some genes are highly robust; their expression is controlled by invariable expression programs. For instance, developmental gene expression is extremely similar in a given cell type from one individual to another. The expression of other genes is more variable: Their levels are noisy and are different from cell to cell and from individual to individual. This can be highly beneficial in physiological responses to outside cues and stresses. Recent advances have enabled the analysis of differential gene expression at a systems level. Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) involving interactions between large numbers of genes and their regulators have been mapped onto graphic diagrams that are used to visualize the regulatory relationships.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading chemist Felix Franks&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To translate the dictionary definition into scientific terms, life processes, as we understand them, must encompass all of the following functions in sequence: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes ===&lt;br /&gt;
Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces.  These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics.  These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose.  In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist '''Douglas J. Futuyma''', they lack forward looking &amp;quot;foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;“Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. ......Darwin undid the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle, and put variation in its place. He helped to replace a static conception of the world with the vision of a world of ceaseless change. Above all, his theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot;  It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot; questions by citing purpose. Only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.  Thus questions like &amp;quot;Why do plants have flowers?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Why are there apple trees?&amp;quot;? or plagues, or storms? were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, '''Evolutionary Biology''', Third Edition,(Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1998) p. 5, 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man.  The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they can't comprehend it. Unintelligent material causes are not merely blind watchmakers, they are mindless, purposeless, and meaningless. Lacking a mind, they lack the capacity to “make” anything.  Unintelligent material causes can adequately account for physical systems like the occurrence of rocks, rivers, wind and rain.  However, it is not clear how they account for time-dependent living systems or themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter.   An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till.  Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The starting and stopping of matter may also be produced by interactions due to the properties of atoms, electrons and molecules.  In a snowflake, the particular chemical properties of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms at a specific temperature and pressure, necessitate that they join together and stop in regular hexagonal lattices. Crystals of salt and other minerals “grow” through the stopping of atoms otherwise in motion until the source of new material is depleted or the conditions conducive to the growth change. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With this combination of law and chance, unintelligent material causes produce patterns both random and regular.  Sand dunes and snowflakes exhibit regular and periodic patterns driven by constant forces.  Random patterns also arise as systems are suddenly interrupted as in the case of an auto accident or a melting glacier that drops an unsorted load. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although material causes can move matter uniformly and also start it and stop it suddenly, physical systems generally move from states of order to states of disorder per the second law of thermodynamics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Capacity of Intelligent Causes===&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world.  Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers.  We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence.  The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders.  Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose.  Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future.  Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither.  Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose.  Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a bird's nest, a beaver's dam or an aqueduct.     &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces.   Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose.  The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful.  The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct.  But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole.  This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning.   Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose.  Minds tie events together to for a purpose.  Material causes do not.  When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling. &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, [[Thomas Aquinas]], noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end....... Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;St. Thomas Aquinas, '''The Summa Theologica''', (1265-1274).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus design detection begins with a search for purpose.  If a pattern exhibits an apparent purpose, the inquiry turns to whether the apparent purpose is just an illusion.  Perhaps the pattern can be adequately explained by unintelligent material causes alone.  If not, then logic suggests that mind may be the more adequate explanation for the pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Formal Design Detection Methodology===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Formal design detection is not often used.  Design detection methodology is not often employed because the human mind has an inherent capacity to distinguish between patterns arranged by a mind for a purpose and those that have not.  Scientists have found that minds engage in subconscious pattern matching, which is a means of intuitively distinguishing between designs and occurrences.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Formal analysis is employed when a dispute arises about the cause of a pattern.  Examples include investigations of deaths and peculiar fires that look for signs of murder or arson. Archaeologists debate over whether a rock is a rock or an artifact.   Astronomers analyze radio and light waves in search of messages from alien minds.  So far all of the tests of extraterrestrial radio waves for intelligence have been negative.  The cause of life and its diversity are major areas of dispute as much is at stake.  Religious and other world views depend on the best explanation for those events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Formal Design Detection -- ''The Explanatory Filter''====&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|Dr. [[William Dembski]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science &amp;amp; Theology'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1194228951&amp;amp;sr=1-2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1194229141&amp;amp;sr=1-7&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary.  One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the &amp;quot;[[explanatory filter]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski describes his three-part '''explanatory filter''' together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter.   The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law?  If not, can it be explained by chance.  If chance and necessity can't explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose?  If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can't be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Informal Design Detection Methodology===&lt;br /&gt;
====Intuition, Common Sense and Confirmation====&lt;br /&gt;
An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention.  We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect.  If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it.  Common sense reflects a judgment about the most prudent of a set of possible choices.  If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things.  The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archaeologists.  No one expects an archaeologist to provide a rigorous &amp;quot;proof&amp;quot; that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being.  The archaeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question.  As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say ''res ipsa loquitur'', or &amp;quot;the thing speaks for itself&amp;quot;.  There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems.  We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:WilliamPaley3.jpg|thumb|230px|left|William Paley]]&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by William Paley in his famous &amp;quot;watchmaker analogy&amp;quot;. William Paley (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book ''Natural Theology''.  Paley states his analogy: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the &amp;quot;what&amp;quot; of design with the &amp;quot;who&amp;quot; in biological systems is the tactic of those philosophically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a &amp;quot;divine foot in the door&amp;quot; of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Anthropic principle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Phillip_johnson_arn.gif|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Phillip E. Johnson]], Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus]]&lt;br /&gt;
Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The term &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; is used in its &amp;quot;strong form&amp;quot; to describe those who hold and defend the position that all the variety of life is the result solely of naturalistic processes. Therefore, the term refers to those who rule out any intelligent causation for any aspect of life (if intelligence plays any role whatsoever, then whatever the theory, it is a form of intelligent design). While everyone is an &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; if &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is defined in its weak form as simply &amp;quot;change over time&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; such as finch beak variation, not everyone is an &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; if &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used, as herein, to mean &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;.  Evolutionists who oppose Intelligent Design believe that unintelligent processes of physics and chemistry can explain the creation of every novel and beneficial feature of the various species, including wings, eyes, and brains. Darwinism is the leading naturalistic evolutionary theory, holding that all life forms descended as modified forms of previous life forms in an unguided, unintelligent process, i.e., Darwin's &amp;quot;descent with modification&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the '''''existence''''' of design in nature, but the '''''cause''''' of design in nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: '''''unintelligent''''' causes and '''''intelligent causes'''''. '''Unintelligent causes''' include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the &amp;quot;appearance&amp;quot; of design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design proponent [[Phillip E. Johnson]] illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Francis Crick.jpg|thumb|px130|left|[[Francis Crick]], co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent causes''' include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question is not, therefore, &amp;quot;is there evidence of design in nature?&amp;quot;  Rather, the scientific question is, &amp;quot;Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?&amp;quot;  Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism).  The question simply asks, &amp;quot;in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. '''Cosmological''' evidence for design is described at '''[[Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology]]''' section.  '''Biological''' evidence for intelligent design includes '''''general evidence''''' and '''''special evidence''''', and both are discussed at '''[[General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology]]'''.  For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the '''[[Evidence Filter]]'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropic principle ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Anthropic principle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a strong body of evidence for a Designer that comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creation.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life The universe is finely tuned for life] by Jonathan Sarfati&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anthropic principle states that the reason the constants of nature appear so finely tuned to life, is that if it were otherwise, life such as ourselves would not have developed. Hence we should not be surprised that the laws of physics are enable life such as ourselves to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[Atheism|atheist]] Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] states, &amp;quot;commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creation.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|[[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only ''unintelligent'' causes can be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Forensic sciences''':  [[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime.  For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Archeology''':  Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection.  Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Cryptanalysis''':  Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking.  Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Arson investigation''':  Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence''': The name says it all.  These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification.  No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Intelligent design theorists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent [[origin of life]] researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Religious Implications of Origins Science ==&lt;br /&gt;
Any theory of origins unavoidably impacts religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;One should not make the mistake of equating &amp;quot;religion&amp;quot; with only traditional theistic religions like [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], or [[Islam]].  As used herein the term is used as defined in the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science: Religion: A broad range of theistic and non-theistic religions and religious belief systems.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As stated in Article II.C of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligentdesignnetwork.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact religion, ethics, morality, government and politics.  The implications of materialistic explanations (such as Darwinism) of origins support the central tenets of non-theistic religions,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Non-theistic religions are religions and belief systems that presuppose that no God intervenes in the natural world and that material causes, such as unguided evolutionary change, are adequate to explain natural phenomena.  Non-theistic religions include [[atheism]], [[Secular Humanism]], and [[Scientism]], as well as some forms of [[Buddhism]] and other eastern religions.  By way of example, the Humanist Manifesto I sets forth the first two &amp;quot;affirmations&amp;quot; of religious humanism as &amp;quot;FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created; and, SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.&amp;quot; Thus, Darwinism supports the central tenets of a religious belief.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while the implications of teleological&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Teleological: Exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature. ''See'', Merriam-Webster Online&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explanations (such as Intelligent Design) support the central tenets of theistic religions. Both theistic and non-theistic religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article II.C&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Atheism.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, it should not be surprising that most theists are sympathetic to intelligent design because the science of intelligent design supports the theology of theistic religions like [[Christianity]]. Likewise, it is not surprising that virtually all atheists are Darwinists because the science of Darwinism supports the theology of non-theistic religions such as religious humanism (having a theology of atheism). The simple fact is that worldviews and interpretations of evidence go hand in hand. If, for example, your world view prohibits explanations involving intelligent design, then you will reject intelligent design in spite of the evidence, not because of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this reason, as stated in Article III.A. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', if '''truth''' is the goal:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Institutions of science should ignore religious and ethical implications of competing historical hypotheses and strive for '''objectivity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Objective: Not influenced by personal bias or prejudice; based on facts.  An objective position is one that is Secular, Neutral, and Non-ideological.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in the conduct and teaching of origins science.  Institutional objectivity may be achieved by encouraging healthy competition among scientists holding differing scientific views regarding origins, consistent with the scientific method.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article III.A&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is because, as stated in Article II.B. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of '''abductive'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Abduction, or abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations.  See, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of historical hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article II.B&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Objections to Intelligent Design==&lt;br /&gt;
===Creationist Objections to Intelligent Design===&lt;br /&gt;
Many Biblical creationists and other theists object to Intelligent Design as failing to identify the alleged designer and refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Whitcomb&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Whitcomb, John C., Ph.D. (2006). [https://www.icr.org/article/history-impact-book-the-genesis-flood/ The History and Impact of the Book, &amp;quot;The Genesis Flood&amp;quot;]. ''ICR.org'' (from ''Acts &amp;amp; Facts. 35 (5)''). Retrieved October 26, 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This objection is expressed well by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. of '''[[Answers in Genesis]]''' in an article entitled '''''Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter?'''''  Dr. Purdom sums up the major objection:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]], Dr. [[Carl Wieland]], notes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CMI IDM&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560 CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Referring to Intelligent Design as the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), Weiland pinpoints the specific objection as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See the 2004 book by CMI speaker Gary Bates: Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. [footnote in original]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CMI IDM&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the fair criticisms listed above, biblical creationists also criticize the intelligent design theory for continuing to accept long ages and the theory of evolution along with the existence of some designer.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PurdomChapter13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Purdom, Georgia, Dr. (May 6, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-design-movement-christian/ Chapter 13 - Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian?]. ''Answers in Genesis'' (from ''The New Answers Book 2''). Retrieved October 25, 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Response to Creationist Objections====&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Wieland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves.  And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation &amp;quot;reflect on each other,&amp;quot; they would disagree that &amp;quot;the Creator and His creation cannot be separated.&amp;quot;  The &amp;quot;separation&amp;quot; is epistemological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot;, and just as an archaeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically.  Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature.  That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method.  But science can say little about who the designer is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled '''''Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn't Identify the Designer'''''.  Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
David DeWolf, John West and I also address this issue in our recent Montana Law Review article:&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to stress that the refusal of ID proponents to draw scientific conclusions about the nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical. ID is primarily a historical science, meaning it uses principles of uniformitarianism to study present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record in order to infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied. ID starts with observations from “uniform sensory experience” showing the effects of intelligence in the natural world. As Pandas explains, scientists have uniform sensory experience with intelligent causes (i.e. humans), thus making intelligence an appropriate explanatory cause within historical scientific fields. However, the “supernatural” cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=4306, citing David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” 68 Montana Law Review 7, 30 (Spring, 2007) (internal citations removed).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Further, it appears that Dr. Weiland's concern that &amp;quot;[a]cceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions&amp;quot; is unfounded.  Certainly some who are honestly convinced of true intelligent design might entertain &amp;quot;sci-fi notions,&amp;quot; but the evidence supports the opposite—i.e., those convinced of design are more likely to entertain thoughts of a supernatural God.  Like Aristotle of ancient Greece, those who reasonably and honestly are convinced of true design in nature are more likely to follow the pattern Dr. Pordum highlighted from Romans 1:18-20.  That is, the creation speaks to a supernatural, infinite, eternal creator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Take the example of former atheist Anthony Flew, as discussed by intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson, in an article entitled '''''Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects'''''.  First Johnson reiterates:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;discovery.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/3914&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, Johnson notes with respect to the practical effects of such an open philosophy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
One early sign of the way the world is headed came in December 2004, when there was much comment in newspapers and internet discussion groups about famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew had just announced that he had converted to philosophical theism (though not to Christianity or any other specific religion, at least as yet), on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which had convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe. Flew seems to have investigated the phenomenon of design in the natural world for reasons similar to my own. He wanted to decide for himself whether evidence and logic point in the direction of a creating intelligence, or whether God is nothing more than a subjective idea created by human imagination. Perhaps these questions about the reality of god are religious in nature, but they are important questions that deserve to be investigated dispassionately instead of being barred from consideration because powerful groups define “science” as committed a priori to naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although as yet Flew does not adhere to Christianity or any other creedal faith, he has taken a giant step in that direction. In an article in the London Independent for December 27, 2004, an Oxford University theologian wrote: “What kind of God could it [i.e. Flew’s designer] refer to? One who created the universe–elementary particles, strong and weak forces, atoms and molecules, yet, for example, has no relation to the emergence of a clever humanity? Or could it be a God who was intelligent enough to create galaxies, and amazingly intricate systems like DNA, yet not intelligent enough to communicate with humankind? Although Flew does not believe in revelation, and may not feel that the Book of Genesis provides a useful account of creation, he does not seem to have quite this kind of minimalist God in mind either. In fact when pressed as to whether his ‘First Cause’ embraced omniscience, Flew admits that a First Cause, if there is one, has clearly produced everything that is going on, and this implies creation ‘in the beginning.’”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;discovery.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists leave the identity of the designer open as a matter of scientific discipline. Even though everyone, including creationists must rely on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) to know specifics about the designer, everyone can know the fact of design based on general revelation (i.e., nature).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Methodological Naturalist Objections to Intelligent Design===&lt;br /&gt;
Many scientists object to intelligent design on the basis that intelligent design &amp;quot;is not science.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The validity of this objection depends on what is meant by the terms &amp;quot;intelligent design&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;science&amp;quot;.  If &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; is defined objectively (as in Websters dictionary: 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and &amp;quot;intelligent design&amp;quot; is defined as in this article, then intelligent design is clearly, without question &amp;quot;science&amp;quot;, and the objection of methodological naturalists is overcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;methodological naturalism&amp;quot; describes a form of science in which science is assumed to be necessarily practiced as if naturalism were itself true (see also [[scientific materialism]]).  Of course, &amp;quot;naturalism&amp;quot;, which is a philosophy that holds there is no immaterial substance in the universe, i.e., all is matter alone, is an assumption-based philosophy.  &amp;quot;Naturalism&amp;quot;, like &amp;quot;materialism&amp;quot; as a philosophy holds that there is no supernatural in the universe, no spirit, no soul, and, of course, no God.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Methodological naturalists are scientists that, while perhaps not themselves being full-fledged naturalists (although growing numbers are), insist that science be practiced as if naturalism were true.  If this method of practicing science is adhered to, then intelligent design cannot be science, because intelligent design posits the possibility of a ''supernatural'' designer.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One way to illustrate the objection is this:  Consider two definitions of science:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.  Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.  Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot;, which assumes there ''are'' natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as ''the'' definition for science.  However, the &amp;quot;natural causes alone&amp;quot; criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there ''is'' a natural cause for all natural phenomena.  If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth.  The insistence on only &amp;quot;natural causes&amp;quot; imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on '''''knowledge''''', but an '''''assumption'''''.  Therefore, methodological naturalists &amp;quot;define out&amp;quot; of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Response to Naturalist Objection====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simple response to methodological naturalism, which is the only principled basis for excluding intelligent design from science, is that methodological naturalism improperly and unnecessarily restricts the realm of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By any objective definition of science, including dictionary definitions, intelligent design is science.  But the controversy begs a larger question.  Historically, the practice of science can be considered in two broad categories.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Francis_Bacon.jpg|thumbnail|150px|[[Francis Bacon]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
First there is the inductive method espoused by [[Francis Bacon]].  Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let &amp;quot;evidence lead the inquiry&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See, Cornelius G. Hunter, ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, (Brazos Press, 2007), p. 15.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process.  Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, there is the deductive method espoused by René Descartes.  Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See, Hunter, p. 17.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism,'' Descartes proposed a method of science in which &amp;quot;What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations.  Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; depends on what approach one takes to science.  If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science.  Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry.  Methodological naturalists place the &amp;quot;natural causes only&amp;quot; constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists maintain that the &amp;quot;natural causes only&amp;quot; constraint might be correct for operational science, but for historical sciences in which one is attempting to reconstruct a historical narrative based on present-day evidence, such a constraint does not make sense. For one thing, intelligent design theorists maintain that there is a difference between inductive and/or deductive sciences (each of which can be used in experimental sciences), and the &amp;quot;historical sciences&amp;quot;. Intelligent design is scientific in both inductive and historical sciences (and deductive, without limiting biases), but can have its greatest value as a historical science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The broad categories of &amp;quot;experimental sciences&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;historical sciences&amp;quot; ask different kinds of questions and use different kinds of methods. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates. The historical sciences, on the other hand, ask different kinds of questions. Rather than trying to understand how the natural world operates, the historical sciences seek to understand how things came to be. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer develops this line of thought fully in an article entitled ''Science and the Laws of Nature''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The distinction between experimental and historical sciences is not an ID-inspired idea. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend the historical nature of evolution. In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'', the NAS responds to the question, &amp;quot;How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?&amp;quot;: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not &amp;quot;off limits&amp;quot; for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' (Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With respect to hypothesis testing, see, Carol Cleland, '''''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method''''', (''Geology'', November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11, 987-990). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact is that historical sciences operate by different methods, including different methods of testing, than do experimental sciences. Historical sciences attempt to construct a historical narrative to explain current observed phenomena. The only way to &amp;quot;test&amp;quot; historical narratives is by comparing with competing historical narratives to see which one more closely aligns with the observed phenomena. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design, therefore, is not only science, but as a competing historical narrative, it is a valuable scientific challenge to the naturalistic historical narrative of Darwinism. Without it, Darwinism ceases being science, and becomes an unchallengeable dogma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History of Intelligent Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Aristotle.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Aristotle]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In many respects the history of intelligent design corresponds to the history of science in general; since the days of [[Aristotle]] most scientists have assumed design based on the clear evidence at hand.  Moreover, the history of the modern intelligent design movement must be seen in the context of the ages-old tension between materialistic science and non-materialistic science.  For a timeline directed specifically to the history of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy, see the '''IDEA Center's''' ''&amp;quot;Primer: History of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy&amp;quot;.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Plato and Aristotle both argued that nature is ''teleological'', a term that comes from the Greek ''telos'' meaning &amp;quot;directed by goal or purpose&amp;quot;.  In other words, the evidence of nature leads logically to the idea that behind the purely natural is some kind of rational, non-natural order, something Plato referred to as &amp;quot;Form&amp;quot; and which Aristotle referred to as &amp;quot;Idea&amp;quot;.  Both were led to their conclusions by the commonsense notion that if the world really did consist of chance configurations of atoms, then knowledge would be impossible. (See Nancy Pearcey, ''Total Truth'', Appendix 3, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;390.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nancy R. Pearcey, ''Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity'' (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004)(https://www.amazon.com/Total-Truth-Liberating-Christianity-Captivity/dp/1581347464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1195005366&amp;amp;sr=1-1)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Pearcey.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Nancy Pearcey]]&lt;br /&gt;
Modern intelligent design theory is simply a response to the resurgence of dominant materialistic thought, primarily as expressed by institutions of science such as universities and various academies of science.  As '''Nancy Pearcey''' states: &amp;quot;By tracing the debate over Darwinism all the way back to [[Epicurus]] (a Greek materialist) we can place the theory in a much larger context.  Darwinism was not entirely new, invented out of whole cloth.&amp;quot;  Likewise, the modern intelligent design movement can be placed in a larger context as a challenge to modern materialistic thought as enforced in modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more indepth study of the history of intelligent design, see '''William Dembski's''' work entitled ''Intelligent Design''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In particular, Dembski's bibliography and comments are reproduced here:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bibliography&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beckwith, Francis J. Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. Lanham, Md., 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, 1996.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York, 1986.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski, William A. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md., 2002.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forrest, Barbara. “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream.” In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, edited by Robert T. Pennock, pp. 5–53, Cambridge, Mass., 2001. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giberson, Karl W. and Donald A. Yerxa. Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, Md., 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hunter, Cornelius G. Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manson, Neil A., ed. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. London, 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. San Francisco, 1999. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rea, Michael C. World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism. Oxford, 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Witham, Larry. By Design: Science and the Search for God. San Francisco, 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Bibliographic Essay&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[[Larry Witham]] provides the best overview of intelligent design, even-handedly treating its scientific, cultural, and religious dimensions. As a journalist, Witham has personally interviewed all the main players in the debate over intelligent design and allows them to tell their story. For intelligent design’s place in the science and religion dialogue, see Giberson and Yerxa.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;For histories of the intelligent design movement, see Woodward (a supporter) and Forrest (a critic).&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;See Behe and Dembski to overview intelligent design’s scientific research program. For a critique of that program, see Miller. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;For an impassioned defense of Darwinism against any form of teleology or design, see Dawkins. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Manson’s anthology situates intelligent design within broader discussions about teleology. Rea probes intelligent design’s metaphysical underpinnings. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Hunter provides an interesting analysis of how intelligent design and Darwinism play off the problem of evil. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Beckwith examines whether intelligent design is inherently religious and thus, on account of church-state separation, must be barred from public school science curricula.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Global intelligence design movement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Global intelligent design movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Evolution News and Views'' reported concerning the intelligent design movement:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Along with the absurd stereotype that support for ID is limited to right-wing fundamentalist Christians … there’s also the Darwinist agitprop point that advocates of the theory are rare outside the United States. Hardly! An unacknowledged strength of the ID movement is its international character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asia is an up-and-coming ID hot spot, as ENV has reported. See here for Signature in the Cell and Explore Evolution [links omitted for Discoveroid books] in their recent and handsome Korean editions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europe and Asia aside, how about Brazil? From South America’s most populous nation, accounting for half the continent’s total population, comes news of the First Brazilian Intelligent Design Congress, scheduled for November 14–16 this year at [details of the event].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/intelligent_des_20090211.html Intelligent Design's Secret Weapon: The World] by David Klinghoffer October 3, 2014 11:53 AM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Resources==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Quick Start ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a quick, concise overview of what intelligent design is all about, link to the following relatively short articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution'''''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://idnetohio.cinti.net/media/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Written by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert (of '''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''),&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; this article is a one-stop mini-compendium on what intelligent design is, what it claims, and why it's important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''The Evolution Controversy: Understanding the Basic Issues in the Debate Between Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design'''''. By Jody F. Sjogren, Robert P. Lattimer, and Douglas D. Rudy, and presented by Science Excellence for all Ohioans (SEAO).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.sciohio.org/start.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Read and understand this and you will, as the title says, understand the basic issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.'''''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science - MainPage&amp;amp;id=2177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By Stephen C. Meyer of the Center for Science &amp;amp; Culture,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;http://www.discovery.org/csc&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/csc/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; this article first appeared in the peer reviewed Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington, August 20, 2005. Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Web Based Resources===&lt;br /&gt;
====The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture====&lt;br /&gt;
'''The Center for Science and Culture'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;http://www.discovery.org/csc&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is a '''[[Discovery Institute]]''' program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to scientific research and scholarship, the Center's '''Evolution News and Views''' blog&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; presents analysis of that relevant news coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A related website, '''intelligentdesign.org'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesign.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; provides up-to-date information and learning resources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Access Research Network====&lt;br /&gt;
The '''[[Access Research Network]] (ARN)'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arn.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology and society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''ARN's''' articles and publications cover a host of issues which focus on such topics as intelligent design theory, genetic engineering, euthanasia, computer technology, environmental issues, creation/evolution, fetal tissue research and medical issues. ARN provides information needed to orient one's self in today's scientific and technological world in order to make informed decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Intelligent Design Network====&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science.  Objectivity results from the use of the [[scientific method]] without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Intelligent Design Network produced a Statement of Objectives &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligentdesignnetwork.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; regarding origins science. The Statement acknowledges that explanations of the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity are scientifically controversial. Further, due to its controversial nature, Origins Science  requires a scientific enterprise guided by '''scientific objectivity'' rather than a preconceived view of origins, whether Materialistic (e.g., Darwinism) or Teleological (e.g., creationism). For this reason, according to the Statement, government and public education institutions supporting Origins Science should strive for objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ideacenter.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested. The Center's primary focus is to help students form &amp;quot;IDEA Clubs&amp;quot; on university and high school campuses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ID the Future====&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent Design's &amp;quot;Super Blog&amp;quot;, '''ID the Future'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.idthefuture.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; offers podcasts as part of its mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design (ID). IDTF provides listeners with the most current news and views on evolution and ID through brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from '''Discovery Institute''' senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Uncommon Descent====&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligent design weblog of [[William Dembski]], Denyse O'Leary, and friends, '''Uncommon Descent'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; holds that...&lt;br /&gt;
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution—an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Real Science Radio====&lt;br /&gt;
Denver-based Real Science Radio has interviewed a dozen scientists and scholars associated with Seattle's Discovery Institute including [[Michael Behe]], Paul Nelson, [[Stephen Meyer]], [[Richard Sternberg]], Ann Gauger, and Doug Axe, all listed on RSR's single Intelligent Design page.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://rsr.org/id/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Post-Darwinist====&lt;br /&gt;
Toronto-based '''Denyse O'Leary's''' blog,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; covering the intelligent design movement from a journalist/author's perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Books, Tapes, DVD's===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Discovery Institute====&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture''' &amp;quot;Essential Readings&amp;quot; list&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; includes links to books and articles by leading intelligent design proponents. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Access Research Network====&lt;br /&gt;
Books available from '''Access Research Network's'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arn.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; book catalog&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;astore.amazon.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://astore.amazon.com/a0ed97-20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and videos/tapes (including DVD's)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;astore.amazon.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arn.org/origins-101.html ARN Videos]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; include the latest information on the subject of intelligent design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Intelligent design movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and reason]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Living fossil]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ IntelligentDesign.org]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Intelligent Design| ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Political Theory]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&amp;diff=2201119</id>
		<title>Intelligent design</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&amp;diff=2201119"/>
		<updated>2026-08-05T17:31:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;:''Not to be confused with [[creationism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design''' '''(ID)''' is the empirically testable&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes&amp;quot; source: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; It is a theory of design detection, has been applied in various fields or subjects such as protein science, genetics, flagellum-chemotaxis system, glycolysis, vertebrate limbs and joints, feathers, and brain blood flow; and has rigorous methodologies  following systems biology and systems engineering.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Luskin C, Reeves E, Miller B, McLatchie J (2026) &amp;quot;The Broad Utility of the Theory of Intelligent Design to Guide Scientific Research&amp;quot;. BIO-Complexity 2026 (4):1-46. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2026.4. [https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2026.4/BIO-C.2026.4]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, &amp;quot;ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are &amp;quot;inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]&amp;quot; but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9151&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is worldview diversity among proponents and intelligent design is a secular, or even non-religious, theory. Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist who co-discovered [[natural selection]] along with [[Charles Darwin]], eventually came to see that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution, and in particular wrote about the advancements of research on the cell in the chapter &amp;quot;Mystery of the Cell&amp;quot; along with observations on man as being designed with purpose.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Some intelligent design proponents such as Michael Behe carry on the ''intelligent evolution'' espoused by Alfred Russel Wallace.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Another prominent ID proponent is David Berlinski who is actually an agnostic atheist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20150312200118/https://www.discovery.org/a/4536/ Agnostic takes New Atheists to Task for Trying to Hijack Science Author David Berlinski's New Book The Devil's Delusion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David Berlinski. 2009. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. Basic Books. ISBN, 0786751479&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Other atheist defenders have been Bradley Monton.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, 2009, Broadview Press, ISBN 9781551118635.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, design principles are compatible with biology since design is already used in biological fields (e.g. breeding, artificial selection, farming, synthetic biology, systems biology, etc).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Castle, S.D., Stock, M. &amp;amp; Gorochowski, T.E. Engineering is evolution: a perspective on design processes to engineer biology. Nature Communications 15, 3640 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48000-1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kevin A. Janes, Preethi L. Chandran, Roseanne M. Ford, Matthew J. Lazzara, Jason A. Papin, Shayn M. Peirce, Jeffrey J. Saucerman, Douglas A. Lauffenburger, An engineering design approach to systems biology, Integrative Biology, Volume 9, Issue 7, July 2017, Pages 574–583, https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ib00014f&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Intelligent design theory does have extensive peer-reviewed publications.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2024/05/Peer-Reviewed-and-Mainstream-Articles-Page-Update-May-2024_FinalPDF.pdf  LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED AND MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN 2024]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial,  and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]).  With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature.  That is, without necessarily &amp;quot;proving&amp;quot; actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such a [[design inference]] supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of ''intelligent'' design.  As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of [[evolution]] such as chemical and Darwinian evolution &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Darwinian Evolution: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. The theory postulates that evolutionary change is the result of material causes [i.e., unintelligent causes due to the interactions of matter, energy, and the forces of nature], driven primarily by random variation and natural selection.  The forces include gravity, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces that define the structure of atoms. With respect to explaining the cosmos, the laws of chemistry and physics such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics dictate that material causes operate in generally periodic or regular patterns at best, and in entropy-increasing randomness at worst. ''See'', &amp;quot;Thirty-eight Nobel Laureates, ''Nobel Laureates Initiative,'' (The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, September 9, 2005), stressing to Kansas State Board of Education: “[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the design exhibited in our universe is merely ''apparent'' design, i.e., ''unintelligent'' design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As used in this article, &amp;quot;materialism&amp;quot; is used synonymously with &amp;quot;naturalism&amp;quot;. Naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that material causes alone are adequate to account for all natural phenomena and that teleological (design) conceptions of nature are invalid.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ('''[[SETI]]'''). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, notes at [http://www.discovery.org/a/1671 A Note to Teachers Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins May 1, 1993], the problem with limiting explanations to only &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot; causes: &amp;quot;Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial.  All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to [[Subjectivism|subjective]] historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory.  They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its many strengths, many [[Young Earth Creationism|biblical creationists]], while acknowledging those strengths, criticize the Intelligent Design theory for refusing to specify the identity of the designer, refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture, and for accepting long ages and a theistic theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Whitcomb&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PurdomChapter13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Origins Science ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''[[Origins science]]''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation.  Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence.  Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design.  Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design.  Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inference is most reasonable.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Ernst Mayr]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 12.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a more detailed description of the method for investigating and explaining origins Mayr said: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.  ''Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.''  Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought'', p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American) emphasis added.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mayr's statement does not define &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot;, but his point is valid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Evolution&amp;quot; is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is the lack of a precise definition.  If &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used to mean &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is uncontroversial.  However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is meant &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;, then Mayr is correct -- &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation.  As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The '''[[National Academy of Sciences]]''' (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; as science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning.  If &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used to mean &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is scientific and verifiable by experimentation.  However, if by &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is meant &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes.  However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; would not be science).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, (1998), p. 55.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the NAS responds to the question, &amp;quot;How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not &amp;quot;off limits&amp;quot; for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the '''[[SETI]]''' project, forensics, and intelligent design are removed from the realm of science.  Such disciplines propose hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses is often only effective by proposing competing hypotheses and objectively analyzing the evidence to determine which hypothesis correlates best with the evidence. As '''Carol Cleland''' elaborates in her paper entitled ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'', in actual practice historical researchers tend to search for “positive evidence—a smoking gun.”  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11), pp. 987-990.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Ms. Cleland explores the necessary role of hypothesis testing for scientific disciplines not amenable to classical experimental testing. Hypothesis testing by formulating multiple competing hypotheses is essential in the context of historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, and biogenesis. According to Cleland, “A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the other.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11) p. 988.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Methods of Intelligent Design Detection ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Design inference]], [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Fire-investigator.jpg|150px|right|thumbnail|Design detection is used in a variety of [[science]]s including [[forensic]] science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes.  Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.  It is also used in archeology, anthropology, cryptanalysis, copyright infringement, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for function or purpose in genetic sequences.  It is key to the current debate over the origin of the cosmos and life.  Are these “effects” or patterns that arose long ago the product of an intelligent or material cause?   Are the effects designs, i.e., the result of intelligent manipulation, or just occurrences?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable.  Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell?  Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started?  To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Inferring design====&lt;br /&gt;
Design is often inferred intuitively. However, there are formal ways to establish a [[Design inference]]. For example, logical and/or mathematical assessment of both ''small probabilities'' and ''specifications'' on any phenomenon or event, and the resulting elimination of chance as a viable explanation for the phenomenon or event.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. Page 70&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Chance'' can occur as a side effect of design (e.g. car accidents occur even when cars, controls, and roads are designed). Chance can also be a an unguided natural phenomenon (e.g. earthquake, landslide, etc).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. Page 75-85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In order to narrow down if something is designed or natural, specifications should be present. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Specifications'' &amp;quot;are patterns that identify events and that have short or simple descriptions. But descriptions can be represented in bits.&amp;quot; Also, &amp;quot;Design inferences engage in a balancing act between the complexity of events and the simplicity of descriptions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. pages 132-133&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term '''specified complexity''' is term used and endorsed by eminent scientists such as Francis Crick, Paul Davies, Leslie Orgel, and even Richard Dawkins, sometimes using the very term and at other times using &amp;quot;complexity&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;specification&amp;quot; in the same breath. The actual term &amp;quot;specified complexity&amp;quot; goes back to biologist Leslie Orgel in 1973 in connection to origin of life research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. page 258-266&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====In biology====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Generegulatory_networkS_cerevisiae.png|250px|thumb|right|Example of a Gene Regulatory Network (GRN) in a single cell bacteria called ''S. cerevisiae'' where Transcription factors (large blue circles) and other genes (small green circles) have complex chemical interactions in the cell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ma S, Kemmeren P, Gresham D, Statnikov A (2014) De-Novo Learning of Genome-Scale Regulatory Networks in S. cerevisiae. PLOS ONE 9(9): e106479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106479&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cells display a highly specified and complex set of chemical interactions. For example, '''gene regulatory networks''' highlight complex chemical interactions that occur per second in each cell. Resembling chemical manufacturing and synthesis of biological matter. Gene regulatory networks are segments within DNA that govern the rate and products of genes, controlling essential processes such as transcription and translation to prevent the production of harmful or ineffective gene products and also display how segments of cellular activity is automatically controlled by information embedded in DNA.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/gene-regulatory-network Gene Regulatory Networks] Science Direct Journals  &amp;quot;Gene regulatory networks are segments within DNA that govern the rate and products of genes, controlling essential processes such as transcription and translation to prevent the production of harmful or ineffective gene products.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gene regulatory networks are visualizations of thousands of genes that are expressed and work in concert to ensure the cell's function, fitness, and survival whereby each gene is expressed at the proper time and in the proper amounts to ensure the appropriate function in each cell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Macneil LT, Walhout AJ. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3083081/ Gene regulatory networks and the role of robustness and stochasticity in the control of gene expression]. Genome Res. 2011 May;21(5):645-57. doi: 10.1101/gr.097378.109.&amp;quot;In any given cell, thousands of genes are expressed and work in concert to ensure the cell's function, fitness, and survival. Each gene, in turn, must be expressed at the proper time and in the proper amounts to ensure the appropriate functional outcome. The regulation and expression of some genes are highly robust; their expression is controlled by invariable expression programs. For instance, developmental gene expression is extremely similar in a given cell type from one individual to another. The expression of other genes is more variable: Their levels are noisy and are different from cell to cell and from individual to individual. This can be highly beneficial in physiological responses to outside cues and stresses. Recent advances have enabled the analysis of differential gene expression at a systems level. Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) involving interactions between large numbers of genes and their regulators have been mapped onto graphic diagrams that are used to visualize the regulatory relationships.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading chemist Felix Franks&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To translate the dictionary definition into scientific terms, life processes, as we understand them, must encompass all of the following functions in sequence: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes ===&lt;br /&gt;
Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces.  These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics.  These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose.  In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist '''Douglas J. Futuyma''', they lack forward looking &amp;quot;foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;“Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. ......Darwin undid the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle, and put variation in its place. He helped to replace a static conception of the world with the vision of a world of ceaseless change. Above all, his theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot;  It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot; questions by citing purpose. Only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.  Thus questions like &amp;quot;Why do plants have flowers?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Why are there apple trees?&amp;quot;? or plagues, or storms? were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, '''Evolutionary Biology''', Third Edition,(Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1998) p. 5, 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man.  The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they can't comprehend it. Unintelligent material causes are not merely blind watchmakers, they are mindless, purposeless, and meaningless. Lacking a mind, they lack the capacity to “make” anything.  Unintelligent material causes can adequately account for physical systems like the occurrence of rocks, rivers, wind and rain.  However, it is not clear how they account for time-dependent living systems or themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter.   An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till.  Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The starting and stopping of matter may also be produced by interactions due to the properties of atoms, electrons and molecules.  In a snowflake, the particular chemical properties of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms at a specific temperature and pressure, necessitate that they join together and stop in regular hexagonal lattices. Crystals of salt and other minerals “grow” through the stopping of atoms otherwise in motion until the source of new material is depleted or the conditions conducive to the growth change. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With this combination of law and chance, unintelligent material causes produce patterns both random and regular.  Sand dunes and snowflakes exhibit regular and periodic patterns driven by constant forces.  Random patterns also arise as systems are suddenly interrupted as in the case of an auto accident or a melting glacier that drops an unsorted load. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although material causes can move matter uniformly and also start it and stop it suddenly, physical systems generally move from states of order to states of disorder per the second law of thermodynamics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Capacity of Intelligent Causes===&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world.  Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers.  We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence.  The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders.  Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose.  Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future.  Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither.  Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose.  Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a bird's nest, a beaver's dam or an aqueduct.     &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces.   Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose.  The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful.  The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct.  But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole.  This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning.   Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose.  Minds tie events together to for a purpose.  Material causes do not.  When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling. &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, [[Thomas Aquinas]], noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end....... Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;St. Thomas Aquinas, '''The Summa Theologica''', (1265-1274).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus design detection begins with a search for purpose.  If a pattern exhibits an apparent purpose, the inquiry turns to whether the apparent purpose is just an illusion.  Perhaps the pattern can be adequately explained by unintelligent material causes alone.  If not, then logic suggests that mind may be the more adequate explanation for the pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Formal Design Detection Methodology===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Formal design detection is not often used.  Design detection methodology is not often employed because the human mind has an inherent capacity to distinguish between patterns arranged by a mind for a purpose and those that have not.  Scientists have found that minds engage in subconscious pattern matching, which is a means of intuitively distinguishing between designs and occurrences.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Formal analysis is employed when a dispute arises about the cause of a pattern.  Examples include investigations of deaths and peculiar fires that look for signs of murder or arson. Archaeologists debate over whether a rock is a rock or an artifact.   Astronomers analyze radio and light waves in search of messages from alien minds.  So far all of the tests of extraterrestrial radio waves for intelligence have been negative.  The cause of life and its diversity are major areas of dispute as much is at stake.  Religious and other world views depend on the best explanation for those events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Formal Design Detection -- ''The Explanatory Filter''====&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|Dr. [[William Dembski]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science &amp;amp; Theology'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1194228951&amp;amp;sr=1-2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1194229141&amp;amp;sr=1-7&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary.  One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the &amp;quot;[[explanatory filter]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski describes his three-part '''explanatory filter''' together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter.   The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law?  If not, can it be explained by chance.  If chance and necessity can't explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose?  If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can't be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Informal Design Detection Methodology===&lt;br /&gt;
====Intuition, Common Sense and Confirmation====&lt;br /&gt;
An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention.  We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect.  If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it.  Common sense reflects a judgment about the most prudent of a set of possible choices.  If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things.  The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archaeologists.  No one expects an archaeologist to provide a rigorous &amp;quot;proof&amp;quot; that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being.  The archaeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question.  As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say ''res ipsa loquitur'', or &amp;quot;the thing speaks for itself&amp;quot;.  There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems.  We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:WilliamPaley3.jpg|thumb|230px|left|William Paley]]&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by William Paley in his famous &amp;quot;watchmaker analogy&amp;quot;. William Paley (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book ''Natural Theology''.  Paley states his analogy: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the &amp;quot;what&amp;quot; of design with the &amp;quot;who&amp;quot; in biological systems is the tactic of those philosophically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a &amp;quot;divine foot in the door&amp;quot; of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Anthropic principle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Phillip_johnson_arn.gif|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Phillip E. Johnson]], Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus]]&lt;br /&gt;
Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The term &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; is used in its &amp;quot;strong form&amp;quot; to describe those who hold and defend the position that all the variety of life is the result solely of naturalistic processes. Therefore, the term refers to those who rule out any intelligent causation for any aspect of life (if intelligence plays any role whatsoever, then whatever the theory, it is a form of intelligent design). While everyone is an &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; if &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is defined in its weak form as simply &amp;quot;change over time&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; such as finch beak variation, not everyone is an &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; if &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used, as herein, to mean &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;.  Evolutionists who oppose Intelligent Design believe that unintelligent processes of physics and chemistry can explain the creation of every novel and beneficial feature of the various species, including wings, eyes, and brains. Darwinism is the leading naturalistic evolutionary theory, holding that all life forms descended as modified forms of previous life forms in an unguided, unintelligent process, i.e., Darwin's &amp;quot;descent with modification&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the '''''existence''''' of design in nature, but the '''''cause''''' of design in nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: '''''unintelligent''''' causes and '''''intelligent causes'''''. '''Unintelligent causes''' include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the &amp;quot;appearance&amp;quot; of design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design proponent [[Phillip E. Johnson]] illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Francis Crick.jpg|thumb|px130|left|[[Francis Crick]], co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent causes''' include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question is not, therefore, &amp;quot;is there evidence of design in nature?&amp;quot;  Rather, the scientific question is, &amp;quot;Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?&amp;quot;  Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism).  The question simply asks, &amp;quot;in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. '''Cosmological''' evidence for design is described at '''[[Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology]]''' section.  '''Biological''' evidence for intelligent design includes '''''general evidence''''' and '''''special evidence''''', and both are discussed at '''[[General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology]]'''.  For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the '''[[Evidence Filter]]'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropic principle ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Anthropic principle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a strong body of evidence for a Designer that comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creation.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life The universe is finely tuned for life] by Jonathan Sarfati&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anthropic principle states that the reason the constants of nature appear so finely tuned to life, is that if it were otherwise, life such as ourselves would not have developed. Hence we should not be surprised that the laws of physics are enable life such as ourselves to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[Atheism|atheist]] Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] states, &amp;quot;commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creation.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|[[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only ''unintelligent'' causes can be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Forensic sciences''':  [[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime.  For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Archeology''':  Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection.  Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Cryptanalysis''':  Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking.  Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Arson investigation''':  Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence''': The name says it all.  These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification.  No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Intelligent design theorists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent [[origin of life]] researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Religious Implications of Origins Science ==&lt;br /&gt;
Any theory of origins unavoidably impacts religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;One should not make the mistake of equating &amp;quot;religion&amp;quot; with only traditional theistic religions like [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], or [[Islam]].  As used herein the term is used as defined in the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science: Religion: A broad range of theistic and non-theistic religions and religious belief systems.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As stated in Article II.C of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligentdesignnetwork.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact religion, ethics, morality, government and politics.  The implications of materialistic explanations (such as Darwinism) of origins support the central tenets of non-theistic religions,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Non-theistic religions are religions and belief systems that presuppose that no God intervenes in the natural world and that material causes, such as unguided evolutionary change, are adequate to explain natural phenomena.  Non-theistic religions include [[atheism]], [[Secular Humanism]], and [[Scientism]], as well as some forms of [[Buddhism]] and other eastern religions.  By way of example, the Humanist Manifesto I sets forth the first two &amp;quot;affirmations&amp;quot; of religious humanism as &amp;quot;FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created; and, SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.&amp;quot; Thus, Darwinism supports the central tenets of a religious belief.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while the implications of teleological&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Teleological: Exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature. ''See'', Merriam-Webster Online&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explanations (such as Intelligent Design) support the central tenets of theistic religions. Both theistic and non-theistic religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article II.C&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Atheism.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, it should not be surprising that most theists are sympathetic to intelligent design because the science of intelligent design supports the theology of theistic religions like [[Christianity]]. Likewise, it is not surprising that virtually all atheists are Darwinists because the science of Darwinism supports the theology of non-theistic religions such as religious humanism (having a theology of atheism). The simple fact is that worldviews and interpretations of evidence go hand in hand. If, for example, your world view prohibits explanations involving intelligent design, then you will reject intelligent design in spite of the evidence, not because of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this reason, as stated in Article III.A. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', if '''truth''' is the goal:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Institutions of science should ignore religious and ethical implications of competing historical hypotheses and strive for '''objectivity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Objective: Not influenced by personal bias or prejudice; based on facts.  An objective position is one that is Secular, Neutral, and Non-ideological.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in the conduct and teaching of origins science.  Institutional objectivity may be achieved by encouraging healthy competition among scientists holding differing scientific views regarding origins, consistent with the scientific method.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article III.A&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is because, as stated in Article II.B. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of '''abductive'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Abduction, or abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations.  See, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of historical hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article II.B&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Objections to Intelligent Design==&lt;br /&gt;
===Creationist Objections to Intelligent Design===&lt;br /&gt;
Many Biblical creationists and other theists object to Intelligent Design as failing to identify the alleged designer and refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Whitcomb&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Whitcomb, John C., Ph.D. (2006). [https://www.icr.org/article/history-impact-book-the-genesis-flood/ The History and Impact of the Book, &amp;quot;The Genesis Flood&amp;quot;]. ''ICR.org'' (from ''Acts &amp;amp; Facts. 35 (5)''). Retrieved October 26, 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This objection is expressed well by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. of '''[[Answers in Genesis]]''' in an article entitled '''''Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter?'''''  Dr. Purdom sums up the major objection:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]], Dr. [[Carl Wieland]], notes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CMI IDM&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560 CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Referring to Intelligent Design as the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), Weiland pinpoints the specific objection as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See the 2004 book by CMI speaker Gary Bates: Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. [footnote in original]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CMI IDM&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the fair criticisms listed above, biblical creationists also criticize the intelligent design theory for continuing to accept long ages and the theory of evolution along with the existence of some designer.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PurdomChapter13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Purdom, Georgia, Dr. (May 6, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-design-movement-christian/ Chapter 13 - Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian?]. ''Answers in Genesis'' (from ''The New Answers Book 2''). Retrieved October 25, 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Response to Creationist Objections====&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Wieland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves.  And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation &amp;quot;reflect on each other,&amp;quot; they would disagree that &amp;quot;the Creator and His creation cannot be separated.&amp;quot;  The &amp;quot;separation&amp;quot; is epistemological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot;, and just as an archaeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically.  Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature.  That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method.  But science can say little about who the designer is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled '''''Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn't Identify the Designer'''''.  Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
David DeWolf, John West and I also address this issue in our recent Montana Law Review article:&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to stress that the refusal of ID proponents to draw scientific conclusions about the nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical. ID is primarily a historical science, meaning it uses principles of uniformitarianism to study present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record in order to infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied. ID starts with observations from “uniform sensory experience” showing the effects of intelligence in the natural world. As Pandas explains, scientists have uniform sensory experience with intelligent causes (i.e. humans), thus making intelligence an appropriate explanatory cause within historical scientific fields. However, the “supernatural” cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=4306, citing David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” 68 Montana Law Review 7, 30 (Spring, 2007) (internal citations removed).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Further, it appears that Dr. Weiland's concern that &amp;quot;[a]cceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions&amp;quot; is unfounded.  Certainly some who are honestly convinced of true intelligent design might entertain &amp;quot;sci-fi notions,&amp;quot; but the evidence supports the opposite—i.e., those convinced of design are more likely to entertain thoughts of a supernatural God.  Like Aristotle of ancient Greece, those who reasonably and honestly are convinced of true design in nature are more likely to follow the pattern Dr. Pordum highlighted from Romans 1:18-20.  That is, the creation speaks to a supernatural, infinite, eternal creator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Take the example of former atheist Anthony Flew, as discussed by intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson, in an article entitled '''''Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects'''''.  First Johnson reiterates:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;discovery.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/3914&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, Johnson notes with respect to the practical effects of such an open philosophy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
One early sign of the way the world is headed came in December 2004, when there was much comment in newspapers and internet discussion groups about famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew had just announced that he had converted to philosophical theism (though not to Christianity or any other specific religion, at least as yet), on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which had convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe. Flew seems to have investigated the phenomenon of design in the natural world for reasons similar to my own. He wanted to decide for himself whether evidence and logic point in the direction of a creating intelligence, or whether God is nothing more than a subjective idea created by human imagination. Perhaps these questions about the reality of god are religious in nature, but they are important questions that deserve to be investigated dispassionately instead of being barred from consideration because powerful groups define “science” as committed a priori to naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although as yet Flew does not adhere to Christianity or any other creedal faith, he has taken a giant step in that direction. In an article in the London Independent for December 27, 2004, an Oxford University theologian wrote: “What kind of God could it [i.e. Flew’s designer] refer to? One who created the universe–elementary particles, strong and weak forces, atoms and molecules, yet, for example, has no relation to the emergence of a clever humanity? Or could it be a God who was intelligent enough to create galaxies, and amazingly intricate systems like DNA, yet not intelligent enough to communicate with humankind? Although Flew does not believe in revelation, and may not feel that the Book of Genesis provides a useful account of creation, he does not seem to have quite this kind of minimalist God in mind either. In fact when pressed as to whether his ‘First Cause’ embraced omniscience, Flew admits that a First Cause, if there is one, has clearly produced everything that is going on, and this implies creation ‘in the beginning.’”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;discovery.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists leave the identity of the designer open as a matter of scientific discipline. Even though everyone, including creationists must rely on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) to know specifics about the designer, everyone can know the fact of design based on general revelation (i.e., nature).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Methodological Naturalist Objections to Intelligent Design===&lt;br /&gt;
Many scientists object to intelligent design on the basis that intelligent design &amp;quot;is not science.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The validity of this objection depends on what is meant by the terms &amp;quot;intelligent design&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;science&amp;quot;.  If &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; is defined objectively (as in Websters dictionary: 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and &amp;quot;intelligent design&amp;quot; is defined as in this article, then intelligent design is clearly, without question &amp;quot;science&amp;quot;, and the objection of methodological naturalists is overcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;methodological naturalism&amp;quot; describes a form of science in which science is assumed to be necessarily practiced as if naturalism were itself true (see also [[scientific materialism]]).  Of course, &amp;quot;naturalism&amp;quot;, which is a philosophy that holds there is no immaterial substance in the universe, i.e., all is matter alone, is an assumption-based philosophy.  &amp;quot;Naturalism&amp;quot;, like &amp;quot;materialism&amp;quot; as a philosophy holds that there is no supernatural in the universe, no spirit, no soul, and, of course, no God.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Methodological naturalists are scientists that, while perhaps not themselves being full-fledged naturalists (although growing numbers are), insist that science be practiced as if naturalism were true.  If this method of practicing science is adhered to, then intelligent design cannot be science, because intelligent design posits the possibility of a ''supernatural'' designer.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One way to illustrate the objection is this:  Consider two definitions of science:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.  Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.  Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot;, which assumes there ''are'' natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as ''the'' definition for science.  However, the &amp;quot;natural causes alone&amp;quot; criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there ''is'' a natural cause for all natural phenomena.  If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth.  The insistence on only &amp;quot;natural causes&amp;quot; imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on '''''knowledge''''', but an '''''assumption'''''.  Therefore, methodological naturalists &amp;quot;define out&amp;quot; of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Response to Naturalist Objection====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simple response to methodological naturalism, which is the only principled basis for excluding intelligent design from science, is that methodological naturalism improperly and unnecessarily restricts the realm of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By any objective definition of science, including dictionary definitions, intelligent design is science.  But the controversy begs a larger question.  Historically, the practice of science can be considered in two broad categories.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Francis_Bacon.jpg|thumbnail|150px|[[Francis Bacon]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
First there is the inductive method espoused by [[Francis Bacon]].  Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let &amp;quot;evidence lead the inquiry&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See, Cornelius G. Hunter, ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, (Brazos Press, 2007), p. 15.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process.  Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, there is the deductive method espoused by René Descartes.  Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See, Hunter, p. 17.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism,'' Descartes proposed a method of science in which &amp;quot;What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations.  Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; depends on what approach one takes to science.  If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science.  Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry.  Methodological naturalists place the &amp;quot;natural causes only&amp;quot; constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists maintain that the &amp;quot;natural causes only&amp;quot; constraint might be correct for operational science, but for historical sciences in which one is attempting to reconstruct a historical narrative based on present-day evidence, such a constraint does not make sense. For one thing, intelligent design theorists maintain that there is a difference between inductive and/or deductive sciences (each of which can be used in experimental sciences), and the &amp;quot;historical sciences&amp;quot;. Intelligent design is scientific in both inductive and historical sciences (and deductive, without limiting biases), but can have its greatest value as a historical science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The broad categories of &amp;quot;experimental sciences&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;historical sciences&amp;quot; ask different kinds of questions and use different kinds of methods. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates. The historical sciences, on the other hand, ask different kinds of questions. Rather than trying to understand how the natural world operates, the historical sciences seek to understand how things came to be. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer develops this line of thought fully in an article entitled ''Science and the Laws of Nature''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The distinction between experimental and historical sciences is not an ID-inspired idea. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend the historical nature of evolution. In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'', the NAS responds to the question, &amp;quot;How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?&amp;quot;: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not &amp;quot;off limits&amp;quot; for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' (Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With respect to hypothesis testing, see, Carol Cleland, '''''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method''''', (''Geology'', November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11, 987-990). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact is that historical sciences operate by different methods, including different methods of testing, than do experimental sciences. Historical sciences attempt to construct a historical narrative to explain current observed phenomena. The only way to &amp;quot;test&amp;quot; historical narratives is by comparing with competing historical narratives to see which one more closely aligns with the observed phenomena. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design, therefore, is not only science, but as a competing historical narrative, it is a valuable scientific challenge to the naturalistic historical narrative of Darwinism. Without it, Darwinism ceases being science, and becomes an unchallengeable dogma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History of Intelligent Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Aristotle.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Aristotle]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In many respects the history of intelligent design corresponds to the history of science in general; since the days of [[Aristotle]] most scientists have assumed design based on the clear evidence at hand.  Moreover, the history of the modern intelligent design movement must be seen in the context of the ages-old tension between materialistic science and non-materialistic science.  For a timeline directed specifically to the history of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy, see the '''IDEA Center's''' ''&amp;quot;Primer: History of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy&amp;quot;.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Plato and Aristotle both argued that nature is ''teleological'', a term that comes from the Greek ''telos'' meaning &amp;quot;directed by goal or purpose&amp;quot;.  In other words, the evidence of nature leads logically to the idea that behind the purely natural is some kind of rational, non-natural order, something Plato referred to as &amp;quot;Form&amp;quot; and which Aristotle referred to as &amp;quot;Idea&amp;quot;.  Both were led to their conclusions by the commonsense notion that if the world really did consist of chance configurations of atoms, then knowledge would be impossible. (See Nancy Pearcey, ''Total Truth'', Appendix 3, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;390.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nancy R. Pearcey, ''Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity'' (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004)(https://www.amazon.com/Total-Truth-Liberating-Christianity-Captivity/dp/1581347464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1195005366&amp;amp;sr=1-1)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Pearcey.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Nancy Pearcey]]&lt;br /&gt;
Modern intelligent design theory is simply a response to the resurgence of dominant materialistic thought, primarily as expressed by institutions of science such as universities and various academies of science.  As '''Nancy Pearcey''' states: &amp;quot;By tracing the debate over Darwinism all the way back to [[Epicurus]] (a Greek materialist) we can place the theory in a much larger context.  Darwinism was not entirely new, invented out of whole cloth.&amp;quot;  Likewise, the modern intelligent design movement can be placed in a larger context as a challenge to modern materialistic thought as enforced in modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more indepth study of the history of intelligent design, see '''William Dembski's''' work entitled ''Intelligent Design''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In particular, Dembski's bibliography and comments are reproduced here:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bibliography&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beckwith, Francis J. Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. Lanham, Md., 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, 1996.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York, 1986.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski, William A. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md., 2002.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forrest, Barbara. “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream.” In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, edited by Robert T. Pennock, pp. 5–53, Cambridge, Mass., 2001. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giberson, Karl W. and Donald A. Yerxa. Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, Md., 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hunter, Cornelius G. Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manson, Neil A., ed. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. London, 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. San Francisco, 1999. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rea, Michael C. World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism. Oxford, 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Witham, Larry. By Design: Science and the Search for God. San Francisco, 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Bibliographic Essay&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[[Larry Witham]] provides the best overview of intelligent design, even-handedly treating its scientific, cultural, and religious dimensions. As a journalist, Witham has personally interviewed all the main players in the debate over intelligent design and allows them to tell their story. For intelligent design’s place in the science and religion dialogue, see Giberson and Yerxa.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;For histories of the intelligent design movement, see Woodward (a supporter) and Forrest (a critic).&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;See Behe and Dembski to overview intelligent design’s scientific research program. For a critique of that program, see Miller. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;For an impassioned defense of Darwinism against any form of teleology or design, see Dawkins. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Manson’s anthology situates intelligent design within broader discussions about teleology. Rea probes intelligent design’s metaphysical underpinnings. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Hunter provides an interesting analysis of how intelligent design and Darwinism play off the problem of evil. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Beckwith examines whether intelligent design is inherently religious and thus, on account of church-state separation, must be barred from public school science curricula.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Global intelligence design movement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Global intelligent design movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Evolution News and Views'' reported concerning the intelligent design movement:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Along with the absurd stereotype that support for ID is limited to right-wing fundamentalist Christians … there’s also the Darwinist agitprop point that advocates of the theory are rare outside the United States. Hardly! An unacknowledged strength of the ID movement is its international character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asia is an up-and-coming ID hot spot, as ENV has reported. See here for Signature in the Cell and Explore Evolution [links omitted for Discoveroid books] in their recent and handsome Korean editions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europe and Asia aside, how about Brazil? From South America’s most populous nation, accounting for half the continent’s total population, comes news of the First Brazilian Intelligent Design Congress, scheduled for November 14–16 this year at [details of the event].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/intelligent_des_20090211.html Intelligent Design's Secret Weapon: The World] by David Klinghoffer October 3, 2014 11:53 AM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Resources==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Quick Start ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a quick, concise overview of what intelligent design is all about, link to the following relatively short articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution'''''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://idnetohio.cinti.net/media/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Written by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert (of '''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''),&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; this article is a one-stop mini-compendium on what intelligent design is, what it claims, and why it's important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''The Evolution Controversy: Understanding the Basic Issues in the Debate Between Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design'''''. By Jody F. Sjogren, Robert P. Lattimer, and Douglas D. Rudy, and presented by Science Excellence for all Ohioans (SEAO).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.sciohio.org/start.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Read and understand this and you will, as the title says, understand the basic issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.'''''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science - MainPage&amp;amp;id=2177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By Stephen C. Meyer of the Center for Science &amp;amp; Culture,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;http://www.discovery.org/csc&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/csc/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; this article first appeared in the peer reviewed Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington, August 20, 2005. Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Web Based Resources===&lt;br /&gt;
====The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture====&lt;br /&gt;
'''The Center for Science and Culture'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;http://www.discovery.org/csc&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is a '''[[Discovery Institute]]''' program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to scientific research and scholarship, the Center's '''Evolution News and Views''' blog&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; presents analysis of that relevant news coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A related website, '''intelligentdesign.org'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesign.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; provides up-to-date information and learning resources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Access Research Network====&lt;br /&gt;
The '''[[Access Research Network]] (ARN)'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arn.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology and society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''ARN's''' articles and publications cover a host of issues which focus on such topics as intelligent design theory, genetic engineering, euthanasia, computer technology, environmental issues, creation/evolution, fetal tissue research and medical issues. ARN provides information needed to orient one's self in today's scientific and technological world in order to make informed decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Intelligent Design Network====&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science.  Objectivity results from the use of the [[scientific method]] without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Intelligent Design Network produced a Statement of Objectives &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligentdesignnetwork.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; regarding origins science. The Statement acknowledges that explanations of the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity are scientifically controversial. Further, due to its controversial nature, Origins Science  requires a scientific enterprise guided by '''scientific objectivity'' rather than a preconceived view of origins, whether Materialistic (e.g., Darwinism) or Teleological (e.g., creationism). For this reason, according to the Statement, government and public education institutions supporting Origins Science should strive for objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ideacenter.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested. The Center's primary focus is to help students form &amp;quot;IDEA Clubs&amp;quot; on university and high school campuses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ID the Future====&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent Design's &amp;quot;Super Blog&amp;quot;, '''ID the Future'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.idthefuture.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; offers podcasts as part of its mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design (ID). IDTF provides listeners with the most current news and views on evolution and ID through brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from '''Discovery Institute''' senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Uncommon Descent====&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligent design weblog of [[William Dembski]], Denyse O'Leary, and friends, '''Uncommon Descent'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; holds that...&lt;br /&gt;
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution—an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Real Science Radio====&lt;br /&gt;
Denver-based Real Science Radio has interviewed a dozen scientists and scholars associated with Seattle's Discovery Institute including [[Michael Behe]], Paul Nelson, [[Stephen Meyer]], [[Richard Sternberg]], Ann Gauger, and Doug Axe, all listed on RSR's single Intelligent Design page.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://rsr.org/id/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Post-Darwinist====&lt;br /&gt;
Toronto-based '''Denyse O'Leary's''' blog,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; covering the intelligent design movement from a journalist/author's perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Books, Tapes, DVD's===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Discovery Institute====&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture''' &amp;quot;Essential Readings&amp;quot; list&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; includes links to books and articles by leading intelligent design proponents. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Access Research Network====&lt;br /&gt;
Books available from '''Access Research Network's'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arn.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; book catalog&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;astore.amazon.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://astore.amazon.com/a0ed97-20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and videos/tapes (including DVD's)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;astore.amazon.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arn.org/origins-101.html ARN Videos]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; include the latest information on the subject of intelligent design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Intelligent design movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and reason]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Living fossil]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ IntelligentDesign.org]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Intelligent Design| ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Political Theory]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2188505</id>
		<title>Origin of life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2188505"/>
		<updated>2026-03-13T21:41:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Intelligent design]] theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
There have been a number of proposals regarding the '''origin of life''' on earth.  However, the various proposals fall into two general schools of thought: one held by [[Creationism|creationists]] is that life originated divinely/[[supernatural]]ly and the other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250924233524/https://www.britannica.com/science/life/The-origin-of-life Hypotheses of origins] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The latter category is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' or &amp;quot;chemical [[evolution]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=86&amp;amp;Itemid=85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; High-profile evolutionists [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origin of life&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, as acknowledged by the National Academies of Sciences in 2023,  not a developed or accepted scientific theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2023. ISBN 0309475783. &amp;quot;Studies of the chemical origins of life start with the hypothesis that mixtures of simple small [[molecule]]s under the influence of various energy sources and early Earth environments created the building blocks of life and that interactions among these molecules eventually lead to life itself (Figure 12-2).&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first organisms are thought to have emerged around 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (earth being 4.6 billion years old) which means that he earliest life emerged very early on in the history of the earth with a very small window of opportunity (500-600 million years).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth Scientists may have found the earliest evidence of life on Earth]. Julia Rosen. Science. 2015. doi: 10.1126/science.aad4732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Molecules like RNA and peptides degrade within hours to days, limiting any potential for any chemical synthesis in real life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tour, James M., et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; What complicates the origin of life research is that all fossils ever found have been DNA-based life forms, indicating that there is a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) which implies that it is possible that life only formed and survived once since no other genetic variants of life, other than DNA, has ever been found.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://theconversation.com/did-life-evolve-more-than-once-researchers-are-closing-in-on-an-answer-205678 Did life evolve more than once? Researchers are closing in on an answer]. The Conversation. Jordi Paps. May 2023.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two main classes of origin-of-life research: chemical synthesis and molecular assembly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The transition from non-living to living has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Nor has self organizing [[molecule]]s to a living cell, ever been observed in the wild or in a laboratory either, possibly due to the complex chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Committees for the National Academies of Sciences have observed that chemists have held skeptical views of abiogenesis because of extensive laboratory experience indicating that there are numerous chemical problems that inhibit nature, which has no direction or goal, from synthesizing any complex biochemical molecules that are needed for cellular life to even emerge.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (2007). The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. National Academies Press. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0309104845. &amp;quot;Chemists’ objection to the notion that life is a natural consequence of organic reactivity is simple and comes from broadly based empirical experience in organic-chemistry laboratories. Addition of energy to mixtures of organic species makes the mixtures more complex and less likely to support life. Shapiro has provided a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the difficulties. Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules. In the complex chemical mixtures generated under prebiotic conditions, one may be able to find trace amounts of amino acids and perhaps nucleobases. Some might indeed catalyze reactions that have some utility. But other compounds may well inhibit catalysis or catalyze undesired reactions. For example, Joyce and Orgel pointed out that the clay-catalyzed condensation of nucleotides to yield small chains performed best, under the conditions that they considered, if only one enantiomer of the starting material was present. If both were present, the desired reaction with the desired enantiomer might be inhibited by the other enantiomer. Furthermore, the combination of any bifunctional molecule into an information-bearing polymer would be expected to be terminated at an early stage by the presence of an excess of molecules that bear only one functionality. Even crystallization, a well-documented method of obtaining order through self-organization, is not a particularly powerful way to separate mixtures of organic chemicals into their constituents. Normally, an organic compound must be relatively pure before crystallization occurs. That salts crystallize better may explain why crystals are more common in the mineral world than in the organic world. Even organic salts can have problems in crystallizing from an impure mixture. Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem in prebiotic chemistry is '''the water paradox''', the fact that water is essential for all living cells and yet it is very destructive to cellular machinery and components when isolated from the cell, a balance that is incredibly chemically delicate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Marshall, Michael (10 December 2020). &amp;quot;How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat — water&amp;quot;. Nature. 588 (7837): 210–213. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03461-4. &amp;quot;This suggested to many researchers that life arose near the surface of the ocean. But many scientists today say there’s a fundamental problem with that idea: life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis. This is the water paradox. Today, cells solve it by limiting the free movement of water in their interiors, says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. For this reason, popular images of the cytoplasm — the substance inside the cell — are often wrong. “We are taught that cytoplasm is just a bag that holds everything, and everything is swimming around,” she adds. “That’s not true, everything is incredibly scaffolded in cells, and it’s scaffolded in a gel, not a water bag.” If living things keep water controlled, then the implication, say many researchers, is obvious. Life probably formed on land, where water was only intermittently present.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem is a &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts) never have sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Among the most common problems in prebiotic chemistry is the fact that origin of life research and experimentation relies on so much human intervention and fails to provide evidence for abiogenesis as a result of reliance on such frequent intervention.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;&amp;gt;James Tour, Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley. 2020. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Discovery Press. ISBN 1936599740. 13. We're Still Clueless About the Origin of Life&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Richert&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Richert, C. Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention. Nature Communications 9, 5177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07219-5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life is more complex than just having the right cellular components merely existing or even being in the right place since even in the case of extensive prebiotic chemical cheating such as using a completely dead cell with all the components in place, it is not possible generate life out of it once more by blind nature alone.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Deamer&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Deamer. 2020. Origin of life: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190098996. pages 87-88 &amp;quot;The bottom line is that ALL the essential parts of bacterial cells have been shown to work in isolation. However, no one has ever tried to put them back together. Is this even possible? Can a mixture of bacterial parts that is not alive be revived?...Are they alive? Will they grow and reproduce? After all, the ribosomes, genomes, and enzymes are all back together in one place. Most knowledgeable scientists would say, &amp;quot;No! They will NOT be alive!&amp;quot; But they can't know for sure, because no one has done the experiment. I tend share their skepticism - for a very good reason. All the components of the cell may have been put back together in a tiny membranous bag, but we have disrupted an invisible order having to do with feedback loops that regulate metabolism. In the absence of feedback controlling thousands of enzymes, it may be impossible for the cells to come back to life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20170717223959/https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Organic synthesis has been ongoing for at least 200 years and millions of molecules have been successfully synthesized, which makes it puzzling that prebiotic chemistry has not had much success in synthesizing anything close to any of the thousands of complex biomolecular machinery that make up a cell.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gilles Bruylants et al. 2011. &amp;quot;Prebiotic chemistry: A fuzzy field&amp;quot;. Comptes Rendus Chimie (Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences France). 14 (4): 388–391. doi:10.1016/j.crci.2010.04.002. ISSN 1631-0748.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; As of 2024 numerous problems still persist for prebiotic chemists trying to solve abiogenesis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cell]]s are very optimized entities and appear to be fine tuned. Studies on raw materials used by cells such as the 20 chiral-specific [[amino acid]]s, which permeate all life on earth, are the optimal or ideal set of amino acids out of all the possible amino acid combinations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ilardo, M., Meringer, M., Freeland, S. et al. Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids. Scientific Reports 5, 9414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09414&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Doig, A.J. (2017), Frozen, but no accident – why the 20 standard amino acids were selected. FEBS J, 284: 1296-1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13982&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Out of 100,000 isomers of 20 natural amino acids, the 20 that life uses were found to be very thermodynamically stable.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Crespi, S., Vadivel, D., Bellisario, A. et al. Computational Study of the Stability of Natural Amino Acid isomers. Orig Life Evol Biosph 51, 287–298 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11084-021-09615-2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More than  900 amino acids exist in nature.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lu, Y., Freeland, S. On the evolution of the standard amino-acid alphabet . Genome Biol 7, 102 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2006-7-1-102 &amp;quot;different categories of amino acids: abiotic, approximately 80 amino acids which were probably produced by abiotic synthesis before life evolved (see, for example, [53]); biosynthetic, approximately 900 amino acids which are produced by natural biosynthetic pathways [54,55]; and engineered, at least 118 amino acids which have been experimentally engineered and placed into proteins by biomedical research projects&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Current status ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin of life researcher David Abel in 2024 summarizes the chemical problems that abiogenesis faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Lynn Abel. [https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html Why is Abiogenesis Such a Tough Nut to Crack?]. Archives of Microbiology and Immunology. 8 (2024): 338-364.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin researcher Pier Luisi in 2018 stated &amp;quot;the turning point of non-life to life has never been put into one experimental set up. There are, of course, several hypotheses, and this plethora of ideas means already that we do not have a convincing one.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Pier Luigi Luisi. 2018. The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108735506. p. 416.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Walter Bradley said: &amp;quot;The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference of the origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Quoted in Strobel, Lee, [https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M The case for Faith], p.107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the &amp;quot;immensity of the problem&amp;quot; for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, &amp;quot;At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996, John Horgan wrote in [[Scientific American]]: &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Even [[Stanley Miller]] of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in ''Scientific American'' that the &amp;quot;problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as &amp;quot;nonsense&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;paper chemistry&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means.  Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that &amp;quot;[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl02.html#orgnflfscntfcthrsnvblscntfcthrsnthrgnflfllthrsndxprmntsthrndnstlmtrncnfssnfgnrnc Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prebiotic chemistry==&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Miller-Urey experiment===&lt;br /&gt;
Main article: [[Miller-Urey experiment]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:MillerUreyExperiment.PNG|300px|thumb|right|The setup of the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1953. It attempted to simulate primitive Earth gases (Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, Water Vapor), primitive oceans (Water), and lightning.]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1953 American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago performed an experiment that tried to produce components that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiotically (from inorganic molecules).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.britannica.com/science/Miller-Urey-experiment Miller-Urey experiment] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Early earth atmosphere====&lt;br /&gt;
There is significant uncertainty to what the primitive atmosphere was composed of.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The Miller-Urey experiment assumed an a primitive atmosphere was composed of ''reducing'' (oxygen poor)  gases [e.g. methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), hydrogen (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O)], but by the 1980s geochemists believed that early earth atmospheres probably had ''neutral'' gases like those emitted by volcanoes [e.g. water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O), carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and nitrogen (N&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)] and perhaps some ''reducing'' gases like carbon monoxide (CO). Since hydrogen was a light element, there probably would not have been any or perhaps very little in early earth.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bada JL. [https://web.archive.org/web/20190225141103id_/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f46/3e8a3611fa7f25c143991dfddac49c396b73.pdf New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller's spark discharge experiments]. Chem Soc Rev. 2013 Mar 7;42(5):2186-96. doi: 10.1039/c3cs35433d&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wells&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Wells. 2017. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. ISBN: 978-1936599448. 3. Survival of the Fakest&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A possible source of lightning could have been &amp;quot;volcanic lightning&amp;quot;, which occurs sometimes near volcanic eruption plumes, and some volcanic gases emitted have been hydrogen sulfide (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;S), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Some scientists believe that early earth atmosphere was similar to earth today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250902132614/https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/ Earth's Early Atmosphere: An Update] - NASA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Hydrothermal vents====&lt;br /&gt;
Hydrothermal vents have been prosed as an alternative source of prebiotic compounds like amino acids, but they face significant limitations. For example, vent systems tend to have very short lives of about 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Limited time frames for prebiotic synthesis====&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists believe that there was a time limit for meteorites for form simple to slightly more complex compounds: greater than 1,000 to less than 1,000,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; This poses a problem for hydrothermal vents since they have a very short life span of 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Leading Miller-Urey experiment researcher Jeffrey Bada admits:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|&amp;quot;An important issue is whether these timescales are compatible with the time required for the transition from abiotic to biotic chemistry. As noted, in carbonaceous meteorites the timescale for amino acid production is between &amp;gt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; years, perhaps even as short as 1–10 years, and there is no evidence that the prebiotic chemistry that took place on the meteorite parent bodies during this aqueous alteration period produced anything beyond simple monomeric compounds. It has been suggested that catalysts such as metal sulfides present in vent systems would promote more rapid synthesis, but by the principle of microscopic reversibility, these must also catalyze the decomposition of any synthesized compounds. Moreover, if this was the case there are certainly potential metal catalysts present on meteorite parent bodies and, as has been indicated, nothing beyond simple molecules were apparently synthesized.&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Chemical yield of amino acids====&lt;br /&gt;
Amino acid yield in spark discharge experiments depends critically on the pH of the aqueous phase since at lower pH, amino acid production is greatly reduced and hydroxy acids in greatly increased.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Hydrothermal vents have been proposed as an alternative prebiotic chemistry source but they face severe limitations and actual synthesis have never been demonstrated using plausible geochemical conditions.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Chemical requirements for life===&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading water &amp;amp; life chemist Felix Franks, life processes must encompass all of the following functions in sequence:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other researchers have proposed minimal requirements for genes needed for a living organism. A minimal gene set would include genes for:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joana Xavier, Kiran Patil, Isabel Rocha. September 2014. &amp;quot;Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells&amp;quot;. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 78 (3): 487–509. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00050-13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* a basic transcription machinery&lt;br /&gt;
* aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis&lt;br /&gt;
* tRNA maturation and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosomal proteins&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosome function, maturation, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* translation factors&lt;br /&gt;
* RNA degradation&lt;br /&gt;
* protein processing, folding, and secretion&lt;br /&gt;
* cellular division&lt;br /&gt;
* transport&lt;br /&gt;
* energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycolysis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)&lt;br /&gt;
* all 20 amino acids&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chemical problems facing abiogenesis==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Francis_Crick.jpg|thumb|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Francis Crick]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:&lt;br /&gt;
#Laboratory experience from centuries of organic chemistry indicate that cross contamination of impure reactants and products in the natural world inhibit further formation of more complex biomolecules from simple ones, separation of necessary compounds generally does not occur in nature, any functional molecule that could even form would get terminated by the majority of nonfunctional material it emerged from, and self-organization is not a intrinsic property of biological matter.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts of a compound) usually occurs and ensures that there is never sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction. For example, if only 1 gram of new product emerges from 100 grams of raw material, then that 1 gram of new product can only yield less than 1 gram in the next chemical step. You get less and less yield with each chemical step since no raw material is being replenished.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''water paradox''' is the chemical reality that water is essential for life and yet it destroys cellular components (e.g. proteins, enzymes and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Naturally, molecules never direct themselves towards life or even complex cellular machinery, they don't control when to start or stop synthesis, and do not preform purification processes to separate useful material from waste and byproducts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The problem of homochirality (see [[Chirality]])&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1719 Origin of life: the chirality problem], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):263–266, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; refers to a fundamental puzzle in the origin of life, where essential biomolecules like amino acids and sugars are exclusively one &amp;quot;handedness&amp;quot; (enantiomer) in living cells which use: only left-handed amino acids [designated as &amp;quot;L-&amp;quot; such as in L-Lysine] and only right-handed sugars [designated as &amp;quot;D-&amp;quot; such as in D-glucose]). The problem is that laboratory experiments show that natural prebiotic chemistry produces equal amounts of both right and left handed forms (a racemic mixture) of amino acids and sugars and this contaminates and inhibits any further synthesis, essentially killing synthesis of any useful molecules.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#Polymerization problem &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1791 Origin of life: the polymerization problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):281–284, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The window of opportunity for any chemical synthesis in the wild is very short (hours and days at best, not thousands or millions of years). For example, when it comes to the spontaneous formation of the long and complex molecules like RNA and proteins, these molecules degrade rapidly in water, with a 600-unit RNA chain having a half-life of only about four hours.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;James Tour et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
#''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s'': John Horgan wrote: &amp;quot;Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?&amp;quot; - (John Horgan,[science writer], &amp;quot;In The Beginning...,&amp;quot; ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;100–109, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;103)&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: &amp;quot;To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the &amp;quot;catch 22&amp;quot; dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: &amp;quot;If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don't have oxygen we have none either.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532 Self-replicating enzymes?], ''Journal of Creation'' 11(1):4–6, April 1997.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cairns-Smith, Graham, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/ Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life], Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presuppositions in origin of life==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted [[Physics|physicist]] and [[bioinformatics|bioinformatician]] Hubert Yockey, who worked under [[Robert Oppenheimer]] on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the [[philosophical]] presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of [[Dialectical materialism|dialectic materialism]] plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in [[exobiology]] and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir [[Francis Crick]] the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]].  Crick has described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the ''International Journal of Solar System Studies'' (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on [[earth]] by a process they called &amp;quot;[[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a &amp;quot;theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Michael Behe]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1992, the popular magazine ''Scientific American'' published an interview  which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[United States|American]] [[Biochemistry|biochemist]] and [[intelligent design]] advocate [[Michael Behe]] wrote concerning the interview: &amp;quot;The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/125 Designed by aliens?], ''Creation'' 25(4):54–55, September 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
He also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of [[DNA]] without [[God]], Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested.  After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creationists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biblical creation organizations argue that the biblical and scientific evidence suggests that God did not create intelligent life on other planets nor did it naturally arise through [[Evolution|macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?] by Gary Bates, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/qa Creation vs. evolution - Questions and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intelligent design and life on other planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Public debates==&lt;br /&gt;
===1990s debates===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1997, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], stated that he believed that in regards to [[atheism]] &amp;quot;the most impressive debater to date&amp;quot; was [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[Douglas Jesseph]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: &amp;quot;Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===2009 debate===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution]]ary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] and Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]] debating Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Discovery Institute]] declared concerning the debate: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate &amp;quot;[[creationism|creationists]]&amp;quot; — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation Science and Intelligent Design Views ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible.  They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In ''[[Darwin's Doubt]]'', he writes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;... invoking natural selection does not help to explain the origin of the first life&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce.&amp;quot; [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062071475/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=anncoulter-20&amp;amp;camp=14573&amp;amp;creative=327641&amp;amp;linkCode=as1&amp;amp;creativeASIN=0062071475&amp;amp;adid=1QSNY85R152GT1QTA6NH&amp;amp;&amp;amp;ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anncoulter.com%2F (prologue, p. viii)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christian apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Origin of life on Earth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Creation science articles and videos:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life questions and answers] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible] by [[Creation Research Society]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/james-tour-dismantles-dave-farinas-expert-witnesses-on-the-state-of-origin-of-life-research/ James Tour Dismantles Dave Farina’s Expert Witnesses on the State of Origin-of-Life Research], 2023&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Videos:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBO6Z0f84Q The Origin of Life by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/biogenesis_scientific.html Is Naturalistic Biogenesis Scientific?] by Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKG1RbN4lU Did the Miller Experiment Solve the Origin of Life Puzzle? - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP7ojkrZ1sc&amp;amp;list=PLILWudw_84t22BWvWsoXCmaXNllbfJ2h7 Addressing Abiogenesis] by James Tour &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&amp;amp;feature=related Evolution vs Creation: Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFM-hQKkmhs Origin of Life Interview with Dr. Thaxton - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XytvCOJ6_7E Focus on Origins of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeTVKrgzeHQ The Origin of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqU2t84Jyw4 The Myth Of Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CKsYV5pVAs&amp;amp;feature=related Chemical Evolution: The Miller Experiment - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design theorists articles and audio:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?objectID=15997 Darwin’s Defenders Deny Life’s Evident Design] by [[Stephen C. Meyer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.discovery.org/a/2184 DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html DNA BY Design: An Inference To the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/06/seeking-a-way-around-rna-world-new-study-only-increases-perplexity-of-abiogenesis/ Seeking a Way Around RNA World, New Study Only Increases Perplexity of Abiogenesis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Audio:&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD79-1/ DNA by Design Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - Audio]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Creationism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Origin of Life]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&amp;diff=2176327</id>
		<title>Atheism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&amp;diff=2176327"/>
		<updated>2025-12-06T15:41:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Atheism.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|225px|[[Portrait]] of [[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of atheism in [[Europe]]. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of contemporary definitions of '''atheism''', the ''Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary'' [[Definition of atheism|defines atheism]] in two ways: &amp;quot;1) a lack of [[belief]] or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods 2) a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism. “Atheism”] (on or bef. 2019). ''The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary'' (unk. place: Merriam-Webster).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ''Lexico.com'' (Oxford University Press) defines atheism as &amp;quot;Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Oxford University Press (OUP) (2019). [https://lexico.com/definition/atheism &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;]. ''Lexico.com'' (Oxford, UK: OUP).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Definition of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheism, as defined by the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', the ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Smart, J. J. C. (August 8, 2011). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism &amp;quot;Atheism and agnosticism&amp;quot;]. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism &amp;quot;{{sc|atheism}}&amp;quot;] (n.d.). ''Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary''. &amp;quot;Definition of {{sc|atheism}} '''1 a''': a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods '''b''': a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [example sentences omitted] Origin and Etymology of {{sc|atheism}} Middle French ''athéisme'', from ''athée'' atheist, from Greek ''atheos'' godless, from ''a-'' + ''theos'' god&amp;quot;; [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god &amp;quot;{{sc|god}}&amp;quot;] (n.d.). ''Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary''. &amp;quot;Definition of {{sc|god}} '''1''' ''capitalized'': the supreme or ultimate reality: such as '''a''': the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe&amp;quot; [definitions 2 and 3 omitted.] Retrieved on April 22, 2018.&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;Atheism:...a + theos, denying God.&amp;quot; Onions, C. T. ''et al.'', ed. (1966). &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;. ''Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology'' (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press).&lt;br /&gt;
*Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph.D. (23 June 2007). [https://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational &amp;quot;Atheism is more rational?&amp;quot;] ''Creation.com''/feedback archive (Brisbane, Queensland, AU: Creation Ministries International). See [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Jonathan Sarfati]].&lt;br /&gt;
*Day, Donn R. (2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20140906135211/http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm &amp;quot;Atheism - etymology&amp;quot;]. ''The Divine Conspiracy'' website/atheism articles (unk. publisher). Archived at ''Internet Archive'' on September 6, 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
*Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;] ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Paul Edwards (philosopher)|Paul Edwards]], who was a prominent atheist and editor of the ''[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', defined an atheist as &amp;quot;a person who maintains that there is no God.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;] ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Strong atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beginning in the latter portion of the 20th century and continuing beyond, many [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and atheists have argued that the definition of atheism should be a lack of belief in God or gods.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CRI&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;] ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Divine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Day, Donn R. (2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20140906135211/http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm &amp;quot;Atheism - etymology&amp;quot;]. ''The Divine Conspiracy'' website/atheism articles (unk. publisher). Archived at ''Internet Archive'' on September 6, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Craig, William Lane (July 16, 2012). [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism &amp;quot;The proper definition of atheism&amp;quot;]. ''Reasonable Faith'' website/Media/Reasonable [[faith]] podcast (Dallas TX: Reasonable Faith). See [[William Lane Craig]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Britain is a less religious country than the United States, and the Oxford-dictionaries-based ''Lexico.com'' offers both the narrow/broad definitions of atheism (as noted in a previous footnote, the ''Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary'', which is a traditional American dictionary, offers a more narrow definition of atheism similar to the definition that major encyclopedias of philosophy use). ''Lexico.com'' and other Oxford dictionaries: &amp;quot;Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods&amp;quot;. (Oxford University Press [OUP] [2019]. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/atheism &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;]. ''Lexico.com'' [Oxford, UK: OUP].)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism#Purpose of attempting to dilute the definition of atheism|Purpose of redefining atheism]] and [[Weak atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheism has been examined by many disciplines in terms [[Atheism statistics|of its effects]] on individuals and [[Atheism and culture|on societies]] and these effects will be covered below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as individuals adopting an [[Atheist worldview|atheistic worldview]], atheism has [[causes of atheism|a number of causal factors]] and these will be elaborated on below as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As of March 2025, data compiled by the [[Center for the Study of Global Christianity]] at [[Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary]] indicates that there are 831,000 fewer atheists in the world than a year ago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2025/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2025.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity, 2025, in the Context of 1900–2050] (831,000 fewer atheists in the world than a year ago. See subsequent source)&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/04/StatusofGlobalChristianity20191.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity/other religions, 2019, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On March 15, 2024, Frontier Partners International reported concerning [[global atheism]]: &amp;quot;Simultaneously, atheism, which once saw a peak around 1970 with 165 million adherents, is on the decline. The current growth trend for atheism is -0.12 percent, with their number falling from 147 million in 2020 to 146 million in 2024.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.frontierpartners.org/global-christianity-surges Global Christianity surges beyond projections in 2024], LiCAS.news • Mar 15, 2024, Frontiers Partners International, 2024&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The world's atheists have a below replacement level of births (See: [[Atheism and fertility rates]]). See also: [[Global atheism statistics]] and [[Desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The latest attempt to enumerate the number of atheists in the world by secular sociologists was 400 million nonreligious or atheistic people as of 2016.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phil Zuckerman, Luke Galen, Frank Pasquale. 2016. &amp;quot;Secularity around the World&amp;quot;.  Oxford University Press. pp. 30–52.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Types of atheism==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Schools of atheist thought]] and [[Atheist factions]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Diagoras of melos.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Diagoras of Melos]] was an [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greek]] atheist, poet and [[Sophism|Sophist]] of the 5th century BC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[History of Atheism|History of atheism]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The [[History of Atheism|history of atheism]] can be dated as early as the 5th century B.C. [[Diagoras of Melos]] was a 5th-century B.C. [[Greek]] atheist, poet and [[Sophism|Sophist]]. Since then many [[schools of atheist thought]] have developed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Atheism and why do atheists state they disbelieve?===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Weak Atheism|Weak atheism]] and [[Strong atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists claim there are two main reasons for their denial of the existence of God and/or disbelief in God: the conviction that there is positive evidence or argument that God does not exist ([[strong atheism]], which is also sometimes called positive atheism), and their claim that [[theism|theists]] bear the burden of proof to show that God exists, that they have failed to do so, and that belief is therefore unwarranted ([[Weak Atheism|weak atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to above, theists and others have posited a number of [[causes of atheism]] and this matter will be further addressed in this article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Attempts to broaden the definition of atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 1876, [[Charles Bradlaugh]] proposed that atheism does not assert &amp;quot;there is no God,&amp;quot; and by doing so he endeavored to dilute the traditional definition of atheism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Divine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Discussion on Atheism: Report of a Public Discussion Between the Rev. Brewin Grant, B.A., and C. Bradlaugh, Esq., Held in South Place Chapel, Finsbury, London, on Tuesday Evenings, Commencing June 22, and Ending July 27, 1875, on the Question, &amp;quot;Is Atheism Or is Christianity the True Secular Gospel, as Tending to the Improvement and Happiness of Mankind in this Life by Human Efforts and Material Means.&amp;quot;. Brewin Grant Charles Bradlaugh, January 1, 1890, Anti-liberation Society, page 10-12 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Dwk3yV5MOaAC&amp;amp;pg=PA10&amp;amp;lpg=PA10&amp;amp;dq=Charles+Bradlaugh+definition+of+atheism&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=JtjIlK7qaJ&amp;amp;sig=E0HjYgfEyKXdEA4zlLAd9m41cQU&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ved=0CEgQ6AEwB2oVChMIrcijucWLyAIVCXA-Ch00NACw#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=Charles%20Bradlaugh%20definition%20of%20atheism&amp;amp;f=false]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As noted above, in the latter portion of the 20th century, the proposition that the definition of atheism be defined as a mere lack of belief in God or gods began to be commonly advanced by agnostics/atheists.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Divine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism Definition of atheism] by [[William Lane Craig]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  It is now common for atheists/agnostics and theists to debate the meaning of the word atheism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Divine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/articles/meds2/med40/med796.html The Atheism Vs. Agnosticism “Debate”] &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism Oxford Dictionaries]. Oxford Dictionaries, due to their British influence (Atheism is more popular in Britain than in the United States and many other countries where English is spoken, see: [[Atheist Population|Atheist population]] and [[Secular Europe]] and [[Atheism statistics]]), now offers the definition of atheism to be &amp;quot;Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.&amp;quot; which is a departure from its historical meaning before a broader definition of atheism began to be more widely advocated in the latter portion of the 20th century (see: [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm &amp;quot;Atheism - etymology&amp;quot;])&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of a broader definition of atheism as a mere lack of belief often point out that such a definition is contrary to the traditional/historical meaning of the word and that such a definition makes atheism indistinguishable from agnosticism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CRI&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Divine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/articles/meds2/med40/med796.html The Atheism Vs. Agnosticism “Debate”]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism Definition of atheism] by [[William Lane Craig]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://carm.org/cut-atheism Atheism] by Matt Slick&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Definition of atheism]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic|Definitions of atheist and agnostic]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Some common types of atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Below are a few common ways that atheism manifests itself:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''1.''' [[Militant atheism]], which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Topics related to militant atheism:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and communism]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and intolerance]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[New Atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and dogmatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2.''' Philosophical atheism - Atheist philosophers assert that God does not exist. (See also: [[Naturalism (philosophy)|Naturalism]] and [[Materialism]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Secular humanism]]  is a philosophy that holds that human beings are the most important figures, and that social problems are best solved without the involvement of religious doctrine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The philosophy of [[postmodernism]] is atheistic (see: [[Atheism and postmodernism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3.''' Atheistic [[Buddhism]] (some schools of Buddhism are [[theism|theistic]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4.''' [[Practical atheism]]: atheism of the life - that is, ''living'' as though God does not exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] in his sermon ''Rediscovering Lost Values'' spoke of &amp;quot;practical atheism&amp;quot;.  King, Dr. Martin Luther (1954). [http://www.globatron.org/truth/rediscovering-lost-values-martin-luther-king-early-sermon &amp;quot;Rediscovering lost values&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''5.''' Other schools of atheist thought: [[Schools of atheist thought]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist factions ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheist factions]] and [[Western atheism, schisms and political polarization]] and [[Atheist organizations]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On July 24, 2020, the atheist [[PZ Myers]] wrote about atheism: &amp;quot;Deep rifts, ongoing fragmentation, and crumbling reputations seems to be the order of the day in atheism.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2020/07/24/i-dont-even-know-whats-going-on-in-atheism-anymore/ I don’t even know what’s going on in atheism anymore] by [[PZ Myers]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheist factions]] and [[Atheist organizations and scandals]] and [[Atheist scandals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] was a central figure in the [[Elevatorgate]] controversy.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Jacques Rousseau wrote in the ''Daily Maverick'': &amp;quot;[[Elevatorgate]]..has resulted in three weeks of infighting in the secular community. Some might observe that we indulge in these squabbles fairly frequently.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rousseau, Jacques (July 13, 2011). [http://dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2011-07-13-sticks-and-stones-may-break-my-bones-but-words-can-rip-my-soul &amp;quot;Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can rip my soul&amp;quot;]. Daily Maverick [South Africa].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An ex-atheist wrote: &amp;quot;As an Atheist for 40 years, I noticed that there is not just a wide variety of [[Schools of atheist thought|Atheist positions]], but there exists an actual battle between certain [[Atheist factions]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/04/internet-atheism-is-still-hostile.html &amp;quot;The atheist community and internet atheism is still a hostile wasteland&amp;quot;] (April 7, 2013).  Question Evolution Campaign [blog].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheist infighting ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheist movement]] and [[Atheism and anger]] and [[Atheists and conflict resolution]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Blair Scott]] served on the [[American Atheists]] board of directors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20140701062412/http://atheists.org/about-us/board-of-directors &amp;quot;Board of directors&amp;quot;] (July 1, 2014).  American Atheists&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Scott formerly served as a State Director for the [[American Atheists]] organization in the state of [[Alabama]].  On December 1, 2012, he quit his post as a director of outreach for the American Atheists due to infighting within the American [[atheist movement]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Blair Scott&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Former 2012 web page at Atheist.org website entitled &amp;quot;An Open Letter from Blair Scott&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Blair wrote: &amp;quot;I have spent the last week mulling over what I want to do at this point in the movement. I’m tired of the in-fighting: at every level. I am especially tired of allowing myself to get sucked into it and engaging in the very behavior that is irritating...me.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Blair Scott&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheist Neil Carter wrote: &amp;quot;Friends of mine have noted lately how biting and critical the atheist community can be, not only toward outsiders, but even toward its own members. Has there ever been a subculture more prone to eating its own than this one? I really don’t know.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2016/06/12/its-past-time-for-atheism-to-grow-up/ It’s Past Time for Atheism to Grow Up] by Neil Carter&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheist [[David Smalley]] said about the atheist movement: &amp;quot;We're eating our own... We’re disintegrating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;patheos.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2017/06/reasonably-controversial-regressive-left-killing-atheist-movement/ Reasonably Controversial: How the Regressive Left Is Killing the Atheist Movement] by David Smalley&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{See also|Antitheism and antisocial behavior}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheist infighting causing fundraising difficulties ====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hemant Mehta at Skepticon 7.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|The [[atheist]] [[Hemant Mehta]] said about raising money from fellow nonbelievers: &amp;quot;Meanwhile, I’ve had one hell of a time convincing people to give to the Foundation Beyond Belief — and I help lead that organization.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/08/a-few-thoughts-about-fundraising/ A Few Thoughts About Fundraising]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheist organizations and fundraising]] and [[Atheism and charity]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheist organizations and fundraising]] and [[Atheist fundraising vs. religious fundraising]] and [[Atheism and charity]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2017, the [[atheist activist]] Lee Moore declared about [[American atheism|American atheist]] organizations:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|If you look at the major atheist groups right now, like the national groups, the ones that are doing the real activist work... They are not bringing in the kind of donations they used to.  Most of them are starved for cash. They're downsizing left and right. Because people aren't just giving like they used to. And I talked to a lot of the major donors out there and they said, &amp;quot;Well, we're kind of tired of seeing the atheist community just fight amongst itself and not really get anything done. We'd rather not give money if we don't think it's going to go somewhere.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvG6LKUbOdk Lee Moore and Steve Shives Talk About the Future of the Atheist Movement]&lt;br /&gt;
- video quote comes 21 minutes and 13 seconds into the video&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Eddie Tabash on atheist argumentativeness ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]] and [[Atheism and emotional/intrapersonal intelligence|Atheism and emotional intelligence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[American atheism|American atheist]] activist [[Eddie Tabash]] said in a speech to the Michigan Atheists State Convention, &amp;quot;Since we are a bit of a cantankerous, opinionated lot...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ld9Rfw5HUs Atheists Speak Up - Eddie Tabash - Part 2 of 4]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Angry and bitter demeanor of militant atheists ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and anger]] and [[Atheism and forgiveness|Atheism and unforgiveness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On January 1, 2011, [[CNN]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image - that is, what they imagined God might be like - said lead study author Julie Exline, Case Western Reserve University psychologist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In studies on college students, atheists and agnostics reported more anger at God during their lifetimes than believers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Landau, Elizabeth (January 1, 2011).  [http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/anger-at-god-common-even-among-atheists/ &amp;quot;Anger at God common, even among atheists&amp;quot;].  CNN/The Chart website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Angry atheist.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|An angry atheist speaking to a woman with a Bible in her hand. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Christian philosopher James S. Spiegel says that the path from Christianity to atheism among several of his friends involved moral slippages such as resentment or unforgiveness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-philosopher-explores-causes-of-atheism-44353/ Christian Philosopher Explores Causes of Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See:  [[Atheism and forgiveness|Atheism and unforgiveness]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
According to Anthony DeStefano:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|But are (atheists) really dangerous, too?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You bet they are. The truth is, the atheist position is incapable of supporting any coherent system of morality other than ruthless social Darwinism. That’s why it has caused more deaths, murders and bloodshed than any other belief system in the history of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists, of course, are always claiming hysterically that Christianity has been responsible for most of the world’s wars, but that’s just another example of atheistic ignorance. The main reasons for war have always been economic gain, territorial gain, civil and revolutionary conflicts.  According to Philip Axelrod’s monumental &amp;quot;Encyclopedia of Wars,&amp;quot; only 6.98 percent or all wars from 8000 BC to the present were religious in nature. If you subtract Islamic wars from the equation, only 3.2 percent of wars were due to specifically Christian causes.  That means that over 96 percent of all the wars on this planet were due to worldly reasons.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today's atheists&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/20/todays-atheists-are-bullies-and-are-doing-their-best-to-intimidate-rest-us-into-silence.html Today's atheists are bullies -- and they are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence] at Fox News&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various studies found that traumatic events in people's lives have a positive correlation with &amp;quot;emotional atheism&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carter, Joe (January 12, 2011). [http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god &amp;quot;When atheists are angry at God&amp;quot;].  First Things [The Institute on Religion and Public Life] website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheist and [[lesbianism|lesbian]] [[Greta Christina]] told the journalist Chris Mooney on the Point of Inquiry podcast, &amp;quot;there isn't one emotion&amp;quot; that affects atheists &amp;quot;but anger is one of the emotions that many of us have ...[it] drives others to participate in the movement.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mooney, Chris (May 14, 2012).  [http://www.pointofinquiry.org/greta_christina_why_are_you_atheists_so_angry/ &amp;quot;Greta Christina—Why are you atheists so angry?&amp;quot;] [interview of Greta Christina] Point of Inquiry website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social science research indicates that [[Antitheism|antitheists]] score the highest among atheists when it comes to personality traits such as [[narcissism]], dogmatism, and anger.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/science-shows-new-atheists-to-be-mean-and-closed-minded/ &amp;quot;Science shows new atheists to be mean and closed-minded&amp;quot;] (July 18, 2013).  Shadow to Light [blog].&lt;br /&gt;
*Haidt, Jonathan (March 5, 2014).  [https://evolution-institute.org/article/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10/  &amp;quot;Why Sam Harris is unlikely to change his mind&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Furthermore, they scored lowest when it comes to agreeableness and positive relations with others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/science-shows-new-atheists-to-be-mean-and-closed-minded/ &amp;quot;Science shows new atheists to be mean and closed-minded&amp;quot;] (July 18, 2013).  Shadow to Light [blog].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For additional information, please see: [[Atheism and interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]] and  [[Atheism and emotional/intrapersonal intelligence|Atheism and emotional intelligence]] and [[Atheism and forgiveness|Atheism and unforgiveness]] and [[Atheism and bitterness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and its retention rate in individuals ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and its retention rate in individuals]] and [[Conversion from atheism to Christianity]] and [[Atheism and children]] and [[Desecularization]] and [[Atheism and apathy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Georgetown 2.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|In 2012, a [[Georgetown University]] study was published indicating that about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household in the United States remain atheists as adults.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;retention rate&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nazworth, Nap (July 11, 2012). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-atheists-have-lowest-retention-rate-compared-to-religious-groups-78029/ &amp;quot;Study: atheists have lowest 'retention rate' compared to religious groups&amp;quot;]. christianpost.com.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and its retention rate in individuals]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, a [[Georgetown University]] study was published indicating that only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;retention rate&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  See also: [[Atheism and children]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2012 study by the General Social Survey of the social science research organization NORC at the University of Chicago found that belief in God rises with age, even in atheistic nations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harms, William (April 18, 2012). [http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2012/04/18/belief-god-rises-age-even-atheist-nations &amp;quot;Belief in God rises with age, even in atheist nations&amp;quot;.] UChicagoNews.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Pew Forum reports about [[American atheism|American atheists]]: &amp;quot;Among self-identified atheists and agnostics, the median age is 34, and roughly four-in-ten adults in these categories are between the ages of 18 and 29.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/ Chapter 3: Demographic Profiles of Religious Groups], Pew Forum&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and immaturity]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, in atheistic Communist China, [[Christianity]] is experiencing rapid growth (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]]).  Also, there was a collapse of atheism in the former [[Soviet Union]] (see: [[Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See also: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Decline of the atheist movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and inspiration]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Difficulty in participating in atheist community ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and loneliness]] and [[Atheism and apathy]] and [[Atheism and motivation]] and [[Internet atheism]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to an international study done by William Bainbridge, atheism is frequent among people whose interpersonal social obligations are weak and is also linked to lower fertility rates in advanced industrial nations (See also: [[Atheism and fertility rates]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bainbridge, William (2005). &amp;quot;[http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr01002.pdf Atheism]&amp;quot; (PDF). Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. 1 (Article 2): 1–26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and loneliness]] and [[Atheism and interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social skills]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In comparison to many religious groups, which have many meetings/conferences in numerous places in a given day or week that are convenient to attend, atheist meetings and [[atheist conferences]] are sparse.  One of the causes of this situation is the apathy of many atheists (see: [[Atheism and apathy]] and [[Atheism and motivation]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most [[atheist organizations]] are relatively small in terms of active participants as most atheists are apathetic about organized atheism (see: [[Atheism and apathy]]). An exception is the [[Communist Party of China]], which requires its members be atheists (see: [[Atheism and China]] and [[Atheism and communism]]). At the same time, due to the explosive [[growth of Christianity in China]], there are now more Christians in China than Chinese who belong to the Communist Party of China (see also: [[East Asia and global desecularization]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.dw.com/en/in-xi-we-trust-is-china-cracking-down-on-christianity/a-42224752 In Xi we trust - Is China cracking down on Christianity?], DW News&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent times, the number of people attending atheist conferences has grown smaller.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2017/07/13/10923/ Whoever I Don’t Like Is Ruining the Atheist Movement] by Jeremiah Traeger&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2017/06/reasonably-controversial-regressive-left-killing-atheist-movement/ Reasonably Controversial: How the Regressive Left Is Killing the Atheist Movement] by David Smalley&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luT2vQ3ctKU #ReasonRally Crash n burn. Thanks SJWs!] by [[Thunderf00t]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Atheist [[David Smalley]] wrote: &amp;quot;And we wonder why we’re [[Atheism and politics|losing elections]], [[Atheist fundraising vs. religious fundraising#Atheist organizations and fundraising|losing funding]], and our conferences are getting smaller.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;patheos.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; In 2017, the atheist activist Lee Moore said about atheist conferences, &amp;quot;Most conferences are gone now. They're either gone or in some kind of life support form.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvG6LKUbOdk Lee Moore and Steve Shives Talk About the Future of the Atheist Movement], video, quote comes at the 11 minute and 44 seconds point of the video&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Jerry Coyne at The Amazing Meeting - 2013.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Jerry Coyne]] speaking at a 2013 [[Atheist conferences|atheist meeting]] entitled The Amazing Meeting (TAM). TAM is an annual meeting. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Atheist Francois Tremblay wrote about the difficulty of motivating atheists to engage in activities related to atheism: &amp;quot;One last problem that undermines any propagation of atheism is inspiration. Let's be honest here, &amp;quot;there is no god!&amp;quot; is not a very motivating call for most people.&amp;quot; (see also: [[Atheism and inspiration]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/herdingcats.html Herding Cats: Why Atheism Will Lose] by Francois Tremblay&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The atheist [[Jerry Coyne]] said about atheist meetings/conferences, &amp;quot;But to me the speakers and talks have often seemed repetitive: the same crew of jet-set skeptics giving the same talks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/are-there-too-many-atheist-meetings/ Are there too many atheist meetings?] by Jerry Coyne&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an essay entitled ''How the [[Atheist movement|Atheist Movement]] Failed Me'', an [[atheism and women|atheist woman]] noted that participation in the atheist community is often expensive due to the cost of attending [[atheist conferences]] and even local atheist meetings in restaurants and bars challenged her modest budget.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Amanda (August 10, 2012).  [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/10/how-the-atheist-movement-failed-me-part-1-cost/ &amp;quot;How the atheist movement failed me–part 1: cost&amp;quot;].  Friendly Atheist blog.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As a result of the challenges that atheists commonly have in terms of socializing in person, many atheists [[Internet atheism|turn to the internet]] in terms of communicating with other atheists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Norris, Chuck (May 21, 2007).  [https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55789 &amp;quot;How to outlaw Christianity (steps 2 &amp;amp; 3)&amp;quot;].  WorldNetDaily. See: [[Chuck Norris]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Often internet communication between atheists turns contentious (see: [[Atheist factions]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Christianity|Christian]] organizations have been significantly more successful than [[atheist organizations]] as far as evangelizing via the internet (see: [[Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists]] and [[Internet atheism]]). Beginning sometime between 2008 to 2012, there has been a big decline in [[internet atheism]] in terms of web traffic (See: [[Internet atheism web traffic volume]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/internet-atheism-and-skepticism-thrill.html Internet atheism: The thrill is gone!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Atheism and loneliness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abandonment of atheism and communist regimes ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of Christianity in China]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union#Growth of Protestantism in Russia|Growth of Protestantism/Evangelicalism in Russia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decline of the atheist movement ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Decline of the atheist movement]] and [[Morale of the atheist movement]] and [[Desecularization]] and [[Atheist movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Jacques Berlinerblau.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|In 2011, atheist [[Jacques Berlinerblau]] declared: &amp;quot;The Golden Age of [[Secularism]] has passed.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chronicle.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Berlinerblau, Jacques (February 4, 2011).  [http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/obama-at-the-national-prayer-breakfast-raging-christ-fest-secular-wake/31816 &amp;quot;Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast&amp;quot;].  The Chronicle of Higher Education/Brainstorm blog.  Retrieved on May 29, 2015.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Numerous atheists have declared that the &amp;quot;[[atheist movement]] is dead&amp;quot; or that it is dying.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20190208025358/https://freethoughtblogs.com/reasoner/2017/10/21/the-atheism-movement-dead-or-alive/ The “Atheism Movement:” Dead or Alive?], [[Freethought Blogs]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/11/seth-andrews-keeps-hearing-reports-of.html Atheist activist Seth Andrews keeps seeing reports on social media and the media that the atheist movement is dying], ''Examining Atheism''&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/10/now-that-that-poseur-atheist-aron-ra.html Atheist Aron Ra indicates the atheist movement is dead. Now that that Aron Ra has surrendered....], ''[[Examining Atheism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/12/the-day-atheist-movement-died.html The Day the Atheist Movement Died] by Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal destroying the atheist movement], [[Jen McCreight]], Twitter&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://freethoughtblogs.com/atrivialknot/2019/03/26/the-ghost-of-atheist-past/ The ghost of atheist past], Freethought Blogs, 2015&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Decline of the atheist movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the atheist movement died/declined, various atheists attempted to change the public's perception concerning atheism and atheists, but they were largely unsuccessful (see: [[Attempts to positively rebrand atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the 2018 [[American Atheists]] convention, the ex-president of the [[American Atheists]] organization [[David Silverman]] declared regarding the [[Morale of the atheist movement|atheist movement being in a demoralized state]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|It is a hard time to be [[Atheist activist|an atheist activist]]. This has affected us. And it has affected our community... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...it has really affected us. We are suffering a level of [[defeatism]] that I have never seen before... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We feel the loss. And we feel like we have lost. We feel like [[Donald Trump and American atheists|we lost the election]]... We see this cascade of attack coming down at us over and over from all different directions and we feel like it's over. I have heard so many times it makes me sick. It makes me sad. It feels like we lost. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Atheism and apathy|apathy that follows]]. It doesn't matter. We can't win anyways. It's useless to fight. This apathy is infecting us. It's hurting us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And people are reacting to each other now. And so that is [[Atheist factions|causing a division]]. Lots and lots of division in our movement. Hard, bad division... And that has resulted in a splintering and factioning of the movement that I have never seen before and none of us have.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, we're in a bad situation and it's getting worse.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8VYLMYvImc David Silverman - How the Mighty Get Back Up]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2017, atheist [[David Smalley]] has indicated that [[leftism|leftist]]/[[progressivism|progressive]] atheists were &amp;quot;killing the atheist movement&amp;quot; through being contentious and divisive (see also: [[Atheist factions]]).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;patheos.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  Former [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[PZ Myers]], who subscribes to progressive politics, says he is no longer a member of the atheist movement.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/26/get-out-a-message-for-the-atheist-movement/ Get Out! A message for the atheist movement] by PZ Myers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheist movement saw a number of setbacks during the latter portion of the 20th century and beyond in terms of historical events/trends (See: [[Causes of desecularization]]).  As a result, it has lost a considerable amount of confidence (see also: [[Decline of the atheist movement]] and [[Atheists and the endurance of religion]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Globally, the [[atheist population]] is declining in terms of the percentage of the world's population that are atheists (see: [[Global atheism statistics]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Atheism and Communism ==&lt;br /&gt;
''see also:'' [[Atheism and communism]] and [[Militant atheism]] and [[Atheism and economics]] and [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheist cults]] and [[Atheism and Karl Marx]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|left|thumbnail|200px|[[Vladimir Lenin]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists Karl Marx, Vladmir Lenin and Chou En-lai ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Karl Marx]] said &amp;quot;[Religion] is the opium of the people.&amp;quot;  Marx also stated: &amp;quot;[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mulligan, Martin (1959). [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm &amp;quot;Private property and communism&amp;quot;] translation of Marx, Karl (1932), ''Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844'' (Moscow:  Progress Publishers).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote regarding atheism and Communism: &amp;quot;A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i.e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i.e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rothstein, Andrew and Issacs, Bernard (1973). [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm &amp;quot;The attitude of the worker's party to religion&amp;quot;] translation of Lenin, Vladimir (1909), ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), ''Collected Works'', (Moscow: Progress Publishers) vol. 15, pp. 402-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1955, the [[China|Chinese]] Communist leader Chou En-lai declared, &amp;quot;We Communists are atheists&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism], ''New American'', 2014&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/02/china-communist-party-atheism-zhejiang-ban-religious-members-christianity_n_6599722.html China's Communist Party Bans Believers, Doubles Down On Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2016, the ''International Business Times'' reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China — and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ibtimes.com/senior-chinese-religious-advisor-calls-promotion-atheism-society-2363850 Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society], ''International Business Times''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Russian Revolution caused the most notable spread of atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
According to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the &amp;quot;most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 [[Russian Revolution]], which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Marxism-Leninism&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130728215151/http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html|title=Investigating atheism: Marxism|publisher = [[University of Cambridge]]|quote=The most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power. For the first time in history, atheism thus became the official ideology of a state.|year=2008|accessdate=July 17, 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the &amp;quot;[[Bolshevik]] communists were not merely atheists but, according to [[Lenin]]'s terminology, militant atheists.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Lenin &amp;amp; militant atheism&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ufC9Ar8iuDcC&amp;amp;pg=PA161&amp;amp;dq=The+Bolshevik+communists+were+not+merely+atheists+but,+according+to+Lenin%27s+terminology,+militant+atheists.&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=1oFUUdj6PIiK0QGvq4CAAw&amp;amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=The%20Bolshevik%20communists%20were%20not%20merely%20atheists%20but%2C%20according%20to%20Lenin's%20terminology%2C%20militant%20atheists.&amp;amp;f=false|title =''On Superconductivity and Superfluidity: A Scientific Autobiography'' |author=Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg|publisher = Springer Science+Business Media|pages=161|year=2009|quote=The Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists.|accessdate = July 17, 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, prior to this, the [[Reign of Terror]] of the [[French Revolution]] established a state which was anti-[[Roman Catholicism]]/Christian in nature &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Tallet, Frank and Atkin, Nicholas (1991). [https://books.google.com/books?id=aL4lsWdd-rAC&amp;amp;dq=&amp;amp;hl=en ''Religion, Society and Politics in France Since 1789''] (London: A &amp;amp; C Black), pp. 1-17. GoogleBooks archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2006).  [https://books.google.com/books?id=ni4PSpOxb6MC&amp;amp;dq ''Western Civilization: Combined Volume''] (Belmont, CA:  Thomson Wadsworth), p. 549.  GoogleBooks archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*Latreille, A. (2002).  &amp;quot;French Revolution&amp;quot;, ''New Catholic Encyclopedia'' (2nd ed., Farmington Hills, MI:  Thomson/Gale), vol. 5, pp. 972–973.  ISBN 0-7876-4004-2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (anti-clerical [[deism]] and anti-religious atheism and played a significant role in the French Revolution&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Hunt, Lynn and Censer, Jack (2001).  [https://web.archive.org/web/20140905120047/http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap7c.html &amp;quot;War, Terror and Resistence&amp;quot;, ch. 7, p. 3].  Liberty, Equality, Fraternity:  Exploring the French Revolution website.  George Mason University website/Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media website. &lt;br /&gt;
*O'Leary, Margaret R. (June 1, 2012).  ''Forging Freedom: The Life of Cerf Berr of M Delsheim'' (iUniverse), pp. 1-2.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), with the official ideology being the [[Cult of Reason]]; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the [[guillotine]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple notes:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Guillotine --&amp;gt;*{{cite web|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bf3m7IVAa9gC&amp;amp;pg=PA461&amp;amp;dq=France+atheism+guillotine++Christians+executed&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=l4lUUaTRBufG0QGe0IHACA&amp;amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=France%20atheism%20guillotine%20%20Christians%20executed&amp;amp;f=false|title =''Christianity: The eBook''|last=Adair|first=James|publisher = JBE Online Books|year=2007|quote=Although the Civil Constitution called for religious liberty, which was extended to Jews as well as Christians, many revolutionaries pushed for the establishment of a new state religion, either the Cult of Reason (atheists) or the Cult of the Supreme Being (Deists). Changes to the calendar eliminated references to Christian holidays, and even the ancient seven-day week, and a list of officially recognized saints included such famous thinkers such as Socrates, Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A period of political persecution, often with religious overtones, broke out, known as the Reign of Terror. Thousands of people were executed by the guillotine, including many of the original leaders of the French Revolution.|pages=461|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- France --&amp;gt;*{{cite web|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=9WkBAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA105&amp;amp;dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&amp;amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&amp;amp;f=false|title =''Memoirs of the Reign of George III. to the Session of Parliament ending A.D. 1793'', Volume 5|page=105|first=William|last=Belsham|publisher = G.G. &amp;amp; J. Robinson|year=1801|quote=In allusion to the monstrous transactions of this portentous period, it has been eloquently and energetically observed, 'that the reign of atheism in France was avowed the reign of terror. In the full madness of their career, in the highest climax of their horrors, they shut up the temples of God, abolished His worship, and proclaimed death to be an eternal sleep:—in the very centre of Christendom, Revelation underwent a total eclipse, while atheism, performing on a darkened theatre its strange and fearful tragedy, confounded the first elements of society, blended every age, rank, and sex, in indiscriminate proscription and massacre, and convulsed all Europe to its centre, that the imperishable memorial of these events might teach the last generations of mankind to consider religion as the pillar of society, the parent of social order, and the safe-guard of nations.'&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;It is wonderful that, amid the horrors of this dismal period, while 'the death dance of democratic revolution' was still in rapid movement, among the tears of affliction, and the cries of despair, 'the masque, the song, the theatric scene, the buffoon laughter, went on as regularly as in the gay hour of festive peace.'|pages=105–6|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}&amp;lt;!-- Reign of Terror --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
*{{cite book no ws|title=Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West|first=William|last=Kilpatrick|location=San Francisco, CA|publisher=Ignatius Press|year=2012|url=https://books.google.com?id=Tt5rqiCP1p8C&amp;amp;pg=PA57&amp;amp;dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&amp;amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&amp;amp;f=false|quote=Actually, it's helpful to think in terms of two Enlightenments: the Enlightenment that was nourished by Christianity and the Enlightenment that cut itself off from God. The former led to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement. The latter led to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the suppression of church by state, and the godless philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche and their offspring—National Socialism and communism. More recently the abandonment of God has led to the regime of cultural relativism that regards rights as arbitrary constructs.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;It's this second Enlightenment tradition that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to when he wrote, 'The radical detachment of the Enlightenment philosophy from its roots ultimately leads it to dispense with man.' Actually this transition happened not 'ultimately' but almost immediately. The first instance occurred when Enlightenment worship of abstract 'reason' and 'liberty' degenerated quickly into the mass murders committed during the antireligious Reign of Terror in France. 'Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name', said Madame Roland as she faced the statue of Liberty in the Place de la Revolution moments before her death at the guillotine. She was one of the early victims of a succession of secular systems based on rootless notions of 'liberty', 'equality', and 'reason'.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;As many historians have pointed out, the atheist regimes of modern times are guilty of far more crimes than any committed in the name of religion. Communist governments alone were guilty of more than one hundred million murders, most of them committed against their own people.|pages=p. 57|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheistic Communism and mass murder ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheist atrocities]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin-Lenin.jpg|right|202px|thumb|The militant atheistic regime of [[Joseph Stalin]] killed tens of millions of people. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Joseph Stalin is the figure on the right and [[Vladimir Lenin]] is the figure on the left, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of Communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm &amp;quot;''The Black Book of Communism''&amp;quot;].  Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences website:  Cold War Studies.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Rummel, R. J. (November 1993).  [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM &amp;quot;How many did communist regimes murder?&amp;quot;]  University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War&lt;br /&gt;
*White, Matthew (February 2011).  [http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm &amp;quot;Source list and detailed death tolls for the primary megadeaths of the twentieth century&amp;quot;].  Necrometrics&lt;br /&gt;
*Radosh, Ronald (February 2000).  [http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 &amp;quot;''The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression''&amp;quot;]. First Things [journal] website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rummel, R. J. (November 1993).  [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM &amp;quot;How many did communist regimes murder?&amp;quot;]  University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Richard Dawkins]] has attempted to [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities]] and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error. See also: [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote relative to [[Atheism and Mass Murder|atheism and mass murder]] that &amp;quot;the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Koukl&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Koukl, Gregory (February 20, 2013). [https://www.str.org/articles/the-real-murderers-atheism-or-christianity#.XdaqONVOk2w &amp;quot;The real murderers:  atheism or Christianity?&amp;quot;] Stand to Reason.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under regimes that advocated atheism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Koukl&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;  As noted earlier, Richard Dawkins has attempted to [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities]] and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koukl summarized by stating:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Koukl&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Beale notes concerning atheism and mass murder:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] … &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole [[Atheism and Hell|Hell]]-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;marry&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ammi, Ken (June 11, 2009).  [https://creation.com/atheism &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;].  Creation Ministries International.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Xi in Maoist outfit.PNG|thumbnail|right|390px|[[Xi Jinping]] is the current General Secretary of the Communist Party of China which requires that all their members be atheists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism], New American, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[China and atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Militant atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and communism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Soviet Union and morality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Secular left]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Communism and religious oppression ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Communism and religious persecution]] and [[Atheistic communism and torture]] and [[Atheism and forced labor]] and [[China and involuntary organ harvesting]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheism in Communist regimes has been and continues to be militant atheism and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Kent, Jo Ling (April 28, 2011). [https://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/28/china.church.crackdown/index.html?hpt=T2 &amp;quot;Underground Christians fear China crackdown&amp;quot;]. CNN.com&lt;br /&gt;
*Yakovlev, Alexander N. (2002). [https://books.google.com/books?visbn=0300103220&amp;amp;id=ChRk43tVxTwC&amp;amp;pg=PA165&amp;amp;lpg=PA165&amp;amp;ots=ICIxg28Jud&amp;amp;dq=a+century+of+violence+in+soviet+russia+the+Russian+Orthodox+clergy&amp;amp;ie=ISO-8859-1&amp;amp;sig=C9k9Hr7Vn222WCHf_1iSJOHVsgo#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=&amp;amp;f=false ''A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia''] translated by Austin, Anthony (New Haven: Yale University Press), p. 165.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Braga, Fr. Roman (1996). [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx &amp;quot;On compromise in the hierarchy during the Communist yoke&amp;quot;].  Orthodox Christian Information Center.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Clyne, Meghan (November 16, 2005). [https://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1 &amp;quot;Korean reds targeting Christians&amp;quot;]. The New York Sun&lt;br /&gt;
*Siemon-Netto, Uwe (May 7, 2003). [http://northkoreanchristians.com/chinese-atrocities.html &amp;quot;North Korean and Chinese atrocities against Christians worsen&amp;quot;].  NewsMax.  NorthKoreanChristians.com &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818 &amp;quot;China sends Bible owners to labor camp&amp;quot;] (November 26, 2003). WorldNetDaily. &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.epm.org/resources/2003/Jun/12/chinese-police-proudly-record-their-torture-christ/ Chinese Police Proudly Record Their Torture of Christians], By Voice of the Marytrs|June 12, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Religious persecution in the Soviet Union ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Soviet atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[persecution of Christians in the USSR|persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union]] was the result of the violently atheist [[Soviet]] government.  In the first five years after the [[October Revolution]], 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were murdered, many on the orders of [[Leon Trotsky]].  When [[Joseph Stalin]] came to power in 1927, he ordered his secret police, under [[Genrikh Yagoda]] to intensify persecution of Christians.  In the next few years, 50,000 clergy were murdered, many were [[torture]]d, including [[crucifixion]].  &amp;quot;Russia turned red with the blood of martyrs&amp;quot;, said Father Gleb Yakunin of the [[Russian Orthodox Church]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ostling, Richard N. (December 4, 1989).  [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,150718,00.html &amp;quot;Cross meets Kremlin: Gorbachev and Pope John Paul II&amp;quot;]. ''Time''. Time magazine website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  According to Orthodox Church sources, as many as fifty million Orthodox believers may have died in the twentieth century, mainly from persecution by [[Communists]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moore, Rev. Fr. Raphael (October 1999). [http://www.serfes.org/printerVersion2.asp?URL=/orthodox/memoryof.htm &amp;quot;In memory of the 50 million victims of the Orthodox Christian Holocaust&amp;quot;], Spiritual Nourishment for the Soul, Serfes, Rev. Archimandrite Nektarios, compiler.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:China location.png|thumbnail|left|205px|With its large population, China has the largest population of atheists.&amp;lt;ref name=20Zuck&amp;gt;[http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf &amp;quot;Top 20 Countries With Largest Numbers of Atheists / Agnostics (Zuckerman, 2005)&amp;quot;] (November 28, 2007). ''The Largest Atheist/Agnostic Populations''. Chris &amp;amp; Terri Chapman website (March 19, 2013 or bef.), first publication date at website from archive at Internet Archive.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The religious landscape of China is quickly changing, however, due to the rapid growth of Christianity. See also: [[China and atheism]] and [[Global atheism]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, in the atheistic and Communist Soviet Union, 44 anti-religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan Cathedral.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Humphrey (December 16, 2008). [http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html &amp;quot;Merry Anti-Christmas!&amp;quot;] Quodlibeta.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Despite intense effort by the atheistic leaders of the Soviet Union, their efforts were not effective in converting the masses to atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Humphrey (December 16, 2008). [http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html &amp;quot;Merry Anti-Christmas!&amp;quot;] Quodlibeta. &lt;br /&gt;
*Froese, Paul (March 2004). [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jssr/2004/00000043/00000001/art00003?crawler=true &amp;quot;Forced secularization in Soviet Russia:  why an atheistic monopoly failed&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;].  ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion'', vol. 43, 1, pp. 35-50.  Abstract: Ingentaconnect&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====  Religious persecution in Communist China ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[China and atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[China]] has the world's largest atheist population (see: [[China and atheism]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Double reference:&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf &amp;quot;Top 20 Countries With Largest Numbers of Atheists / Agnostics (Zuckerman, 2005)&amp;quot;] (November 28, 2007). ''The Largest Atheist/Agnostic Populations''. Chris &amp;amp; Terri Chapman website (March 19, 2013 or bef.), first publication date at website from archive at Internet Archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/23/a-surprising-map-of-where-the-worlds-atheists-live/ A surprising map of where the world’s atheists live], ''Washington Post'' By Max Fisher and Caitlin Dewey May 23, 2013&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  China is a Communist country. In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that &amp;quot;China has persecuted religious believers by means of harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or 'reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship.&amp;quot; In 2003, owners of [[Bible]]s in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818 &amp;quot;China sends Bible owners to labor camp&amp;quot;] (November 26, 2003). ''WorldNetDaily''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  China continues to practice religious oppression today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.epm.org/resources/2003/Jun/12/chinese-police-proudly-record-their-torture-christ/ Chinese Police Proudly Record Their Torture of Christians], By Voice of the Martyrs|June 12, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The efforts of China's atheist leaders in promoting atheism, however, are increasingly losing their effectiveness and the number of Christians in China is rapidly growing (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]]).  China's state-sponsored atheism and atheistic indoctrination have been a failure and a 2007 religious survey in China indicated that only 15% of Chinese identified themselves as atheists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Briggs, David (January 23, 2011).  [http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/01/23/huffington-post-chinas-state-sponsored-atheism-a-failure/ &amp;quot;Huffington Post: China’s state-sponsored atheism a failure&amp;quot; [excerpt&amp;amp;#93;].  National Post website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Martyred in the USSR Poster.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The above photograph shows the Russian Nikolai Khmara, a new Baptist convert in the [[Soviet Union]], after his arrest by the [[KGB]]. He was tortured to death and his tongue was cut out.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://martyredintheussr.com/ Martyred in the USSR]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.anabaptists.org/books/russians/trs-1.html The Russians' Secret by Peter Hoover with Serguei V. Petrov, Speaking Without a Tongue, Chapter 1 (Pages 1-3)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Researchers estimate that tens of thousands of [[Falun Gong]] prisoners in Communist China have been killed to supply a financially lucrative trade in human organs and cadavers, and that these human rights abuses may be an ongoing concern.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/slaughter-mass-killings-organ-harvesting Review of: Ethan Gutmann, “''The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting and China’s Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem''”, (Prometheus Books, 2014).]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Religious persecution in North Korea ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[North Korea]] is a repressive Communist state and is officially atheistic.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, Sunny (May 12, 2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20130521065544/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/IE12Dg01.html &amp;quot;God forbid, religion in North Korea?&amp;quot;]  Asia Times Online.  Archived at Internet Archive on May 21, 2013.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Clyne, Meghan (November 16, 2005). [https://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1 &amp;quot;Korean reds targeting Christians&amp;quot;]. The New York Sun. &lt;br /&gt;
*Siemon-Netto, Uwe (May 7, 2003). [http://northkoreanchristians.com/chinese-atrocities.html &amp;quot;North Korean and Chinese atrocities against Christians worsen&amp;quot;].  NewsMax.  NorthKoreanChristians.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   Open Doors, an organization based in the United States, has put North Korea at the very top of its list of countries where Christians face significant persecution - for 12 years in a row.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-22/repressive-atheist-north-korea-has-surprising-relationship-christian-missionaries Repressive, atheist North Korea has a surprising relationship with Christian missionaries]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheistic Communism and torture ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheistic communism and torture]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheistic Communist regimes and forced labor ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and forced labor]] and [[Atheism and slavery]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In atheistic Communist regimes forced labor has often played a significant role in their economies and this practice continues to this day (see: [[Atheism and forced labor]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Caplan, Bryan (2010).  [http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm &amp;quot;Museum of Communism FAQ version 1.3&amp;quot;]. George Mason University website/Department of Economics/Bryan Caplan/Museum of Communism.&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/13/north-korea-economic-system-built-forced-labor &amp;quot;North Korea: Economic system built on forced labor: New testimonies say even children must work or face detention camps&amp;quot;] (June 13, 2012).  Human Rights Watch website. &lt;br /&gt;
*Pattisson, Pete (November 7, 2014).  [https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/nov/07/qatar-north-korean-forced-labour &amp;quot;Qatar’s ambitious future driven on by North Korean ‘forced labour’&amp;quot;].  ''The Guardian'' website/World/Global Development.&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/red.giant/prisons/wu.essay &amp;quot;Labor camps reinforce China's totalitarian rule&amp;quot;] (1999).  Cnn.com&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-01/07/c_132086402.htm &amp;quot;China to reform re-education through labor system&amp;quot;] (January 8, 2013).  Xinhua.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and the internet ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Internet atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noted above, sometime between 2008 and 2012, there has been a big drop in [[internet atheism]] in terms of web traffic (See: [[Internet atheism web traffic volume]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/internet-atheism-and-skepticism-thrill.html Internet atheism: The thrill is gone!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&amp;amp;q=atheism,atheist,agnostic,agnosticism General atheism/agnostic terms - World]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, in terms of reach and its ability to influence, internet atheism is ineffectual (See: [[Internet atheism has a small audience and an insignificant influence on the world]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429819854353?journalCode=sira ''Who is Not Afraid of Richard Dawkins? Using Google Trends to Assess the Reach of Influential Atheists across Canadian Secular Groups''] by Maryam Dilmaghani, ''Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses'', First Published December 13, 2019 Research Article&lt;br /&gt;
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008429819854353&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Google Trends: From 2004 to June 2025, the number of worldwide Google searches for the term atheist is significantly down ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Google trends - Global searches for atheism and agnosticism terms]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Global searches for the term atheism from 2004 to June 7, 2025.png|thumbnail|center|1500px|According to Google Trends, as of June 2025, worldwide Google searches for the term atheist is significantly below its levels in January 2024.]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Clear}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and politics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and politics]] and [[Atheism and political science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historically, atheists have favored the [[leftism|left]] side of the political aisle (see: [[Atheism and politics]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Pew Forum, in the [[United States]]: &amp;quot;About two-thirds of atheists (69%) identify as [[Democrats]] (or lean in that direction), and a majority (56%) call themselves political [[liberal]]s (compared with just one-in-ten who say they are [[conservative]]s).&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/05/7-facts-about-atheists/ 7 facts about atheists], Pew Forum&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some regions where the [[secular left]] has considerable influence, they [[Decline of the secular left|are losing]] an increasing amount of their power. For example, in [[secular Europe]] right-wing, nationalist parties are growing and in China conservative [[Protestantism]] is growing rapidly (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160114/1033149776/europe-rise-of-right-wing-parties-eu-failure.html EU Failures Fuel Rise of Right-Wing Populist Parties in Europe]. Sputnik News, 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and authoritarianism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Secular left]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Decline of the secular left]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Secular right]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and political science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Western atheism, schisms and political polarization]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and history ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File: Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg|right|225px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File: The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg|thumbnail|right|220px|Nikolai Yezhov walking with [[Joseph Stalin]] in the top photo taken in the mid 1930s. Subsequent to his execution in 1940, Yezhov was edited out of the photo by Soviet Union censors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;From the book  The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia by David King&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[History of Atheism|History of atheism]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Atheism and historical revisionism]] and [[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of atheism: [[History of Atheism|History of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists and historical illiteracy ===&lt;br /&gt;
A common complaint concerning many atheists is their lack of depth when it comes to knowledge of [[history]] and [[historiography]] - particularly in areas such as [[historicity of Jesus|historicity of Jesus Christ]] and [[Atheism and Mass Murder|atheist mass murders in history]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://voxday.net/2014/03/10/the-ignorance-of-cosmos/ &amp;quot;The ignorance of ''Cosmos''&amp;quot;], March 10, 2014. &lt;br /&gt;
*Koukl, Gregory (February 20, 2013). [http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&amp;amp;id=5527 &amp;quot;The real murderers:  atheism or Christianity?&amp;quot;] Stand to Reason.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Historicity of Jesus|Historicity of Jesus Christ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists and historical revisionism ===&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists commonly engage in [[historical revisionism]] in order to illegitimately distort the historical record (see: [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Religion/irreligion and war ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Irreligion/religion and war]] and [[Atheism and world peace]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Louise Ridley (assistant news editor at the ''Huffington Post UK''), Theodore Beale and others point out that academic studies and other research consistently challenge the link between religion and war.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Ridley, Louise [assistant news editor, ''Huffington Post'', UK] (November 18, 2014).  [http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html &amp;quot;Does religion really cause war—and do atheists have something to answer for?&amp;quot;]  The Huffington Post, United Kingdom.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Day, Vox (August 13, 2012).  [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheists-abandon-religion-causes-war.html &amp;quot;Atheists abandon 'religion causes war' argument&amp;quot;].  Vox Populi blog.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Schumacher, Robin (April 2012).  [http://carm.org/religion-cause-war &amp;quot;The myth that religion is the #1 cause of war&amp;quot;].  Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website.  Edited by Matt Slick. See [[CARM]].&lt;br /&gt;
*Price, Tom (2014).  [http://www.bethinking.org/is-religion-harmful/religion-causes-wars &amp;quot;'Religion causes wars'&amp;quot;].  Bethinking.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and economics ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and economics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and sloth|Atheism and economic productivity]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and economic prosperity]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and income]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Analysis of atheism and common objections to atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Commonly Cited Arguments Against Atheism and For Theism ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Arguments for theism and against atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Anselm.jpg|thumbnail|right|150px|[[Anselm of Canterbury]]'s  version of the [[ontological argument]] appeared in his work ''Proslogium''.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of philosophers of religion, or those who have extensively studied the issue of the existence of God, are [[theism|theists]] (72 percent).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.strangenotions.com/atheist-scientists/ Does it matter that many scientists are atheists?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In relation to the debate between theism and atheism, theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument and have a number of arguments against atheism (See: [[Arguments for theism and against atheism]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within Christendom, the discipline of [[Christian apologetics]] has been developed. Christian apologetics is the defense of the [[Christianity|Christian]] faith through logic/evidence based arguments. The word [[apologetics]] comes from the Greek word apologia  (from Greek ἀπολογία), which means &amp;quot;speaking in defense&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Arguments for the existence of God]] include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Teleological argument]]: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an [[intelligent design]]er. See also: [[Evolution|Arguments against evolution]] and [[Origin of life]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evidential apologetics]] is an approach in Christian apologetics which emphasizes the use of evidence to demonstrate that God exists and that there is compelling evidence to support Christianity and the Bible.  In addition, there are various arguments that atheists or other unbelievers weigh evidence improperly (see: [[Atheism and evidence]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Moral Argument|Moral argument]]. [[Objective morality]] exists. Atheism lacks objective moral standards. Not possessing a coherent basis for [[morality]], atheists are fundamentally [[Moral relativism|incapable]] of having a coherent system of morality (See also: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheist population and immorality]] and [[Atheism and hedonism]] and [[Atheism and lust]] and [[Atheist hypocrisy]]) .&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Copan, Paul (2008). [http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf &amp;quot;God, naturalism, and the foundations of morality&amp;quot;].  ''The Future of Atheism'', ed. Robert Stewart (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), pp. 141-161.  PaulCopan.com &lt;br /&gt;
*Williams, Peter S. (2011). [http://www.bethinking.org/morality/can-moral-objectivism-do-without-god &amp;quot;Can moral objectivism do without God?&amp;quot;].  Bethinking.org &lt;br /&gt;
*Meister, Chad (2010).  [http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ &amp;quot;Atheists and the quest for objective morality&amp;quot;].  ''Christian Research Journal'', vol. 33, no. 2.  Christian Research Institute website &lt;br /&gt;
*Slick, Matt (2009).  [http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality &amp;quot;The failure of atheism to account for morality&amp;quot;].  Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Atheism leads to moral and cultural decline (see: [[Atheism and culture]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in our [[universe]] necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause ''distinct'' from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that [[First Cause|first cause]] is God. Christians point out that the question &amp;quot;Who created God&amp;quot; is an illogical question.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/who-created-god Who created God] by Don Batten&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Autumn.jpg|200px|right|thumbnail|The [[argument from beauty]] is a commonly used argument for the existence of God. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Historical arguments for the existence of God (subset of evidential apologetics). For example, arguments stemming from historical accounts such as Christian historical apologetics, [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]] and archaeological evidence such as [[Bible Archaeology|Bible archaeology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Argument from religious experience]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bible prophecy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and presuppositional apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Pascal's wager]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Biblical statements concerning atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Bible verses relating to atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The writers of the [[Bible]] considered the existence of God to be self-evident and [[Moses]] simply wrote: &amp;quot;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.&amp;quot; ([[Genesis]] 1:1).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harr, Ken and Lisle, Dr. Jason (August 9, 2007). [http://www.answersingenesis.org/is-god-real/is-there-really-god/ &amp;quot;Chapter 1: Is there really a God?&amp;quot;] ''The New Answers Book''.  Answers in Genesis.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accordingly, the psalmist [[David]] declared:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.&amp;quot; — [[Psalms]] 14:1 ([[King James Bible|KJV]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Atheism and debate==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism debates]] and [[Atheism vs. theism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg‎|thumb|right|150px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as &amp;quot;the man atheists fear most&amp;quot; due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://books.google.com/books?id=O1gPpUMzcEQC&amp;amp;pg=PA286&amp;amp;lpg=PA286&amp;amp;dq=%22the+man+atheists+fear+most%22+bahnsen&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=PyGQBd8Xrl&amp;amp;sig=ACfU3U1DpS53GaAc_ZfKLnfD6jrP1gozDQ&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ved=2ahUKEwiQqrLRu6vgAhXIqlkKHfuaBcQQ6AEwCHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=%22the%20man%20atheists%20fear%20most%22%20bahnsen&amp;amp;f=false Pushing the Antithesis] on Greg Bahnsen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bahsen at the Stein debate&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
As far as [[atheism debates]], the majority of the public debates are [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]] (although there have been a few [[Atheism vs. Islam debates]]).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beginning in the latter part of the 20th century, there were a number of notable instances of prominent atheists being reluctant to debate (see: [[Atheism and debate#Notable cases of prominent atheists being reluctant to debate|Notable cases of prominent atheists being reluctant to debate]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of [[God]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cowardice&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ross, Tim (May 14, 2011).  [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html &amp;quot;Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God&amp;quot;]. The Daily Telegraph website.  Retrieved July 25, 2014.  See ''[[Daily Telegraph]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at [[Oxford University]] was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]],  &amp;quot;The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cowardice&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as the &amp;quot;man atheists fear most&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://books.google.com/books?id=O1gPpUMzcEQC&amp;amp;pg=PA286&amp;amp;lpg=PA286&amp;amp;dq=%22the+man+atheists+fear+most%22+bahnsen&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=PyGQBd8Xrl&amp;amp;sig=ACfU3U1DpS53GaAc_ZfKLnfD6jrP1gozDQ&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ved=2ahUKEwiQqrLRu6vgAhXIqlkKHfuaBcQQ6AEwCHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=%22the%20man%20atheists%20fear%20most%22%20bahnsen&amp;amp;f=false Pushing the Antithesis] on Greg Bahnsen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20080102084144/http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/biobahn.html &amp;quot;A brief biography of Greg Bahnsen&amp;quot;] (2003).  Applied Presuppositionalism website.  Retrieved from January 2, 2008 archive at Internet Archive on May 14, 2015.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This is because [[Harvard]]-educated [[Michael Martin]] was scheduled to debate Bahnsen but pulled out of the debate at the &amp;quot;eleventh hour&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
A [[Press Release Regarding Michael Martin Pulling Out of Martin-Bahnsen Debate|press release at the time]] said that Dr. Martin offered ruses on why he pulled out and didn't want the scheduled debate recorded but the real reason was that &amp;quot;...Michael Martin is afraid that he will be publicly humiliated just as his friend and fellow atheist, Dr. [[Gordon Stein]], was...&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1990, Michael Martin indicated there was a general [[Atheism and apathy|absence of an atheistic response]] to contemporary work in the [[philosophy]] of religion and in jest he indicated that it was his &amp;quot;cross to bear&amp;quot; to respond to [[theism|theistic]] arguments.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Open Questions: Diverse Thinkers Discuss God, Religion, and Faith'' by Luís F. Rodrigues, page 201&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheology]] and [[Atheist apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic [[evolution]]ary position since [[World War II]] have been atheists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Batten, Don (December 1997).  [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ &amp;quot;A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists&amp;quot;]. ''Creation'', vol 20, no. 1, p. 32.  Retrieved from Creation.com [Creation Ministries International] on May 15, 2015.  Don Batten&lt;br /&gt;
*Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph. D. (1999).  [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 &amp;quot;Chapter 1: Facts and bias&amp;quot;].  ''Refuting Evolution''.  Retrieved from Creation.com [Creation Ministries International] on May 15, 2015.  See [[Jonathan Sarfati]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After doing poorly in a series of debates in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s,  evolutionists are generally reluctant to debate (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and morality/ethics ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|The atheist [[PZ Myers]] declared: &amp;quot;I am so, so tired of hearing about [[atheist scandals]] and scumbaggery.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1362874184792039425 &amp;quot;I am so, so tired of hearing about atheist scandals and scumbaggery.&amp;quot; - Twitter post]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and morality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheist population and immorality]] and  [[Atheist hypocrisy]] and [[Religion and morality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Objective morality incompatible with atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under an atheist worldview, there is no logical basis for [[objective morality]] or ultimate meaning and purpose.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/atheism-no-objective-morality Atheism—no objective morality?], [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bethinking.org/morality/can-moral-objectivism-do-without-god Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?] by Peter S. Williams at Bethinking.org&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.equip.org/article/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality-2/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister at Christian Research Institute&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.faithdefenders.com/articles/atheism/atheism_absolutes_at.html Atheism and absolutes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and moral relativism]] and [[Atheism and meaninglessness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and moral relativism ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and moral relativism]] and [[Atheism and morality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Phil Fernandes states the following regarding atheism and [[moral relativism]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]] preached that a group of &amp;quot;supermen&amp;quot; must arise with the courage to create their own values through their &amp;quot;will to power.&amp;quot; Nietzsche rejected the &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; values of Christianity (brotherly love, turning the other cheek, charity, compassion, etc.); he felt they hindered man's creativity and potential....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many other atheists agree with Nietzsche concerning moral relativism. British philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]] (1872-1970) once wrote, &amp;quot;Outside human desires there is no moral standard.&amp;quot; [[A. J. Ayer]] believed that moral commands did not result from any objective standard above man. Instead, Ayer stated that moral commands merely express one's [[Subjectivism|subjective]] feelings. When one says that murder is wrong, one is merely saying that he or she feels that murder is wrong. [[Jean-Paul Sartre]], a French [[existentialism|existentialist]], believed that there is no objective meaning to life. Therefore, according to Sartre, man must create his own values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are many different ways that moral relativists attempt to determine what action should be taken. [[Hedonism]] is probably the most extreme. It declares that whatever brings the most pleasure is right. In other words, if it feels good, do it. If this position is true, then there is no basis from which to judge the actions of [[Adolph Hitler]] as being evil.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. Phil Fernandez, Web article: ''Refuting Moral relativism'', Institute for Bible Defense (Web article is no longer online. Pages 120-121 of the book ''God, Government, and the Road to Tyranny: A Christian View of Government and Morality'' By Phil Fernandes, Eric Purcell and Rorri Wiesinger relates the same thoughts of his former web article.[https://books.google.com/books?id=u6XBuAQAiYUC&amp;amp;pg=PA120&amp;amp;lpg=PA120&amp;amp;dq=Nietzsche+preached+that+a+group+of+%22supermen%22+must+arise+with+the+courage+to+create+their+own+values+through+their+%22will+to+power.%22+Nietzsche+rejected+the+%22soft%22+values+of+Christianity+(brotherly+love,+turning+the+other+cheek,+charity,+compassion,+etc.);+he+felt+they+hindered+man%27s+creativity+and+potential.&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=kwDnaTOHqd&amp;amp;sig=0ywArBSb87JFleWRXZRv6DG3ZVo&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ved=0ahUKEwjty8qqyIzWAhXHg1QKHe8UAVYQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=Nietzsche%20preached%20that%20a%20group%20of%20%22supermen%22%20must%20arise%20with%20the%20courage%20to%20create%20their%20own%20values%20through%20their%20%22will%20to%20power.%22%20Nietzsche%20rejected%20the%20%22soft%22%20values%20of%20Christianity%20(brotherly%20love%2C%20turning%20the%20other%20cheek%2C%20charity%2C%20compassion%2C%20etc.)%3B%20he%20felt%20they%20hindered%20man's%20creativity%20and%20potential.&amp;amp;f=false])&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and various types of immorality ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|221px| The perverse and cruel atheist [[Marquis de Sade]] in prison, 18th century line engraving. See: [[Atheism and sadism]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and human rights violations]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and sexual immorality articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and violence articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and unforgiveness articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist mass shooters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[List of atheist shooters and serial killers]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist population and immorality|Atheism and various types of immorality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and sociopathy ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and sociopathy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist mass shooters and serial killers ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist mass shooters]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[List of atheist shooters and serial killers]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Study: U.S. public perception of atheist morality ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 2014, a University of Kentucky study was published by Will M. Gervais, which was entitled &amp;quot;Everything is permitted? People intuitively judge immorality as representative of atheists&amp;quot;, and the study indicated that &amp;quot;even atheist participants viewed immorality as significantly more representative of atheists than of other people.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gervais, Will M. (April 9, 2014).  &amp;quot;Everything is permitted?  People intuitively judge immorality as representative of atheists&amp;quot;. ''PLOS ONE'', {{doi|10.1371/journal.pone.0092302}}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Barna Group studies: Atheism and morality ===&lt;br /&gt;
'''Barna Group study on the behavior of atheists vs. evangelical Christians:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Deem]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|A random sample of 1003 adults were surveyed in May, 2008 by The Barna Group for their participation in a number of negative behaviors within the previous week. The results showed that there were vast differences in the behaviors of evangelicals compared to agnostics/atheists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These results show that atheists/agnostics participate in morally questionable behaviors to a much greater degree than [[evangelicalism|evangelical Christians]] - an average of nearly five times the frequency!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?] by Richard Deem&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Barna Group study related to atheist beliefs about behaviors:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Barna Group]] found that atheists and [[agnostics]] in America were more likely, than [[theist]]s in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable:  illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; [[pornography]] and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/bisexuality.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.barna.com/research/practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard/ Practical outcomes replace biblical principles as the moral standard], Barna Group&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases]] associated with homosexuality, the [[Bible|biblical]] prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many example where the Bible exhibited knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge that was ahead of its time].  See also: [[Atheism and sexual immorality articles|Atheism and sexual immorality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and uncharitableness  ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also: [[Atheism and charity]]'' and [[Atheist organizations and scandals]] and [[Atheism, uncharitableness and depression]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Beggar in Cambodia.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Most atheists likely live in [[East Asia]] (see: [[Asian atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A beggar in [[Cambodia]]. In Cambodia, the vast majority of the population adheres to a nontheistic form of [[Buddhism]] called the Theravada school of Buddhism. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive study by [[Harvard University]] professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Burke Campbell&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Burke, Daniel, Religion News Service (May 13, 2009). [https://web.archive.org/web/20130310113024/http://www.pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx &amp;quot;Religious people make better citizens, study says&amp;quot;]. Pew Research Forum. Archived on March 10, 2013 by Internet Archive.  Retrieved July 19, 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
*Campbell, David and Putnam, Robert (November 14, 2010).  [https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm &amp;quot;Religious people are 'better neighbors'&amp;quot;]. USA Today website.  Retrieved on July 19, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning the issue of [[Atheism and charity|atheism and uncharitableness]], the evidence indicates that [[per capita]] charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the [[Barna Group]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.barna.com/research/atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians/ &amp;quot;Atheists and agnostics take aim at Christians&amp;quot;] (June 11, 2007).  Barna Update.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive study by [[Harvard University]] professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.&amp;lt;ref name =&amp;quot;Burke Campbell&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism, social justice and hypocrisy]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Church-state issues emphasis. Charity low priority ====&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]] and [[Western atheism and race]] and [[Atheism and love]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2014, the African-American atheist woman [[Sikivu Hutchinson]] wrote in the ''Washington Post'' that atheist organizations generally focus on church-state separation and creationism issues and not the concerns the less affluent African American population faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hutchinson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Hutchinson, Sikivu (June 16, 2014).  [https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/16/blacks-are-even-discriminated-against-by-atheists/ &amp;quot;Atheism has a big race problem that no one’s talking about&amp;quot;].  Washington Post website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Hutchinson also mentioned that church organizations do focus on helping poor African Americans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hutchinson&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheist nonprofit scandals ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheist organizations and scandals]] and  ''[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science#Embezzlement allegation|Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science - Embezzlement allegation]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2018 YouTube video entitled ''[[David Silverman]] Ousted as President of [[American Atheists]]'', the atheist YouTube channel Utah Outcasts said in a video about David Silverman and atheist organizations: &amp;quot;Many other people were also like maybe he was embezzling funds because we know people in [[Atheist activist|atheist activist]] communities where that kind of sh*t happens. Yes, it was kind of common.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUvX5wTf8TM David Silverman Ousted as President of American Atheists], Utah Atheists, Go to the 3 minute mark in the video&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two atheist nonprofit scandals that recently received some publicity were the organizations [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] and the [[We Are Atheism]] organization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/07/24/richard-dawkins-drops-his-lawsuit-against-former-employee/ Richard Dawkins Drops His Lawsuit Against Former Employee]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/an-ungodly-row-dawkins-sues-his-disciple-2115632.html An ungodly row: Dawkins sues his disciple]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/07/24/richard-dawkins-drops-his-lawsuit-against-former-employee/ Richard Dawkins Drops His Lawsuit Against Former Employee]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/09/15/an-update-on-we-are-atheism/ An Update on We Are Atheism] by Hemant Mehta, September 15, 2015]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, David Gorski at Scienceblogs indicated that many atheist/skeptic organizations are poorly run from a financial standpoint.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/10/24/richard-dawkins-sues-josh-timonen/ Richard Dawkins sues Josh Timonen], Posted by David Gorski on October 24, 2010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Atheist organizations and scandals]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Irreligion and domestic violence ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Irreligion and domestic violence]] and [[Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|205px|right|Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vaw&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ellison, C. G., Trinitapoli, J. A., et al. (November 2007). [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17951587 &amp;quot;Race/ethnicity, religious involvement, and domestic violence&amp;quot;] [abstract with link to full article].  ''Violence Against Women'', doi: 10.1177/1077801207308259, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 1094-1112.  Abstract from PubMed.gov&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
The abstract for the 2007 article in the journal ''Violence Against Women'' entitled ''Race/Ethnicity, Religious Involvement, and Domestic Violence'' indicated:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The authors explored the relationship between religious involvement and intimate partner violence by analyzing data from the first wave of the National Survey of Families and Households. They found that: (a) religious involvement is correlated with reduced levels of domestic violence; (b) levels of domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; (c) the effects of religious involvement on domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; and (d) religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence, and this protective effect is stronger for African American men and women and for Hispanic men, groups that, for a variety of reasons, experience elevated risk for this type of violence.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vaw&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Secular Europe and domestic violence =====&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Secular Europe and domestic violence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and racism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and racism]] and [[East Asia, China, atheism and racism]] and [[Western atheism and race]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[atheist population]] has a significant amount of racism within its midst (see: [[Atheism and racism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and empathy ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and empathy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and pornography ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Larry Flynt Wheelchair.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|The [[pornography|pornographer]] [[Larry Flynt]] is an atheist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Flynt writes, &amp;quot;I have left my religious conversion behind and settled into a comfortable state of atheism&amp;quot;: see the epilogue of Flynt, Larry and Ross, Kenneth (June 1, 2008).  ''An Unseemly Man: My Life as Pornographer, Pundit, and Social Outcast''.   &lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;I am not saying he don't believe in God. I am just saying I don't believe in God. That puts me at odds with him.&amp;quot; [https://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9701/11/falwell.v.flynt/lkl.00.html &amp;quot;Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell&amp;quot; [transcript&amp;amp;#93;] (January 10, 1996).  Larry King Live.  Transcript from CNN.com on October 3, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and pornography]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and pornography]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the causes of atheism is a [[hedonism|hedonistic]] lifestyle. See: [[Atheism and hedonism]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The infamous [[pornography|pornographers]] [[Hugh Hefner]] and [[Larry Flynt]] was and is (taken separately in the order indicated) both atheists (taken together).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Gottesdiener, Laura (February 23, 2010).  [https://www.salon.com/2013/02/23/10_celebs_you_didnt_know_were_atheists_partner/ &amp;quot;10 celebs you didn't know were atheists&amp;quot;].  Salon.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Flynt writes, &amp;quot;I have left my religious conversion behind and settled into a comfortable state of atheism&amp;quot;: see the epilogue of Flynt, Larry and Ross, Kenneth (June 1, 2008).  ''An Unseemly Man: My Life as Pornographer, Pundit, and Social Outcast''.&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;I am not saying he don't believe in God. I am just saying I don't believe in God. That puts me at odds with him.&amp;quot; [https://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9701/11/falwell.v.flynt/lkl.00.html &amp;quot;Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell&amp;quot; [transcript&amp;amp;#93;] (January 10, 1996).  Larry King Live.  Transcript from CNN.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003, ''Arena magazine'' magazine listed Flynt as #1 on the &amp;quot;50 Powerful People in Porn&amp;quot; list.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.onenewspage.us/people/ms9j0/Larry-Flynt.htm &amp;quot;Larry Flynt&amp;quot;].  One News Page.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Flynt is paralyzed from the waist down due to injuries sustained from a 1978 assassination attempt by the serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Flynt, Larry and Ross, Kenneth (June 1, 2008).  ''An Unseemly Man: My Life as Pornographer, Pundit, and Social Outcast'', pp. 170–171.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.onenewspage.us/people/ms9j0/Larry-Flynt.htm &amp;quot;Larry Flynt&amp;quot;].  One News Page.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== RationalWiki and web visitor interest in pornography ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[RationalWiki and web visitor interest in pornography]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheism and child pornography ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and child pornography]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005 [[Denmark]] was ranked the third most atheistic country in the world and the website adherents.com reported that in 2005 43 - 80% of Danes are agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2003 book entitled ''Overcoming Violence Against Women and Girls: The International Campaign to Eradicate a Worldwide Problem '' written by authors Rahel Nardos; Mary K. Radpour; William S. Hatcher and Michael L. Penn, declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The largest source of commercial child pornography is Denmark. Denmark became the world's leading producer of child pornography when, in 1969, it removed all restrictions on the production and sale of any type of pornographic material. &amp;quot;The result,&amp;quot; notes Tim Tate, &amp;quot;was a short-lived explosion in adult pornography, and the birth of commercial child pornography. ....by 1979 when Denmark finally banned the production and sale of child pornography it had already become such a financial success on the international market that it has proven to be nearly impossible to bring its spread under control.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nardos, Rahel, et. al. (2003).  ''Overcoming Violence Against Women and Girls: The International Campaign to Eradicate a Worldwide Problem'', p. 59.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suzanne Ost, in her 2009 book ''Child Pornography and Sexual Grooming: Legal and Societal Responses'' published by Cambridge University Press, wrote about the child pornography created by Denmark/Holland during this period: &amp;quot;Taylor and Quayle note that the material produced during this period still constitutes the largest part of child pornography that is currently available, having been transferred into digital format and uploaded onto the internet.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Child Pornography and Sexual Grooming: Legal and Societal Responses'' by Suzanne Ost, Cambridge University Press, page 29, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism, pedophilia and NAMBLA ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Harry Hay.jpg|thumb|150px|Many consider atheist [[Harry Hay]] to be the founder of the American homosexual movement.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''see also:'' [[Atheism, pedophilia and NAMBLA]] and [[Teenage homosexuality]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[North American Man/Boy Love Association]] (NAMBLA) was founded in December 1978 and is an activist homosexuality and [[pedophilia]]/pederasty coalition group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the well known atheist advocates of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The atheist and homosexual [[David Thorstad]] was a founding member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Abbott, Matt C. (August 22, 2010).  [http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100822 &amp;quot;The mind of a pederast&amp;quot;]. RenewAmerica.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. '''[[Harry Hay]]''' (1912 - 2002) was an [[liberal]] advocate of [[statutory rape]] and the widely acknowledged founder and progenitor of the  activist [[homosexual agenda]] in the [[United States]]. Hay joined the [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) in 1934.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bronski, Michael (October 31, 2002).  [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm &amp;quot;The real Harry Hay&amp;quot;].  The Phoenix.com.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Harry Hay was an atheist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kincaid, Cliff, Accuracy in Media (January 7, 2010). [http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_politics0010_01_07.asp &amp;quot;Twisted: administration's 'safe schools czar' and the North American Man-Boy Love Association&amp;quot;].  WorldTribune.com.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He was a vociferous advocate of man/boy love.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Lord, Jeffrey (October 5, 2006).  [http://spectator.org/articles/46366/when-nancy-met-harry &amp;quot;Special report:  when Nancy met Harry&amp;quot;].  The American Spectator website. &lt;br /&gt;
*Kincaid, Cliff, Accuracy in Media (January 7, 2010). [http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_politics0010_01_07.asp &amp;quot;Twisted: administration's 'safe schools czar' and the North American Man-Boy Love Association&amp;quot;].  WorldTribune.com.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1986, Hay marched in a [[homosexual|gay]] parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words &amp;quot;[[NAMBLA]] walks with me.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Baldwin, Hon. Steve (2002). [http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf &amp;quot;Child molestation and the homosexual movement&amp;quot;]. ''Regent University Law Review'', vol. 14, pp. 267-282. The Architecture of Modern Political Power&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The writer [[Samuel R. Delany]] is an atheist and a homosexual.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Delany, Samuel R. (2006).  ''About Writing:  Seven Essays, Four Letters, and Five Interviews'' (Middletown: Wesleyan), p. 36.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.enotes.com/topics/samuel-r-delany/critical-essays/delany-samuel-r-vol-141#critical-essays-delany-samuel-r-vol-141-introduction &amp;quot;Introduction&amp;quot;] (2001).  ''Contemporary Literary Criticism'', ed. Hunter, Jeffrey W., vol. 141 (Gale Cengage).  eNotes.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Delaney said he was a supporter of NAMBLA.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Freedman, Carl (2009).  ''Conversations with Samuel R. Delany'' (Jackson: Univ. Press of Mississippi), p. 143.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called &amp;quot;gentle pedophiles&amp;quot;]] and [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and slavery/forced labor ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and slavery]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and forced labor]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Dietary practices of atheists. Eating of dogs, cats, horses and babies/children ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Dietary practices of atheists]] (Dietary habits of various irreligious regions)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheists and the eating of babies/children ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists eat babies meme#Atheistic China and baby eating|Communist China and baby eating]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists eat babies meme|Atheists and the eating of babies/children]] ([[China]], [[Soviet Union]], [[North Korea]] and other issues)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Major news organizations reporting on China baby flesh powder scandal =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://abcnews.go.com/Health/chinese-made-infant-flesh-capsules-seized-korea/story?id=16296176 Chinese-Made Infant Flesh Capsules Seized in S. Korea], ''ABC News''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/chinese-cannibalism-infant-flesh-outrages-world/ Chinese cannibalism of infant flesh outrages the world], ''Washington Times''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140702/South-Korea-customs-officials-thousands-pills-filled-powdered-human-baby-flesh.html Thousands of pills filled with powdered human baby flesh discovered by customs officials in South Korea], ''The Daily Mail''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/horrifyingly-ground-baby-pills-are-real-thing/328490/ Horrifyingly, Ground Baby Pills Are a Real Thing] by Alexander Abad-Santos, ''The Atlantic''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Immorality of prominent atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:JAMES RANDI.jpg|thumbnail|170px|left|[[James Randi]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[James Randi]] is a leader within the atheist community. Brian Thompson, former James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) Outreach Coordinator, wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|But I no longer identify with this community of benevolent know-it-alls, because not all of them are the best folks in the world. In fact, a good percentage of the top ten worst humans I’ve ever met are prominent members of the skeptics’ club. They’re dishonest, mean-spirited, narcissistic, [[misogyny|misogynistic]]. Pick a personality flaw, and I can probably point you to someone who epitomizes it. And that person has probably had a speaking slot at a major skeptical conference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I grew particularly disgusted with the boys’ club attitude I saw among skeptical leaders and luminaries. The kind of attitude that’s dismissive of women, sexually predatory, and downright gross. When I first started going to skeptical conferences as a fresh-faced know-it-all, I started hearing things about people I once admired. Then I started seeing things myself. Then I got a job with the JREF, and the pattern continued.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Myers, P. Z. (March 31, 2014).  [http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/31/when-will-this-situation-improve/ &amp;quot;When will this situation improve?&amp;quot;] Pharyngula.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Richard Carrier, adultery, divorce and polyamory]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist conferences#Atheist events and inappropriate sexually related activities|Atheist conferences and inappropriate sexual activity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and rape ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and rape]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mass rape during the occupation of Germany|Mass rape of German women by the Soviet army]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and abortion ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' wrote this about the atheist and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his ''La Philosophie dans le boudoir'', in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of [[population control]]. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Farr, A. D. (1980).  [https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract &amp;quot;The Marquis de Sade and induced abortion&amp;quot;].  ''Journal of Medical Ethics'', 6, pp. 7-10.  Journal of Medical Ethics website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Population control]] is based on [[pseudoscience]] and ill founded [[economics|economic]] assumptions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egnor, Michael (November 30, 2010).  [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pz_myers_on_abortion040971.html &amp;quot;P. Z. Myers on abortion&amp;quot;].  Evolution News and Views.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ''[[CBS News]]'' reported: &amp;quot;According to a mail-in survey of nearly 4,000 British doctors, those who were atheist or agnostic were almost twice as willing to take actions designed to hasten the end of life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Katz, Neil (August 26, 2010).  [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-atheist-doctors-twice-as-likely-to-pull-plug/ &amp;quot;Study: atheist doctors twice as likely to pull plug&amp;quot;]. CBSNews.com.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and profanity ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and profanity]] and [[Atheism and culture]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies indicate that atheists engage in more [[profanity]] than Christians/theists and are more likely to believe that obscene language is acceptable to engage in.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.barna.org/component/content/article/5-barna-update/45-barna-update-sp-657/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard#.VwcQ8jEn_7Y  &amp;quot;Practical outcomes replace biblical principles as the moral standard&amp;quot;] (September 10, 2001).  Barna Update. &lt;br /&gt;
*Jay, Timothy and Janschewitz, Kristin (May/June 2012).  [http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2012/may-june-12/the-science-of-swearing.html &amp;quot;The Science of Swearing&amp;quot;].  ''Observer'', vol. 25, no. 5. The Association for Psychological Science website.&lt;br /&gt;
*Ritter, Ryan S., Preston, J. L. et al. (June 18, 2013). [http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/06/18/1948550613492345.full.pdf+html &amp;quot;Happy tweets: Christians are happier, more socially connected, and less analytical than atheists on Twitter&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;].  ''Social Psychological and Personality Science'', 1948550613492345.  Abstract: Sage Journals Subscription required for full article.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Use of profanity by individuals is negatively correlated with conscientiousness and agreeableness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jay, Timothy and Janschewitz, Kristin (May/June 2012).  [http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2012/may-june-12/the-science-of-swearing.html &amp;quot;The Science of Swearing&amp;quot;].  ''Observer'', vol. 25, no. 5. The Association for Psychological Science website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Atheism and profanity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Irreligion and crime/prison population ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Religion and crime reduction]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligious prison population]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and psychopathy ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and psychopathy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Jeffrey Dahmer Milwaukee Police 1991 mugshot.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The [[serial killer]] [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] engaged in [[cannibalism]]. He was an atheist while he committed these acts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1sv4ky_serial-killer-jeffrey-dahmer-blames-atheism-and-evolution-belief-for-murders_news Serial Killer Jeffrey Dahmer blames Atheism and Evolution belief for Murders]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and cannibalism]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
A [[psychopath]] is someone with an anti-social [[personality disorder]] characterized by [[violent]], [[perverted]] or immoral behavior often leading to [[criminal]]ity. Psychopaths have little or no concern for other people. Some psychopaths equate [[love]] with sexual arousal.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title=Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us |author=Robert D. Hare |publisher=Guilford Press |place=New York and London |year=2011 |pages=52 |isbn=978-16062-35782 |url=https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1606235788}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 study relating to atheism and psychopathy published in ''Plus One'' indicates:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|Similarly, a survey of 312 college students examining the relationship between Religious/Spiritual Well-Being (RSWB) and ‘dark triad’ personality traits found that “RSWB was confirmed to be negatively correlated with these negative aspects of personality, in particular with subclinical psychopathy.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...moral concern is associated with a spiritual worldview.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149989 Why Do You Believe in God? Relationships between Religious Belief, Analytic Thinking, Mentalizing and Moral Concern] by Anthony Ian Jack , Jared Parker Friedman, Richard Eleftherios Boyatzis, Scott Nolan Taylor, ''Plus One'', March 23, 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the 2014 journal article ''Correlates of psychopathic personality traits in everyday life: results from a large community survey'' published in the journal ''Frontiers of Psychology''  lack of belief in [[God]] is positively associated with [[psychopath]]y.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4106400/ Correlates of psychopathic personality traits in everyday life: results from a large community survey] by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Robert D. Latzman, Ashley L. Watts, Sarah F. Smith, and Kevin Dutton, ''Frontiers of Psychology'', 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and theft crimes ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and stealing|Atheism and theft crimes]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion and car theft]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Secular Europe and pickpocketing]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist organizations and scandals]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and infanticide ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Infanticide]] is the practice of killing very young children. An infant is a child too young to speak.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;MedicineNet.com http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3966.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Chow chow.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Each year thousands of [[dog]]s are stolen in atheist, communist controlled mainland [[China]] and as many as 20 million dogs are killed in China to satisfy the dog meat industry.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/stop-pet-dogs-stolen-for-meat/ The Chinese Government Must Stop Pet Dogs Being Stolen For Meat] by JERRY GADIANO, Unilad website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For more information, please see: [[Atheists and dog meat eating]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
According to ''ABC News'', gruesome techniques are used in Chinese dog slaughterhouses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjbWQAASPcs Chinese Dog Meat Festival | Undercover Cameras Reveal Brutality Chinese Dog Meat Festival | Undercover Cameras Reveal Brutality], ABC News, YouTube&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Brutal beatings of dogs are occurring in the Chinese dog meat trade during the slaughtering process.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjbWQAASPcs Chinese Dog Meat Festival | Undercover Cameras Reveal Brutality Chinese Dog Meat Festival | Undercover Cameras Reveal Brutality], ABC News, YouTube&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and animal abuse]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[China]] has the world's largest atheist population.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Double references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf &amp;quot;Top 20 Countries With Largest Numbers of Atheists / Agnostics (Zuckerman, 2005)&amp;quot;] (November 28, 2007). ''The Largest Atheist/Agnostic Populations''. Chris &amp;amp; Terri Chapman website (March 19, 2013 or bef.), first publication date at website from archive at Internet Archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/23/a-surprising-map-of-where-the-worlds-atheists-live/ A surprising map of where the world’s atheists live], ''Washington Post'' By Max Fisher and Caitlin Dewey May 23, 2013&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It also has [[state atheism]] (See: [[China and atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Most atheists in the world are [[East Asia]]n (see: [[Asian atheism]]).]]&lt;br /&gt;
Below is an article on atheism and infanticide: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and infanticide]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and bestiality ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and cannibalism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and cannibalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and animal abuse ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and animal abuse]] (Brutal dog/cat meat trades, etc.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and veganism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and veganism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and hypocrisy ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheist hypocrisy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to attempt to justify their atheism, atheists often engage in [[Hypocrisy|hypocritical]] argumentation.  In addition, atheists often engage in hypocritical behavior. Please see: [[Atheist hypocrisy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and social justice ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and social justice]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and care of the environment ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and the environment|Atheism and care of the environment]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and other moral issues ===&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see:  [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and hedonism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Earlier definitions of atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
Dictionaries point out that previous/archaic meanings of the word atheism are: ungodliness. wickedness, immorality&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20130509103942/http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9779.htm Dictionary Says 'Atheism' Means 'Immorality'!?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism Definition of atheism - Merriam-Webster dictionary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and philosophy topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Cerebellum.jpg|right|thumb|240px|If [[Naturalism (philosophy)|philosophical naturalism]] were true, then we ought not to trust our capacity for reason for the human brain would be a byproduct of blind/unintelligent natural forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/09/cs-lewis-argument-from-reason.html C.S. Lewis' argument from reason]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/cs_lewis_and_th079541.html C.S. Lewis and the Argument from Reason] by Jay W. Richards, November 25, 2013 &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-6/cs-lewis-and-materialism C.S. Lewis and Materialism] by John G. West&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8669 C.S. Lewis On The Validity of Reasoning]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2012/04/cs-lewis-on-rationality-and-materialism.html C.S. Lewis on Rationality and Materialism ]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2008/08/naturalisms-hot.html Naturalism's Hot Water]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and reason]] and [[Atheism and the brain]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and naturalism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and naturalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientific naturalism proposes that only explanations which can be scientifically tested are valid, yet this proposition cannot be scientifically tested. Therefore, scientific naturalism is self-refuting.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU_K_a7fW1A William Lane Craig on Scientific Naturalism] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and incoherency]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and issues relating to knowledge acquisition ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and knowledge]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and epistemology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and reason]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and evidence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and logic]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and logical fallacies]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and critical thinking]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and meaninglessness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Why atheism is irrational ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and irrationality]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common and legitimate criticism of the atheist worldview is that [[Atheism and irrationality|atheism is irrational]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;athdef&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; In short, atheism is a fundamentally incoherent worldview with a number of inconsistencies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;inconsist&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  For example, the atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of [[logic]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Lisle, Dr. Jason (October 10, 2007).  [https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/ &amp;quot;Atheism: An irrational worldview&amp;quot;]. AnswersinGenesis.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Slick, Matt (2010).  [http://carm.org/christian-worldview-atheist-worldview-and-logic &amp;quot;The Christian worldview, the atheist worldview, and logic&amp;quot;].  Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. &lt;br /&gt;
*Petersen, Jason (2013).  [https://web.archive.org/web/20160807221254/http://answersforhope.org/can-atheism-coherently-explain-the-laws-of-logic/ &amp;quot;Can atheism coherently explain the laws of logic?&amp;quot;] Answers for Hope.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Audio of a formal 1985 debate between Christian Greg Bahnsen and skeptic Gordon Stein at the University of California, Irvine on the question &amp;quot;Does God exist?&amp;quot;  See Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]]&lt;br /&gt;
**[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1hSx2evTGM &amp;quot;Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein:  The Great Debate (FULL)&amp;quot;] (May 19, 2011).  YouTube video, 2:10:44, posted by Argin Gerigorian.  &lt;br /&gt;
**Andy (December 5, 2006).  [http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/ &amp;quot;Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein mp3&amp;quot;].  The Domain for Truth.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and critical thinking]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheist worldview cannot explain the existence of [[consciousness]] either and the [[theism|theistic]] worldview can offer a reasonable explanation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Piippo, John (March 20, 2012).  [http://www.johnpiippo.com/2012/03/argument-from-consciousness-for.html &amp;quot;The argument from consciousness for the existence of God&amp;quot;].  John Piippo. &lt;br /&gt;
*Piippo, John (April 14, 2014).  [http://www.johnpiippo.com/2014/04/one-of-atheisms-irresolvable-problems.html &amp;quot;Consciousness:  One of atheism's irresolvable problems&amp;quot;].  John Piippo.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|A common and legitimate criticism of the atheist worldview is that [[Atheism and irrationality|atheism is irrational]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;athdef&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Slick, Matt (2010).  [http://carm.org/cut-atheism &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;].  Christian Apologetics &amp;amp; Research Ministry.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;].  ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7. Internet Christian Library&lt;br /&gt;
*Gilson, Tom (March 21, 2012).  [http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2012/03/21/atheists-dont-own-reason/10924 &amp;quot;Atheists don’t own reason&amp;quot;].  FaithStreet/On Faith.  &lt;br /&gt;
*McInerny, Professor Ralph (1985).  [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html &amp;quot;Why the burden of proof is on the atheist&amp;quot;].  ''Truth Journal'', vol. 1. LeadershipU &lt;br /&gt;
*Platinga, Alvin (1991).  [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html &amp;quot;Theism, atheism, and rationality&amp;quot;]. ''Truth Journal'', vol. 3.  LeadershipU. See [[Alvin Plantinga]]. &lt;br /&gt;
*Day, Vox (2008). [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf ''The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens''](Dallas TX:  Benbella Books). ISBN 1933771364; ISBN 978-1933771366.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In short, atheism is a fundamentally incoherent worldview with a number of inconsistencies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;inconsist&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4K_WZpIkM4 &amp;quot;William Lane Craig on scientific naturalism&amp;quot;] (January 12, 2008).  YouTube video, 9:55, posted by Drcraigvideos&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://vimeo.com/102663614 &amp;quot;The Summit lecture series: Scientific naturalism worldview with J.P. Moreland, part 1&amp;quot;] (August 5, 2014).  Vimeo video, 8:10, posted by Jefferson Drexler. &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://vimeo.com/103277405 &amp;quot;The Summit lecture series: Scientific naturalism with J.P. Moreland, part 2&amp;quot;] (August 12, 2014).  Vimeo video, 7:43, posted by Jefferson Drexler.  &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://vimeo.com/103865278 &amp;quot;The Summit lecture series: Scientific naturalism worldview with J.P. Moreland, part 3&amp;quot;] (August 19, 2014).  Vimeo video, 7:21, posted by Jefferson Drexler.  &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://vimeo.com/105068126 &amp;quot;The Summit lecture series: Scientific naturalism worldview with J.P. Moreland, part 4&amp;quot;] (September 2, 2014).  Vimeo video, 6:40, posted by Jefferson Drexler. &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6cTlDn4PiU &amp;quot;The incoherence of atheism - Ravi Zacharias&amp;quot;] (February 5, 2013).  YouTube video, 51:59, posted by Christianity Reason and Science.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Cooper, Jordan (August 31, 2012).  [http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-incoherence-of-atheism.html &amp;quot;The incoherence of atheism&amp;quot;].  Just and Sinner blog.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Randy (November 12, 2012).  [http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2012/11/more-on-inconsistent-atheists.html &amp;quot;More on inconsistent atheists&amp;quot;].  Speak the Truth in Love.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Geisler, Norman and McCoy, Daniel J. (June 2014).  ''The Atheist's Fatal Flaw: Exposing Conflicting Beliefs'' (Ada, MI:  Baker Publishing Group).   See [[Norman Geisler]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and irrationality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and logic]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and incoherency]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and groupthink]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and epistemology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and postmodernism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and reason ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and reason]] and [[Atheists and unreasonableness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]] is true, then we ought not to trust our capacity for [[reason]] for the human [[brain]] would be a byproduct of blind/unintelligent natural forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;C.S. Lewis' argument from reason&amp;quot;&amp;gt;*[http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/09/cs-lewis-argument-from-reason.html C.S. Lewis' argument from reason]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/cs_lewis_and_th079541.html C.S. Lewis and the Argument from Reason] by Jay W. Richards, November 25, 2013 &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-6/cs-lewis-and-materialism C.S. Lewis and Materialism] by John G. West&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8669 C.S. Lewis On The Validity of Reasoning]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2008/08/naturalisms-hot.html Naturalism's Hot Water]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Therefore, believing in naturalism is self-defeating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In short, atheism/naturalism and reason are incompatible.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;C.S. Lewis' argument from reason&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and personhood ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and personhood]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the problem of consciousness ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and consciousness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and free will ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and free will]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and human worth ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and human worth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and evidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and evidence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Logical fallacies that atheists commonly commit ===&lt;br /&gt;
List of logical fallacies that atheists commonly commit: [[Atheism and logical fallacies]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and meaninglessness ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and meaninglessness]] and [[Atheism and the meaning of life]] and [[Nihilism]] and [[Absurdism]] and [[Existentialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under an atheistic worldview, there is no objective meaning or purpose in life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Anderson, James (July 16, 2013).  [http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/can-life-have-meaning-without-god &amp;quot;Can life have meaning without God?&amp;quot;] The Gospel Coalition.  &amp;quot;Atheism’s universe is meaningless and valueless&amp;quot;. J.W. Wartick—&amp;quot;Always Have a Reason&amp;quot; [blog&lt;br /&gt;
*Galloway, Katie (December 23, 2013).  [http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/reclaiming-reason-from-atheism &amp;quot;Reclaiming reason from atheism&amp;quot;.]  Bethinking.  [&amp;quot;Why atheism?&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*Sirrahc (April 19, 2012).  [http://aviewfromtheright.com/2012/04/19/heat-death-and-atheist-inconsistency-or-isnt-it-ironic/ &amp;quot;Heat death and atheist inconsistency (or, isn’t it ironic?)&amp;quot;].  A View from the Right&lt;br /&gt;
*Shramek, Dustin (2009).  [http://www.oocities.org/athens/delphi/8449/atheism.html &amp;quot;Atheism and death: Why the atheist must face death with despair&amp;quot;].  Contend for the Faith [archive].  Archive&lt;br /&gt;
*Brake, Aaron (2013).  [http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/apathy-atheism-and-the-absurdity-of-life-without-god/ &amp;quot;Apathy, atheism, and the absurdity of life without God&amp;quot;].  Pleaseconvinceme.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Prayson, Daniel (December 16, 2010).  [http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/the-meaningless-life-of-atheism/ &amp;quot;The meaningless life of atheism&amp;quot;].  With All I Am.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Through [[Jesus Christ]], Christianity offers objective meaning and purpose to life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Slick, Matt (2012).  [http://carm.org/meaning-of-life &amp;quot;What does the Bible say about the meaning/purpose of life?&amp;quot;].  Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website&lt;br /&gt;
*[Under a Christian worldview] [http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_MeaningLife.htm &amp;quot;What is the purpose and meaning of life?&amp;quot;] (2009).  Christian Bible Reference Site.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Atheism and meaninglessness]] and [[Atheism and the meaning of life]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists/agnostics and ultimate purpose ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and purpose]] and [[Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism]] and [[Atheism and beliefs]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most popular arguments for God's existence is the [[teleological argument]]. Derived from the Greek word ''telos'', which refers to purpose or end, this argument hinges on the idea that the world gives evidence of being designed, and concludes that a divine designer must be posited to account for the orderly world we encounter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Academic research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Banerjee, Konika and Bloom, Paul (October 17, 2014).  [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html &amp;quot;Does everything happen for a reason?&amp;quot;]  The New York Times website&lt;br /&gt;
*Catchpoole, David (July 16, 2009 [GMT+10]).  [https://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed &amp;quot;Children see the world as designed&amp;quot;].  Creation.com.  See [[Creation Ministries International]].&lt;br /&gt;
*Atheist [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] made the candid confession: &amp;quot;As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for want of being able to think otherwise.&amp;quot; Source: Turner, Dean (1991). [https://books.google.com/books?id=BGU7LZ2bQ4cC&amp;amp;pg=PA109&amp;amp;lpg=PA109&amp;amp;dq=As+for+me,+I+don%E2%80%99t+see+myself+as+so+much+dust+that+has+appeared+in+the+world+but+as+a+being+that+was+expected,+prefigured,+called+forth.+In+short,+as+a+being+that+could,+it+seems,+come+only+from+a+creator;+and+this+idea+of+a+creating+hand+that+created+me+refers+me+back+to+God.&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=die9xMUdsB&amp;amp;sig=3dAJOK34aBalYieFKcJLdGpwFjY&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=NXhqVMSmHMexyASUyYKIBw&amp;amp;ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=As%20for%20me%2C%20I%20don%E2%80%99t%20see%20myself%20as%20so%20much%20dust%20that%20has%20appeared%20in%20the%20world%20but%20as%20a%20being%20that%20was%20expected%2C%20prefigured%2C%20called%20forth.%20In%20short%2C%20as%20a%20being%20that%20could%2C%20it%20seems%2C%20come%20only%20from%20a%20creator%3B%20and%20this%20idea%20of%20a%20creating%20hand%20that%20created%20me%20refers%20me%20back%20to%20God.&amp;amp;f=false ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility''] (Pasadena, California:  Hope Publishing House), p. 109. GoogleBooks archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' declares about the agnostic/[[weak atheism|weak atheist]] Charles Darwin: &amp;quot;In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: 'In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, &amp;quot;Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,&amp;quot; and he shook his head vaguely, adding, &amp;quot;it seems to go away.&amp;quot;' (Argyll 1885, 244)&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html &amp;quot;Notes to 'Teleological arguments for God's existence'&amp;quot;] [article revised removing reference in January 2015].&lt;br /&gt;
**The Duke of Argyll (1885).  [https://books.google.com/books?id=CskhAQAAIAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=%22good+words%22&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=fs24VKGOMpDnsATg_4HYDQ&amp;amp;ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=%22it%20seems%20to%20go%20away%22&amp;amp;f=false &amp;quot;What is science?&amp;quot;]  ''Good Words'' [United Kingdom], vol. 26, p. 244. GoogleBooks archive&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and evil/suffering ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and the Problem of Evil|Atheism and the problem of evil]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and suffering]]&lt;br /&gt;
=== Arrogance of atheism/atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Atheism and narcissism]] and [[Atheism and deception]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the common and well-founded charges against atheists is their arrogance and presumptuousness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;].  ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7.  Internet Christian Library &lt;br /&gt;
*Copan, Paul (April 6, 2009).  [http://www.equip.org/articles/the-presumptuousness-of-atheism/ &amp;quot;The presumptuousness of atheism&amp;quot;].  Christian Research Institute. &lt;br /&gt;
*Cupp, S. E. (December 29, 2010).  [http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/arrogance-atheists-batter-believers-religion-smug-certainty-article-1.469613 &amp;quot;The arrogance of the atheists: They batter believers in religion with smug certainty&amp;quot;].  ''New York Daily News''.   See atheist commentator [[S.E. Cupp]]&lt;br /&gt;
*O'Neill, Brendan (August 14, 2013).  [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100230985/how-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet/ &amp;quot;How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet&amp;quot;].  The Telegraph website/Brendan O'Neill [blog].  [atheist author]   &lt;br /&gt;
*Delzell, Dan (October 17, 2011).  [http://www.christianpost.com/news/how-anger-fuels-atheistic-arrogance-58281/ &amp;quot;How anger fuels atheistic arrogance&amp;quot;].  Christian Post website. &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_arrogance.htm &amp;quot;Militant atheist arrogance and pride&amp;quot;] (2007).  Militant Atheism Exposed.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Why atheism is an arrogant ideology  ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments|Arguments against atheism]] and [[Atheism and arrogance]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Old Nietzsche, 1899.JPG|thumbnail|220px|right|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]] wrote: &amp;quot;But now God is dead. You superior men, this God was your greatest danger. Only since he is in the grave, have you risen again. Only now comes the great noontide; only now the superior man will be – Lord!&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_arrogance.htm Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, In Michael Curtis (Ed.) The Great Political Theories, Vol. 2 (New York: Avon Books, 1962, PP. 261-262). Cited in, Christopher, J.R., G.G, Wittet, Modern Western Civilization. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1991, Pages 232, 233]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The picture of Nietzsche above was taken in 1899. Nietzsche died in 1900. See: [[Atheism and arrogance]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|lack proof and evidence]] that God does not exist and ignore the [[Christian apologetics websites|clear and abundant proof and evidence]] that He does exist.  The philosopher [[Mortimer Adler]] pointed out that atheism asserts an unreasonable [[universal negative]] that is self-defeating.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;defensive&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;].  ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7. Internet Christian Library&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contrary to the mistaken notion of individuals who are inexperienced in [[logic]]/philosophy, there are plenty of cases where universal negatives [[Universal negative|can be proven]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/must-the-atheist-be-omniscient/ Must the Atheist Be Omniscient?] by Dr. William Lane Craig&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, atheists' universal negative claim that God does not exist is not a reasonable universal negative claim.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;defensive&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists have also given themselves pretentious monikers such as [[freethinker]], rationalist and &amp;quot;bright&amp;quot;. See also: [[Brights Movement]] and [[Atheism and intelligence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, historically militant atheists have commonly endeavored to limit the religious freedom of others while imposing their errant, atheistic ideology on others. See also: [[Atheism and intolerance]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheists and lack of open-mindedness ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research indicates that atheists are less open-minded (see: [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and open-mindedness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and dogmatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[New Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and religion ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism is a religion ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheist cults]] and [[Atheist hypocrisy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sanderson Jones.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The [[British atheism|British atheist]] Sanderson Jones is a founder of the [[Sunday Assembly]] &amp;quot;atheist church&amp;quot; movement.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/atheist-church-split_n_4550456.html Atheist Church Split: Sunday Assembly And Godless Revival's 'Denominational Chasm'], Huffington Post, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism is a religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Atheism is a religion]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Atheismisareligion&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Is Atheism a religion?] by Daniel Smartt, Published: 4 May 2010(GMT+10)&lt;br /&gt;
*Hodge, Bodie; Patterson, Roger (2016). ''[https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/prod/etc/sample/10-2-476_sample.pdf ''World Religions and Cults Vol. 3'']. Master Books. 29–44. ISBN: 978-0-89051-970-7.&lt;br /&gt;
*Hodge, Bodie; Ham, Ken (February 20, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-is-religion/ Atheism Is Religion]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 27, 2018.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  And many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and [[New Atheism|new atheist]]/agnostic Richard Dawkins, argue for agnosticism/atheism with a religious fervor. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In addition, although many atheists deny that atheism is a worldview, atheists commonly share a [[Atheism and beliefs|number of beliefs]] such as [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], belief in evolution and [[Origin of life|abiogenesis]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Slick, Matt (October 2011).  [http://carm.org/atheism-worldview &amp;quot;Is atheism a worldview?&amp;quot;]  Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website.  See [[CARM]]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hearn, Brian F. (December 31, 2009).  [http://www.apologetics.net/post/Atheism-a-worldview.aspx &amp;quot;Atheism a worldview?&amp;quot;]  Apologetics.net.&lt;br /&gt;
*Hearn, Brian F. (May 2, 2012).  [http://www.apologetics.net/post/Atheism-is-a-worldview-%28II%29.aspx &amp;quot;Atheism is a worldview II&amp;quot;].  Apologetics.net. &lt;br /&gt;
*Bannister, Andy (October 14, 2013).  [http://www.rzim.eu/the-scandanavian-sceptic-or-why-atheism-is-a-belief-system &amp;quot;The Scandanavian sceptic (or why atheism is a belief system)&amp;quot;].  Ravi Zacharias International Ministries website.  See [[Ravi Zacharias]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roderick Ninian Smart, a Scottish writer and professor, defined a seven-part scheme of understanding both religious and secular worldviews&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Smart, Ninian (1996).  [https://books.google.com/books?id=14j2UrLCi64C&amp;amp;pg=PA130&amp;amp;lpg=PA130&amp;amp;dq=ninian+smart+narrative&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=Hq3WwG_mVT&amp;amp;sig=j-8FpwSdqohURYodSdcl46erSJY&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=FgybT6zxIc-_gAe864X6Dg&amp;amp;ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=ninian%20smart%20narrative&amp;amp;f=false ''Dimensions of the Sacred'' [preview&amp;amp;#93;] (Oakland, CA: University of California Press).  Preview: GoogleBooks&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  These can be understood as narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
English Pastor Daniel Smartt defines atheism as a religion, using Ninian Smart's seven dimensions of worldview as a list of criteria. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Smartt, Daniel (November 6, 2008).  [https://archive.is/L3cY5 &amp;quot;Atheism religion naturalism morally relative&amp;quot;].  Archive of SpiritualLiving360°.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Atheismisareligion&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;*Ammi, Ken (June 11, 2009).  [https://creation.com/atheism &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;].  Creation Ministries International.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2013, a trend of atheist services began and atheist services were reported in the ''[[New York Times]]'', ''[[The Blaze]]'' and other major news outlets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Thier, Dave (June 23, 2013).  [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/us/in-the-bible-belt-offering-atheists-a-spiritual-home.html?_r=0 &amp;quot;In the Bible belt offering atheists a spiritual home&amp;quot;].  Nytimes.com&lt;br /&gt;
*Hallowell, Billy (April 17, 2013).  [https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/17/atheist-sunday-morning-worship-services-are-on-the-rise/ &amp;quot;Bizarre trend: atheist Sunday morning ‘worship’ services are on the rise (minus God, of course)&amp;quot;]  TheBlaze.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Ortberg, Mallory (January 5, 2013).  [http://gawker.com/5973377/londons-first-atheist-church-opens-tomorrow &amp;quot;London's first atheist church opens tomorrow&amp;quot;.]  Gawker.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism is a religion]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist cults]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist cults ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheist cults]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:2384975035 230a0eac30.jpg|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: &amp;quot;A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows ...that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;online.wsj.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and spirituality ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and spirituality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Irreligion and superstition ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In September 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass [[superstition]]. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith—it's what the empirical data tell us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What Americans Really Believe,&amp;quot; a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;paranormal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Hemingway, Molly Ziegler (September 19, 2008). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html &amp;quot;Look who's irrational now&amp;quot;].  The Wall Street Journal website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Loc of United States.png|thumbnail|175px|right|According to Pew Forum, [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Protestant]] churches in America grew by 2 million from 2007 to 2014.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.wnd.com/2015/05/why-conservative-churches-are-still-growing/ Why conservative churches are still growing]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism vs. Christianity]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the occult ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and the occult]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism vs. Abrahamic religions and religion ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism vs. Christianity]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism vs. religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism vs. Judaism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism vs. theism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism vs. Islam ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article: [[Atheism vs. Islam]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and miracles ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article: [[Atheism and Miracles]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In relation to [[Atheism and Miracles|atheism and miracles]], modern scholars are divided on the issue of whether or not [[David Hume]] was an atheist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Russell, Paul (February 11, 2013). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#10 &amp;quot;Hume on religion&amp;quot;]. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; With that caveat in mind, Hume is well known for arguing that it is always more probable that the testimony of a miracle is false than that the miracle occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Lennox, John (2009).  [http://www.bethinking.org/are-miracles-possible/the-question-of-miracles-the-contemporary-influence-of-hume &amp;quot;The question of miracles: the contemporary influence of Hume&amp;quot;].  BeThinking. &lt;br /&gt;
*Craig, Dr. William Lane (1986).  [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html &amp;quot;The problem of miracles: a historical and philosophical perspective&amp;quot;].  ''Gospel Perspectives'', vol 6, ed. by David Wenham and Craig Blomberg (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press), pp. 9-40.  LeadershipU&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Christian apologists [[William Lane Craig]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[C.S. Lewis]], [[JP Holding]], and others have shown the inadequacy and unreasonableness of Hume's position regarding miracles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Lennox, John (2009).  [http://www.bethinking.org/are-miracles-possible/the-question-of-miracles-the-contemporary-influence-of-hume &amp;quot;The question of miracles: the contemporary influence of Hume&amp;quot;].  BeThinking.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Craig, Dr. William Lane (1986).  [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html &amp;quot;The problem of miracles: a historical and philosophical perspective&amp;quot;].  ''Gospel Perspectives'', vol 6, ed. by David Wenham and Craig Blomberg (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press), pp. 9-40.  LeadershipU &lt;br /&gt;
*Hoffman, Paul K. (Spring 1999).  [http://www.galaxie.com/article/caj02-1-03?highlight=hoffmanA &amp;quot;A jurisprudential analysis of Hume’s ‘in principal’ argument against miracles&amp;quot; [excerpt&amp;amp;#93;].  ''Christian Apologetics Journal'', 2:1, p. 2.   Galaxie Software.  Subscription required for full article.&lt;br /&gt;
*Geisler, Professor Norman (1985).  [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth19.html &amp;quot;Miracles and modern scientific thought&amp;quot;].  ''Truth Journal'', vol. 1.  LeadershipU&lt;br /&gt;
*Lewis, C. S. (1960).  [https://books.google.com/books/about/Miracles.html?id=tH8di3qQDhEC ''Miracles''] (New York:  HarperCollins).  Abstract: Google Books&lt;br /&gt;
*Holding, J. P. [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hume01.html &amp;quot;David Hume: a critique&amp;quot;].  Tekton Apologetics. &lt;br /&gt;
*Esposito, Lenny (2002).  [http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi060.asp &amp;quot;Are miracles logically impossible?&amp;quot;]  Come Reason Ministries.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ''Christian Post'' reporter Stoyan Zaimov wrote: &amp;quot;Double-blind prayer experiments: where people pray for others with terminal illness. [[Gary Habermas|Habermas]] admitted that most such experiments have not worked, but the three that he knows of that have indeed worked were cases of orthodox-Christians praying for the sick.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-apologist-10-reasons-for-the-fall-of-atheism-106531/ Christian Apologist: 10 Reasons for the Fall of Atheism] by Stoyan Zaimov,'' Christian Post'', October 14, 2013&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheists who believe in life after death ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and the supernatural]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A survey involving 15,738 individuals found that 32 percent of Americans who identified themselves as agnostics and atheists believe in an afterlife of some kind.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/one-third-of-atheists-agnostics-believe-in-an-afterlife Survey: 32% of Atheists &amp;amp; Agnostics Believe in an Afterlife], Skepticsguide.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://relationshipsinamerica.com/religion/do-people-still-believe-in-life-after-death Do people still believe in life after death?], Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture Study&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and death ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Atheism and death.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|According to a study performed in the United States by researchers Wink and Scott, very religious people fear death the least.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20140330091500/http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050628_deathfearfrm.htm &amp;quot;Fear of death: Worst if you’re a little religious?&amp;quot;] (July 13, 2005).  World Science.&lt;br /&gt;
*Wink, P. L. and Scott, J. A. (July 2005).  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15980288 &amp;quot;Does religiousness buffer against the fear of death and dying in late adulthood? Findings from a longitudinal study&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;].  ''The Journals of Gerontology, series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences'', vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 207-14. PubMed.gov&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and death]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and death]] and [[Atheist funerals]] and [[Atheism and Hell]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Science Daily'' reported that ''Death anxiety increases atheists' unconscious belief in God''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Otago&amp;quot;&amp;gt;University of Otago [New Zealand] (April 2, 2012).  [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402094322.htm &amp;quot;Death anxiety increases atheists' unconscious belief in God&amp;quot;].  ScienceDaily.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In a ''Psychology Today'' article, Dr. Nathan A. Heflick reported similar results in other studies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Heflick&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Heflick, Nathan A. (May 25, 2012).  [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201205/atheists-death-and-belief-in-god &amp;quot;Atheists, death and belief in God: The effects of death reminders on atheists' supernatural beliefs&amp;quot;].  Psychology Today website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Under stress, the brain's processing works in a way that prefers unconscious thinking.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Ruhr University Bochum (August 9, 2012). [http://aktuell.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/pm2012/pm00263.html.en &amp;quot;Learn to forecast the weather after stress&amp;quot;].  aktuell.ruhr-uni-bochum.de.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Gregoire, Carolyn (July 31, 2013).  [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/learn-under-stress-brain_n_3678222.html &amp;quot;How the brain learns successfully, even under stress&amp;quot;].  The Huffington Post.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A United States study and a [[Taiwan]]ese study indicated that the irreligious fear death more than the very religious.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20140330091500/http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050628_deathfearfrm.htm &amp;quot;Fear of death: Worst if you’re a little religious?&amp;quot;] (July 13, 2005).  World Science.&lt;br /&gt;
*Wink, Paul. and Scott, Julia. (July 2005).  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15980288 &amp;quot;Does religiousness buffer against the fear of death and dying in late adulthood? Findings from a longitudinal study&amp;quot;].  ''The Journals of Gerontology. Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences'', vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 207-14. PubMed.gov.&lt;br /&gt;
*Wen, Ya-hui. (December 2010). [http://www.hraljournal.com/Page/4%20Ya-Hui%20Wen.pdf &amp;quot;Religiosity and death anxiety&amp;quot;]. ''The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning'', vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 31-37. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheists and belief in life after death ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and life after death]] and [[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A significant percentage of atheists believe in life after death (see: [[Atheism and life after death]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/one-third-of-atheists-agnostics-believe-in-an-afterlife Survey: 32% of Atheists &amp;amp; Agnostics Believe in an Afterlife]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For additional information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and cryonics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and transhumanism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheism and Hell ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:''  [[Atheism and Hell]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The journalist and [[ex-atheists|ex-atheist]] [[Peter Hitchens]], who is the brother of the late atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]], said upon seeing an art exhibit of [[Michelangelo]]'s painting ''The Last Judgment'' he came to the realization that he might be judged which startled him.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PH&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://vimeo.com/10354237 &amp;quot;Peter Hitchens author interview—The rage against God&amp;quot;] [interview of Peter Hitchens] (March 22, 2010).  Vimeo video, 8:38, posted by Gorilla Poet Productions.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This started a train of thought within Peter Hitchens that eventually led him to become a [[Christian]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PH&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and science ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Newton.jpg|alt=atheism quotes|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Isaac Newton]] wrote: &amp;quot;I have a fundamental belief in the [[Bible]] as the Word of [[God]], written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.&amp;quot; See also: [[Atheism Quotes|Atheism quotes]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the suppression of science ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and the suppression of science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the social sciences ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and the social sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the foundation of modern science ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Christianity and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The birth of modern [[science]] occurred in Christianized Europe.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bumbulis, Michael, Ph. D. (November 24, 1996). [http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749 &amp;quot;Christianity and the birth of science; The evidence; Clue #1. The founders/fathers of modern science were shaped by a culture that was predominantly Christian.&amp;quot;]  Lambert Dolphin's Library.  Archived at Internet Archive on July 20, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sociology|Sociologist]] [[Rodney Stark]] investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the [[Scientific Revolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Williams, Alex (August 2004).  [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ &amp;quot;The biblical origins of science; a review of ''For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery'' by Rodney Stark&amp;quot;], ''Journal of Creation'', vol. 18:2, pp. 49–52.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; only one ([[Edmund Halley]]) was a skeptic and another ([[Paracelsus]]) was a [[pantheism|pantheist]].&lt;br /&gt;
The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origins&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sir [[Francis Bacon]], sometimes referred to as &amp;quot;the Father of Modern Science&amp;quot;, wrote in his essay entitled ''Of Atheism'': &amp;quot;I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bacon&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bacon, Francis (1601).  [http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html ''The Essays or Counsels, Civil and Moral, of Francis Ld. Verulam Viscount St. Albans''; &amp;quot;Of atheism&amp;quot;].  Authorama.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and environmental science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and the environment|Atheism and environmental science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Atheism and questions of origins===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See articles: [[Atheism and Evolution]]'' and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by [[God]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Hergenrather, John (2004).  [http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php &amp;quot;Evidences for God from space:  can laws of science explain the origin of the universe?&amp;quot;]  Creation Encounter. &lt;br /&gt;
*Thompson, Bert (2003).  [http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&amp;amp;article=310 &amp;quot;So long, eternal universe; 'Hello beginning, hello end!'&amp;quot;]  Apologetics Press.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Brown, Dr. Walt (2008).  [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html &amp;quot;Chapter 2: astronomical and physical sciences&amp;quot;, p. 53.]  ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 8th ed. The Center for Scientific Creation.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] since [[World War II]] have had the worldview of atheism/agnosticism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [https://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Creation science|Creation scientists]] assert that the theory of evolution is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Henry M., PhD. (January 2001). [https://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/ &amp;quot;The scientific case against evolution&amp;quot;].  Institute for Creation Research.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The theory of evolution [[Social effects of the theory of evolution|has had a number of negative social effects]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, the current naturalistic explanations for the [[origin of life]] are inadequate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and scientific community ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Scientists and belief in the existence of God]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and the origin of the universe|Atheist scientists and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and the National Academy of Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and scientific fraud and speculation ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception|Atheism and scientific fraud and speculation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and food science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and food science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and culinary science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and culinary science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== RationalWiki's flouting of nutritional science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rational Media Board of Director and RationalWiki Moderater User: Spud and ultra-processed/unhealthy/junk food]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Atheism and mental and physical health==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also:'' [[Atheism and health]] and [[Atheism and life expectancy]] and [[Atheism and alcoholism]] and [[Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The is considerable amount of [[science|scientific]] evidence that suggest that theism is more conducive to mental and physical health than atheism and some of the more significant findings are given below &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3671693/ Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications] by Harold G. Koenig, ISRN Psychiatry. 2012; 2012: 278730.&lt;br /&gt;
*Mueller, Dr. Paul S. et al. (December 2001). [http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2811%2962799-7/fulltext &amp;quot;Religious involvement, spirituality, and medicine: implications for clinical practice&amp;quot;]. ''Mayo Clinic Proceedings'' vol. 76:12, pp. 1225-1235.  Mayo Clinic Proceedings website&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/research/research-library &amp;quot;Research library&amp;quot;].  Duke University Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health. &lt;br /&gt;
*McCullough, Michael E. et al. (2000).  [http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/rel_mort_meta.pdf &amp;quot;Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analytic review&amp;quot;].  ''Health Psychology''. vol. 19:3. pp. 211-222.  University of Miami, College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology website&lt;br /&gt;
*Casey, Professor Patricia (April 3, 2009).  [http://www.ionainstitute.ie/the-benefits-of-religious-practise/  &amp;quot;The psycho-social benefits of religious practise&amp;quot; [executive summary&amp;amp;#93;].  Iona Institute for Religion and Society [Ireland] website.  &lt;br /&gt;
*McCullough, Michael E. and Willoughby, Brian L. B. (2009).  [http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf &amp;quot;Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: associations, explanations, and implications&amp;quot;]. ''Psychological Bulletin'', vol. 135: 1, pp. 69–93.  University of Miami, College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology website&lt;br /&gt;
*University of Colorado at Boulder (May 17, 1999).  [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990517064323.htm &amp;quot;Research shows religion plays a major role in health, longevity&amp;quot;].  ScienceDaily.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Dervic, Kanita, et al. (December 2004).  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15569904 &amp;quot;Religious affiliation and suicide attempt&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;]. ''The American Journal of Psychiatry'', vol. 161:12, pp. 2303-8.  Abstract: National Institutes of Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, Pub Med &lt;br /&gt;
*University of Warwick (December 2003).  [http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2003/A/20037338.html &amp;quot;Psychology researcher [Dr. Stephen Joseph&amp;amp;#93; says spiritual meaning of Christmas brings more happiness than materialism&amp;quot;].  Scienceblog.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For more information please see: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Atheism and life expectancy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Mayo Clinic and other studies ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Mayo-clinic-gondaoverview.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The prestigious [[Mayo Clinic]] found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better physical health and mental health outcomes.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Mueller&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mueller, Dr. Paul S. et al. (December 2001). [https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)62799-7/abstract &amp;quot;Religious involvement, spirituality, and medicine: implications for clinical practice&amp;quot;]. ''Mayo Clinic Proceedings'' vol. 76:12, pp. 1225-1235. Mayo Clinic Proceedings website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and health]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The prestigious [[Mayo Clinic]] reported the following on December 11, 2001:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In an article also published in this issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Mayo Clinic researchers reviewed published studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and subject reviews that examined the association between religious involvement and spirituality and physical health, mental health, health-related quality of life and other health outcomes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The authors report a majority of the nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Mueller&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Iona Institute]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Casey, Professor Patricia (April 3, 2009).  [http://www.ionainstitute.ie/the-benefits-of-religious-practise/  &amp;quot;The psycho-social benefits of religious practise&amp;quot; [executive summary&amp;amp;#93;].  Iona Institute for Religion and Society [Ireland] website.&lt;br /&gt;
*McCullough, Michael E. et al. (2000).  [http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/rel_mort_meta.pdf &amp;quot;Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analytic review&amp;quot;].  ''Health Psychology''. vol. 19:3. pp. 211-222.  University of Miami, College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists and negative emotions/thoughts ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and emotional problems]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence]] and  [[Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Emotional intelligence]] &amp;quot;refers to the ability to perceive, control and evaluate emotions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/a/emotionalintell.htm Emotional intelligence]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Research indicates that religiosity is positively associated with ability in emotional intelligence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-016-0335-3 Divine Emotions: On the Link Between Emotional Intelligence and Religious Belief], ''Journal of Religion and Health'', December 2017, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp 1998–2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733549/ THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE WITH RELIGIOUS COPING AND GENERAL HEALTH OF STUDENTS] by Masoumeh Bagheri Nesami, Amir Hossein Goudarzian, Houman Zarei, Pedram Esameili, Milad Dehghan Pour, and Hesam Mirani, ''Materia Sociomedica''. 2015 Dec; 27(6): 412–416. doi: 10.5455/msm.2015.27.412-416&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222857921_Religiosity_and_perceived_emotional_intelligence_among_Christians Religiosity and perceived emotional intelligence among Christians], Personality and Individual Differences 41(3):479-490 · August 2006, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and emotional problems]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence]] and [[Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Atheism and suicide===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also:''  [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Hopelessness of atheism]] and [[Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although there are recent studies relating to [[Atheism and suicide|atheism being a causal factor for suicide for some individuals]], an early proponent of atheism being a causal factor for [[suicide]] was the Reverend Dr. [[Robert Stuart MacArthur]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Dervic, Kanita, et al. (December 2004).  [http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html &amp;quot;Religious affiliation and suicide attempt&amp;quot; [summary&amp;amp;#93;]. ''The American Journal of Psychiatry'', vol. 161:12, pp. 2303-8.  Summary: Adherents.com. Website contains link to article at American Journal of Psychiatry website.&lt;br /&gt;
*Dervic, Kanita, et al. (December 2004).  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15569904 &amp;quot;Religious affiliation and suicide attempt&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;]. ''The American Journal of Psychiatry'', vol. 161:12, pp. 2303-8.  Abstract: National Institutes of Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, Pub Med &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF &amp;quot;Atheism a cause of suicide; Dr. MacArthur preaches on the sin and cowardice of self-destruction&amp;quot;] (September 17, 1894).  ''New York Times'', p. 2.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1894, the [[NY Times|''New York Times'']] stated the following in relation to atheism and suicide:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Dr. Martin urged that a great cause of suicide was atheism. It was, he said, a remarkable fact that where atheism prevailed most, there suicides were most numerous. In [[Paris]], a recent census showed one suicide to every 2,700 of the population. After the publication of Paine's &amp;quot;Age of Reason&amp;quot; suicides increased.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF &amp;quot;Atheism a cause of suicide; Dr. MacArthur preaches on the sin and cowardice of self-destruction&amp;quot;] (September 17, 1894).  ''New York Times'', p. 2.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|left|200px|Atheists have higher suicide rates. See: [[Atheism and suicide]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The website Adherents.com reported the following in respect to atheism and suicide:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman compiled country-by-country survey, polling and census numbers relating to atheism, agnosticism, disbelief in God and people who state they are non-religious or have no religious preference...In examining various indicators of societal health, Zuckerman concludes about suicide:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning [[atheism and depression]], a University of Michigan study involving 19,775 individuals found that religious people are less likely than atheists to suffer [[depression]] when they are lonely.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6136603/Lonely-religious-people-depressed-God-friend.html Lonely religious people are less depressed than atheists because they see God as a friend replacement, study finds], ''Daily Mail'', 2018&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and suicide]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and loneliness]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Hopelessness of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and mental illness ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Angry atheist.jpg|thumbnail|right|240px|An angry atheist speaking to a woman with a Bible in her hand. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Christian philosopher James S. Spiegel says the path from Christianity to atheism among several of his friends involved moral slippage such as resentment or unforgiveness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-philosopher-explores-causes-of-atheism-44353/ Christian Philosopher Explores Causes of Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and anger]] and [[Atheism and forgiveness|Atheism and unforgiveness]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and mental illness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The abstract for the journal article ''Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members'' published in the ''Journal of Religion and Health'' indicates: &amp;quot;On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26743877 ''Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members''] by Hayward RD, Krause N, Ironson G, Hill PC, Emmons R., ''Journal of Religion and Health'', 2016 Jun;55(3):1024-1037. doi: 10.1007/s10943-015-0179-2.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Global News'' reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|Children who are raised with [[religion|religious]] or [[spirituality|spiritual]] beliefs tend to have better mental health into their adulthood, a new study from the [[Harvard]] T.H. Chan School of Public Health found.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the study’s findings, people who attended weekly religious services or [[Prayer|prayed]] or [[Meditation|meditated]] daily in their childhood reported greater life satisfaction in their 20s. People who grew up in a religious household also reported fewer symptoms of depression and lower rates of [[Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder|post-traumatic stress disorder]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://globalnews.ca/news/4468745/religion-children-mental-health/ Religion can help improve children’s mental health, new study finds], ''Global News'', 2018&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and emotional problems]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and anger]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and anxiety]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and death anxiety]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Irreligion and recovery from illnesses ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Irreligion and recovery from illnesses]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Europe pol 2004.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|According to the [[World Health Organization]]'s (WHO) regional office in Europe, &amp;quot;The WHO European Region has the highest proportion in the world of total ill health and premature death due to alcohol.&amp;lt;ref name=whoalc&amp;gt;[http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/alcohol-use/data-and-statistics &amp;quot;Data and statistics&amp;quot;] (September 2014 or bef.).  Health topics/Disease prevention/Alcohol use.  World Health Organization (WHO)/Regional office for Europe&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and alcoholism ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and alcoholism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At least 100 studies suggests religion has a positive effect on preventing alcohol-related problems, researchers Christopher Ellison, Jennifer Barrett and Benjamin Moulton noted in an article in the ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion'' on “Gender, Marital Status, and Alcohol Behavior: The Neglected Role of Religion.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/charlie-sheen-circus-and-_b_836934.html The Doubled-Edged Sword of Religion and Alcoholism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists and atheistic cultures often have significant problems with excess alcohol usage (For more information please see: [[Atheism and alcoholism]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, as far as secular Europe, according to the [[World Health Organization]]'s (WHO) regional office in Europe, &amp;quot;The WHO European Region has the highest proportion in the world of total ill health and premature death due to alcohol.&amp;lt;ref name=whoalc/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and illegal drug use and drug addition ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and drug addiction]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies indicate that religious individuals are less likely to engage in illegal drug use than atheists/nonreligious.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/news/believers-consume-fewer-drugs-than-atheists-106266/ Believers Consume Fewer Drugs Than Atheists], ''Christian Post'', By Jim Denison, Christian Post Columnist, October 9, 2013|9:47 am&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131003093041.htm Believers consume fewer drugs than atheists], Science Daily, Date:October 3, 2013, Source: Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Foerderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*McCullough, Michael E. and Willoughby, Brian L. B. (January 2009).  [http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf &amp;quot;Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: associations, explanations, and implications&amp;quot;] ''Psychological Bulletin'', vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 69-93.  Retrieved from University of Miami department of psychology website on September 10, 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
*Alternate source of abstract: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054 &amp;quot;Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: associations, explanations, and implications&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;].   Retrieved from PubMed.gov on September 10, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to ''Science Daily'': &amp;quot;Young [[Switzerland|Swiss]] men who say that they believe in [[God]] are less likely to smoke cigarettes or pot or take ecstasy pills than Swiss men of the same age group who describe themselves as atheists. Belief is a protective factor against addictive behaviour. This is the conclusion reached by a study funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Foerderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung [Swiss National Science Foundation] (October 3, 2013).  [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131003093041.htm &amp;quot;Believers consume fewer drugs than atheists&amp;quot;].  Science Daily website/Science News.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and loneliness ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and loneliness]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Depressed man.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Secular societies commonly have significant levels of loneliness. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and loneliness]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Loneliness has been linked to many physical and mental health problems.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Gammon, Katherine (March 2, 2012).  [http://www.livescience.com/18800-loneliness-health-problems.html &amp;quot;Why loneliness can be deadly&amp;quot;].  Live Science website.&lt;br /&gt;
*Booth, Robert (October 12, 2014).  &amp;quot;Number of severely lonely men over 50 set to rise to 1m in 15 years&amp;quot;, ''The Guardian''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compared to deeply religious cultures where an extended family and a sense of community often exists, secular countries [[Secular countries and loneliness|are often lonelier societies]]. In addition, numerous studies and other data indicate that atheists often have lower [[emotional intelligence]] and lower social skills (see: [[Atheism and emotional/intrapersonal intelligence|Atheism and emotional intelligence]] and [[Atheism and interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social skills]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and loneliness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and obesity ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and obesity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and cancer ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and cancer]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist and higher levels of harmful genetic mutations ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheists and genetic mutations]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is research which suggests that the atheist population has higher levels of harmful genetic [[mutations]] (see: [[Atheists and genetic mutations]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsweek.com/religion-healthy-atheism-mutant-genes-756984 RELIGIOUS PEOPLE LIVE HEALTHIER, LONGER LIVES—WHILE ATHEISTS COLLECT MUTANT GENES], Newsweek, 2017&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[Atheists are more likely to be left handed, study finds], ''The Telegraph'', 2017&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism]] and [[Irreligion and unsportsmanlike conduct]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Basketball.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|Numerous studies report that athletes to be more religious than non-athletes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/strength-religious-faith-athletes-and-nonathletes-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
''The [[Sport]]s Journal'' is a monthly refereed journal published by the United States Sports Academy. &lt;br /&gt;
A journal article appeared in the Sports Journal entitled ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions''. The article was submitted by Nathan T. Bell, Scott R. Johnson, and Jeffrey C. Petersen from Ball State University.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thesportjournal.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://thesportjournal.org/article/strength-of-religious-faith-of-athletes-and-nonathletes-at-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions/ ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
An excerpt from the abstract of the journal article ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'' declares:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Numerous studies report athletes to be more religious than nonathletes (Fischer, 1997; Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, &amp;amp; Storch, 2001; Storch et al., 2004). According to Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, and Storch (2001), four reasons may explain why religion interacts with athletic performance.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thesportjournal.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://thesportjournal.org/article/strength-of-religious-faith-of-athletes-and-nonathletes-at-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions/ ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{See also|Atheism and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and mental toughness ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and mental toughness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists, aging populations and cancer/Alzheimer's disease ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and cancer]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and Alzheimer's disease]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and veganism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and veganism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism in medicine ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism in medicine]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and intelligence ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Cerebellum.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Brain researchers have conducted a number of studies focusing on the differences between atheists and the religious. See: [[Atheism and the brain]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and intelligence]] and [[Atheism and the theory of multiple intelligences|Atheism and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences]] and [[Causes of atheism]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within various countries, standardized [[intelligence testing|intelligence test]] (IQ) scores related to the issue of atheists/agnostics vs. theists intelligence scores yield conflicting results.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.doxa.ws/other/smarter.html &amp;quot;Who is smarter; are atheists smarter than Christians?  An examination of studies&amp;quot;] (2007).  Doxa: Christian Thought in the 21st Century.  Retrieved on October 29, 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.randalolson.com/2014/08/24/the-myth-of-the-smarter-atheist/ The myth of the smarter Atheist] by Randy Olson, Posted on August 24, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Part of the problem is that social scientists use variant definitions of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Briggs, Dr. William M. (2013).  [http://www.strangenotions.com/atheists-higher-iqs/ &amp;quot;Do atheists really have higher IQs than believers?&amp;quot;]  Strange Notions.  Retrieved on October 29, 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
*Wright, Bradley (January 26, 2012).  [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/01/how-many-americans-are-atheists-fewer-than-you-might-think/ &amp;quot;How many Americans are atheists? Fewer than you might think&amp;quot;].  Black, White and Gray.  Retrieved on October 29, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism, intelligence and the General Social Survey]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, within individuals, families and societies irreligion/religion can have an effect on intelligence - especially over time (See: [[Atheism and intelligence]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Intelligence trends in religious countries and secular countries]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and the theory of multiple intelligences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism, intelligence and open-mindedness ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and open-mindedness]] and [[Atheism and dogmatism]] and [[Atheism and intolerance]] and [[Atheism and groupthink]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly intelligent people tend to be open-minded and have intellectual curiosity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/eleven-common-traits-of-highly-intelligent-people-a7480246.html Eleven common traits of highly intelligent people] by Shana Lebowicz, The Independent, Friday 16 December 2016 18:24&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research indicates that atheists are less open-minded (see: [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Study on emotional intelligence and religiosity ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and emotional/intrapersonal intelligence|Atheism and emotional intelligence]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2004 study by Ellen Paek examined the extent to which religious orientation/behavior and found significant positive correlations were found between level of religious commitment and an individual's perceived [[emotional intelligence]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Journal of Organizational Behavior'', Paek, Ellen (2006). &amp;quot;[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906000961 Religiosity and perceived emotional intelligence among Christians&amp;quot;. Personality and Individual Differences] (International Society for the Study of Individual Differences) 41 (3): 479–490&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and emotional/intrapersonal intelligence|Atheism and emotional intelligence]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the prominent brain researcher Antonio Damasio and other brain researchers, emotions play a critical role in high-level cognition and allow individuals to make better decisions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://intentionalworkplace.com/2012/03/15/how-emotion-shapes-decision-making/ How emotion affects decision making], The Intentional Workplace&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://people.hss.caltech.edu/~steve/bechara.pdf The role of emotion in decision-making: Evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage], Antoine Becharam, Department of Neurology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wup_K2WN0I When Emotions Make Better Decisions - Antonio Damasio] - short video&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://news.usc.edu/29569/Antonio-and-Hanna-Damasio-Receive-Honorary-Degrees/ News item about Professor Antonio Damasio], University of Southern California&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Brain studies of atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and the brain]] and [[Religiosity and larger frontal lobes]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brain researchers have conducted a number of studies focusing on the differences between atheists and the religious (see: [[Atheism and the brain]] and [[Religiosity and larger frontal lobes]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheists and dopamine levels in the brain ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and motivation]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to ''Scientific American'': &amp;quot;Research also suggests that a religious brain exhibits higher levels of [[dopamine]], a hormone associated with increased attention and motivation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/askthebrains/ Ask the Brains, Scientific American, Dec 23, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and motivation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the problem of consciousness ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and consciousness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and women  ==&lt;br /&gt;
''see also:'' [[Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Prominent atheists whose wives believe in the existence of God]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:women.jpg|thumbnail|right|205px|Studies indicate that women tend to be more religious than men (See: [[Atheism and women]]). ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recent studies ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist Alliance International analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2016, Atheist Alliance International (AAI) conducted an annually recurring atheist census project and found: &amp;quot;At the time of writing, the Atheist Census Project recorded that on average worldwide 73.2% of respondents were male. The result is consistent with other research... As such, the focus of many scholarly papers has been on seeking to explain this persistent observation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.atheistalliance.org/about-aai/position-statements/1206-aai-position-statement-gender-balance.html AAI Position Statement - Gender Balance]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Surveys by country ====&lt;br /&gt;
In November 2010, ''Discover'' magazine published survey results published by the World Values Survey which showed significant differences between the percentage of men and women who are atheists for various countries with men outnumbering women within the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Khan, Razib (November 18, 2010).  [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/sex-differences-in-global-atheism-part-n/ &amp;quot;Gene expression; &amp;quot;Sex differences in global atheism, part N&amp;quot;].  Discover magazine website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== United States surveys ====&lt;br /&gt;
In 2015, ''BloombergView'' reported concerning the [[United States]]: &amp;quot;According to a much-discussed 2012 report from the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life, ...women are 52 percent of the U.S. population but only 36 percent of atheists and agnostics.&amp;lt;ref name=agap&amp;gt;Carter, Stephen L. (March 27, 2015).  [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/the-atheism-gap &amp;quot;The atheism gap&amp;quot;].  BloombergView website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2009 article in LiveScience.com entitled ''Women More Religious Than Men'' reported: &amp;quot;A new analysis of survey data finds women pray more often then men, are more likely to believe in God, and are more religious than men in a variety of other ways...The latest findings, released Friday, are no surprise, only confirming what other studies have found for decades.&amp;lt;ref name=Britt&amp;gt;Britt, Robert Roy (February 28, 2009). [http://www.livescience.com/7689-women-religious-men.html &amp;quot;Women more religious than men&amp;quot;].  Livescience.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2007, the Pew Research Center found that American women were more religious than American men.&amp;lt;ref name=Britt/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and sexism ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and sexism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most atheists are politically on the [[leftist|left]] (see: [[Atheism and politics]] and [[Secular left]]).  Part of leftist ideology is [[feminism]]. However, there is a significant amount of [[misogyny]] among atheists (see: [[Atheism and women]]).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and sexism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and rape]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sexual harassment at atheist conferences]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Elevatorgate]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Richard Dawkins and women]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships|Atheist leaders and immoral relationships]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and women's rights ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and women's rights]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist feminism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheist feminism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and Asian/white males ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and Asian males]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and white males]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist websites appear to receive significantly less traffic from women ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheist websites appear to receive significantly less traffic from women]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and marriage/relationships ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and marriage]] and [[Atheism and illegitimate births]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and rates of marriage in the United States ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and women]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Christian apologist Michael Caputo wrote: &amp;quot;Recently the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has published its mammoth study on Religion in America based on 35,000 interviews... According to the Pew Forum a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;marry&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Beale declared that according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) &amp;quot;more than half of all atheists and agnostics don’t get married.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;marry&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see:  [[Atheism and marriageability]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist marriages ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheist marriages]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and polyamory ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and divorce ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and divorce]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and interfaith marriages ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and interfaith marriages]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Prominent atheists whose wives believe in the existence of God]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and its inability to explain love ===&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and love]] and [[Atheism and forgiveness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]], moral and spiritual perspective, atheists have an inability to satisfactorily explain the existence of [[love]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;How do atheists define love&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.strangenotions.com/atheists-love/ How do atheists define love?] by Dr. Taylor Marshall&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;atheistforum.wordpress.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://atheistforum.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/what-is-love-how-materialist-atheism-fails-to-have-a-satisfactory-answer/ What is love? how materialist atheism fails to have a satisfactory answer], July 9, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]&lt;br /&gt;
From a  moral, [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] and spiritual perspective, atheists have an inability to satisfactorily explain the existence of [[love]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;How do atheists define love&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;atheistforum.wordpress.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and sexuality ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and sexuality]] and [[Atheism and romance]] and [[Atheism and fertility rates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research shows that religious women (especially [[evangelicalism|evangelical]]/low-church [[Protestantism|Protestant]] women) are more sexually satisfied than irreligious women.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States By Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, Stuart Michaels, page 115&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2008/11/25/the-christian-sexual-awakening.html Why Are Christians Having Better Sex Than the Rest of Us?] by Tucker Carlson, The Daily Beast, November 11, 25, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://blog.getrelationshiphelp.com/2009/07/christian-women-have-more-sexual-fun.html Christian Women Have More Sexual Fun], Relationship Center in Springfield Missouri&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A social science study also reports that Hispanic men are more sexually satisfied than other ethnic groups in the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States By Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, Stuart Michaels, page 114&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Hispanics are known for their religiosity (See also: [[Western atheism and race]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, the atheist and agnostic populations have sub-replacement levels of fertility (see: [[Atheism and sexuality]] and [[Atheism and romance]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===  Atheists and physical attractiveness ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheists and physical attractiveness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The English anthropologist Edward Dutton indicates that using [[right-wing]] politics as a proxy for religiosity, there is evidence that atheists are less attractive and he pointed out that right-wing politicians are more likely to have symmetrical faces according to a study.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201806/defending-atheist-mutational-load-theory-part-2 Defending Atheist Mutational Load Theory — Part 2] by &lt;br /&gt;
Scott A. McGreal MSc., Psychology Today, June 22, 2018&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and race ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism, race and gender]] and [[Atheism and racism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Asian atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Asian atheism]] and [[East Asia, China, atheism and racism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[East Asia]], in particular what are often termed “Confucian societies.” It is likely therefore that the majority of the world’s atheists are actually East Asian.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20150905135558/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/most-atheists-are-not-white/ Most atheists are not white &amp;amp; other non-fairy tales], Discover magazine&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noted above, the current [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] mostly resides in East [[Asia]] (particularly China) and in secular Europe/Australia among whites.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/23/a-surprising-map-of-where-the-worlds-atheists-live/ A surprising map of where the world’s atheists live], By Max Fisher and Caitlin Dewey, ''Washington Post'', May 23, 2013&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[China and atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noted above, China is experiencing an explosive growth of Christianity (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]] and [[East Asia and global desecularization]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Western atheism and race ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sikivu Hutchinson.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|Atheist Sikivu Hutchinson says that white atheists organizations generally focus on church/state separation and [[creationism]] issues and not on the concerns the less affluent African-American population faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;washingtonpost.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/16/blacks-are-even-discriminated-against-by-atheists/ Atheism has a big race problem that no one’s talking about] by Dr. Sikivu Hutchinson, Washington Post June 16, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hutchinson also mentioned that church organizations significantly help poor African-Americans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;washingtonpost.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Western atheism and race]] and [[Black atheism]] and [[Atheism and diversity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheism and race: United States and Europe ====&lt;br /&gt;
In 2015, ''BloombergView'' reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|According to a much-discussed 2012 report from the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life, only 3 percent of U.S. atheists and agnostics are black, 6 percent are Hispanic, and 4 percent are Asian. Some 82 percent are white. (The relevant figures for the population at large at the time of the survey were 66 percent white, 11 percent black, 15 percent Hispanic, 5 percent Asian.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...Craig Keener, in his huge review of claims of miracles in a wide variety of cultures, concludes that routine rejection of the possibility of the [[supernatural]] represents an impulse that is [[Secular Europe|deeply Eurocentric]].&amp;lt;ref name=agap/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the United States, blacks have the highest rate of religiosity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-blacks-most-religious-group-us Gallup: Blacks Most Religious Group in U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Among Hispanics, religion has traditionally played a significant role in daily activity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.diocesephoenix.org/old_site/fc/CatecheticalLeadership/ChurchDocs/UnderstandingtheHispanicCulture.pdf Understanding Hispanic culture]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Beliefnetnews reported concerning the race and gender of American atheists:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|From the smallest local meetings to the largest conferences, the vast majority of speakers and attendees are almost always white men. Leading figures of the atheist movement — [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Christopher Hitchens]] and [[Daniel Dennett]] — are all white men.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But making atheism more diverse is proving to be no easy task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Surveys suggest most atheists are white men. A recent survey of 4,000 members of the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation|Freedom from Religion Foundation]] found that 95 percent were white, and men comprised a majority.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/01/atheists-diversity-woes-have-n.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== RationalWiki/RationalMedia Foundation board of trustees and the lack of Black representation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[RationalMedia Foundation board of trustees and the lack of Black representation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and education ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Religion and education]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist indoctrination|Atheistic indoctrination and education]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and academia]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and academic performance]]&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and culture: Art, architecture, music, language, poetry, dance and humor ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Destroy the old world Cultural Revolution poster.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A [[People's Republic of China]] propaganda poster stating &amp;quot;Destroy the Old World &amp;amp; Forge the New World,&amp;quot; with a worker smashing a [[crucifix]], a [[Buddha]] murti, and a classical Chinese sacred text; 1967.]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and culture]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Culture]] consists of the &amp;quot;language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organization, inherited artifacts, technical processes, and values.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/cm/culture.html Christianity and culture]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheism has not produced any outstanding cultural achievements and it has had a negative effect on cultures (see: [[Atheism and culture]] and [[Atheism and its anti-civilizational effects]] and [[Atheism statistics]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, relative to [[Christianity]], which has a large collection of art, music and poetry associated it, atheism has a very small collection of art, music and poetry associated with it (see: [[Atheist art]] and [[Atheist music]] and [[Atheist poetry]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is often said that atheism is boring, stale and difficult to believe (see: [[Atheism and inspiration]]). As noted above, research indicates that atheists are less open-minded (see: [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For additional information, please see:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist art]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and architecture]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist music]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist population and verbal–linguistic intelligence|Atheism and linguistic/oratory skills]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist poetry]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and dance]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and humor]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Global atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Global decline of atheism  ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and diversity]] and [[Atheism and culture]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Blue Marble.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Atheism is in decline worldwide in terms of number of atheists and the percentage of atheists in world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2025/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2025.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity, 2025, in the Context of 1900–2050] (831,000 less atheists in the world than a year ago.&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/04/StatusofGlobalChristianity20191.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity/other religions, 2019, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Global atheism statistics]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists as a percentage of the world's population have declined since 1970 and global atheism is expected to face long-term decline.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/ Study: World is becoming more religious]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/globally-worldviews-of-atheism-and-non.html Globally the worldviews of atheism and non-religious (agnostic) are declining while global Christianity is exploding in adherents]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf Gordon-Conwell Seminary - Status of Global Mission, 2014, in the Context of AD 1800–2025]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Desecularization]] and [[Global atheism statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2024, Frontier Partners International reported concerning [[global atheism]]: &amp;quot;Simultaneously, atheism, which once saw a peak around 1970 with 165 million adherents, is on the decline. The current growth trend for atheism is -0.12 percent, with their number falling from 147 million in 2020 to 146 million in 2024.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.frontierpartners.org/global-christianity-surges Global Christianity surges beyond projections in 2024], LiCAS.news • Mar 15, 2024, Frontiers Patners Intertnational, 2024&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Desecularization]] and [[Global atheism statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', 2% of the world's population self-identifies as atheist and the average annual global change for atheism from 2000 to 2010 was −0.17%.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;eb-2010&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|title=Religion: Year in Review 2010: Worldwide Adherents of All Religions|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150310135559/https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1731588/Religion-Year-In-Review-2010/298437/Worldwide-Adherents-of-All-Religions|work=Encyclopædia Britannica Online|publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.|accessdate=2013-11-21}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Decline of the number of atheists in the world ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Decline of the number of atheists in the world]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the [[Center for the Study of Global Christianity]], the number of atheists in the world is now shrinking and will continue to do so.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2024/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2024.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity, 2024, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2023.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity/other religions, 2023, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Decline of the number of atheists in the world]] and [[Future of atheism in China]] and [[European desecularization in the 21st century]] and [[Decline of Europe]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Demographics of atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Demography]] is the study of human populations, and is a major specialty in the disciplines of sociology, economics, history, geography, statistics and epidemiology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Demographics of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheism and specific countries/areas ====&lt;br /&gt;
*[[China and atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[French atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[British atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Secular Europe]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[American atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Europe map.png|thumbnail|right|226px|[[Europe]], which is less religious than the United States has a subreplacement level of births, is projected to have a population that is 30% less small by the end of the century (see: [[Atheism and fertility rates]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/total-population-outlook-from-unstat-3/assessment-1#:~:text=The%20greatest%20declines%20occur%20under,30%20%25%20of%20its%20current%20size. Population trends 1950 – 2100: globally and within Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In 2014, the Pew Research Forum indicated that [[Europe]] will go from 11% of the world's population to 7% of the world's population by 2050.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/10-projections-for-the-global-population-in-2050/ 10 projections for the global population in 2050] By Rakesh Kochhar, Pew Research Forum, February 3, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[European desecularization in the 21st century]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion in Australia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion in New Zealand]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism in the Anglosphere]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Religious people moving to irreligious regions ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Religion and migration]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of evangelical Christianity in irreligious regions]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism statistics ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christianity vs. atheism statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist women statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Research on atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist movement and leadership ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheist movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and leadership]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Poor international cooperation among atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and international cooperation among atheists]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent years, international cooperation among atheists has been low (see: [[Atheism and international cooperation among atheists]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Views on atheists ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Views on atheists]] and [[Distrust of atheists]] and [[Atheism and social outcasts]] and [[Atheism and public relations]] and [[Atheophobia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sam Harris-2010.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Sam Harris]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sociological research indicates that atheists are widely distrusted in both religious cultures and nonreligious cultures.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;USATodayviewsonatheists&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1 Study: Atheists distrusted as much as rapists]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CPviewsonatheists&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-widely-distrusted-even-among-themselves-culturally-ingrained-uk-study-finds-160480/ Atheists Widely Distrusted, Even Among Themselves, UK Study Finds], Christian Post, 2015&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Independentviewsonatheists&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/anti-atheist-distrust-deeply-and-culturally-ingrained-study-finds-a6952276.html Anti-atheist distrust ‘deeply and culturally ingrained’, study finds], ''The Independent'', 2015&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edgell, Gerteis &amp;amp; Hartmann 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to a study published in the ''International Journal for The Psychology of Religion'': &amp;quot;anti-atheist prejudice is not confined either to dominantly religious countries or to religious individuals, but rather appears to be a robust judgment about atheists.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Independentviewsonatheists&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The study found that many atheists do not trust other atheists as well.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Independentviewsonatheists&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various atheists have attempted to change the public's perception of atheism and atheists, but their efforts were largely unsuccessful (see: [[Attempts to positively rebrand atheism]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other topics related to views on atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Persecution of atheists]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheophobia]] is a fear and/or hatred of atheism/atheists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Desecularization and its causes ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Desecularization]] and [[Causes of desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Desecularization]] is the process by which [[religion]] reasserts its societal influence though religious values, institutions, sectors of society and symbols in reaction to previous and/or co-occurring [[secularization]] processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival and Revival'' by Christopher Marsh, 2011, page 11 (Christopher Marsh cites the definitions of desecularization given by Peter L. Berger and Vyacheslav Karpov)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noted above, from 2024 to 2025, the number of atheists in the world dropped by 831,000 atheists according to the [[Center for the Study of Global Christianity]] at [[Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2025/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2025.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity, 2025, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2024/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2024.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity, 2024, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[theology|theologian]] and [[Harvard University]] academic Harvey Cox asserted that [[grassroots]] movements such as [[fundamentalism]] and the [[Charismatic movement]]/[[pentecostalism]] are significant religious forces that are resistant to secularization forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-8028-4691-4 Publisher's Weekly Review of'' The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics'' by Peter L. Berger]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/harvey-cox/fire-from-heaven/ Kirkus Reviews- ''FIRE FROM HEAVEN: Pentecostalism, Spirituality, and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century'' by Harvey Cox]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In her book ''The Battle for God'', Karen Armstrong wrote: &amp;quot;One of the most startling developments of the late 20th century has been the emergence within every major religious tradition of a militant piety known as 'fundamentalism'… this religious resurgence has taken many observers by surprise.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God, p. 9&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Today, even the highly [[secular]]ized public and political sphere of [[France]] is showing a new and more open attitude towards religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://edoc.unibas.ch/50856/3/20170119190142_5880ff06238b8.pdf How religious is the public sphere? – A critical stance on the debate about public religion and post-secularity], Draft Version, Jens Koehrsen (Köhrsen). Bielefeld Graduate School in History and Sociology, Germany. École des hautes études en sciences socials, France. Published in: Acta Sociologica 55 (3), S. 273-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and sub-replacement levels of fertility ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and fertility rates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Jacques Berlinerblau.jpg|thumbnail|250px|left|In 2011, atheist [[Jacques Berlinerblau]] declared: &amp;quot;The Golden Age of [[Secularism]] has passed.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chronicle.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Michael Blume, a researcher at the University of Jena in Germany, wrote about the sub-replacement level of fertility among [[Atheist Population|atheistic populations]]: &amp;quot;Most societies or communities that have espoused atheistic beliefs have not survived more than a century.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;scilogs.eu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2011-01-06/atheists-a-dying-breed-as-nature-favours-faithful-sunday-times-jan-02-2011-jonathan-leake-full-draft-version Atheist: A dying breed as nature favours faithful]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Blume also indicated concerning concerning his research on this matter: &amp;quot;What I found was the complete lack of a single case of a secular population, community or movement that would just manage to retain replacement level.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;scilogs.eu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  See also: [[Atheism and sexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 23, 2012, Professor [[Eric Kaufmann]] who teaches at Birbeck College, University of London wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population... In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/04/97-of-worlds-population-growth-is.html 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious], Tuesday, April 30, 2013&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a conference, Kaufmann said of religious demographic projections concerning the 21st century:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Part of the reason I think [[demography]] is very important, at least if we are going to speak about the future, is that it is the most predictable of the [[social sciences]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...if you look at a population and its age structure now. You can tell a lot about the future.  ...So by looking at the relative age structure of different populations you can already say a lot about the future...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...Religious [[fundamentalism]] is going to be on the increase in the future and not just out there in the developing world..., but in the developed world as well.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7vCDeKPRSo Eric Kaufmann - Religion, Demography and Politics in the 21st Century]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Secularism is exhausted and unconfident ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Decline of the atheist movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Eric Kaufmann]], an [[agnosticism|agnostic]] professor whose academic research specialty is how demographic changes affect religion/irreligion and politics, wrote in 2010: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, [[socialism]] and 1960s anarchist-[[liberalism]]. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sneps.net/uploadsepk/JQR%20Demography.pdf Shall the religious inherit the earth? - Eric Kaufmann]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Edward Tabash 2013.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Eddie Tabash]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The American atheist activist [[Eddie Tabash]] said at the 2010 Michigan Atheists State Convention:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|In every generation there has been a promising beginning of a true vanguard movement that will finally achieve widespread public acceptance for nonbelief. Yet, in each generation there has been an ultimately disappointing failure to actually register the [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic alternative]] to supernatural claims in the public consciousness...&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iix6OjLH6aM Atheists Speak Up - Eddie Tabash]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent years, a number of notable atheists have expressed pessimism about the future of the [[atheist movement]] (see: [[Decline of the atheist movement]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Causes of desecularization ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Causes of desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Decline of the secular left]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Zero secularization rates in France and Protestant Europe ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[British atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, Eric Kaufmann declared &amp;quot;the rate of secularisation has flattened to zero in most of [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Europe]] and [[France]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/shall_the_religious_inherit_the_earth/ Shall the Religious Inherit the earth] by Eric Kaufmann&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Guardian'' published an article in 2017 entitled ''Nearly 50% are of [[Nones|no religion]] – but has [[UK]] hit ‘peak secular’?'' which declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|But, Bullivant told the Observer that the “growth of no religion may have stalled”. After consistent decline, in the past few years the proportion of [[nones]] appears to have stabilised. “Younger people tend to be more non-religious, so you’d expect it to keep going – but it hasn’t. The steady growth of non-Christian religions is a contributing factor, but I wonder if everyone who is going to give up their Anglican affiliation has done so by now? We’ve seen a vast shedding of nominal Christianity, and perhaps it’s now down to its hardcore.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs ''Nearly 50% are of no religion – but has UK hit ‘peak secular’?''], ''The Guardian'', 2017&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Growth of evangelical Christianity in secular regions ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of Christianity in China|Growth of evangelical Christianity in China]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[East Asia and global desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of evangelical Christianity#Evangelical Christianity and the developed world|Growth of evangelical Christianity in the developed world]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of Protestantism in Russia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of evangelical Christianity in New Zealand]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future of desecularization via the continued global resurgence of religion ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Growth of global desecularization]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Birkbeck College, University of London.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Eric Kaufmann]] using a wealth of demographic studies, argues that there will be a significant decline of global atheism in the 21st century which will impact the [[Western World]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2011/05/eric-kaufmann-shall-religious-inherit.html Eric Kaufmann: Shall The Religious Inherit The Earth?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/search/label/atheist%20demographics Eric Kaufmann's Atheist Demographic series]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NtvDErEmBY Eric Kaufmann: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, Australian Broadcasting Corporation]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]] &lt;br /&gt;
Eric Kaufmann using a wealth of demographic studies, argues that there will be a significant decline of global atheism in the 21st century which will impact the [[Western World]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2011/05/eric-kaufmann-shall-religious-inherit.html Eric Kaufmann: Shall The Religious Inherit The Earth?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/search/label/atheist%20demographics Eric Kaufmann's Atheist Demographic series]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NtvDErEmBY Eric Kaufmann: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, Australian Broadcasting Corporation]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, Kaufmann argues that religious conservatism has a long term trend of rising and that their influence in the world will significantly increase.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kaufmann is author of the book ''Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://books.google.com/books/about/Shall_the_Religious_Inherit_the_Earth.html?id=nXVylycU2gQC Shall the religious inherit the earth by David Kaufmann]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sneps.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Early paper - Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the [[Western World]] due to immigration and the higher birth rates of religious people, Kaufman writes: &amp;quot;Committed religious populations are growing in the West, and will reverse the march of secularism before 2050.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sneps.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kaufmann told a secular audience in Australia: &amp;quot;The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NtvDErEmBY Shall the religious inherit the earth]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, Kaufmann also argues that secularization may reverse itself significantly earlier than 2050 in the West due to religious immigration and a religious population which is increasingly resistant to secularization in Europe.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/european-christian-immigration-will.html European immigration will pour Christian creationists into Europe]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-future-of-european-darwinism-and_16.html The future of European Darwinism and atheism is bleak]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, in the latter portion of the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century, the atheist movement has had lower confidence/morale due to various historical events/trends (see: [[Atheists and the endurance of religion]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Growth of desecularization in the 21st century ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of global desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Acceleration of 21st century desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Future of atheism in China]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notable atheists who became ex-atheists ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See:'' [[Ex-atheists]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Claims about the conditionality and existence of atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]] and [[There Are No Atheists In Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hannah More wrote: &amp;quot;[T]he mind, which knows not where to fly, flies to God.  In agony, nature is no Atheist.  The soul is drawn to God by a sort of natural impulse; not always, perhaps by an emotion of piety; but from a feeling conviction, that every other refuge is 'a refuge of lies'.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;More, Hannah (1815).  [https://archive.org/details/anessayoncharac00moregoog ''An Essay on the Character and Practical Writings of St. Paul''], 5th ed., vol. 2 (London:  T. Cadell and W. Davies), p. 234.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== There are no atheists in foxholes ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[There Are No Atheists In Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]] and [[There are no atheists on a sinking ship]] and [[There are no atheists on turbulent airplanes]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Foxhole.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Reverend William T. Cummings is famous for declaring ''[[There Are No Atheists In Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]]''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
* Taylor-Blake, Bonnie (September 24, 2006). [https://web.archive.org/web/20080617035633/http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0609D&amp;amp;L=ads-l&amp;amp;P=15696 &amp;quot;'There are no atheists in [the&amp;amp;#93; foxholes'&amp;quot;]. Message posted to The American Dialect Society [Electronic] Mailing List, archived at ListServ 16.0. Archive at Internet Archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*Osborn, Neale (December 15, 2012).  [http://nealebooks.newsvine.com/_news/2012/12/15/15931810-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes &amp;quot;There are no atheists in foxholes...&amp;quot;]. Newsvine website/Neal Osborn.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Reverend William T. Cummings is famous for declaring &amp;quot;[[There Are No Atheists In Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,792459,00.html &amp;quot;Milestones [excerpt&amp;amp;#93;&amp;quot;] (October 15, 1945).  ''Time''.  magazine website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Chaplain F. W. Lawson of the 302d Machine Gun Battalion, who was wounded twice in wartime, stated &amp;quot;I doubt if there is such a thing as an atheist.  At least there isn't in a front line trench.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9905EFD91239E13ABC4D51DFB7678383609EDE &amp;quot;Tells of religion in army.  Chaplain Lawson says there are no atheists in front line&amp;quot;] (November 25, 1918).  ''New York Times'', p. 13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, the news organization NBC featured a story in which atheist veterans claimed that there are atheists in foxholes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, Tom (April 2, 2011).[https://www.nbcnews.com/id/42391558/ns/us_news-military/t/army-group-coming-out-atheist-closet/#.UbgMndihjSg &amp;quot;Army group 'coming out of the atheist closet'&amp;quot;] from NBCNews.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research indicates that heavy combat has a positive correlation to the strength of the religious faith in soldiers during the battles and subsequent to the war if they indicated their experience was a negative experience (for more information please see: [[There Are No Atheists In Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, due to research showing that death anxiety increases atheists' unconscious belief in God, Dr. Nathan Heflick declared in a ''Psychology Today'' article, &amp;quot;But, at a less conscious (or pre-conscious) level, this research suggests that there might be less atheism in foxholes than atheists in foxholes report.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Heflick&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Please see: [[Atheism and death]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Denials that atheists exist ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Denials that atheists exist]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Causes of atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article: [[Causes of atheism]]'' and [[Atheism and hedonism]] and [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a number of psychological, societal, familial, economic and spiritual factors which cause atheism which have been proposed over the centuries.  Please see: [[Causes of atheism]] and [[Atheism and hedonism]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christian websites and other resources with a large focus on the topic of atheism  ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:TFT.JPG|thumb|right|275px|[[True Freethinker]] is a [[Christian apologetics]] Facebook page run by Ken Ammi which offers many [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments|refutations of atheism]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism vs. Christianity]] and [[Internet atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Five of the more notable Christian apologetics websites/blogs which have a large focus on the topic of atheism are: the [[Atheism is dead (website)|Atheism is dead]] website; the [[Shadow To Light blog]]; the [[True Freethinker]] website; the [[Creation Ministries International and atheism|Creation Ministries International resources on atheism]] and the [[Fixed Point Foundation]] website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Freedom from Atheism Foundation (FFAF) ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, the [[Freedom From Atheism Foundation]] (FFAF) was formed as an online interfaith civil rights group to provide support for victims of militant atheism, protect the rights of religious believers, and address the increasing amount of atheist intolerance around the world.  The groups' many admins are all anonymous due to the large amount of hate mail, threats, and stalking the site receives from militant atheists.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As of October 2017 the group has [https://www.facebook.com/FFAF.International over 750,000 followers] and makes an average of 80 posts a week.  Along with tens of thousands of religious supporters, the group also found support from atheist author and biologist PZ Myers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/09/i-support-the-freedom-from-atheism-foundation/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A May 2014 article in the ''Christian Post'' titled &amp;quot;Freedom From Religion? How About Freedom From Atheism?&amp;quot; profiled the Freedom From Atheism Foundation in greater detail.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christianpost.com/news/freedom-from-religion-how-about-freedom-from-atheism-119389/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Online videos related to atheism  ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Militant atheism YouTube channel]] has a collection of videos on militant atheism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and the media ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and the media]] and  [[Atheism and public relations]] and [[Atheism news]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Media Research Center released a study in 2008 reporting pro-atheism bias by major press outlets in the [[United States]].&amp;lt;ref name=mrc&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTxORumTarg &amp;quot;Smoking gun proof that there is an atheist media bias&amp;quot;] (July 17, 2008).  YouTube video, 2:56, posted by Atheism Sucks!&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   The study found that 80% of mainstream media coverage of atheism was positive and that 71% of Christian-themed stories had an atheist counterpoint or were written from an atheist perspective.&amp;lt;ref name=mrc/&amp;gt;  The study is not surprising given the liberal bias [[Liberal bias|that commonly exists in the major media outlets]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and the media#Post 2010 drop in volume of atheism news stories|Drop in news stories about atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and the media#Post 2010 the percentage of negative news stories about atheism has increased|Negative news stories about atheism]].&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Attempts to positively rebrand atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Celebrity atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Celebrity atheists]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and homosexuality ==&lt;br /&gt;
See: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist actions against homosexuals]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other well-known proponents of atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See:'' [[Famous atheists]] and [[Famous agnostics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:nietzsche2.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Diagoras of Melos]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[A. J. Ayer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ludwig Feuerbach]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Friedrich Engels]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sigmund Freud]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Adolf Hitler]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today's atheists&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Albert Camus]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ayn Rand]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Madalyn Murray O'Hair]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Paul Kurtz]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Well-known proponents of skepticism/atheism/agnosticism ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David Hume]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bertrand Russell]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheist organizations ==&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheist organizations]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist organizations and fundraising ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist organizations and fundraising]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Atheism quotes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See articles: [[Atheism Quotes]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism news ==&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism news]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommended reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christian apologetics books on atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/good-news Some good news]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://rightsmarts.com/atheism-is-dead Atheism Is Dead]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Doubt]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism symbols]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: Atheism and evolution essays]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and satanic deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Second generation atheist]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Humor:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedies and satires of atheism and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Conservapedia statistics about its atheism articles:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Atheism articles statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Atheism Project|Conservapedia Atheism Project]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
''see also:'' [[Atheism website resources]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''General articles on atheism:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/atheism Atheism] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.wnd.com/2013/03/horrific-human-toll-of-militant-atheism-exposed/ Horrific Human Toll of 'Militant Atheism' Exposed: USSR's genocide against Christians largely ignored - World Net Daily]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/atheism-agnosticism-and-humanism-godless-religions-questions-and-answers Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: godless religions] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.bethinking.org/tag/atheism/page/all Atheism articles - Bethinking.org]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/atheism True Free Thinker - atheism section]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm Atheism] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.wnd.com/2017/04/former-atheists-case-for-christ-hits-big-screen/ Former Atheist's 'Case For Christ Hits Big Screen], 2017&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Prominent atheists:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and leadership]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2011/12/01/50-top-atheists-in-the-world-today/ 50 most prominent atheists in the world today]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Other articles on atheism:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism articles|Atheism articles on various topical areas - External websites]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia atheism articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&amp;diff=2176326</id>
		<title>Atheism</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&amp;diff=2176326"/>
		<updated>2025-12-06T15:40:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Atheism.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|225px|[[Portrait]] of [[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of atheism in [[Europe]]. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of contemporary definitions of '''atheism''', the ''Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary'' [[Definition of atheism|defines atheism]] in two ways: &amp;quot;1) a lack of [[belief]] or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods 2) a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism. “Atheism”] (on or bef. 2019). ''The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary'' (unk. place: Merriam-Webster).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ''Lexico.com'' (Oxford University Press) defines atheism as &amp;quot;Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Oxford University Press (OUP) (2019). [https://lexico.com/definition/atheism &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;]. ''Lexico.com'' (Oxford, UK: OUP).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Definition of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheism, as defined by the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', the ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Smart, J. J. C. (August 8, 2011). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism &amp;quot;Atheism and agnosticism&amp;quot;]. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism &amp;quot;{{sc|atheism}}&amp;quot;] (n.d.). ''Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary''. &amp;quot;Definition of {{sc|atheism}} '''1 a''': a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods '''b''': a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [example sentences omitted] Origin and Etymology of {{sc|atheism}} Middle French ''athéisme'', from ''athée'' atheist, from Greek ''atheos'' godless, from ''a-'' + ''theos'' god&amp;quot;; [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god &amp;quot;{{sc|god}}&amp;quot;] (n.d.). ''Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary''. &amp;quot;Definition of {{sc|god}} '''1''' ''capitalized'': the supreme or ultimate reality: such as '''a''': the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe&amp;quot; [definitions 2 and 3 omitted.] Retrieved on April 22, 2018.&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;Atheism:...a + theos, denying God.&amp;quot; Onions, C. T. ''et al.'', ed. (1966). &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;. ''Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology'' (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press).&lt;br /&gt;
*Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph.D. (23 June 2007). [https://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational &amp;quot;Atheism is more rational?&amp;quot;] ''Creation.com''/feedback archive (Brisbane, Queensland, AU: Creation Ministries International). See [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Jonathan Sarfati]].&lt;br /&gt;
*Day, Donn R. (2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20140906135211/http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm &amp;quot;Atheism - etymology&amp;quot;]. ''The Divine Conspiracy'' website/atheism articles (unk. publisher). Archived at ''Internet Archive'' on September 6, 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
*Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;] ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Paul Edwards (philosopher)|Paul Edwards]], who was a prominent atheist and editor of the ''[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', defined an atheist as &amp;quot;a person who maintains that there is no God.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;] ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Strong atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beginning in the latter portion of the 20th century and continuing beyond, many [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and atheists have argued that the definition of atheism should be a lack of belief in God or gods.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CRI&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;] ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Divine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Day, Donn R. (2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20140906135211/http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm &amp;quot;Atheism - etymology&amp;quot;]. ''The Divine Conspiracy'' website/atheism articles (unk. publisher). Archived at ''Internet Archive'' on September 6, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Craig, William Lane (July 16, 2012). [http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism &amp;quot;The proper definition of atheism&amp;quot;]. ''Reasonable Faith'' website/Media/Reasonable [[faith]] podcast (Dallas TX: Reasonable Faith). See [[William Lane Craig]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Britain is a less religious country than the United States, and the Oxford-dictionaries-based ''Lexico.com'' offers both the narrow/broad definitions of atheism (as noted in a previous footnote, the ''Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary'', which is a traditional American dictionary, offers a more narrow definition of atheism similar to the definition that major encyclopedias of philosophy use). ''Lexico.com'' and other Oxford dictionaries: &amp;quot;Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods&amp;quot;. (Oxford University Press [OUP] [2019]. [https://www.lexico.com/definition/atheism &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;]. ''Lexico.com'' [Oxford, UK: OUP].)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism#Purpose of attempting to dilute the definition of atheism|Purpose of redefining atheism]] and [[Weak atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheism has been examined by many disciplines in terms [[Atheism statistics|of its effects]] on individuals and [[Atheism and culture|on societies]] and these effects will be covered below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as individuals adopting an [[Atheist worldview|atheistic worldview]], atheism has [[causes of atheism|a number of causal factors]] and these will be elaborated on below as well.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As of March 2025, data compiled by the [[Center for the Study of Global Christianity]] at [[Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary]] indicates that there are 831,000 fewer atheists in the world than a year ago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2025/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2025.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity, 2025, in the Context of 1900–2050] (831,000 fewer atheists in the world than a year ago. See subsequent source)&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/04/StatusofGlobalChristianity20191.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity/other religions, 2019, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On March 15, 2024, Frontier Partners International reported concerning [[global atheism]]: &amp;quot;Simultaneously, atheism, which once saw a peak around 1970 with 165 million adherents, is on the decline. The current growth trend for atheism is -0.12 percent, with their number falling from 147 million in 2020 to 146 million in 2024.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.frontierpartners.org/global-christianity-surges Global Christianity surges beyond projections in 2024], LiCAS.news • Mar 15, 2024, Frontiers Partners International, 2024&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The world's atheists have a below replacement level of births (See: [[Atheism and fertility rates]]). See also: [[Global atheism statistics]] and [[Desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The latest attempt to enumerate the number of atheists by secular sociologists was 400 million nonreligious or atheistic people as of 2016.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Phil Zuckerman, Luke Galen, Frank Pasquale. 2016. &amp;quot;Secularity around the World&amp;quot;.  Oxford University Press. pp. 30–52.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Types of atheism==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Schools of atheist thought]] and [[Atheist factions]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Diagoras of melos.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Diagoras of Melos]] was an [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greek]] atheist, poet and [[Sophism|Sophist]] of the 5th century BC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[History of Atheism|History of atheism]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The [[History of Atheism|history of atheism]] can be dated as early as the 5th century B.C. [[Diagoras of Melos]] was a 5th-century B.C. [[Greek]] atheist, poet and [[Sophism|Sophist]]. Since then many [[schools of atheist thought]] have developed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Atheism and why do atheists state they disbelieve?===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Weak Atheism|Weak atheism]] and [[Strong atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists claim there are two main reasons for their denial of the existence of God and/or disbelief in God: the conviction that there is positive evidence or argument that God does not exist ([[strong atheism]], which is also sometimes called positive atheism), and their claim that [[theism|theists]] bear the burden of proof to show that God exists, that they have failed to do so, and that belief is therefore unwarranted ([[Weak Atheism|weak atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to above, theists and others have posited a number of [[causes of atheism]] and this matter will be further addressed in this article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Attempts to broaden the definition of atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 1876, [[Charles Bradlaugh]] proposed that atheism does not assert &amp;quot;there is no God,&amp;quot; and by doing so he endeavored to dilute the traditional definition of atheism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Divine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Discussion on Atheism: Report of a Public Discussion Between the Rev. Brewin Grant, B.A., and C. Bradlaugh, Esq., Held in South Place Chapel, Finsbury, London, on Tuesday Evenings, Commencing June 22, and Ending July 27, 1875, on the Question, &amp;quot;Is Atheism Or is Christianity the True Secular Gospel, as Tending to the Improvement and Happiness of Mankind in this Life by Human Efforts and Material Means.&amp;quot;. Brewin Grant Charles Bradlaugh, January 1, 1890, Anti-liberation Society, page 10-12 [https://books.google.com/books?id=Dwk3yV5MOaAC&amp;amp;pg=PA10&amp;amp;lpg=PA10&amp;amp;dq=Charles+Bradlaugh+definition+of+atheism&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=JtjIlK7qaJ&amp;amp;sig=E0HjYgfEyKXdEA4zlLAd9m41cQU&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ved=0CEgQ6AEwB2oVChMIrcijucWLyAIVCXA-Ch00NACw#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=Charles%20Bradlaugh%20definition%20of%20atheism&amp;amp;f=false]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As noted above, in the latter portion of the 20th century, the proposition that the definition of atheism be defined as a mere lack of belief in God or gods began to be commonly advanced by agnostics/atheists.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Divine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism Definition of atheism] by [[William Lane Craig]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  It is now common for atheists/agnostics and theists to debate the meaning of the word atheism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Divine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/articles/meds2/med40/med796.html The Atheism Vs. Agnosticism “Debate”] &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism Oxford Dictionaries]. Oxford Dictionaries, due to their British influence (Atheism is more popular in Britain than in the United States and many other countries where English is spoken, see: [[Atheist Population|Atheist population]] and [[Secular Europe]] and [[Atheism statistics]]), now offers the definition of atheism to be &amp;quot;Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.&amp;quot; which is a departure from its historical meaning before a broader definition of atheism began to be more widely advocated in the latter portion of the 20th century (see: [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm &amp;quot;Atheism - etymology&amp;quot;])&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of a broader definition of atheism as a mere lack of belief often point out that such a definition is contrary to the traditional/historical meaning of the word and that such a definition makes atheism indistinguishable from agnosticism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CRI&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Divine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/articles/meds2/med40/med796.html The Atheism Vs. Agnosticism “Debate”]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism Definition of atheism] by [[William Lane Craig]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://carm.org/cut-atheism Atheism] by Matt Slick&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Definition of atheism]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic|Definitions of atheist and agnostic]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Some common types of atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]]'s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Below are a few common ways that atheism manifests itself:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''1.''' [[Militant atheism]], which continues to suppress and oppress religious believers today.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Topics related to militant atheism:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and communism]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and intolerance]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[New Atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and dogmatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''2.''' Philosophical atheism - Atheist philosophers assert that God does not exist. (See also: [[Naturalism (philosophy)|Naturalism]] and [[Materialism]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Secular humanism]]  is a philosophy that holds that human beings are the most important figures, and that social problems are best solved without the involvement of religious doctrine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The philosophy of [[postmodernism]] is atheistic (see: [[Atheism and postmodernism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''3.''' Atheistic [[Buddhism]] (some schools of Buddhism are [[theism|theistic]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''4.''' [[Practical atheism]]: atheism of the life - that is, ''living'' as though God does not exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] in his sermon ''Rediscovering Lost Values'' spoke of &amp;quot;practical atheism&amp;quot;.  King, Dr. Martin Luther (1954). [http://www.globatron.org/truth/rediscovering-lost-values-martin-luther-king-early-sermon &amp;quot;Rediscovering lost values&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''5.''' Other schools of atheist thought: [[Schools of atheist thought]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist factions ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheist factions]] and [[Western atheism, schisms and political polarization]] and [[Atheist organizations]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On July 24, 2020, the atheist [[PZ Myers]] wrote about atheism: &amp;quot;Deep rifts, ongoing fragmentation, and crumbling reputations seems to be the order of the day in atheism.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2020/07/24/i-dont-even-know-whats-going-on-in-atheism-anymore/ I don’t even know what’s going on in atheism anymore] by [[PZ Myers]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheist factions]] and [[Atheist organizations and scandals]] and [[Atheist scandals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] was a central figure in the [[Elevatorgate]] controversy.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Jacques Rousseau wrote in the ''Daily Maverick'': &amp;quot;[[Elevatorgate]]..has resulted in three weeks of infighting in the secular community. Some might observe that we indulge in these squabbles fairly frequently.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rousseau, Jacques (July 13, 2011). [http://dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2011-07-13-sticks-and-stones-may-break-my-bones-but-words-can-rip-my-soul &amp;quot;Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can rip my soul&amp;quot;]. Daily Maverick [South Africa].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An ex-atheist wrote: &amp;quot;As an Atheist for 40 years, I noticed that there is not just a wide variety of [[Schools of atheist thought|Atheist positions]], but there exists an actual battle between certain [[Atheist factions]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/04/internet-atheism-is-still-hostile.html &amp;quot;The atheist community and internet atheism is still a hostile wasteland&amp;quot;] (April 7, 2013).  Question Evolution Campaign [blog].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheist infighting ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheist movement]] and [[Atheism and anger]] and [[Atheists and conflict resolution]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Blair Scott]] served on the [[American Atheists]] board of directors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20140701062412/http://atheists.org/about-us/board-of-directors &amp;quot;Board of directors&amp;quot;] (July 1, 2014).  American Atheists&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mr. Scott formerly served as a State Director for the [[American Atheists]] organization in the state of [[Alabama]].  On December 1, 2012, he quit his post as a director of outreach for the American Atheists due to infighting within the American [[atheist movement]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Blair Scott&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Former 2012 web page at Atheist.org website entitled &amp;quot;An Open Letter from Blair Scott&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Blair wrote: &amp;quot;I have spent the last week mulling over what I want to do at this point in the movement. I’m tired of the in-fighting: at every level. I am especially tired of allowing myself to get sucked into it and engaging in the very behavior that is irritating...me.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Blair Scott&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheist Neil Carter wrote: &amp;quot;Friends of mine have noted lately how biting and critical the atheist community can be, not only toward outsiders, but even toward its own members. Has there ever been a subculture more prone to eating its own than this one? I really don’t know.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2016/06/12/its-past-time-for-atheism-to-grow-up/ It’s Past Time for Atheism to Grow Up] by Neil Carter&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheist [[David Smalley]] said about the atheist movement: &amp;quot;We're eating our own... We’re disintegrating.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;patheos.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2017/06/reasonably-controversial-regressive-left-killing-atheist-movement/ Reasonably Controversial: How the Regressive Left Is Killing the Atheist Movement] by David Smalley&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{See also|Antitheism and antisocial behavior}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheist infighting causing fundraising difficulties ====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Hemant Mehta at Skepticon 7.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|The [[atheist]] [[Hemant Mehta]] said about raising money from fellow nonbelievers: &amp;quot;Meanwhile, I’ve had one hell of a time convincing people to give to the Foundation Beyond Belief — and I help lead that organization.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/08/a-few-thoughts-about-fundraising/ A Few Thoughts About Fundraising]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheist organizations and fundraising]] and [[Atheism and charity]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheist organizations and fundraising]] and [[Atheist fundraising vs. religious fundraising]] and [[Atheism and charity]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2017, the [[atheist activist]] Lee Moore declared about [[American atheism|American atheist]] organizations:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|If you look at the major atheist groups right now, like the national groups, the ones that are doing the real activist work... They are not bringing in the kind of donations they used to.  Most of them are starved for cash. They're downsizing left and right. Because people aren't just giving like they used to. And I talked to a lot of the major donors out there and they said, &amp;quot;Well, we're kind of tired of seeing the atheist community just fight amongst itself and not really get anything done. We'd rather not give money if we don't think it's going to go somewhere.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvG6LKUbOdk Lee Moore and Steve Shives Talk About the Future of the Atheist Movement]&lt;br /&gt;
- video quote comes 21 minutes and 13 seconds into the video&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Eddie Tabash on atheist argumentativeness ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]] and [[Atheism and emotional/intrapersonal intelligence|Atheism and emotional intelligence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[American atheism|American atheist]] activist [[Eddie Tabash]] said in a speech to the Michigan Atheists State Convention, &amp;quot;Since we are a bit of a cantankerous, opinionated lot...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ld9Rfw5HUs Atheists Speak Up - Eddie Tabash - Part 2 of 4]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Angry and bitter demeanor of militant atheists ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and anger]] and [[Atheism and forgiveness|Atheism and unforgiveness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On January 1, 2011, [[CNN]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image - that is, what they imagined God might be like - said lead study author Julie Exline, Case Western Reserve University psychologist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In studies on college students, atheists and agnostics reported more anger at God during their lifetimes than believers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Landau, Elizabeth (January 1, 2011).  [http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/anger-at-god-common-even-among-atheists/ &amp;quot;Anger at God common, even among atheists&amp;quot;].  CNN/The Chart website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Angry atheist.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|An angry atheist speaking to a woman with a Bible in her hand. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Christian philosopher James S. Spiegel says that the path from Christianity to atheism among several of his friends involved moral slippages such as resentment or unforgiveness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-philosopher-explores-causes-of-atheism-44353/ Christian Philosopher Explores Causes of Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See:  [[Atheism and forgiveness|Atheism and unforgiveness]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
According to Anthony DeStefano:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|But are (atheists) really dangerous, too?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You bet they are. The truth is, the atheist position is incapable of supporting any coherent system of morality other than ruthless social Darwinism. That’s why it has caused more deaths, murders and bloodshed than any other belief system in the history of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists, of course, are always claiming hysterically that Christianity has been responsible for most of the world’s wars, but that’s just another example of atheistic ignorance. The main reasons for war have always been economic gain, territorial gain, civil and revolutionary conflicts.  According to Philip Axelrod’s monumental &amp;quot;Encyclopedia of Wars,&amp;quot; only 6.98 percent or all wars from 8000 BC to the present were religious in nature. If you subtract Islamic wars from the equation, only 3.2 percent of wars were due to specifically Christian causes.  That means that over 96 percent of all the wars on this planet were due to worldly reasons.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today's atheists&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/20/todays-atheists-are-bullies-and-are-doing-their-best-to-intimidate-rest-us-into-silence.html Today's atheists are bullies -- and they are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence] at Fox News&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various studies found that traumatic events in people's lives have a positive correlation with &amp;quot;emotional atheism&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carter, Joe (January 12, 2011). [http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god &amp;quot;When atheists are angry at God&amp;quot;].  First Things [The Institute on Religion and Public Life] website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheist and [[lesbianism|lesbian]] [[Greta Christina]] told the journalist Chris Mooney on the Point of Inquiry podcast, &amp;quot;there isn't one emotion&amp;quot; that affects atheists &amp;quot;but anger is one of the emotions that many of us have ...[it] drives others to participate in the movement.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mooney, Chris (May 14, 2012).  [http://www.pointofinquiry.org/greta_christina_why_are_you_atheists_so_angry/ &amp;quot;Greta Christina—Why are you atheists so angry?&amp;quot;] [interview of Greta Christina] Point of Inquiry website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Social science research indicates that [[Antitheism|antitheists]] score the highest among atheists when it comes to personality traits such as [[narcissism]], dogmatism, and anger.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/science-shows-new-atheists-to-be-mean-and-closed-minded/ &amp;quot;Science shows new atheists to be mean and closed-minded&amp;quot;] (July 18, 2013).  Shadow to Light [blog].&lt;br /&gt;
*Haidt, Jonathan (March 5, 2014).  [https://evolution-institute.org/article/why-sam-harris-is-unlikely-to-change-his-mind10/  &amp;quot;Why Sam Harris is unlikely to change his mind&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Furthermore, they scored lowest when it comes to agreeableness and positive relations with others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/science-shows-new-atheists-to-be-mean-and-closed-minded/ &amp;quot;Science shows new atheists to be mean and closed-minded&amp;quot;] (July 18, 2013).  Shadow to Light [blog].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For additional information, please see: [[Atheism and interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]] and  [[Atheism and emotional/intrapersonal intelligence|Atheism and emotional intelligence]] and [[Atheism and forgiveness|Atheism and unforgiveness]] and [[Atheism and bitterness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and its retention rate in individuals ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and its retention rate in individuals]] and [[Conversion from atheism to Christianity]] and [[Atheism and children]] and [[Desecularization]] and [[Atheism and apathy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Georgetown 2.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|In 2012, a [[Georgetown University]] study was published indicating that about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household in the United States remain atheists as adults.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;retention rate&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nazworth, Nap (July 11, 2012). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-atheists-have-lowest-retention-rate-compared-to-religious-groups-78029/ &amp;quot;Study: atheists have lowest 'retention rate' compared to religious groups&amp;quot;]. christianpost.com.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and its retention rate in individuals]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, a [[Georgetown University]] study was published indicating that only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;retention rate&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  See also: [[Atheism and children]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2012 study by the General Social Survey of the social science research organization NORC at the University of Chicago found that belief in God rises with age, even in atheistic nations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harms, William (April 18, 2012). [http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2012/04/18/belief-god-rises-age-even-atheist-nations &amp;quot;Belief in God rises with age, even in atheist nations&amp;quot;.] UChicagoNews.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Pew Forum reports about [[American atheism|American atheists]]: &amp;quot;Among self-identified atheists and agnostics, the median age is 34, and roughly four-in-ten adults in these categories are between the ages of 18 and 29.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/ Chapter 3: Demographic Profiles of Religious Groups], Pew Forum&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and immaturity]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, in atheistic Communist China, [[Christianity]] is experiencing rapid growth (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]]).  Also, there was a collapse of atheism in the former [[Soviet Union]] (see: [[Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See also: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Decline of the atheist movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and inspiration]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Difficulty in participating in atheist community ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and loneliness]] and [[Atheism and apathy]] and [[Atheism and motivation]] and [[Internet atheism]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to an international study done by William Bainbridge, atheism is frequent among people whose interpersonal social obligations are weak and is also linked to lower fertility rates in advanced industrial nations (See also: [[Atheism and fertility rates]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bainbridge, William (2005). &amp;quot;[http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr01002.pdf Atheism]&amp;quot; (PDF). Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. 1 (Article 2): 1–26.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and loneliness]] and [[Atheism and interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social skills]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In comparison to many religious groups, which have many meetings/conferences in numerous places in a given day or week that are convenient to attend, atheist meetings and [[atheist conferences]] are sparse.  One of the causes of this situation is the apathy of many atheists (see: [[Atheism and apathy]] and [[Atheism and motivation]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most [[atheist organizations]] are relatively small in terms of active participants as most atheists are apathetic about organized atheism (see: [[Atheism and apathy]]). An exception is the [[Communist Party of China]], which requires its members be atheists (see: [[Atheism and China]] and [[Atheism and communism]]). At the same time, due to the explosive [[growth of Christianity in China]], there are now more Christians in China than Chinese who belong to the Communist Party of China (see also: [[East Asia and global desecularization]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.dw.com/en/in-xi-we-trust-is-china-cracking-down-on-christianity/a-42224752 In Xi we trust - Is China cracking down on Christianity?], DW News&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent times, the number of people attending atheist conferences has grown smaller.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2017/07/13/10923/ Whoever I Don’t Like Is Ruining the Atheist Movement] by Jeremiah Traeger&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2017/06/reasonably-controversial-regressive-left-killing-atheist-movement/ Reasonably Controversial: How the Regressive Left Is Killing the Atheist Movement] by David Smalley&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luT2vQ3ctKU #ReasonRally Crash n burn. Thanks SJWs!] by [[Thunderf00t]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Atheist [[David Smalley]] wrote: &amp;quot;And we wonder why we’re [[Atheism and politics|losing elections]], [[Atheist fundraising vs. religious fundraising#Atheist organizations and fundraising|losing funding]], and our conferences are getting smaller.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;patheos.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; In 2017, the atheist activist Lee Moore said about atheist conferences, &amp;quot;Most conferences are gone now. They're either gone or in some kind of life support form.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvG6LKUbOdk Lee Moore and Steve Shives Talk About the Future of the Atheist Movement], video, quote comes at the 11 minute and 44 seconds point of the video&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Jerry Coyne at The Amazing Meeting - 2013.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[Jerry Coyne]] speaking at a 2013 [[Atheist conferences|atheist meeting]] entitled The Amazing Meeting (TAM). TAM is an annual meeting. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Atheist Francois Tremblay wrote about the difficulty of motivating atheists to engage in activities related to atheism: &amp;quot;One last problem that undermines any propagation of atheism is inspiration. Let's be honest here, &amp;quot;there is no god!&amp;quot; is not a very motivating call for most people.&amp;quot; (see also: [[Atheism and inspiration]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/herdingcats.html Herding Cats: Why Atheism Will Lose] by Francois Tremblay&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The atheist [[Jerry Coyne]] said about atheist meetings/conferences, &amp;quot;But to me the speakers and talks have often seemed repetitive: the same crew of jet-set skeptics giving the same talks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/are-there-too-many-atheist-meetings/ Are there too many atheist meetings?] by Jerry Coyne&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an essay entitled ''How the [[Atheist movement|Atheist Movement]] Failed Me'', an [[atheism and women|atheist woman]] noted that participation in the atheist community is often expensive due to the cost of attending [[atheist conferences]] and even local atheist meetings in restaurants and bars challenged her modest budget.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Amanda (August 10, 2012).  [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/10/how-the-atheist-movement-failed-me-part-1-cost/ &amp;quot;How the atheist movement failed me–part 1: cost&amp;quot;].  Friendly Atheist blog.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As a result of the challenges that atheists commonly have in terms of socializing in person, many atheists [[Internet atheism|turn to the internet]] in terms of communicating with other atheists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Norris, Chuck (May 21, 2007).  [https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55789 &amp;quot;How to outlaw Christianity (steps 2 &amp;amp; 3)&amp;quot;].  WorldNetDaily. See: [[Chuck Norris]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Often internet communication between atheists turns contentious (see: [[Atheist factions]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Christianity|Christian]] organizations have been significantly more successful than [[atheist organizations]] as far as evangelizing via the internet (see: [[Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists]] and [[Internet atheism]]). Beginning sometime between 2008 to 2012, there has been a big decline in [[internet atheism]] in terms of web traffic (See: [[Internet atheism web traffic volume]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/internet-atheism-and-skepticism-thrill.html Internet atheism: The thrill is gone!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Atheism and loneliness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Abandonment of atheism and communist regimes ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of Christianity in China]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union#Growth of Protestantism in Russia|Growth of Protestantism/Evangelicalism in Russia]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decline of the atheist movement ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Decline of the atheist movement]] and [[Morale of the atheist movement]] and [[Desecularization]] and [[Atheist movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Jacques Berlinerblau.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|In 2011, atheist [[Jacques Berlinerblau]] declared: &amp;quot;The Golden Age of [[Secularism]] has passed.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chronicle.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Berlinerblau, Jacques (February 4, 2011).  [http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/obama-at-the-national-prayer-breakfast-raging-christ-fest-secular-wake/31816 &amp;quot;Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast&amp;quot;].  The Chronicle of Higher Education/Brainstorm blog.  Retrieved on May 29, 2015.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Numerous atheists have declared that the &amp;quot;[[atheist movement]] is dead&amp;quot; or that it is dying.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20190208025358/https://freethoughtblogs.com/reasoner/2017/10/21/the-atheism-movement-dead-or-alive/ The “Atheism Movement:” Dead or Alive?], [[Freethought Blogs]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/11/seth-andrews-keeps-hearing-reports-of.html Atheist activist Seth Andrews keeps seeing reports on social media and the media that the atheist movement is dying], ''Examining Atheism''&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/10/now-that-that-poseur-atheist-aron-ra.html Atheist Aron Ra indicates the atheist movement is dead. Now that that Aron Ra has surrendered....], ''[[Examining Atheism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/12/the-day-atheist-movement-died.html The Day the Atheist Movement Died] by Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://twitter.com/jennifurret/status/405391218273554433 Jennifer McCreight on Twitter about the Elevatorgate scandal destroying the atheist movement], [[Jen McCreight]], Twitter&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://freethoughtblogs.com/atrivialknot/2019/03/26/the-ghost-of-atheist-past/ The ghost of atheist past], Freethought Blogs, 2015&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Decline of the atheist movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before the atheist movement died/declined, various atheists attempted to change the public's perception concerning atheism and atheists, but they were largely unsuccessful (see: [[Attempts to positively rebrand atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the 2018 [[American Atheists]] convention, the ex-president of the [[American Atheists]] organization [[David Silverman]] declared regarding the [[Morale of the atheist movement|atheist movement being in a demoralized state]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|It is a hard time to be [[Atheist activist|an atheist activist]]. This has affected us. And it has affected our community... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...it has really affected us. We are suffering a level of [[defeatism]] that I have never seen before... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We feel the loss. And we feel like we have lost. We feel like [[Donald Trump and American atheists|we lost the election]]... We see this cascade of attack coming down at us over and over from all different directions and we feel like it's over. I have heard so many times it makes me sick. It makes me sad. It feels like we lost. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Atheism and apathy|apathy that follows]]. It doesn't matter. We can't win anyways. It's useless to fight. This apathy is infecting us. It's hurting us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And people are reacting to each other now. And so that is [[Atheist factions|causing a division]]. Lots and lots of division in our movement. Hard, bad division... And that has resulted in a splintering and factioning of the movement that I have never seen before and none of us have.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In other words, we're in a bad situation and it's getting worse.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8VYLMYvImc David Silverman - How the Mighty Get Back Up]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2017, atheist [[David Smalley]] has indicated that [[leftism|leftist]]/[[progressivism|progressive]] atheists were &amp;quot;killing the atheist movement&amp;quot; through being contentious and divisive (see also: [[Atheist factions]]).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;patheos.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  Former [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[PZ Myers]], who subscribes to progressive politics, says he is no longer a member of the atheist movement.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/26/get-out-a-message-for-the-atheist-movement/ Get Out! A message for the atheist movement] by PZ Myers&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheist movement saw a number of setbacks during the latter portion of the 20th century and beyond in terms of historical events/trends (See: [[Causes of desecularization]]).  As a result, it has lost a considerable amount of confidence (see also: [[Decline of the atheist movement]] and [[Atheists and the endurance of religion]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Globally, the [[atheist population]] is declining in terms of the percentage of the world's population that are atheists (see: [[Global atheism statistics]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Atheism and Communism ==&lt;br /&gt;
''see also:'' [[Atheism and communism]] and [[Militant atheism]] and [[Atheism and economics]] and [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheist cults]] and [[Atheism and Karl Marx]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Khvhkgfiy.jpg|left|thumbnail|200px|[[Vladimir Lenin]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists Karl Marx, Vladmir Lenin and Chou En-lai ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Karl Marx]] said &amp;quot;[Religion] is the opium of the people.&amp;quot;  Marx also stated: &amp;quot;[[Communism]] begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mulligan, Martin (1959). [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm &amp;quot;Private property and communism&amp;quot;] translation of Marx, Karl (1932), ''Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844'' (Moscow:  Progress Publishers).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote regarding atheism and Communism: &amp;quot;A Marxist must be a [[materialism|materialist]], i.e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i.e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the [[class struggle]] which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rothstein, Andrew and Issacs, Bernard (1973). [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm &amp;quot;The attitude of the worker's party to religion&amp;quot;] translation of Lenin, Vladimir (1909), ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), ''Collected Works'', (Moscow: Progress Publishers) vol. 15, pp. 402-13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1955, the [[China|Chinese]] Communist leader Chou En-lai declared, &amp;quot;We Communists are atheists&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism], ''New American'', 2014&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/02/china-communist-party-atheism-zhejiang-ban-religious-members-christianity_n_6599722.html China's Communist Party Bans Believers, Doubles Down On Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2016, the ''International Business Times'' reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China — and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ibtimes.com/senior-chinese-religious-advisor-calls-promotion-atheism-society-2363850 Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society], ''International Business Times''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Russian Revolution caused the most notable spread of atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
According to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the &amp;quot;most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 [[Russian Revolution]], which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Marxism-Leninism&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130728215151/http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html|title=Investigating atheism: Marxism|publisher = [[University of Cambridge]]|quote=The most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power. For the first time in history, atheism thus became the official ideology of a state.|year=2008|accessdate=July 17, 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the &amp;quot;[[Bolshevik]] communists were not merely atheists but, according to [[Lenin]]'s terminology, militant atheists.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Lenin &amp;amp; militant atheism&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ufC9Ar8iuDcC&amp;amp;pg=PA161&amp;amp;dq=The+Bolshevik+communists+were+not+merely+atheists+but,+according+to+Lenin%27s+terminology,+militant+atheists.&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=1oFUUdj6PIiK0QGvq4CAAw&amp;amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=The%20Bolshevik%20communists%20were%20not%20merely%20atheists%20but%2C%20according%20to%20Lenin's%20terminology%2C%20militant%20atheists.&amp;amp;f=false|title =''On Superconductivity and Superfluidity: A Scientific Autobiography'' |author=Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg|publisher = Springer Science+Business Media|pages=161|year=2009|quote=The Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists.|accessdate = July 17, 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, prior to this, the [[Reign of Terror]] of the [[French Revolution]] established a state which was anti-[[Roman Catholicism]]/Christian in nature &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Tallet, Frank and Atkin, Nicholas (1991). [https://books.google.com/books?id=aL4lsWdd-rAC&amp;amp;dq=&amp;amp;hl=en ''Religion, Society and Politics in France Since 1789''] (London: A &amp;amp; C Black), pp. 1-17. GoogleBooks archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2006).  [https://books.google.com/books?id=ni4PSpOxb6MC&amp;amp;dq ''Western Civilization: Combined Volume''] (Belmont, CA:  Thomson Wadsworth), p. 549.  GoogleBooks archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*Latreille, A. (2002).  &amp;quot;French Revolution&amp;quot;, ''New Catholic Encyclopedia'' (2nd ed., Farmington Hills, MI:  Thomson/Gale), vol. 5, pp. 972–973.  ISBN 0-7876-4004-2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (anti-clerical [[deism]] and anti-religious atheism and played a significant role in the French Revolution&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Hunt, Lynn and Censer, Jack (2001).  [https://web.archive.org/web/20140905120047/http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap7c.html &amp;quot;War, Terror and Resistence&amp;quot;, ch. 7, p. 3].  Liberty, Equality, Fraternity:  Exploring the French Revolution website.  George Mason University website/Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media website. &lt;br /&gt;
*O'Leary, Margaret R. (June 1, 2012).  ''Forging Freedom: The Life of Cerf Berr of M Delsheim'' (iUniverse), pp. 1-2.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;), with the official ideology being the [[Cult of Reason]]; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the [[guillotine]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple notes:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- Guillotine --&amp;gt;*{{cite web|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=bf3m7IVAa9gC&amp;amp;pg=PA461&amp;amp;dq=France+atheism+guillotine++Christians+executed&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=l4lUUaTRBufG0QGe0IHACA&amp;amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=France%20atheism%20guillotine%20%20Christians%20executed&amp;amp;f=false|title =''Christianity: The eBook''|last=Adair|first=James|publisher = JBE Online Books|year=2007|quote=Although the Civil Constitution called for religious liberty, which was extended to Jews as well as Christians, many revolutionaries pushed for the establishment of a new state religion, either the Cult of Reason (atheists) or the Cult of the Supreme Being (Deists). Changes to the calendar eliminated references to Christian holidays, and even the ancient seven-day week, and a list of officially recognized saints included such famous thinkers such as Socrates, Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A period of political persecution, often with religious overtones, broke out, known as the Reign of Terror. Thousands of people were executed by the guillotine, including many of the original leaders of the French Revolution.|pages=461|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- France --&amp;gt;*{{cite web|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=9WkBAAAAYAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA105&amp;amp;dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&amp;amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&amp;amp;f=false|title =''Memoirs of the Reign of George III. to the Session of Parliament ending A.D. 1793'', Volume 5|page=105|first=William|last=Belsham|publisher = G.G. &amp;amp; J. Robinson|year=1801|quote=In allusion to the monstrous transactions of this portentous period, it has been eloquently and energetically observed, 'that the reign of atheism in France was avowed the reign of terror. In the full madness of their career, in the highest climax of their horrors, they shut up the temples of God, abolished His worship, and proclaimed death to be an eternal sleep:—in the very centre of Christendom, Revelation underwent a total eclipse, while atheism, performing on a darkened theatre its strange and fearful tragedy, confounded the first elements of society, blended every age, rank, and sex, in indiscriminate proscription and massacre, and convulsed all Europe to its centre, that the imperishable memorial of these events might teach the last generations of mankind to consider religion as the pillar of society, the parent of social order, and the safe-guard of nations.'&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;It is wonderful that, amid the horrors of this dismal period, while 'the death dance of democratic revolution' was still in rapid movement, among the tears of affliction, and the cries of despair, 'the masque, the song, the theatric scene, the buffoon laughter, went on as regularly as in the gay hour of festive peace.'|pages=105–6|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}&amp;lt;!-- Reign of Terror --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
*{{cite book no ws|title=Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West|first=William|last=Kilpatrick|location=San Francisco, CA|publisher=Ignatius Press|year=2012|url=https://books.google.com?id=Tt5rqiCP1p8C&amp;amp;pg=PA57&amp;amp;dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&amp;amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&amp;amp;f=false|quote=Actually, it's helpful to think in terms of two Enlightenments: the Enlightenment that was nourished by Christianity and the Enlightenment that cut itself off from God. The former led to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement. The latter led to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the suppression of church by state, and the godless philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche and their offspring—National Socialism and communism. More recently the abandonment of God has led to the regime of cultural relativism that regards rights as arbitrary constructs.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;It's this second Enlightenment tradition that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to when he wrote, 'The radical detachment of the Enlightenment philosophy from its roots ultimately leads it to dispense with man.' Actually this transition happened not 'ultimately' but almost immediately. The first instance occurred when Enlightenment worship of abstract 'reason' and 'liberty' degenerated quickly into the mass murders committed during the antireligious Reign of Terror in France. 'Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name', said Madame Roland as she faced the statue of Liberty in the Place de la Revolution moments before her death at the guillotine. She was one of the early victims of a succession of secular systems based on rootless notions of 'liberty', 'equality', and 'reason'.&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;As many historians have pointed out, the atheist regimes of modern times are guilty of far more crimes than any committed in the name of religion. Communist governments alone were guilty of more than one hundred million murders, most of them committed against their own people.|pages=p. 57|accessdate = July 18, 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheistic Communism and mass murder ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]] and [[Atheist atrocities]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin-Lenin.jpg|right|202px|thumb|The militant atheistic regime of [[Joseph Stalin]] killed tens of millions of people. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Joseph Stalin is the figure on the right and [[Vladimir Lenin]] is the figure on the left, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and Mass Murder|Atheism and mass murder]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of Communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm &amp;quot;''The Black Book of Communism''&amp;quot;].  Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences website:  Cold War Studies.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Rummel, R. J. (November 1993).  [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM &amp;quot;How many did communist regimes murder?&amp;quot;]  University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War&lt;br /&gt;
*White, Matthew (February 2011).  [http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm &amp;quot;Source list and detailed death tolls for the primary megadeaths of the twentieth century&amp;quot;].  Necrometrics&lt;br /&gt;
*Radosh, Ronald (February 2000).  [http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 &amp;quot;''The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression''&amp;quot;]. First Things [journal] website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rummel, R. J. (November 1993).  [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM &amp;quot;How many did communist regimes murder?&amp;quot;]  University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Richard Dawkins]] has attempted to [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities]] and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error. See also: [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote relative to [[Atheism and Mass Murder|atheism and mass murder]] that &amp;quot;the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world.&lt;br /&gt;
There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Koukl&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Koukl, Gregory (February 20, 2013). [https://www.str.org/articles/the-real-murderers-atheism-or-christianity#.XdaqONVOk2w &amp;quot;The real murderers:  atheism or Christianity?&amp;quot;] Stand to Reason.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under regimes that advocated atheism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Koukl&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;  As noted earlier, Richard Dawkins has attempted to [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities]] and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Koukl summarized by stating:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Koukl&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Beale notes concerning atheism and mass murder:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] … &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole [[Atheism and Hell|Hell]]-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;marry&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ammi, Ken (June 11, 2009).  [https://creation.com/atheism &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;].  Creation Ministries International.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Xi in Maoist outfit.PNG|thumbnail|right|390px|[[Xi Jinping]] is the current General Secretary of the Communist Party of China which requires that all their members be atheists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19567-china-s-communist-party-reaffirms-marxism-maoism-atheism China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism], New American, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[China and atheism]] and [[Atheism and communism]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Militant atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and communism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Soviet Union and morality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Secular left]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Communism and religious oppression ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Communism and religious persecution]] and [[Atheistic communism and torture]] and [[Atheism and forced labor]] and [[China and involuntary organ harvesting]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheism in Communist regimes has been and continues to be militant atheism and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Kent, Jo Ling (April 28, 2011). [https://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/28/china.church.crackdown/index.html?hpt=T2 &amp;quot;Underground Christians fear China crackdown&amp;quot;]. CNN.com&lt;br /&gt;
*Yakovlev, Alexander N. (2002). [https://books.google.com/books?visbn=0300103220&amp;amp;id=ChRk43tVxTwC&amp;amp;pg=PA165&amp;amp;lpg=PA165&amp;amp;ots=ICIxg28Jud&amp;amp;dq=a+century+of+violence+in+soviet+russia+the+Russian+Orthodox+clergy&amp;amp;ie=ISO-8859-1&amp;amp;sig=C9k9Hr7Vn222WCHf_1iSJOHVsgo#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=&amp;amp;f=false ''A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia''] translated by Austin, Anthony (New Haven: Yale University Press), p. 165.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Braga, Fr. Roman (1996). [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx &amp;quot;On compromise in the hierarchy during the Communist yoke&amp;quot;].  Orthodox Christian Information Center.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Clyne, Meghan (November 16, 2005). [https://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1 &amp;quot;Korean reds targeting Christians&amp;quot;]. The New York Sun&lt;br /&gt;
*Siemon-Netto, Uwe (May 7, 2003). [http://northkoreanchristians.com/chinese-atrocities.html &amp;quot;North Korean and Chinese atrocities against Christians worsen&amp;quot;].  NewsMax.  NorthKoreanChristians.com &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818 &amp;quot;China sends Bible owners to labor camp&amp;quot;] (November 26, 2003). WorldNetDaily. &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.epm.org/resources/2003/Jun/12/chinese-police-proudly-record-their-torture-christ/ Chinese Police Proudly Record Their Torture of Christians], By Voice of the Marytrs|June 12, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Religious persecution in the Soviet Union ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Soviet atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[persecution of Christians in the USSR|persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union]] was the result of the violently atheist [[Soviet]] government.  In the first five years after the [[October Revolution]], 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were murdered, many on the orders of [[Leon Trotsky]].  When [[Joseph Stalin]] came to power in 1927, he ordered his secret police, under [[Genrikh Yagoda]] to intensify persecution of Christians.  In the next few years, 50,000 clergy were murdered, many were [[torture]]d, including [[crucifixion]].  &amp;quot;Russia turned red with the blood of martyrs&amp;quot;, said Father Gleb Yakunin of the [[Russian Orthodox Church]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ostling, Richard N. (December 4, 1989).  [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,150718,00.html &amp;quot;Cross meets Kremlin: Gorbachev and Pope John Paul II&amp;quot;]. ''Time''. Time magazine website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  According to Orthodox Church sources, as many as fifty million Orthodox believers may have died in the twentieth century, mainly from persecution by [[Communists]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Moore, Rev. Fr. Raphael (October 1999). [http://www.serfes.org/printerVersion2.asp?URL=/orthodox/memoryof.htm &amp;quot;In memory of the 50 million victims of the Orthodox Christian Holocaust&amp;quot;], Spiritual Nourishment for the Soul, Serfes, Rev. Archimandrite Nektarios, compiler.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:China location.png|thumbnail|left|205px|With its large population, China has the largest population of atheists.&amp;lt;ref name=20Zuck&amp;gt;[http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf &amp;quot;Top 20 Countries With Largest Numbers of Atheists / Agnostics (Zuckerman, 2005)&amp;quot;] (November 28, 2007). ''The Largest Atheist/Agnostic Populations''. Chris &amp;amp; Terri Chapman website (March 19, 2013 or bef.), first publication date at website from archive at Internet Archive.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The religious landscape of China is quickly changing, however, due to the rapid growth of Christianity. See also: [[China and atheism]] and [[Global atheism]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, in the atheistic and Communist Soviet Union, 44 anti-religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in [[Leningrad]]’s Kazan Cathedral.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Humphrey (December 16, 2008). [http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html &amp;quot;Merry Anti-Christmas!&amp;quot;] Quodlibeta.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Despite intense effort by the atheistic leaders of the Soviet Union, their efforts were not effective in converting the masses to atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Humphrey (December 16, 2008). [http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/12/merry-anti-christmas.html &amp;quot;Merry Anti-Christmas!&amp;quot;] Quodlibeta. &lt;br /&gt;
*Froese, Paul (March 2004). [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jssr/2004/00000043/00000001/art00003?crawler=true &amp;quot;Forced secularization in Soviet Russia:  why an atheistic monopoly failed&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;].  ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion'', vol. 43, 1, pp. 35-50.  Abstract: Ingentaconnect&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====  Religious persecution in Communist China ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[China and atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[China]] has the world's largest atheist population (see: [[China and atheism]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Double reference:&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf &amp;quot;Top 20 Countries With Largest Numbers of Atheists / Agnostics (Zuckerman, 2005)&amp;quot;] (November 28, 2007). ''The Largest Atheist/Agnostic Populations''. Chris &amp;amp; Terri Chapman website (March 19, 2013 or bef.), first publication date at website from archive at Internet Archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/23/a-surprising-map-of-where-the-worlds-atheists-live/ A surprising map of where the world’s atheists live], ''Washington Post'' By Max Fisher and Caitlin Dewey May 23, 2013&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  China is a Communist country. In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that &amp;quot;China has persecuted religious believers by means of harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or 'reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship.&amp;quot; In 2003, owners of [[Bible]]s in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818 &amp;quot;China sends Bible owners to labor camp&amp;quot;] (November 26, 2003). ''WorldNetDaily''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  China continues to practice religious oppression today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.epm.org/resources/2003/Jun/12/chinese-police-proudly-record-their-torture-christ/ Chinese Police Proudly Record Their Torture of Christians], By Voice of the Martyrs|June 12, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The efforts of China's atheist leaders in promoting atheism, however, are increasingly losing their effectiveness and the number of Christians in China is rapidly growing (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]]).  China's state-sponsored atheism and atheistic indoctrination have been a failure and a 2007 religious survey in China indicated that only 15% of Chinese identified themselves as atheists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Briggs, David (January 23, 2011).  [http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/01/23/huffington-post-chinas-state-sponsored-atheism-a-failure/ &amp;quot;Huffington Post: China’s state-sponsored atheism a failure&amp;quot; [excerpt&amp;amp;#93;].  National Post website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Martyred in the USSR Poster.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The above photograph shows the Russian Nikolai Khmara, a new Baptist convert in the [[Soviet Union]], after his arrest by the [[KGB]]. He was tortured to death and his tongue was cut out.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://martyredintheussr.com/ Martyred in the USSR]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.anabaptists.org/books/russians/trs-1.html The Russians' Secret by Peter Hoover with Serguei V. Petrov, Speaking Without a Tongue, Chapter 1 (Pages 1-3)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Researchers estimate that tens of thousands of [[Falun Gong]] prisoners in Communist China have been killed to supply a financially lucrative trade in human organs and cadavers, and that these human rights abuses may be an ongoing concern.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/slaughter-mass-killings-organ-harvesting Review of: Ethan Gutmann, “''The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting and China’s Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem''”, (Prometheus Books, 2014).]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Religious persecution in North Korea ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[North Korea]] is a repressive Communist state and is officially atheistic.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lee, Sunny (May 12, 2007). [https://web.archive.org/web/20130521065544/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/IE12Dg01.html &amp;quot;God forbid, religion in North Korea?&amp;quot;]  Asia Times Online.  Archived at Internet Archive on May 21, 2013.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Clyne, Meghan (November 16, 2005). [https://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1 &amp;quot;Korean reds targeting Christians&amp;quot;]. The New York Sun. &lt;br /&gt;
*Siemon-Netto, Uwe (May 7, 2003). [http://northkoreanchristians.com/chinese-atrocities.html &amp;quot;North Korean and Chinese atrocities against Christians worsen&amp;quot;].  NewsMax.  NorthKoreanChristians.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   Open Doors, an organization based in the United States, has put North Korea at the very top of its list of countries where Christians face significant persecution - for 12 years in a row.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-22/repressive-atheist-north-korea-has-surprising-relationship-christian-missionaries Repressive, atheist North Korea has a surprising relationship with Christian missionaries]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheistic Communism and torture ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheistic communism and torture]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheistic Communist regimes and forced labor ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and forced labor]] and [[Atheism and slavery]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In atheistic Communist regimes forced labor has often played a significant role in their economies and this practice continues to this day (see: [[Atheism and forced labor]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Caplan, Bryan (2010).  [http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm &amp;quot;Museum of Communism FAQ version 1.3&amp;quot;]. George Mason University website/Department of Economics/Bryan Caplan/Museum of Communism.&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/13/north-korea-economic-system-built-forced-labor &amp;quot;North Korea: Economic system built on forced labor: New testimonies say even children must work or face detention camps&amp;quot;] (June 13, 2012).  Human Rights Watch website. &lt;br /&gt;
*Pattisson, Pete (November 7, 2014).  [https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/nov/07/qatar-north-korean-forced-labour &amp;quot;Qatar’s ambitious future driven on by North Korean ‘forced labour’&amp;quot;].  ''The Guardian'' website/World/Global Development.&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/red.giant/prisons/wu.essay &amp;quot;Labor camps reinforce China's totalitarian rule&amp;quot;] (1999).  Cnn.com&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-01/07/c_132086402.htm &amp;quot;China to reform re-education through labor system&amp;quot;] (January 8, 2013).  Xinhua.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and the internet ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Internet atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noted above, sometime between 2008 and 2012, there has been a big drop in [[internet atheism]] in terms of web traffic (See: [[Internet atheism web traffic volume]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/internet-atheism-and-skepticism-thrill.html Internet atheism: The thrill is gone!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&amp;amp;q=atheism,atheist,agnostic,agnosticism General atheism/agnostic terms - World]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, in terms of reach and its ability to influence, internet atheism is ineffectual (See: [[Internet atheism has a small audience and an insignificant influence on the world]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429819854353?journalCode=sira ''Who is Not Afraid of Richard Dawkins? Using Google Trends to Assess the Reach of Influential Atheists across Canadian Secular Groups''] by Maryam Dilmaghani, ''Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses'', First Published December 13, 2019 Research Article&lt;br /&gt;
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008429819854353&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Google Trends: From 2004 to June 2025, the number of worldwide Google searches for the term atheist is significantly down ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Google trends - Global searches for atheism and agnosticism terms]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Global searches for the term atheism from 2004 to June 7, 2025.png|thumbnail|center|1500px|According to Google Trends, as of June 2025, worldwide Google searches for the term atheist is significantly below its levels in January 2024.]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Clear}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and politics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and politics]] and [[Atheism and political science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historically, atheists have favored the [[leftism|left]] side of the political aisle (see: [[Atheism and politics]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Pew Forum, in the [[United States]]: &amp;quot;About two-thirds of atheists (69%) identify as [[Democrats]] (or lean in that direction), and a majority (56%) call themselves political [[liberal]]s (compared with just one-in-ten who say they are [[conservative]]s).&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/05/7-facts-about-atheists/ 7 facts about atheists], Pew Forum&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some regions where the [[secular left]] has considerable influence, they [[Decline of the secular left|are losing]] an increasing amount of their power. For example, in [[secular Europe]] right-wing, nationalist parties are growing and in China conservative [[Protestantism]] is growing rapidly (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160114/1033149776/europe-rise-of-right-wing-parties-eu-failure.html EU Failures Fuel Rise of Right-Wing Populist Parties in Europe]. Sputnik News, 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and authoritarianism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Secular left]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Decline of the secular left]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and socialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Secular right]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and political science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Western atheism, schisms and political polarization]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and history ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File: Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg|right|225px]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File: The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg|thumbnail|right|220px|Nikolai Yezhov walking with [[Joseph Stalin]] in the top photo taken in the mid 1930s. Subsequent to his execution in 1940, Yezhov was edited out of the photo by Soviet Union censors.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;From the book  The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia by David King&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[History of Atheism|History of atheism]] and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]] and [[Atheism and historical revisionism]] and [[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of atheism: [[History of Atheism|History of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists and historical illiteracy ===&lt;br /&gt;
A common complaint concerning many atheists is their lack of depth when it comes to knowledge of [[history]] and [[historiography]] - particularly in areas such as [[historicity of Jesus|historicity of Jesus Christ]] and [[Atheism and Mass Murder|atheist mass murders in history]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://voxday.net/2014/03/10/the-ignorance-of-cosmos/ &amp;quot;The ignorance of ''Cosmos''&amp;quot;], March 10, 2014. &lt;br /&gt;
*Koukl, Gregory (February 20, 2013). [http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&amp;amp;id=5527 &amp;quot;The real murderers:  atheism or Christianity?&amp;quot;] Stand to Reason.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Historicity of Jesus|Historicity of Jesus Christ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists and historical revisionism ===&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists commonly engage in [[historical revisionism]] in order to illegitimately distort the historical record (see: [[Atheism and historical revisionism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Religion/irreligion and war ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Irreligion/religion and war]] and [[Atheism and world peace]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Louise Ridley (assistant news editor at the ''Huffington Post UK''), Theodore Beale and others point out that academic studies and other research consistently challenge the link between religion and war.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Ridley, Louise [assistant news editor, ''Huffington Post'', UK] (November 18, 2014).  [http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html &amp;quot;Does religion really cause war—and do atheists have something to answer for?&amp;quot;]  The Huffington Post, United Kingdom.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Day, Vox (August 13, 2012).  [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheists-abandon-religion-causes-war.html &amp;quot;Atheists abandon 'religion causes war' argument&amp;quot;].  Vox Populi blog.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Schumacher, Robin (April 2012).  [http://carm.org/religion-cause-war &amp;quot;The myth that religion is the #1 cause of war&amp;quot;].  Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website.  Edited by Matt Slick. See [[CARM]].&lt;br /&gt;
*Price, Tom (2014).  [http://www.bethinking.org/is-religion-harmful/religion-causes-wars &amp;quot;'Religion causes wars'&amp;quot;].  Bethinking.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and economics ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and economics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and sloth|Atheism and economic productivity]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and economic prosperity]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and income]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Analysis of atheism and common objections to atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Commonly Cited Arguments Against Atheism and For Theism ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Arguments for theism and against atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Anselm.jpg|thumbnail|right|150px|[[Anselm of Canterbury]]'s  version of the [[ontological argument]] appeared in his work ''Proslogium''.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of philosophers of religion, or those who have extensively studied the issue of the existence of God, are [[theism|theists]] (72 percent).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.strangenotions.com/atheist-scientists/ Does it matter that many scientists are atheists?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In relation to the debate between theism and atheism, theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument and have a number of arguments against atheism (See: [[Arguments for theism and against atheism]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within Christendom, the discipline of [[Christian apologetics]] has been developed. Christian apologetics is the defense of the [[Christianity|Christian]] faith through logic/evidence based arguments. The word [[apologetics]] comes from the Greek word apologia  (from Greek ἀπολογία), which means &amp;quot;speaking in defense&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Arguments for the existence of God]] include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Teleological argument]]: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an [[intelligent design]]er. See also: [[Evolution|Arguments against evolution]] and [[Origin of life]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evidential apologetics]] is an approach in Christian apologetics which emphasizes the use of evidence to demonstrate that God exists and that there is compelling evidence to support Christianity and the Bible.  In addition, there are various arguments that atheists or other unbelievers weigh evidence improperly (see: [[Atheism and evidence]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Moral Argument|Moral argument]]. [[Objective morality]] exists. Atheism lacks objective moral standards. Not possessing a coherent basis for [[morality]], atheists are fundamentally [[Moral relativism|incapable]] of having a coherent system of morality (See also: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheist population and immorality]] and [[Atheism and hedonism]] and [[Atheism and lust]] and [[Atheist hypocrisy]]) .&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Copan, Paul (2008). [http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf &amp;quot;God, naturalism, and the foundations of morality&amp;quot;].  ''The Future of Atheism'', ed. Robert Stewart (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), pp. 141-161.  PaulCopan.com &lt;br /&gt;
*Williams, Peter S. (2011). [http://www.bethinking.org/morality/can-moral-objectivism-do-without-god &amp;quot;Can moral objectivism do without God?&amp;quot;].  Bethinking.org &lt;br /&gt;
*Meister, Chad (2010).  [http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ &amp;quot;Atheists and the quest for objective morality&amp;quot;].  ''Christian Research Journal'', vol. 33, no. 2.  Christian Research Institute website &lt;br /&gt;
*Slick, Matt (2009).  [http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality &amp;quot;The failure of atheism to account for morality&amp;quot;].  Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Atheism leads to moral and cultural decline (see: [[Atheism and culture]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in our [[universe]] necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause ''distinct'' from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. Atheism denies that that [[First Cause|first cause]] is God. Christians point out that the question &amp;quot;Who created God&amp;quot; is an illogical question.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/who-created-god Who created God] by Don Batten&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Autumn.jpg|200px|right|thumbnail|The [[argument from beauty]] is a commonly used argument for the existence of God. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Historical arguments for the existence of God (subset of evidential apologetics). For example, arguments stemming from historical accounts such as Christian historical apologetics, [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]] and archaeological evidence such as [[Bible Archaeology|Bible archaeology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Argument from religious experience]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bible prophecy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and presuppositional apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Pascal's wager]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Biblical statements concerning atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Bible verses relating to atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The writers of the [[Bible]] considered the existence of God to be self-evident and [[Moses]] simply wrote: &amp;quot;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.&amp;quot; ([[Genesis]] 1:1).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harr, Ken and Lisle, Dr. Jason (August 9, 2007). [http://www.answersingenesis.org/is-god-real/is-there-really-god/ &amp;quot;Chapter 1: Is there really a God?&amp;quot;] ''The New Answers Book''.  Answers in Genesis.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accordingly, the psalmist [[David]] declared:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.&amp;quot; — [[Psalms]] 14:1 ([[King James Bible|KJV]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Atheism and debate==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism debates]] and [[Atheism vs. theism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg‎|thumb|right|150px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as &amp;quot;the man atheists fear most&amp;quot; due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://books.google.com/books?id=O1gPpUMzcEQC&amp;amp;pg=PA286&amp;amp;lpg=PA286&amp;amp;dq=%22the+man+atheists+fear+most%22+bahnsen&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=PyGQBd8Xrl&amp;amp;sig=ACfU3U1DpS53GaAc_ZfKLnfD6jrP1gozDQ&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ved=2ahUKEwiQqrLRu6vgAhXIqlkKHfuaBcQQ6AEwCHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=%22the%20man%20atheists%20fear%20most%22%20bahnsen&amp;amp;f=false Pushing the Antithesis] on Greg Bahnsen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bahsen at the Stein debate&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
As far as [[atheism debates]], the majority of the public debates are [[Atheism vs. Christianity debates]] (although there have been a few [[Atheism vs. Islam debates]]).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beginning in the latter part of the 20th century, there were a number of notable instances of prominent atheists being reluctant to debate (see: [[Atheism and debate#Notable cases of prominent atheists being reluctant to debate|Notable cases of prominent atheists being reluctant to debate]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On May 14, 2011, the [[Great Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' published a news story entitled ''Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of [[God]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cowardice&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ross, Tim (May 14, 2011).  [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html &amp;quot;Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God&amp;quot;]. The Daily Telegraph website.  Retrieved July 25, 2014.  See ''[[Daily Telegraph]]''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' article Dr. [[Daniel Came]], a member of the Faculty of [[Philosophy]] at [[Oxford University]] was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. [[William Lane Craig]],  &amp;quot;The absence of a debate with the foremost [[Christian apologetics|apologist]] for [[Christianity|Christian]] [[theism]] is a glaring omission on your [[Curriculum vitae|CV]] and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cowardice&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as the &amp;quot;man atheists fear most&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://books.google.com/books?id=O1gPpUMzcEQC&amp;amp;pg=PA286&amp;amp;lpg=PA286&amp;amp;dq=%22the+man+atheists+fear+most%22+bahnsen&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=PyGQBd8Xrl&amp;amp;sig=ACfU3U1DpS53GaAc_ZfKLnfD6jrP1gozDQ&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ved=2ahUKEwiQqrLRu6vgAhXIqlkKHfuaBcQQ6AEwCHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=%22the%20man%20atheists%20fear%20most%22%20bahnsen&amp;amp;f=false Pushing the Antithesis] on Greg Bahnsen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20080102084144/http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/biobahn.html &amp;quot;A brief biography of Greg Bahnsen&amp;quot;] (2003).  Applied Presuppositionalism website.  Retrieved from January 2, 2008 archive at Internet Archive on May 14, 2015.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This is because [[Harvard]]-educated [[Michael Martin]] was scheduled to debate Bahnsen but pulled out of the debate at the &amp;quot;eleventh hour&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
A [[Press Release Regarding Michael Martin Pulling Out of Martin-Bahnsen Debate|press release at the time]] said that Dr. Martin offered ruses on why he pulled out and didn't want the scheduled debate recorded but the real reason was that &amp;quot;...Michael Martin is afraid that he will be publicly humiliated just as his friend and fellow atheist, Dr. [[Gordon Stein]], was...&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1990, Michael Martin indicated there was a general [[Atheism and apathy|absence of an atheistic response]] to contemporary work in the [[philosophy]] of religion and in jest he indicated that it was his &amp;quot;cross to bear&amp;quot; to respond to [[theism|theistic]] arguments.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Open Questions: Diverse Thinkers Discuss God, Religion, and Faith'' by Luís F. Rodrigues, page 201&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheology]] and [[Atheist apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic [[evolution]]ary position since [[World War II]] have been atheists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Batten, Don (December 1997).  [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ &amp;quot;A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists&amp;quot;]. ''Creation'', vol 20, no. 1, p. 32.  Retrieved from Creation.com [Creation Ministries International] on May 15, 2015.  Don Batten&lt;br /&gt;
*Sarfati, Jonathan, Ph. D. (1999).  [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 &amp;quot;Chapter 1: Facts and bias&amp;quot;].  ''Refuting Evolution''.  Retrieved from Creation.com [Creation Ministries International] on May 15, 2015.  See [[Jonathan Sarfati]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After doing poorly in a series of debates in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s,  evolutionists are generally reluctant to debate (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and morality/ethics ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:PzMyers2.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|The atheist [[PZ Myers]] declared: &amp;quot;I am so, so tired of hearing about [[atheist scandals]] and scumbaggery.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1362874184792039425 &amp;quot;I am so, so tired of hearing about atheist scandals and scumbaggery.&amp;quot; - Twitter post]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and morality]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheist population and immorality]] and  [[Atheist hypocrisy]] and [[Religion and morality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Objective morality incompatible with atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under an atheist worldview, there is no logical basis for [[objective morality]] or ultimate meaning and purpose.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/atheism-no-objective-morality Atheism—no objective morality?], [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bethinking.org/morality/can-moral-objectivism-do-without-god Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?] by Peter S. Williams at Bethinking.org&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.equip.org/article/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality-2/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister at Christian Research Institute&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.faithdefenders.com/articles/atheism/atheism_absolutes_at.html Atheism and absolutes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and moral relativism]] and [[Atheism and meaninglessness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and moral relativism ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and moral relativism]] and [[Atheism and morality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Phil Fernandes states the following regarding atheism and [[moral relativism]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]] preached that a group of &amp;quot;supermen&amp;quot; must arise with the courage to create their own values through their &amp;quot;will to power.&amp;quot; Nietzsche rejected the &amp;quot;soft&amp;quot; values of Christianity (brotherly love, turning the other cheek, charity, compassion, etc.); he felt they hindered man's creativity and potential....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many other atheists agree with Nietzsche concerning moral relativism. British philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]] (1872-1970) once wrote, &amp;quot;Outside human desires there is no moral standard.&amp;quot; [[A. J. Ayer]] believed that moral commands did not result from any objective standard above man. Instead, Ayer stated that moral commands merely express one's [[Subjectivism|subjective]] feelings. When one says that murder is wrong, one is merely saying that he or she feels that murder is wrong. [[Jean-Paul Sartre]], a French [[existentialism|existentialist]], believed that there is no objective meaning to life. Therefore, according to Sartre, man must create his own values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are many different ways that moral relativists attempt to determine what action should be taken. [[Hedonism]] is probably the most extreme. It declares that whatever brings the most pleasure is right. In other words, if it feels good, do it. If this position is true, then there is no basis from which to judge the actions of [[Adolph Hitler]] as being evil.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. Phil Fernandez, Web article: ''Refuting Moral relativism'', Institute for Bible Defense (Web article is no longer online. Pages 120-121 of the book ''God, Government, and the Road to Tyranny: A Christian View of Government and Morality'' By Phil Fernandes, Eric Purcell and Rorri Wiesinger relates the same thoughts of his former web article.[https://books.google.com/books?id=u6XBuAQAiYUC&amp;amp;pg=PA120&amp;amp;lpg=PA120&amp;amp;dq=Nietzsche+preached+that+a+group+of+%22supermen%22+must+arise+with+the+courage+to+create+their+own+values+through+their+%22will+to+power.%22+Nietzsche+rejected+the+%22soft%22+values+of+Christianity+(brotherly+love,+turning+the+other+cheek,+charity,+compassion,+etc.);+he+felt+they+hindered+man%27s+creativity+and+potential.&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=kwDnaTOHqd&amp;amp;sig=0ywArBSb87JFleWRXZRv6DG3ZVo&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ved=0ahUKEwjty8qqyIzWAhXHg1QKHe8UAVYQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=Nietzsche%20preached%20that%20a%20group%20of%20%22supermen%22%20must%20arise%20with%20the%20courage%20to%20create%20their%20own%20values%20through%20their%20%22will%20to%20power.%22%20Nietzsche%20rejected%20the%20%22soft%22%20values%20of%20Christianity%20(brotherly%20love%2C%20turning%20the%20other%20cheek%2C%20charity%2C%20compassion%2C%20etc.)%3B%20he%20felt%20they%20hindered%20man's%20creativity%20and%20potential.&amp;amp;f=false])&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and various types of immorality ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|221px| The perverse and cruel atheist [[Marquis de Sade]] in prison, 18th century line engraving. See: [[Atheism and sadism]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and human rights violations]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and sexual immorality articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and violence articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and unforgiveness articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist mass shooters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[List of atheist shooters and serial killers]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist population and immorality|Atheism and various types of immorality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and sociopathy ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and sociopathy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist mass shooters and serial killers ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist mass shooters]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[List of atheist shooters and serial killers]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Study: U.S. public perception of atheist morality ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 2014, a University of Kentucky study was published by Will M. Gervais, which was entitled &amp;quot;Everything is permitted? People intuitively judge immorality as representative of atheists&amp;quot;, and the study indicated that &amp;quot;even atheist participants viewed immorality as significantly more representative of atheists than of other people.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gervais, Will M. (April 9, 2014).  &amp;quot;Everything is permitted?  People intuitively judge immorality as representative of atheists&amp;quot;. ''PLOS ONE'', {{doi|10.1371/journal.pone.0092302}}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Barna Group studies: Atheism and morality ===&lt;br /&gt;
'''Barna Group study on the behavior of atheists vs. evangelical Christians:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Deem]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|A random sample of 1003 adults were surveyed in May, 2008 by The Barna Group for their participation in a number of negative behaviors within the previous week. The results showed that there were vast differences in the behaviors of evangelicals compared to agnostics/atheists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These results show that atheists/agnostics participate in morally questionable behaviors to a much greater degree than [[evangelicalism|evangelical Christians]] - an average of nearly five times the frequency!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?] by Richard Deem&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Barna Group study related to atheist beliefs about behaviors:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Barna Group]] found that atheists and [[agnostics]] in America were more likely, than [[theist]]s in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable:  illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; [[abortion]]; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; [[pornography]] and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/bisexuality.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.barna.com/research/practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard/ Practical outcomes replace biblical principles as the moral standard], Barna Group&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases]] associated with homosexuality, the [[Bible|biblical]] prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many example where the Bible exhibited knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge that was ahead of its time].  See also: [[Atheism and sexual immorality articles|Atheism and sexual immorality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and uncharitableness  ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also: [[Atheism and charity]]'' and [[Atheist organizations and scandals]] and [[Atheism, uncharitableness and depression]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Beggar in Cambodia.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Most atheists likely live in [[East Asia]] (see: [[Asian atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A beggar in [[Cambodia]]. In Cambodia, the vast majority of the population adheres to a nontheistic form of [[Buddhism]] called the Theravada school of Buddhism. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive study by [[Harvard University]] professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Burke Campbell&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Burke, Daniel, Religion News Service (May 13, 2009). [https://web.archive.org/web/20130310113024/http://www.pewforum.org/Religion-News/Religious-people-make-better-citizens-study-says.aspx &amp;quot;Religious people make better citizens, study says&amp;quot;]. Pew Research Forum. Archived on March 10, 2013 by Internet Archive.  Retrieved July 19, 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
*Campbell, David and Putnam, Robert (November 14, 2010).  [https://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-15-column15_ST_N.htm &amp;quot;Religious people are 'better neighbors'&amp;quot;]. USA Today website.  Retrieved on July 19, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning the issue of [[Atheism and charity|atheism and uncharitableness]], the evidence indicates that [[per capita]] charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the [[Barna Group]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.barna.com/research/atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians/ &amp;quot;Atheists and agnostics take aim at Christians&amp;quot;] (June 11, 2007).  Barna Update.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive study by [[Harvard University]] professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.&amp;lt;ref name =&amp;quot;Burke Campbell&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism, social justice and hypocrisy]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Church-state issues emphasis. Charity low priority ====&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]] and [[Western atheism and race]] and [[Atheism and love]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2014, the African-American atheist woman [[Sikivu Hutchinson]] wrote in the ''Washington Post'' that atheist organizations generally focus on church-state separation and creationism issues and not the concerns the less affluent African American population faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hutchinson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Hutchinson, Sikivu (June 16, 2014).  [https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/16/blacks-are-even-discriminated-against-by-atheists/ &amp;quot;Atheism has a big race problem that no one’s talking about&amp;quot;].  Washington Post website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Hutchinson also mentioned that church organizations do focus on helping poor African Americans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hutchinson&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheist nonprofit scandals ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheist organizations and scandals]] and  ''[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science#Embezzlement allegation|Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science - Embezzlement allegation]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2018 YouTube video entitled ''[[David Silverman]] Ousted as President of [[American Atheists]]'', the atheist YouTube channel Utah Outcasts said in a video about David Silverman and atheist organizations: &amp;quot;Many other people were also like maybe he was embezzling funds because we know people in [[Atheist activist|atheist activist]] communities where that kind of sh*t happens. Yes, it was kind of common.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUvX5wTf8TM David Silverman Ousted as President of American Atheists], Utah Atheists, Go to the 3 minute mark in the video&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two atheist nonprofit scandals that recently received some publicity were the organizations [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] and the [[We Are Atheism]] organization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/07/24/richard-dawkins-drops-his-lawsuit-against-former-employee/ Richard Dawkins Drops His Lawsuit Against Former Employee]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/an-ungodly-row-dawkins-sues-his-disciple-2115632.html An ungodly row: Dawkins sues his disciple]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/07/24/richard-dawkins-drops-his-lawsuit-against-former-employee/ Richard Dawkins Drops His Lawsuit Against Former Employee]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/09/15/an-update-on-we-are-atheism/ An Update on We Are Atheism] by Hemant Mehta, September 15, 2015]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, David Gorski at Scienceblogs indicated that many atheist/skeptic organizations are poorly run from a financial standpoint.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/10/24/richard-dawkins-sues-josh-timonen/ Richard Dawkins sues Josh Timonen], Posted by David Gorski on October 24, 2010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Atheist organizations and scandals]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Irreligion and domestic violence ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Irreligion and domestic violence]] and [[Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|205px|right|Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vaw&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ellison, C. G., Trinitapoli, J. A., et al. (November 2007). [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17951587 &amp;quot;Race/ethnicity, religious involvement, and domestic violence&amp;quot;] [abstract with link to full article].  ''Violence Against Women'', doi: 10.1177/1077801207308259, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 1094-1112.  Abstract from PubMed.gov&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
The abstract for the 2007 article in the journal ''Violence Against Women'' entitled ''Race/Ethnicity, Religious Involvement, and Domestic Violence'' indicated:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The authors explored the relationship between religious involvement and intimate partner violence by analyzing data from the first wave of the National Survey of Families and Households. They found that: (a) religious involvement is correlated with reduced levels of domestic violence; (b) levels of domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; (c) the effects of religious involvement on domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; and (d) religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence, and this protective effect is stronger for African American men and women and for Hispanic men, groups that, for a variety of reasons, experience elevated risk for this type of violence.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vaw&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Secular Europe and domestic violence =====&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Secular Europe and domestic violence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and racism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and racism]] and [[East Asia, China, atheism and racism]] and [[Western atheism and race]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[atheist population]] has a significant amount of racism within its midst (see: [[Atheism and racism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and empathy ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and empathy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and pornography ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Larry Flynt Wheelchair.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|The [[pornography|pornographer]] [[Larry Flynt]] is an atheist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Flynt writes, &amp;quot;I have left my religious conversion behind and settled into a comfortable state of atheism&amp;quot;: see the epilogue of Flynt, Larry and Ross, Kenneth (June 1, 2008).  ''An Unseemly Man: My Life as Pornographer, Pundit, and Social Outcast''.   &lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;I am not saying he don't believe in God. I am just saying I don't believe in God. That puts me at odds with him.&amp;quot; [https://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9701/11/falwell.v.flynt/lkl.00.html &amp;quot;Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell&amp;quot; [transcript&amp;amp;#93;] (January 10, 1996).  Larry King Live.  Transcript from CNN.com on October 3, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and pornography]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and pornography]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the causes of atheism is a [[hedonism|hedonistic]] lifestyle. See: [[Atheism and hedonism]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The infamous [[pornography|pornographers]] [[Hugh Hefner]] and [[Larry Flynt]] was and is (taken separately in the order indicated) both atheists (taken together).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Gottesdiener, Laura (February 23, 2010).  [https://www.salon.com/2013/02/23/10_celebs_you_didnt_know_were_atheists_partner/ &amp;quot;10 celebs you didn't know were atheists&amp;quot;].  Salon.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Flynt writes, &amp;quot;I have left my religious conversion behind and settled into a comfortable state of atheism&amp;quot;: see the epilogue of Flynt, Larry and Ross, Kenneth (June 1, 2008).  ''An Unseemly Man: My Life as Pornographer, Pundit, and Social Outcast''.&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;I am not saying he don't believe in God. I am just saying I don't believe in God. That puts me at odds with him.&amp;quot; [https://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9701/11/falwell.v.flynt/lkl.00.html &amp;quot;Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell&amp;quot; [transcript&amp;amp;#93;] (January 10, 1996).  Larry King Live.  Transcript from CNN.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003, ''Arena magazine'' magazine listed Flynt as #1 on the &amp;quot;50 Powerful People in Porn&amp;quot; list.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.onenewspage.us/people/ms9j0/Larry-Flynt.htm &amp;quot;Larry Flynt&amp;quot;].  One News Page.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Flynt is paralyzed from the waist down due to injuries sustained from a 1978 assassination attempt by the serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Flynt, Larry and Ross, Kenneth (June 1, 2008).  ''An Unseemly Man: My Life as Pornographer, Pundit, and Social Outcast'', pp. 170–171.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.onenewspage.us/people/ms9j0/Larry-Flynt.htm &amp;quot;Larry Flynt&amp;quot;].  One News Page.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== RationalWiki and web visitor interest in pornography ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[RationalWiki and web visitor interest in pornography]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheism and child pornography ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and child pornography]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005 [[Denmark]] was ranked the third most atheistic country in the world and the website adherents.com reported that in 2005 43 - 80% of Danes are agnostics/atheists/non-believers in God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html Top 50 Countries With Highest Proportion of Atheists / Agnostics(Zuckerman, 2005)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2003 book entitled ''Overcoming Violence Against Women and Girls: The International Campaign to Eradicate a Worldwide Problem '' written by authors Rahel Nardos; Mary K. Radpour; William S. Hatcher and Michael L. Penn, declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The largest source of commercial child pornography is Denmark. Denmark became the world's leading producer of child pornography when, in 1969, it removed all restrictions on the production and sale of any type of pornographic material. &amp;quot;The result,&amp;quot; notes Tim Tate, &amp;quot;was a short-lived explosion in adult pornography, and the birth of commercial child pornography. ....by 1979 when Denmark finally banned the production and sale of child pornography it had already become such a financial success on the international market that it has proven to be nearly impossible to bring its spread under control.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nardos, Rahel, et. al. (2003).  ''Overcoming Violence Against Women and Girls: The International Campaign to Eradicate a Worldwide Problem'', p. 59.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suzanne Ost, in her 2009 book ''Child Pornography and Sexual Grooming: Legal and Societal Responses'' published by Cambridge University Press, wrote about the child pornography created by Denmark/Holland during this period: &amp;quot;Taylor and Quayle note that the material produced during this period still constitutes the largest part of child pornography that is currently available, having been transferred into digital format and uploaded onto the internet.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Child Pornography and Sexual Grooming: Legal and Societal Responses'' by Suzanne Ost, Cambridge University Press, page 29, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism, pedophilia and NAMBLA ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Harry Hay.jpg|thumb|150px|Many consider atheist [[Harry Hay]] to be the founder of the American homosexual movement.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''see also:'' [[Atheism, pedophilia and NAMBLA]] and [[Teenage homosexuality]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[North American Man/Boy Love Association]] (NAMBLA) was founded in December 1978 and is an activist homosexuality and [[pedophilia]]/pederasty coalition group.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the well known atheist advocates of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. The atheist and homosexual [[David Thorstad]] was a founding member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Abbott, Matt C. (August 22, 2010).  [http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100822 &amp;quot;The mind of a pederast&amp;quot;]. RenewAmerica.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. '''[[Harry Hay]]''' (1912 - 2002) was an [[liberal]] advocate of [[statutory rape]] and the widely acknowledged founder and progenitor of the  activist [[homosexual agenda]] in the [[United States]]. Hay joined the [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) in 1934.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bronski, Michael (October 31, 2002).  [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm &amp;quot;The real Harry Hay&amp;quot;].  The Phoenix.com.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Harry Hay was an atheist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kincaid, Cliff, Accuracy in Media (January 7, 2010). [http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_politics0010_01_07.asp &amp;quot;Twisted: administration's 'safe schools czar' and the North American Man-Boy Love Association&amp;quot;].  WorldTribune.com.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He was a vociferous advocate of man/boy love.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Lord, Jeffrey (October 5, 2006).  [http://spectator.org/articles/46366/when-nancy-met-harry &amp;quot;Special report:  when Nancy met Harry&amp;quot;].  The American Spectator website. &lt;br /&gt;
*Kincaid, Cliff, Accuracy in Media (January 7, 2010). [http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_politics0010_01_07.asp &amp;quot;Twisted: administration's 'safe schools czar' and the North American Man-Boy Love Association&amp;quot;].  WorldTribune.com.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1986, Hay marched in a [[homosexual|gay]] parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words &amp;quot;[[NAMBLA]] walks with me.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Baldwin, Hon. Steve (2002). [http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf &amp;quot;Child molestation and the homosexual movement&amp;quot;]. ''Regent University Law Review'', vol. 14, pp. 267-282. The Architecture of Modern Political Power&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. The writer [[Samuel R. Delany]] is an atheist and a homosexual.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Delany, Samuel R. (2006).  ''About Writing:  Seven Essays, Four Letters, and Five Interviews'' (Middletown: Wesleyan), p. 36.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.enotes.com/topics/samuel-r-delany/critical-essays/delany-samuel-r-vol-141#critical-essays-delany-samuel-r-vol-141-introduction &amp;quot;Introduction&amp;quot;] (2001).  ''Contemporary Literary Criticism'', ed. Hunter, Jeffrey W., vol. 141 (Gale Cengage).  eNotes.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Delaney said he was a supporter of NAMBLA.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Freedman, Carl (2009).  ''Conversations with Samuel R. Delany'' (Jackson: Univ. Press of Mississippi), p. 143.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called &amp;quot;gentle pedophiles&amp;quot;]] and [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and slavery/forced labor ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and slavery]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and forced labor]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Dietary practices of atheists. Eating of dogs, cats, horses and babies/children ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Dietary practices of atheists]] (Dietary habits of various irreligious regions)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheists and the eating of babies/children ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists eat babies meme#Atheistic China and baby eating|Communist China and baby eating]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists eat babies meme|Atheists and the eating of babies/children]] ([[China]], [[Soviet Union]], [[North Korea]] and other issues)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===== Major news organizations reporting on China baby flesh powder scandal =====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://abcnews.go.com/Health/chinese-made-infant-flesh-capsules-seized-korea/story?id=16296176 Chinese-Made Infant Flesh Capsules Seized in S. Korea], ''ABC News''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/chinese-cannibalism-infant-flesh-outrages-world/ Chinese cannibalism of infant flesh outrages the world], ''Washington Times''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140702/South-Korea-customs-officials-thousands-pills-filled-powdered-human-baby-flesh.html Thousands of pills filled with powdered human baby flesh discovered by customs officials in South Korea], ''The Daily Mail''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/horrifyingly-ground-baby-pills-are-real-thing/328490/ Horrifyingly, Ground Baby Pills Are a Real Thing] by Alexander Abad-Santos, ''The Atlantic''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Immorality of prominent atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:JAMES RANDI.jpg|thumbnail|170px|left|[[James Randi]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[James Randi]] is a leader within the atheist community. Brian Thompson, former James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) Outreach Coordinator, wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|But I no longer identify with this community of benevolent know-it-alls, because not all of them are the best folks in the world. In fact, a good percentage of the top ten worst humans I’ve ever met are prominent members of the skeptics’ club. They’re dishonest, mean-spirited, narcissistic, [[misogyny|misogynistic]]. Pick a personality flaw, and I can probably point you to someone who epitomizes it. And that person has probably had a speaking slot at a major skeptical conference.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I grew particularly disgusted with the boys’ club attitude I saw among skeptical leaders and luminaries. The kind of attitude that’s dismissive of women, sexually predatory, and downright gross. When I first started going to skeptical conferences as a fresh-faced know-it-all, I started hearing things about people I once admired. Then I started seeing things myself. Then I got a job with the JREF, and the pattern continued.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Myers, P. Z. (March 31, 2014).  [http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/31/when-will-this-situation-improve/ &amp;quot;When will this situation improve?&amp;quot;] Pharyngula.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Richard Carrier, adultery, divorce and polyamory]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist conferences#Atheist events and inappropriate sexually related activities|Atheist conferences and inappropriate sexual activity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and rape ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and rape]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mass rape during the occupation of Germany|Mass rape of German women by the Soviet army]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and abortion ===&lt;br /&gt;
The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' wrote this about the atheist and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his ''La Philosophie dans le boudoir'', in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of [[population control]]. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Farr, A. D. (1980).  [https://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract &amp;quot;The Marquis de Sade and induced abortion&amp;quot;].  ''Journal of Medical Ethics'', 6, pp. 7-10.  Journal of Medical Ethics website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Population control]] is based on [[pseudoscience]] and ill founded [[economics|economic]] assumptions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Egnor, Michael (November 30, 2010).  [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pz_myers_on_abortion040971.html &amp;quot;P. Z. Myers on abortion&amp;quot;].  Evolution News and Views.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ''[[CBS News]]'' reported: &amp;quot;According to a mail-in survey of nearly 4,000 British doctors, those who were atheist or agnostic were almost twice as willing to take actions designed to hasten the end of life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Katz, Neil (August 26, 2010).  [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-atheist-doctors-twice-as-likely-to-pull-plug/ &amp;quot;Study: atheist doctors twice as likely to pull plug&amp;quot;]. CBSNews.com.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and profanity ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and profanity]] and [[Atheism and culture]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies indicate that atheists engage in more [[profanity]] than Christians/theists and are more likely to believe that obscene language is acceptable to engage in.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.barna.org/component/content/article/5-barna-update/45-barna-update-sp-657/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard#.VwcQ8jEn_7Y  &amp;quot;Practical outcomes replace biblical principles as the moral standard&amp;quot;] (September 10, 2001).  Barna Update. &lt;br /&gt;
*Jay, Timothy and Janschewitz, Kristin (May/June 2012).  [http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2012/may-june-12/the-science-of-swearing.html &amp;quot;The Science of Swearing&amp;quot;].  ''Observer'', vol. 25, no. 5. The Association for Psychological Science website.&lt;br /&gt;
*Ritter, Ryan S., Preston, J. L. et al. (June 18, 2013). [http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/06/18/1948550613492345.full.pdf+html &amp;quot;Happy tweets: Christians are happier, more socially connected, and less analytical than atheists on Twitter&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;].  ''Social Psychological and Personality Science'', 1948550613492345.  Abstract: Sage Journals Subscription required for full article.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Use of profanity by individuals is negatively correlated with conscientiousness and agreeableness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jay, Timothy and Janschewitz, Kristin (May/June 2012).  [http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2012/may-june-12/the-science-of-swearing.html &amp;quot;The Science of Swearing&amp;quot;].  ''Observer'', vol. 25, no. 5. The Association for Psychological Science website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Atheism and profanity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Irreligion and crime/prison population ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Religion and crime reduction]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligious prison population]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and psychopathy ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and psychopathy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Jeffrey Dahmer Milwaukee Police 1991 mugshot.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The [[serial killer]] [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] engaged in [[cannibalism]]. He was an atheist while he committed these acts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1sv4ky_serial-killer-jeffrey-dahmer-blames-atheism-and-evolution-belief-for-murders_news Serial Killer Jeffrey Dahmer blames Atheism and Evolution belief for Murders]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and cannibalism]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
A [[psychopath]] is someone with an anti-social [[personality disorder]] characterized by [[violent]], [[perverted]] or immoral behavior often leading to [[criminal]]ity. Psychopaths have little or no concern for other people. Some psychopaths equate [[love]] with sexual arousal.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title=Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us |author=Robert D. Hare |publisher=Guilford Press |place=New York and London |year=2011 |pages=52 |isbn=978-16062-35782 |url=https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1606235788}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 study relating to atheism and psychopathy published in ''Plus One'' indicates:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|Similarly, a survey of 312 college students examining the relationship between Religious/Spiritual Well-Being (RSWB) and ‘dark triad’ personality traits found that “RSWB was confirmed to be negatively correlated with these negative aspects of personality, in particular with subclinical psychopathy.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...moral concern is associated with a spiritual worldview.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149989 Why Do You Believe in God? Relationships between Religious Belief, Analytic Thinking, Mentalizing and Moral Concern] by Anthony Ian Jack , Jared Parker Friedman, Richard Eleftherios Boyatzis, Scott Nolan Taylor, ''Plus One'', March 23, 2016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the 2014 journal article ''Correlates of psychopathic personality traits in everyday life: results from a large community survey'' published in the journal ''Frontiers of Psychology''  lack of belief in [[God]] is positively associated with [[psychopath]]y.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4106400/ Correlates of psychopathic personality traits in everyday life: results from a large community survey] by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Robert D. Latzman, Ashley L. Watts, Sarah F. Smith, and Kevin Dutton, ''Frontiers of Psychology'', 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and theft crimes ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and stealing|Atheism and theft crimes]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion and car theft]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Secular Europe and pickpocketing]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist organizations and scandals]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and infanticide ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Infanticide]] is the practice of killing very young children. An infant is a child too young to speak.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;MedicineNet.com http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3966.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Chow chow.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Each year thousands of [[dog]]s are stolen in atheist, communist controlled mainland [[China]] and as many as 20 million dogs are killed in China to satisfy the dog meat industry.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/stop-pet-dogs-stolen-for-meat/ The Chinese Government Must Stop Pet Dogs Being Stolen For Meat] by JERRY GADIANO, Unilad website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For more information, please see: [[Atheists and dog meat eating]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
According to ''ABC News'', gruesome techniques are used in Chinese dog slaughterhouses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjbWQAASPcs Chinese Dog Meat Festival | Undercover Cameras Reveal Brutality Chinese Dog Meat Festival | Undercover Cameras Reveal Brutality], ABC News, YouTube&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Brutal beatings of dogs are occurring in the Chinese dog meat trade during the slaughtering process.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjbWQAASPcs Chinese Dog Meat Festival | Undercover Cameras Reveal Brutality Chinese Dog Meat Festival | Undercover Cameras Reveal Brutality], ABC News, YouTube&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and animal abuse]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[China]] has the world's largest atheist population.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Double references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf &amp;quot;Top 20 Countries With Largest Numbers of Atheists / Agnostics (Zuckerman, 2005)&amp;quot;] (November 28, 2007). ''The Largest Atheist/Agnostic Populations''. Chris &amp;amp; Terri Chapman website (March 19, 2013 or bef.), first publication date at website from archive at Internet Archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/23/a-surprising-map-of-where-the-worlds-atheists-live/ A surprising map of where the world’s atheists live], ''Washington Post'' By Max Fisher and Caitlin Dewey May 23, 2013&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It also has [[state atheism]] (See: [[China and atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Most atheists in the world are [[East Asia]]n (see: [[Asian atheism]]).]]&lt;br /&gt;
Below is an article on atheism and infanticide: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and infanticide]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and bestiality ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and cannibalism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and cannibalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and animal abuse ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and animal abuse]] (Brutal dog/cat meat trades, etc.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and veganism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and veganism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and hypocrisy ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheist hypocrisy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to attempt to justify their atheism, atheists often engage in [[Hypocrisy|hypocritical]] argumentation.  In addition, atheists often engage in hypocritical behavior. Please see: [[Atheist hypocrisy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and social justice ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and social justice]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and care of the environment ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and the environment|Atheism and care of the environment]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and other moral issues ===&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see:  [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and hedonism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Earlier definitions of atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
Dictionaries point out that previous/archaic meanings of the word atheism are: ungodliness. wickedness, immorality&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20130509103942/http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9779.htm Dictionary Says 'Atheism' Means 'Immorality'!?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism Definition of atheism - Merriam-Webster dictionary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and philosophy topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Cerebellum.jpg|right|thumb|240px|If [[Naturalism (philosophy)|philosophical naturalism]] were true, then we ought not to trust our capacity for reason for the human brain would be a byproduct of blind/unintelligent natural forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/09/cs-lewis-argument-from-reason.html C.S. Lewis' argument from reason]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/cs_lewis_and_th079541.html C.S. Lewis and the Argument from Reason] by Jay W. Richards, November 25, 2013 &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-6/cs-lewis-and-materialism C.S. Lewis and Materialism] by John G. West&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8669 C.S. Lewis On The Validity of Reasoning]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2012/04/cs-lewis-on-rationality-and-materialism.html C.S. Lewis on Rationality and Materialism ]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2008/08/naturalisms-hot.html Naturalism's Hot Water]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and reason]] and [[Atheism and the brain]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and naturalism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and naturalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientific naturalism proposes that only explanations which can be scientifically tested are valid, yet this proposition cannot be scientifically tested. Therefore, scientific naturalism is self-refuting.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU_K_a7fW1A William Lane Craig on Scientific Naturalism] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and incoherency]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and issues relating to knowledge acquisition ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and knowledge]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and epistemology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and reason]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and evidence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and logic]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and logical fallacies]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and critical thinking]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and meaninglessness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Why atheism is irrational ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and irrationality]] and [[Irreligion and superstition]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common and legitimate criticism of the atheist worldview is that [[Atheism and irrationality|atheism is irrational]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;athdef&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; In short, atheism is a fundamentally incoherent worldview with a number of inconsistencies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;inconsist&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  For example, the atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of [[logic]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Lisle, Dr. Jason (October 10, 2007).  [https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/ &amp;quot;Atheism: An irrational worldview&amp;quot;]. AnswersinGenesis.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Slick, Matt (2010).  [http://carm.org/christian-worldview-atheist-worldview-and-logic &amp;quot;The Christian worldview, the atheist worldview, and logic&amp;quot;].  Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. &lt;br /&gt;
*Petersen, Jason (2013).  [https://web.archive.org/web/20160807221254/http://answersforhope.org/can-atheism-coherently-explain-the-laws-of-logic/ &amp;quot;Can atheism coherently explain the laws of logic?&amp;quot;] Answers for Hope.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Audio of a formal 1985 debate between Christian Greg Bahnsen and skeptic Gordon Stein at the University of California, Irvine on the question &amp;quot;Does God exist?&amp;quot;  See Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]]&lt;br /&gt;
**[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1hSx2evTGM &amp;quot;Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein:  The Great Debate (FULL)&amp;quot;] (May 19, 2011).  YouTube video, 2:10:44, posted by Argin Gerigorian.  &lt;br /&gt;
**Andy (December 5, 2006).  [http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/ &amp;quot;Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein mp3&amp;quot;].  The Domain for Truth.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and critical thinking]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The atheist worldview cannot explain the existence of [[consciousness]] either and the [[theism|theistic]] worldview can offer a reasonable explanation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Piippo, John (March 20, 2012).  [http://www.johnpiippo.com/2012/03/argument-from-consciousness-for.html &amp;quot;The argument from consciousness for the existence of God&amp;quot;].  John Piippo. &lt;br /&gt;
*Piippo, John (April 14, 2014).  [http://www.johnpiippo.com/2014/04/one-of-atheisms-irresolvable-problems.html &amp;quot;Consciousness:  One of atheism's irresolvable problems&amp;quot;].  John Piippo.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|A common and legitimate criticism of the atheist worldview is that [[Atheism and irrationality|atheism is irrational]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;athdef&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Slick, Matt (2010).  [http://carm.org/cut-atheism &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;].  Christian Apologetics &amp;amp; Research Ministry.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;].  ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7. Internet Christian Library&lt;br /&gt;
*Gilson, Tom (March 21, 2012).  [http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2012/03/21/atheists-dont-own-reason/10924 &amp;quot;Atheists don’t own reason&amp;quot;].  FaithStreet/On Faith.  &lt;br /&gt;
*McInerny, Professor Ralph (1985).  [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html &amp;quot;Why the burden of proof is on the atheist&amp;quot;].  ''Truth Journal'', vol. 1. LeadershipU &lt;br /&gt;
*Platinga, Alvin (1991).  [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html &amp;quot;Theism, atheism, and rationality&amp;quot;]. ''Truth Journal'', vol. 3.  LeadershipU. See [[Alvin Plantinga]]. &lt;br /&gt;
*Day, Vox (2008). [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf ''The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens''](Dallas TX:  Benbella Books). ISBN 1933771364; ISBN 978-1933771366.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In short, atheism is a fundamentally incoherent worldview with a number of inconsistencies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;inconsist&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4K_WZpIkM4 &amp;quot;William Lane Craig on scientific naturalism&amp;quot;] (January 12, 2008).  YouTube video, 9:55, posted by Drcraigvideos&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://vimeo.com/102663614 &amp;quot;The Summit lecture series: Scientific naturalism worldview with J.P. Moreland, part 1&amp;quot;] (August 5, 2014).  Vimeo video, 8:10, posted by Jefferson Drexler. &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://vimeo.com/103277405 &amp;quot;The Summit lecture series: Scientific naturalism with J.P. Moreland, part 2&amp;quot;] (August 12, 2014).  Vimeo video, 7:43, posted by Jefferson Drexler.  &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://vimeo.com/103865278 &amp;quot;The Summit lecture series: Scientific naturalism worldview with J.P. Moreland, part 3&amp;quot;] (August 19, 2014).  Vimeo video, 7:21, posted by Jefferson Drexler.  &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://vimeo.com/105068126 &amp;quot;The Summit lecture series: Scientific naturalism worldview with J.P. Moreland, part 4&amp;quot;] (September 2, 2014).  Vimeo video, 6:40, posted by Jefferson Drexler. &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6cTlDn4PiU &amp;quot;The incoherence of atheism - Ravi Zacharias&amp;quot;] (February 5, 2013).  YouTube video, 51:59, posted by Christianity Reason and Science.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Cooper, Jordan (August 31, 2012).  [http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-incoherence-of-atheism.html &amp;quot;The incoherence of atheism&amp;quot;].  Just and Sinner blog.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Randy (November 12, 2012).  [http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2012/11/more-on-inconsistent-atheists.html &amp;quot;More on inconsistent atheists&amp;quot;].  Speak the Truth in Love.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Geisler, Norman and McCoy, Daniel J. (June 2014).  ''The Atheist's Fatal Flaw: Exposing Conflicting Beliefs'' (Ada, MI:  Baker Publishing Group).   See [[Norman Geisler]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and irrationality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and logic]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and incoherency]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and groupthink]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and epistemology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and postmodernism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and reason ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and reason]] and [[Atheists and unreasonableness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]] is true, then we ought not to trust our capacity for [[reason]] for the human [[brain]] would be a byproduct of blind/unintelligent natural forces.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;C.S. Lewis' argument from reason&amp;quot;&amp;gt;*[http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/09/cs-lewis-argument-from-reason.html C.S. Lewis' argument from reason]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/cs_lewis_and_th079541.html C.S. Lewis and the Argument from Reason] by Jay W. Richards, November 25, 2013 &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-6/cs-lewis-and-materialism C.S. Lewis and Materialism] by John G. West&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=8669 C.S. Lewis On The Validity of Reasoning]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2008/08/naturalisms-hot.html Naturalism's Hot Water]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Therefore, believing in naturalism is self-defeating.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In short, atheism/naturalism and reason are incompatible.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;C.S. Lewis' argument from reason&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and personhood ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and personhood]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the problem of consciousness ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and consciousness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and free will ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and free will]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and human worth ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and human worth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and evidence ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and evidence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Logical fallacies that atheists commonly commit ===&lt;br /&gt;
List of logical fallacies that atheists commonly commit: [[Atheism and logical fallacies]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and meaninglessness ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and meaninglessness]] and [[Atheism and the meaning of life]] and [[Nihilism]] and [[Absurdism]] and [[Existentialism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under an atheistic worldview, there is no objective meaning or purpose in life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Anderson, James (July 16, 2013).  [http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/can-life-have-meaning-without-god &amp;quot;Can life have meaning without God?&amp;quot;] The Gospel Coalition.  &amp;quot;Atheism’s universe is meaningless and valueless&amp;quot;. J.W. Wartick—&amp;quot;Always Have a Reason&amp;quot; [blog&lt;br /&gt;
*Galloway, Katie (December 23, 2013).  [http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/reclaiming-reason-from-atheism &amp;quot;Reclaiming reason from atheism&amp;quot;.]  Bethinking.  [&amp;quot;Why atheism?&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*Sirrahc (April 19, 2012).  [http://aviewfromtheright.com/2012/04/19/heat-death-and-atheist-inconsistency-or-isnt-it-ironic/ &amp;quot;Heat death and atheist inconsistency (or, isn’t it ironic?)&amp;quot;].  A View from the Right&lt;br /&gt;
*Shramek, Dustin (2009).  [http://www.oocities.org/athens/delphi/8449/atheism.html &amp;quot;Atheism and death: Why the atheist must face death with despair&amp;quot;].  Contend for the Faith [archive].  Archive&lt;br /&gt;
*Brake, Aaron (2013).  [http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/apathy-atheism-and-the-absurdity-of-life-without-god/ &amp;quot;Apathy, atheism, and the absurdity of life without God&amp;quot;].  Pleaseconvinceme.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Prayson, Daniel (December 16, 2010).  [http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/the-meaningless-life-of-atheism/ &amp;quot;The meaningless life of atheism&amp;quot;].  With All I Am.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Through [[Jesus Christ]], Christianity offers objective meaning and purpose to life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Slick, Matt (2012).  [http://carm.org/meaning-of-life &amp;quot;What does the Bible say about the meaning/purpose of life?&amp;quot;].  Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website&lt;br /&gt;
*[Under a Christian worldview] [http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_MeaningLife.htm &amp;quot;What is the purpose and meaning of life?&amp;quot;] (2009).  Christian Bible Reference Site.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Atheism and meaninglessness]] and [[Atheism and the meaning of life]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists/agnostics and ultimate purpose ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and purpose]] and [[Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism]] and [[Atheism and beliefs]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most popular arguments for God's existence is the [[teleological argument]]. Derived from the Greek word ''telos'', which refers to purpose or end, this argument hinges on the idea that the world gives evidence of being designed, and concludes that a divine designer must be posited to account for the orderly world we encounter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Academic research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Banerjee, Konika and Bloom, Paul (October 17, 2014).  [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html &amp;quot;Does everything happen for a reason?&amp;quot;]  The New York Times website&lt;br /&gt;
*Catchpoole, David (July 16, 2009 [GMT+10]).  [https://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed &amp;quot;Children see the world as designed&amp;quot;].  Creation.com.  See [[Creation Ministries International]].&lt;br /&gt;
*Atheist [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] made the candid confession: &amp;quot;As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for want of being able to think otherwise.&amp;quot; Source: Turner, Dean (1991). [https://books.google.com/books?id=BGU7LZ2bQ4cC&amp;amp;pg=PA109&amp;amp;lpg=PA109&amp;amp;dq=As+for+me,+I+don%E2%80%99t+see+myself+as+so+much+dust+that+has+appeared+in+the+world+but+as+a+being+that+was+expected,+prefigured,+called+forth.+In+short,+as+a+being+that+could,+it+seems,+come+only+from+a+creator;+and+this+idea+of+a+creating+hand+that+created+me+refers+me+back+to+God.&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=die9xMUdsB&amp;amp;sig=3dAJOK34aBalYieFKcJLdGpwFjY&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=NXhqVMSmHMexyASUyYKIBw&amp;amp;ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=As%20for%20me%2C%20I%20don%E2%80%99t%20see%20myself%20as%20so%20much%20dust%20that%20has%20appeared%20in%20the%20world%20but%20as%20a%20being%20that%20was%20expected%2C%20prefigured%2C%20called%20forth.%20In%20short%2C%20as%20a%20being%20that%20could%2C%20it%20seems%2C%20come%20only%20from%20a%20creator%3B%20and%20this%20idea%20of%20a%20creating%20hand%20that%20created%20me%20refers%20me%20back%20to%20God.&amp;amp;f=false ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility''] (Pasadena, California:  Hope Publishing House), p. 109. GoogleBooks archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' declares about the agnostic/[[weak atheism|weak atheist]] Charles Darwin: &amp;quot;In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: 'In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, &amp;quot;Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,&amp;quot; and he shook his head vaguely, adding, &amp;quot;it seems to go away.&amp;quot;' (Argyll 1885, 244)&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html &amp;quot;Notes to 'Teleological arguments for God's existence'&amp;quot;] [article revised removing reference in January 2015].&lt;br /&gt;
**The Duke of Argyll (1885).  [https://books.google.com/books?id=CskhAQAAIAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=%22good+words%22&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=fs24VKGOMpDnsATg_4HYDQ&amp;amp;ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=%22it%20seems%20to%20go%20away%22&amp;amp;f=false &amp;quot;What is science?&amp;quot;]  ''Good Words'' [United Kingdom], vol. 26, p. 244. GoogleBooks archive&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and evil/suffering ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and the Problem of Evil|Atheism and the problem of evil]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and suffering]]&lt;br /&gt;
=== Arrogance of atheism/atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and arrogance]] and [[Atheism and narcissism]] and [[Atheism and deception]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the common and well-founded charges against atheists is their arrogance and presumptuousness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;].  ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7.  Internet Christian Library &lt;br /&gt;
*Copan, Paul (April 6, 2009).  [http://www.equip.org/articles/the-presumptuousness-of-atheism/ &amp;quot;The presumptuousness of atheism&amp;quot;].  Christian Research Institute. &lt;br /&gt;
*Cupp, S. E. (December 29, 2010).  [http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/arrogance-atheists-batter-believers-religion-smug-certainty-article-1.469613 &amp;quot;The arrogance of the atheists: They batter believers in religion with smug certainty&amp;quot;].  ''New York Daily News''.   See atheist commentator [[S.E. Cupp]]&lt;br /&gt;
*O'Neill, Brendan (August 14, 2013).  [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100230985/how-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet/ &amp;quot;How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet&amp;quot;].  The Telegraph website/Brendan O'Neill [blog].  [atheist author]   &lt;br /&gt;
*Delzell, Dan (October 17, 2011).  [http://www.christianpost.com/news/how-anger-fuels-atheistic-arrogance-58281/ &amp;quot;How anger fuels atheistic arrogance&amp;quot;].  Christian Post website. &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_arrogance.htm &amp;quot;Militant atheist arrogance and pride&amp;quot;] (2007).  Militant Atheism Exposed.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Why atheism is an arrogant ideology  ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments|Arguments against atheism]] and [[Atheism and arrogance]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Old Nietzsche, 1899.JPG|thumbnail|220px|right|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]] wrote: &amp;quot;But now God is dead. You superior men, this God was your greatest danger. Only since he is in the grave, have you risen again. Only now comes the great noontide; only now the superior man will be – Lord!&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_arrogance.htm Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, In Michael Curtis (Ed.) The Great Political Theories, Vol. 2 (New York: Avon Books, 1962, PP. 261-262). Cited in, Christopher, J.R., G.G, Wittet, Modern Western Civilization. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1991, Pages 232, 233]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The picture of Nietzsche above was taken in 1899. Nietzsche died in 1900. See: [[Atheism and arrogance]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|lack proof and evidence]] that God does not exist and ignore the [[Christian apologetics websites|clear and abundant proof and evidence]] that He does exist.  The philosopher [[Mortimer Adler]] pointed out that atheism asserts an unreasonable [[universal negative]] that is self-defeating.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;defensive&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Samples, Kenneth R. (Fall 1991 and Winter 1992). [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0131a.html &amp;quot;Putting the atheist on the defensive&amp;quot;].  ''Christian Research Institute Journal'', p. 7. Internet Christian Library&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Contrary to the mistaken notion of individuals who are inexperienced in [[logic]]/philosophy, there are plenty of cases where universal negatives [[Universal negative|can be proven]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/must-the-atheist-be-omniscient/ Must the Atheist Be Omniscient?] by Dr. William Lane Craig&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, atheists' universal negative claim that God does not exist is not a reasonable universal negative claim.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;defensive&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists have also given themselves pretentious monikers such as [[freethinker]], rationalist and &amp;quot;bright&amp;quot;. See also: [[Brights Movement]] and [[Atheism and intelligence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, historically militant atheists have commonly endeavored to limit the religious freedom of others while imposing their errant, atheistic ideology on others. See also: [[Atheism and intolerance]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheists and lack of open-mindedness ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research indicates that atheists are less open-minded (see: [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and open-mindedness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and dogmatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[New Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and religion ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism is a religion ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheist cults]] and [[Atheist hypocrisy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sanderson Jones.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The [[British atheism|British atheist]] Sanderson Jones is a founder of the [[Sunday Assembly]] &amp;quot;atheist church&amp;quot; movement.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/atheist-church-split_n_4550456.html Atheist Church Split: Sunday Assembly And Godless Revival's 'Denominational Chasm'], Huffington Post, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism is a religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Atheism is a religion]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Atheismisareligion&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Is Atheism a religion?] by Daniel Smartt, Published: 4 May 2010(GMT+10)&lt;br /&gt;
*Hodge, Bodie; Patterson, Roger (2016). ''[https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/prod/etc/sample/10-2-476_sample.pdf ''World Religions and Cults Vol. 3'']. Master Books. 29–44. ISBN: 978-0-89051-970-7.&lt;br /&gt;
*Hodge, Bodie; Ham, Ken (February 20, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-is-religion/ Atheism Is Religion]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 27, 2018.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  And many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and [[New Atheism|new atheist]]/agnostic Richard Dawkins, argue for agnosticism/atheism with a religious fervor. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In addition, although many atheists deny that atheism is a worldview, atheists commonly share a [[Atheism and beliefs|number of beliefs]] such as [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], belief in evolution and [[Origin of life|abiogenesis]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Slick, Matt (October 2011).  [http://carm.org/atheism-worldview &amp;quot;Is atheism a worldview?&amp;quot;]  Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website.  See [[CARM]]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hearn, Brian F. (December 31, 2009).  [http://www.apologetics.net/post/Atheism-a-worldview.aspx &amp;quot;Atheism a worldview?&amp;quot;]  Apologetics.net.&lt;br /&gt;
*Hearn, Brian F. (May 2, 2012).  [http://www.apologetics.net/post/Atheism-is-a-worldview-%28II%29.aspx &amp;quot;Atheism is a worldview II&amp;quot;].  Apologetics.net. &lt;br /&gt;
*Bannister, Andy (October 14, 2013).  [http://www.rzim.eu/the-scandanavian-sceptic-or-why-atheism-is-a-belief-system &amp;quot;The Scandanavian sceptic (or why atheism is a belief system)&amp;quot;].  Ravi Zacharias International Ministries website.  See [[Ravi Zacharias]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roderick Ninian Smart, a Scottish writer and professor, defined a seven-part scheme of understanding both religious and secular worldviews&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Smart, Ninian (1996).  [https://books.google.com/books?id=14j2UrLCi64C&amp;amp;pg=PA130&amp;amp;lpg=PA130&amp;amp;dq=ninian+smart+narrative&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=Hq3WwG_mVT&amp;amp;sig=j-8FpwSdqohURYodSdcl46erSJY&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=FgybT6zxIc-_gAe864X6Dg&amp;amp;ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=ninian%20smart%20narrative&amp;amp;f=false ''Dimensions of the Sacred'' [preview&amp;amp;#93;] (Oakland, CA: University of California Press).  Preview: GoogleBooks&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  These can be understood as narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
English Pastor Daniel Smartt defines atheism as a religion, using Ninian Smart's seven dimensions of worldview as a list of criteria. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Smartt, Daniel (November 6, 2008).  [https://archive.is/L3cY5 &amp;quot;Atheism religion naturalism morally relative&amp;quot;].  Archive of SpiritualLiving360°.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Atheismisareligion&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;*Ammi, Ken (June 11, 2009).  [https://creation.com/atheism &amp;quot;Atheism&amp;quot;].  Creation Ministries International.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2013, a trend of atheist services began and atheist services were reported in the ''[[New York Times]]'', ''[[The Blaze]]'' and other major news outlets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Thier, Dave (June 23, 2013).  [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/us/in-the-bible-belt-offering-atheists-a-spiritual-home.html?_r=0 &amp;quot;In the Bible belt offering atheists a spiritual home&amp;quot;].  Nytimes.com&lt;br /&gt;
*Hallowell, Billy (April 17, 2013).  [https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/17/atheist-sunday-morning-worship-services-are-on-the-rise/ &amp;quot;Bizarre trend: atheist Sunday morning ‘worship’ services are on the rise (minus God, of course)&amp;quot;]  TheBlaze.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Ortberg, Mallory (January 5, 2013).  [http://gawker.com/5973377/londons-first-atheist-church-opens-tomorrow &amp;quot;London's first atheist church opens tomorrow&amp;quot;.]  Gawker.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism is a religion]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist cults]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist cults ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheist cults]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:2384975035 230a0eac30.jpg|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: &amp;quot;A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows ...that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;online.wsj.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and spirituality ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and spirituality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Irreligion and superstition ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In September 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass [[superstition]]. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith—it's what the empirical data tell us.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;What Americans Really Believe,&amp;quot; a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;paranormal&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Hemingway, Molly Ziegler (September 19, 2008). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html &amp;quot;Look who's irrational now&amp;quot;].  The Wall Street Journal website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Loc of United States.png|thumbnail|175px|right|According to Pew Forum, [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Protestant]] churches in America grew by 2 million from 2007 to 2014.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.wnd.com/2015/05/why-conservative-churches-are-still-growing/ Why conservative churches are still growing]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See: [[Atheism vs. Christianity]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the occult ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and the occult]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism vs. Abrahamic religions and religion ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism vs. Christianity]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism vs. religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism vs. Judaism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism vs. theism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism vs. Islam ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article: [[Atheism vs. Islam]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and miracles ===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article: [[Atheism and Miracles]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In relation to [[Atheism and Miracles|atheism and miracles]], modern scholars are divided on the issue of whether or not [[David Hume]] was an atheist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Russell, Paul (February 11, 2013). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#10 &amp;quot;Hume on religion&amp;quot;]. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; With that caveat in mind, Hume is well known for arguing that it is always more probable that the testimony of a miracle is false than that the miracle occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Lennox, John (2009).  [http://www.bethinking.org/are-miracles-possible/the-question-of-miracles-the-contemporary-influence-of-hume &amp;quot;The question of miracles: the contemporary influence of Hume&amp;quot;].  BeThinking. &lt;br /&gt;
*Craig, Dr. William Lane (1986).  [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html &amp;quot;The problem of miracles: a historical and philosophical perspective&amp;quot;].  ''Gospel Perspectives'', vol 6, ed. by David Wenham and Craig Blomberg (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press), pp. 9-40.  LeadershipU&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Christian apologists [[William Lane Craig]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[C.S. Lewis]], [[JP Holding]], and others have shown the inadequacy and unreasonableness of Hume's position regarding miracles.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Lennox, John (2009).  [http://www.bethinking.org/are-miracles-possible/the-question-of-miracles-the-contemporary-influence-of-hume &amp;quot;The question of miracles: the contemporary influence of Hume&amp;quot;].  BeThinking.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Craig, Dr. William Lane (1986).  [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html &amp;quot;The problem of miracles: a historical and philosophical perspective&amp;quot;].  ''Gospel Perspectives'', vol 6, ed. by David Wenham and Craig Blomberg (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press), pp. 9-40.  LeadershipU &lt;br /&gt;
*Hoffman, Paul K. (Spring 1999).  [http://www.galaxie.com/article/caj02-1-03?highlight=hoffmanA &amp;quot;A jurisprudential analysis of Hume’s ‘in principal’ argument against miracles&amp;quot; [excerpt&amp;amp;#93;].  ''Christian Apologetics Journal'', 2:1, p. 2.   Galaxie Software.  Subscription required for full article.&lt;br /&gt;
*Geisler, Professor Norman (1985).  [http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth19.html &amp;quot;Miracles and modern scientific thought&amp;quot;].  ''Truth Journal'', vol. 1.  LeadershipU&lt;br /&gt;
*Lewis, C. S. (1960).  [https://books.google.com/books/about/Miracles.html?id=tH8di3qQDhEC ''Miracles''] (New York:  HarperCollins).  Abstract: Google Books&lt;br /&gt;
*Holding, J. P. [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hume01.html &amp;quot;David Hume: a critique&amp;quot;].  Tekton Apologetics. &lt;br /&gt;
*Esposito, Lenny (2002).  [http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi060.asp &amp;quot;Are miracles logically impossible?&amp;quot;]  Come Reason Ministries.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ''Christian Post'' reporter Stoyan Zaimov wrote: &amp;quot;Double-blind prayer experiments: where people pray for others with terminal illness. [[Gary Habermas|Habermas]] admitted that most such experiments have not worked, but the three that he knows of that have indeed worked were cases of orthodox-Christians praying for the sick.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-apologist-10-reasons-for-the-fall-of-atheism-106531/ Christian Apologist: 10 Reasons for the Fall of Atheism] by Stoyan Zaimov,'' Christian Post'', October 14, 2013&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheists who believe in life after death ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and the supernatural]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A survey involving 15,738 individuals found that 32 percent of Americans who identified themselves as agnostics and atheists believe in an afterlife of some kind.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/one-third-of-atheists-agnostics-believe-in-an-afterlife Survey: 32% of Atheists &amp;amp; Agnostics Believe in an Afterlife], Skepticsguide.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://relationshipsinamerica.com/religion/do-people-still-believe-in-life-after-death Do people still believe in life after death?], Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture Study&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and death ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Atheism and death.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|According to a study performed in the United States by researchers Wink and Scott, very religious people fear death the least.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20140330091500/http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050628_deathfearfrm.htm &amp;quot;Fear of death: Worst if you’re a little religious?&amp;quot;] (July 13, 2005).  World Science.&lt;br /&gt;
*Wink, P. L. and Scott, J. A. (July 2005).  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15980288 &amp;quot;Does religiousness buffer against the fear of death and dying in late adulthood? Findings from a longitudinal study&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;].  ''The Journals of Gerontology, series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences'', vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 207-14. PubMed.gov&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and death]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and death]] and [[Atheist funerals]] and [[Atheism and Hell]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Science Daily'' reported that ''Death anxiety increases atheists' unconscious belief in God''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Otago&amp;quot;&amp;gt;University of Otago [New Zealand] (April 2, 2012).  [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402094322.htm &amp;quot;Death anxiety increases atheists' unconscious belief in God&amp;quot;].  ScienceDaily.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In a ''Psychology Today'' article, Dr. Nathan A. Heflick reported similar results in other studies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Heflick&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Heflick, Nathan A. (May 25, 2012).  [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201205/atheists-death-and-belief-in-god &amp;quot;Atheists, death and belief in God: The effects of death reminders on atheists' supernatural beliefs&amp;quot;].  Psychology Today website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Under stress, the brain's processing works in a way that prefers unconscious thinking.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Ruhr University Bochum (August 9, 2012). [http://aktuell.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/pm2012/pm00263.html.en &amp;quot;Learn to forecast the weather after stress&amp;quot;].  aktuell.ruhr-uni-bochum.de.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Gregoire, Carolyn (July 31, 2013).  [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/learn-under-stress-brain_n_3678222.html &amp;quot;How the brain learns successfully, even under stress&amp;quot;].  The Huffington Post.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A United States study and a [[Taiwan]]ese study indicated that the irreligious fear death more than the very religious.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20140330091500/http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050628_deathfearfrm.htm &amp;quot;Fear of death: Worst if you’re a little religious?&amp;quot;] (July 13, 2005).  World Science.&lt;br /&gt;
*Wink, Paul. and Scott, Julia. (July 2005).  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15980288 &amp;quot;Does religiousness buffer against the fear of death and dying in late adulthood? Findings from a longitudinal study&amp;quot;].  ''The Journals of Gerontology. Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences'', vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 207-14. PubMed.gov.&lt;br /&gt;
*Wen, Ya-hui. (December 2010). [http://www.hraljournal.com/Page/4%20Ya-Hui%20Wen.pdf &amp;quot;Religiosity and death anxiety&amp;quot;]. ''The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning'', vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 31-37. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheists and belief in life after death ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and life after death]] and [[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A significant percentage of atheists believe in life after death (see: [[Atheism and life after death]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/one-third-of-atheists-agnostics-believe-in-an-afterlife Survey: 32% of Atheists &amp;amp; Agnostics Believe in an Afterlife]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For additional information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and cryonics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and transhumanism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheism and Hell ====&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:''  [[Atheism and Hell]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The journalist and [[ex-atheists|ex-atheist]] [[Peter Hitchens]], who is the brother of the late atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]], said upon seeing an art exhibit of [[Michelangelo]]'s painting ''The Last Judgment'' he came to the realization that he might be judged which startled him.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PH&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://vimeo.com/10354237 &amp;quot;Peter Hitchens author interview—The rage against God&amp;quot;] [interview of Peter Hitchens] (March 22, 2010).  Vimeo video, 8:38, posted by Gorilla Poet Productions.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This started a train of thought within Peter Hitchens that eventually led him to become a [[Christian]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PH&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and science ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Newton.jpg|alt=atheism quotes|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Isaac Newton]] wrote: &amp;quot;I have a fundamental belief in the [[Bible]] as the Word of [[God]], written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.&amp;quot; See also: [[Atheism Quotes|Atheism quotes]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the suppression of science ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and the suppression of science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the social sciences ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and the social sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the foundation of modern science ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Christianity and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The birth of modern [[science]] occurred in Christianized Europe.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bumbulis, Michael, Ph. D. (November 24, 1996). [http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749 &amp;quot;Christianity and the birth of science; The evidence; Clue #1. The founders/fathers of modern science were shaped by a culture that was predominantly Christian.&amp;quot;]  Lambert Dolphin's Library.  Archived at Internet Archive on July 20, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Sociology|Sociologist]] [[Rodney Stark]] investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the [[Scientific Revolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Williams, Alex (August 2004).  [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ &amp;quot;The biblical origins of science; a review of ''For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery'' by Rodney Stark&amp;quot;], ''Journal of Creation'', vol. 18:2, pp. 49–52.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; only one ([[Edmund Halley]]) was a skeptic and another ([[Paracelsus]]) was a [[pantheism|pantheist]].&lt;br /&gt;
The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origins&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sir [[Francis Bacon]], sometimes referred to as &amp;quot;the Father of Modern Science&amp;quot;, wrote in his essay entitled ''Of Atheism'': &amp;quot;I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the [[Talmud]], and the [[Koran|Alcoran]], than that this universal frame is without a mind.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bacon&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bacon, Francis (1601).  [http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html ''The Essays or Counsels, Civil and Moral, of Francis Ld. Verulam Viscount St. Albans''; &amp;quot;Of atheism&amp;quot;].  Authorama.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and environmental science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and the environment|Atheism and environmental science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Atheism and questions of origins===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See articles: [[Atheism and Evolution]]'' and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by [[God]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Hergenrather, John (2004).  [http://www.creationencounter.com/space/lawsofscience.php &amp;quot;Evidences for God from space:  can laws of science explain the origin of the universe?&amp;quot;]  Creation Encounter. &lt;br /&gt;
*Thompson, Bert (2003).  [http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&amp;amp;article=310 &amp;quot;So long, eternal universe; 'Hello beginning, hello end!'&amp;quot;]  Apologetics Press.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Brown, Dr. Walt (2008).  [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html &amp;quot;Chapter 2: astronomical and physical sciences&amp;quot;, p. 53.]  ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 8th ed. The Center for Scientific Creation.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] since [[World War II]] have had the worldview of atheism/agnosticism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [https://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Creation science|Creation scientists]] assert that the theory of evolution is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Morris, Henry M., PhD. (January 2001). [https://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/ &amp;quot;The scientific case against evolution&amp;quot;].  Institute for Creation Research.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The theory of evolution [[Social effects of the theory of evolution|has had a number of negative social effects]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, the current naturalistic explanations for the [[origin of life]] are inadequate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and scientific community ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Scientists and belief in the existence of God]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and the origin of the universe|Atheist scientists and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and the National Academy of Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and scientific fraud and speculation ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception|Atheism and scientific fraud and speculation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and food science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and food science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and culinary science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and culinary science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== RationalWiki's flouting of nutritional science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rational Media Board of Director and RationalWiki Moderater User: Spud and ultra-processed/unhealthy/junk food]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Atheism and mental and physical health==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also:'' [[Atheism and health]] and [[Atheism and life expectancy]] and [[Atheism and alcoholism]] and [[Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The is considerable amount of [[science|scientific]] evidence that suggest that theism is more conducive to mental and physical health than atheism and some of the more significant findings are given below &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3671693/ Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications] by Harold G. Koenig, ISRN Psychiatry. 2012; 2012: 278730.&lt;br /&gt;
*Mueller, Dr. Paul S. et al. (December 2001). [http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2811%2962799-7/fulltext &amp;quot;Religious involvement, spirituality, and medicine: implications for clinical practice&amp;quot;]. ''Mayo Clinic Proceedings'' vol. 76:12, pp. 1225-1235.  Mayo Clinic Proceedings website&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/research/research-library &amp;quot;Research library&amp;quot;].  Duke University Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health. &lt;br /&gt;
*McCullough, Michael E. et al. (2000).  [http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/rel_mort_meta.pdf &amp;quot;Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analytic review&amp;quot;].  ''Health Psychology''. vol. 19:3. pp. 211-222.  University of Miami, College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology website&lt;br /&gt;
*Casey, Professor Patricia (April 3, 2009).  [http://www.ionainstitute.ie/the-benefits-of-religious-practise/  &amp;quot;The psycho-social benefits of religious practise&amp;quot; [executive summary&amp;amp;#93;].  Iona Institute for Religion and Society [Ireland] website.  &lt;br /&gt;
*McCullough, Michael E. and Willoughby, Brian L. B. (2009).  [http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf &amp;quot;Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: associations, explanations, and implications&amp;quot;]. ''Psychological Bulletin'', vol. 135: 1, pp. 69–93.  University of Miami, College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology website&lt;br /&gt;
*University of Colorado at Boulder (May 17, 1999).  [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990517064323.htm &amp;quot;Research shows religion plays a major role in health, longevity&amp;quot;].  ScienceDaily.  &lt;br /&gt;
*Dervic, Kanita, et al. (December 2004).  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15569904 &amp;quot;Religious affiliation and suicide attempt&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;]. ''The American Journal of Psychiatry'', vol. 161:12, pp. 2303-8.  Abstract: National Institutes of Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, Pub Med &lt;br /&gt;
*University of Warwick (December 2003).  [http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2003/A/20037338.html &amp;quot;Psychology researcher [Dr. Stephen Joseph&amp;amp;#93; says spiritual meaning of Christmas brings more happiness than materialism&amp;quot;].  Scienceblog.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For more information please see: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Atheism and life expectancy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Mayo Clinic and other studies ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Mayo-clinic-gondaoverview.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The prestigious [[Mayo Clinic]] found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better physical health and mental health outcomes.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Mueller&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mueller, Dr. Paul S. et al. (December 2001). [https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)62799-7/abstract &amp;quot;Religious involvement, spirituality, and medicine: implications for clinical practice&amp;quot;]. ''Mayo Clinic Proceedings'' vol. 76:12, pp. 1225-1235. Mayo Clinic Proceedings website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and health]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The prestigious [[Mayo Clinic]] reported the following on December 11, 2001:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In an article also published in this issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Mayo Clinic researchers reviewed published studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and subject reviews that examined the association between religious involvement and spirituality and physical health, mental health, health-related quality of life and other health outcomes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The authors report a majority of the nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Mueller&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Iona Institute]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Casey, Professor Patricia (April 3, 2009).  [http://www.ionainstitute.ie/the-benefits-of-religious-practise/  &amp;quot;The psycho-social benefits of religious practise&amp;quot; [executive summary&amp;amp;#93;].  Iona Institute for Religion and Society [Ireland] website.&lt;br /&gt;
*McCullough, Michael E. et al. (2000).  [http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/rel_mort_meta.pdf &amp;quot;Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analytic review&amp;quot;].  ''Health Psychology''. vol. 19:3. pp. 211-222.  University of Miami, College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists and negative emotions/thoughts ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and emotional problems]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence]] and  [[Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Emotional intelligence]] &amp;quot;refers to the ability to perceive, control and evaluate emotions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/a/emotionalintell.htm Emotional intelligence]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Research indicates that religiosity is positively associated with ability in emotional intelligence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-016-0335-3 Divine Emotions: On the Link Between Emotional Intelligence and Religious Belief], ''Journal of Religion and Health'', December 2017, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp 1998–2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733549/ THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE WITH RELIGIOUS COPING AND GENERAL HEALTH OF STUDENTS] by Masoumeh Bagheri Nesami, Amir Hossein Goudarzian, Houman Zarei, Pedram Esameili, Milad Dehghan Pour, and Hesam Mirani, ''Materia Sociomedica''. 2015 Dec; 27(6): 412–416. doi: 10.5455/msm.2015.27.412-416&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222857921_Religiosity_and_perceived_emotional_intelligence_among_Christians Religiosity and perceived emotional intelligence among Christians], Personality and Individual Differences 41(3):479-490 · August 2006, DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.016&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and emotional problems]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence]] and [[Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Atheism and suicide===&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also:''  [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Hopelessness of atheism]] and [[Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although there are recent studies relating to [[Atheism and suicide|atheism being a causal factor for suicide for some individuals]], an early proponent of atheism being a causal factor for [[suicide]] was the Reverend Dr. [[Robert Stuart MacArthur]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Dervic, Kanita, et al. (December 2004).  [http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html &amp;quot;Religious affiliation and suicide attempt&amp;quot; [summary&amp;amp;#93;]. ''The American Journal of Psychiatry'', vol. 161:12, pp. 2303-8.  Summary: Adherents.com. Website contains link to article at American Journal of Psychiatry website.&lt;br /&gt;
*Dervic, Kanita, et al. (December 2004).  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15569904 &amp;quot;Religious affiliation and suicide attempt&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;]. ''The American Journal of Psychiatry'', vol. 161:12, pp. 2303-8.  Abstract: National Institutes of Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, Pub Med &lt;br /&gt;
*[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF &amp;quot;Atheism a cause of suicide; Dr. MacArthur preaches on the sin and cowardice of self-destruction&amp;quot;] (September 17, 1894).  ''New York Times'', p. 2.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1894, the [[NY Times|''New York Times'']] stated the following in relation to atheism and suicide:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Dr. Martin urged that a great cause of suicide was atheism. It was, he said, a remarkable fact that where atheism prevailed most, there suicides were most numerous. In [[Paris]], a recent census showed one suicide to every 2,700 of the population. After the publication of Paine's &amp;quot;Age of Reason&amp;quot; suicides increased.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9507E2DC1131E033A25754C1A96F9C94659ED7CF &amp;quot;Atheism a cause of suicide; Dr. MacArthur preaches on the sin and cowardice of self-destruction&amp;quot;] (September 17, 1894).  ''New York Times'', p. 2.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|left|200px|Atheists have higher suicide rates. See: [[Atheism and suicide]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The website Adherents.com reported the following in respect to atheism and suicide:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman compiled country-by-country survey, polling and census numbers relating to atheism, agnosticism, disbelief in God and people who state they are non-religious or have no religious preference...In examining various indicators of societal health, Zuckerman concludes about suicide:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning [[atheism and depression]], a University of Michigan study involving 19,775 individuals found that religious people are less likely than atheists to suffer [[depression]] when they are lonely.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6136603/Lonely-religious-people-depressed-God-friend.html Lonely religious people are less depressed than atheists because they see God as a friend replacement, study finds], ''Daily Mail'', 2018&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and suicide]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and loneliness]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Hopelessness of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and mental illness ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Angry atheist.jpg|thumbnail|right|240px|An angry atheist speaking to a woman with a Bible in her hand. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Christian philosopher James S. Spiegel says the path from Christianity to atheism among several of his friends involved moral slippage such as resentment or unforgiveness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-philosopher-explores-causes-of-atheism-44353/ Christian Philosopher Explores Causes of Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and anger]] and [[Atheism and forgiveness|Atheism and unforgiveness]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and mental illness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The abstract for the journal article ''Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members'' published in the ''Journal of Religion and Health'' indicates: &amp;quot;On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26743877 ''Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members''] by Hayward RD, Krause N, Ironson G, Hill PC, Emmons R., ''Journal of Religion and Health'', 2016 Jun;55(3):1024-1037. doi: 10.1007/s10943-015-0179-2.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Global News'' reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|Children who are raised with [[religion|religious]] or [[spirituality|spiritual]] beliefs tend to have better mental health into their adulthood, a new study from the [[Harvard]] T.H. Chan School of Public Health found.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the study’s findings, people who attended weekly religious services or [[Prayer|prayed]] or [[Meditation|meditated]] daily in their childhood reported greater life satisfaction in their 20s. People who grew up in a religious household also reported fewer symptoms of depression and lower rates of [[Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder|post-traumatic stress disorder]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://globalnews.ca/news/4468745/religion-children-mental-health/ Religion can help improve children’s mental health, new study finds], ''Global News'', 2018&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and emotional problems]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and anger]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and anxiety]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and death anxiety]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Irreligion and recovery from illnesses ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Irreligion and recovery from illnesses]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Europe pol 2004.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|According to the [[World Health Organization]]'s (WHO) regional office in Europe, &amp;quot;The WHO European Region has the highest proportion in the world of total ill health and premature death due to alcohol.&amp;lt;ref name=whoalc&amp;gt;[http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/alcohol-use/data-and-statistics &amp;quot;Data and statistics&amp;quot;] (September 2014 or bef.).  Health topics/Disease prevention/Alcohol use.  World Health Organization (WHO)/Regional office for Europe&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and alcoholism ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and alcoholism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At least 100 studies suggests religion has a positive effect on preventing alcohol-related problems, researchers Christopher Ellison, Jennifer Barrett and Benjamin Moulton noted in an article in the ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion'' on “Gender, Marital Status, and Alcohol Behavior: The Neglected Role of Religion.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/charlie-sheen-circus-and-_b_836934.html The Doubled-Edged Sword of Religion and Alcoholism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists and atheistic cultures often have significant problems with excess alcohol usage (For more information please see: [[Atheism and alcoholism]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, as far as secular Europe, according to the [[World Health Organization]]'s (WHO) regional office in Europe, &amp;quot;The WHO European Region has the highest proportion in the world of total ill health and premature death due to alcohol.&amp;lt;ref name=whoalc/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and illegal drug use and drug addition ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and drug addiction]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies indicate that religious individuals are less likely to engage in illegal drug use than atheists/nonreligious.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/news/believers-consume-fewer-drugs-than-atheists-106266/ Believers Consume Fewer Drugs Than Atheists], ''Christian Post'', By Jim Denison, Christian Post Columnist, October 9, 2013|9:47 am&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131003093041.htm Believers consume fewer drugs than atheists], Science Daily, Date:October 3, 2013, Source: Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Foerderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*McCullough, Michael E. and Willoughby, Brian L. B. (January 2009).  [http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf &amp;quot;Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: associations, explanations, and implications&amp;quot;] ''Psychological Bulletin'', vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 69-93.  Retrieved from University of Miami department of psychology website on September 10, 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
*Alternate source of abstract: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054 &amp;quot;Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: associations, explanations, and implications&amp;quot; [abstract&amp;amp;#93;].   Retrieved from PubMed.gov on September 10, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to ''Science Daily'': &amp;quot;Young [[Switzerland|Swiss]] men who say that they believe in [[God]] are less likely to smoke cigarettes or pot or take ecstasy pills than Swiss men of the same age group who describe themselves as atheists. Belief is a protective factor against addictive behaviour. This is the conclusion reached by a study funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Foerderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung [Swiss National Science Foundation] (October 3, 2013).  [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131003093041.htm &amp;quot;Believers consume fewer drugs than atheists&amp;quot;].  Science Daily website/Science News.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and loneliness ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and loneliness]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Depressed man.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Secular societies commonly have significant levels of loneliness. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and loneliness]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Loneliness has been linked to many physical and mental health problems.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Gammon, Katherine (March 2, 2012).  [http://www.livescience.com/18800-loneliness-health-problems.html &amp;quot;Why loneliness can be deadly&amp;quot;].  Live Science website.&lt;br /&gt;
*Booth, Robert (October 12, 2014).  &amp;quot;Number of severely lonely men over 50 set to rise to 1m in 15 years&amp;quot;, ''The Guardian''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compared to deeply religious cultures where an extended family and a sense of community often exists, secular countries [[Secular countries and loneliness|are often lonelier societies]]. In addition, numerous studies and other data indicate that atheists often have lower [[emotional intelligence]] and lower social skills (see: [[Atheism and emotional/intrapersonal intelligence|Atheism and emotional intelligence]] and [[Atheism and interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social skills]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and loneliness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and obesity ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and obesity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and cancer ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and cancer]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist and higher levels of harmful genetic mutations ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheists and genetic mutations]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is research which suggests that the atheist population has higher levels of harmful genetic [[mutations]] (see: [[Atheists and genetic mutations]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsweek.com/religion-healthy-atheism-mutant-genes-756984 RELIGIOUS PEOPLE LIVE HEALTHIER, LONGER LIVES—WHILE ATHEISTS COLLECT MUTANT GENES], Newsweek, 2017&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[Atheists are more likely to be left handed, study finds], ''The Telegraph'', 2017&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism]] and [[Irreligion and unsportsmanlike conduct]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Basketball.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|Numerous studies report that athletes to be more religious than non-athletes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/strength-religious-faith-athletes-and-nonathletes-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
''The [[Sport]]s Journal'' is a monthly refereed journal published by the United States Sports Academy. &lt;br /&gt;
A journal article appeared in the Sports Journal entitled ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions''. The article was submitted by Nathan T. Bell, Scott R. Johnson, and Jeffrey C. Petersen from Ball State University.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thesportjournal.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://thesportjournal.org/article/strength-of-religious-faith-of-athletes-and-nonathletes-at-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions/ ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
An excerpt from the abstract of the journal article ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'' declares:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Numerous studies report athletes to be more religious than nonathletes (Fischer, 1997; Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, &amp;amp; Storch, 2001; Storch et al., 2004). According to Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, and Storch (2001), four reasons may explain why religion interacts with athletic performance.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thesportjournal.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://thesportjournal.org/article/strength-of-religious-faith-of-athletes-and-nonathletes-at-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions/ ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{See also|Atheism and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and mental toughness ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and mental toughness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists, aging populations and cancer/Alzheimer's disease ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and cancer]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and Alzheimer's disease]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and veganism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and veganism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism in medicine ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism in medicine]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and intelligence ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Cerebellum.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Brain researchers have conducted a number of studies focusing on the differences between atheists and the religious. See: [[Atheism and the brain]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and intelligence]] and [[Atheism and the theory of multiple intelligences|Atheism and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences]] and [[Causes of atheism]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Within various countries, standardized [[intelligence testing|intelligence test]] (IQ) scores related to the issue of atheists/agnostics vs. theists intelligence scores yield conflicting results.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.doxa.ws/other/smarter.html &amp;quot;Who is smarter; are atheists smarter than Christians?  An examination of studies&amp;quot;] (2007).  Doxa: Christian Thought in the 21st Century.  Retrieved on October 29, 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.randalolson.com/2014/08/24/the-myth-of-the-smarter-atheist/ The myth of the smarter Atheist] by Randy Olson, Posted on August 24, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Part of the problem is that social scientists use variant definitions of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
*Briggs, Dr. William M. (2013).  [http://www.strangenotions.com/atheists-higher-iqs/ &amp;quot;Do atheists really have higher IQs than believers?&amp;quot;]  Strange Notions.  Retrieved on October 29, 2014.&lt;br /&gt;
*Wright, Bradley (January 26, 2012).  [http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/01/how-many-americans-are-atheists-fewer-than-you-might-think/ &amp;quot;How many Americans are atheists? Fewer than you might think&amp;quot;].  Black, White and Gray.  Retrieved on October 29, 2014.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism, intelligence and the General Social Survey]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, within individuals, families and societies irreligion/religion can have an effect on intelligence - especially over time (See: [[Atheism and intelligence]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Intelligence trends in religious countries and secular countries]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and the theory of multiple intelligences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism, intelligence and open-mindedness ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and open-mindedness]] and [[Atheism and dogmatism]] and [[Atheism and intolerance]] and [[Atheism and groupthink]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highly intelligent people tend to be open-minded and have intellectual curiosity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/eleven-common-traits-of-highly-intelligent-people-a7480246.html Eleven common traits of highly intelligent people] by Shana Lebowicz, The Independent, Friday 16 December 2016 18:24&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research indicates that atheists are less open-minded (see: [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Study on emotional intelligence and religiosity ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and emotional/intrapersonal intelligence|Atheism and emotional intelligence]] and [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social intelligence]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2004 study by Ellen Paek examined the extent to which religious orientation/behavior and found significant positive correlations were found between level of religious commitment and an individual's perceived [[emotional intelligence]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Journal of Organizational Behavior'', Paek, Ellen (2006). &amp;quot;[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906000961 Religiosity and perceived emotional intelligence among Christians&amp;quot;. Personality and Individual Differences] (International Society for the Study of Individual Differences) 41 (3): 479–490&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and emotional/intrapersonal intelligence|Atheism and emotional intelligence]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the prominent brain researcher Antonio Damasio and other brain researchers, emotions play a critical role in high-level cognition and allow individuals to make better decisions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://intentionalworkplace.com/2012/03/15/how-emotion-shapes-decision-making/ How emotion affects decision making], The Intentional Workplace&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://people.hss.caltech.edu/~steve/bechara.pdf The role of emotion in decision-making: Evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage], Antoine Becharam, Department of Neurology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wup_K2WN0I When Emotions Make Better Decisions - Antonio Damasio] - short video&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://news.usc.edu/29569/Antonio-and-Hanna-Damasio-Receive-Honorary-Degrees/ News item about Professor Antonio Damasio], University of Southern California&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Brain studies of atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and the brain]] and [[Religiosity and larger frontal lobes]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brain researchers have conducted a number of studies focusing on the differences between atheists and the religious (see: [[Atheism and the brain]] and [[Religiosity and larger frontal lobes]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheists and dopamine levels in the brain ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and motivation]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to ''Scientific American'': &amp;quot;Research also suggests that a religious brain exhibits higher levels of [[dopamine]], a hormone associated with increased attention and motivation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/askthebrains/ Ask the Brains, Scientific American, Dec 23, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Atheism and motivation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and the problem of consciousness ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and consciousness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and women  ==&lt;br /&gt;
''see also:'' [[Atheism and women]] and [[Atheism and rape]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Prominent atheists whose wives believe in the existence of God]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:women.jpg|thumbnail|right|205px|Studies indicate that women tend to be more religious than men (See: [[Atheism and women]]). ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Recent studies ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist Alliance International analysis ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2016, Atheist Alliance International (AAI) conducted an annually recurring atheist census project and found: &amp;quot;At the time of writing, the Atheist Census Project recorded that on average worldwide 73.2% of respondents were male. The result is consistent with other research... As such, the focus of many scholarly papers has been on seeking to explain this persistent observation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.atheistalliance.org/about-aai/position-statements/1206-aai-position-statement-gender-balance.html AAI Position Statement - Gender Balance]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Surveys by country ====&lt;br /&gt;
In November 2010, ''Discover'' magazine published survey results published by the World Values Survey which showed significant differences between the percentage of men and women who are atheists for various countries with men outnumbering women within the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Khan, Razib (November 18, 2010).  [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/sex-differences-in-global-atheism-part-n/ &amp;quot;Gene expression; &amp;quot;Sex differences in global atheism, part N&amp;quot;].  Discover magazine website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== United States surveys ====&lt;br /&gt;
In 2015, ''BloombergView'' reported concerning the [[United States]]: &amp;quot;According to a much-discussed 2012 report from the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life, ...women are 52 percent of the U.S. population but only 36 percent of atheists and agnostics.&amp;lt;ref name=agap&amp;gt;Carter, Stephen L. (March 27, 2015).  [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/the-atheism-gap &amp;quot;The atheism gap&amp;quot;].  BloombergView website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2009 article in LiveScience.com entitled ''Women More Religious Than Men'' reported: &amp;quot;A new analysis of survey data finds women pray more often then men, are more likely to believe in God, and are more religious than men in a variety of other ways...The latest findings, released Friday, are no surprise, only confirming what other studies have found for decades.&amp;lt;ref name=Britt&amp;gt;Britt, Robert Roy (February 28, 2009). [http://www.livescience.com/7689-women-religious-men.html &amp;quot;Women more religious than men&amp;quot;].  Livescience.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2007, the Pew Research Center found that American women were more religious than American men.&amp;lt;ref name=Britt/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and sexism ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and sexism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most atheists are politically on the [[leftist|left]] (see: [[Atheism and politics]] and [[Secular left]]).  Part of leftist ideology is [[feminism]]. However, there is a significant amount of [[misogyny]] among atheists (see: [[Atheism and women]]).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and sexism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and rape]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sexual harassment at atheist conferences]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Elevatorgate]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Richard Dawkins and women]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships|Atheist leaders and immoral relationships]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and women's rights ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and women's rights]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist feminism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheist feminism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and Asian/white males ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and Asian males]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and white males]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist websites appear to receive significantly less traffic from women ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheist websites appear to receive significantly less traffic from women]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and marriage/relationships ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and marriage]] and [[Atheism and illegitimate births]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and rates of marriage in the United States ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and women]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Christian apologist Michael Caputo wrote: &amp;quot;Recently the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has published its mammoth study on Religion in America based on 35,000 interviews... According to the Pew Forum a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;marry&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Beale declared that according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) &amp;quot;more than half of all atheists and agnostics don’t get married.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;marry&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see:  [[Atheism and marriageability]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist marriages ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheist marriages]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and polyamory ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and divorce ===&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism and divorce]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and interfaith marriages ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and interfaith marriages]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Prominent atheists whose wives believe in the existence of God]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and its inability to explain love ===&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and love]] and [[Atheism and forgiveness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]], moral and spiritual perspective, atheists have an inability to satisfactorily explain the existence of [[love]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;How do atheists define love&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.strangenotions.com/atheists-love/ How do atheists define love?] by Dr. Taylor Marshall&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;atheistforum.wordpress.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://atheistforum.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/what-is-love-how-materialist-atheism-fails-to-have-a-satisfactory-answer/ What is love? how materialist atheism fails to have a satisfactory answer], July 9, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]&lt;br /&gt;
From a  moral, [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] and spiritual perspective, atheists have an inability to satisfactorily explain the existence of [[love]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;How do atheists define love&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;atheistforum.wordpress.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and sexuality ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and sexuality]] and [[Atheism and romance]] and [[Atheism and fertility rates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research shows that religious women (especially [[evangelicalism|evangelical]]/low-church [[Protestantism|Protestant]] women) are more sexually satisfied than irreligious women.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States By Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, Stuart Michaels, page 115&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2008/11/25/the-christian-sexual-awakening.html Why Are Christians Having Better Sex Than the Rest of Us?] by Tucker Carlson, The Daily Beast, November 11, 25, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://blog.getrelationshiphelp.com/2009/07/christian-women-have-more-sexual-fun.html Christian Women Have More Sexual Fun], Relationship Center in Springfield Missouri&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A social science study also reports that Hispanic men are more sexually satisfied than other ethnic groups in the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States By Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, Stuart Michaels, page 114&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Hispanics are known for their religiosity (See also: [[Western atheism and race]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, the atheist and agnostic populations have sub-replacement levels of fertility (see: [[Atheism and sexuality]] and [[Atheism and romance]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===  Atheists and physical attractiveness ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheists and physical attractiveness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The English anthropologist Edward Dutton indicates that using [[right-wing]] politics as a proxy for religiosity, there is evidence that atheists are less attractive and he pointed out that right-wing politicians are more likely to have symmetrical faces according to a study.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201806/defending-atheist-mutational-load-theory-part-2 Defending Atheist Mutational Load Theory — Part 2] by &lt;br /&gt;
Scott A. McGreal MSc., Psychology Today, June 22, 2018&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and race ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism, race and gender]] and [[Atheism and racism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Asian atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Asian atheism]] and [[East Asia, China, atheism and racism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[East Asia]], in particular what are often termed “Confucian societies.” It is likely therefore that the majority of the world’s atheists are actually East Asian.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20150905135558/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/most-atheists-are-not-white/ Most atheists are not white &amp;amp; other non-fairy tales], Discover magazine&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noted above, the current [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] mostly resides in East [[Asia]] (particularly China) and in secular Europe/Australia among whites.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/23/a-surprising-map-of-where-the-worlds-atheists-live/ A surprising map of where the world’s atheists live], By Max Fisher and Caitlin Dewey, ''Washington Post'', May 23, 2013&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[China and atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noted above, China is experiencing an explosive growth of Christianity (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]] and [[East Asia and global desecularization]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Western atheism and race ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sikivu Hutchinson.JPG|thumbnail|200px|right|Atheist Sikivu Hutchinson says that white atheists organizations generally focus on church/state separation and [[creationism]] issues and not on the concerns the less affluent African-American population faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;washingtonpost.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/16/blacks-are-even-discriminated-against-by-atheists/ Atheism has a big race problem that no one’s talking about] by Dr. Sikivu Hutchinson, Washington Post June 16, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hutchinson also mentioned that church organizations significantly help poor African-Americans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;washingtonpost.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; See also: [[Atheism and charity|Atheism and uncharitableness]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Western atheism and race]] and [[Black atheism]] and [[Atheism and diversity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheism and race: United States and Europe ====&lt;br /&gt;
In 2015, ''BloombergView'' reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|According to a much-discussed 2012 report from the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life, only 3 percent of U.S. atheists and agnostics are black, 6 percent are Hispanic, and 4 percent are Asian. Some 82 percent are white. (The relevant figures for the population at large at the time of the survey were 66 percent white, 11 percent black, 15 percent Hispanic, 5 percent Asian.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...Craig Keener, in his huge review of claims of miracles in a wide variety of cultures, concludes that routine rejection of the possibility of the [[supernatural]] represents an impulse that is [[Secular Europe|deeply Eurocentric]].&amp;lt;ref name=agap/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the United States, blacks have the highest rate of religiosity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-blacks-most-religious-group-us Gallup: Blacks Most Religious Group in U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Among Hispanics, religion has traditionally played a significant role in daily activity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.diocesephoenix.org/old_site/fc/CatecheticalLeadership/ChurchDocs/UnderstandingtheHispanicCulture.pdf Understanding Hispanic culture]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Beliefnetnews reported concerning the race and gender of American atheists:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|From the smallest local meetings to the largest conferences, the vast majority of speakers and attendees are almost always white men. Leading figures of the atheist movement — [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Christopher Hitchens]] and [[Daniel Dennett]] — are all white men.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But making atheism more diverse is proving to be no easy task.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Surveys suggest most atheists are white men. A recent survey of 4,000 members of the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation|Freedom from Religion Foundation]] found that 95 percent were white, and men comprised a majority.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/01/atheists-diversity-woes-have-n.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== RationalWiki/RationalMedia Foundation board of trustees and the lack of Black representation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[RationalMedia Foundation board of trustees and the lack of Black representation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and education ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Religion and education]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist indoctrination|Atheistic indoctrination and education]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and academia]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and academic performance]]&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and culture: Art, architecture, music, language, poetry, dance and humor ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Destroy the old world Cultural Revolution poster.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A [[People's Republic of China]] propaganda poster stating &amp;quot;Destroy the Old World &amp;amp; Forge the New World,&amp;quot; with a worker smashing a [[crucifix]], a [[Buddha]] murti, and a classical Chinese sacred text; 1967.]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and culture]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Culture]] consists of the &amp;quot;language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organization, inherited artifacts, technical processes, and values.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/cm/culture.html Christianity and culture]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheism has not produced any outstanding cultural achievements and it has had a negative effect on cultures (see: [[Atheism and culture]] and [[Atheism and its anti-civilizational effects]] and [[Atheism statistics]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, relative to [[Christianity]], which has a large collection of art, music and poetry associated it, atheism has a very small collection of art, music and poetry associated with it (see: [[Atheist art]] and [[Atheist music]] and [[Atheist poetry]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is often said that atheism is boring, stale and difficult to believe (see: [[Atheism and inspiration]]). As noted above, research indicates that atheists are less open-minded (see: [[Atheism and open-mindedness]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For additional information, please see:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist art]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and architecture]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist music]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist population and verbal–linguistic intelligence|Atheism and linguistic/oratory skills]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist poetry]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and dance]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and humor]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Global atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Global decline of atheism  ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and diversity]] and [[Atheism and culture]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Blue Marble.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|Atheism is in decline worldwide in terms of number of atheists and the percentage of atheists in world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2025/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2025.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity, 2025, in the Context of 1900–2050] (831,000 less atheists in the world than a year ago.&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/04/StatusofGlobalChristianity20191.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity/other religions, 2019, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Global atheism statistics]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Atheists as a percentage of the world's population have declined since 1970 and global atheism is expected to face long-term decline.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/ Study: World is becoming more religious]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/globally-worldviews-of-atheism-and-non.html Globally the worldviews of atheism and non-religious (agnostic) are declining while global Christianity is exploding in adherents]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf Gordon-Conwell Seminary - Status of Global Mission, 2014, in the Context of AD 1800–2025]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Desecularization]] and [[Global atheism statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2024, Frontier Partners International reported concerning [[global atheism]]: &amp;quot;Simultaneously, atheism, which once saw a peak around 1970 with 165 million adherents, is on the decline. The current growth trend for atheism is -0.12 percent, with their number falling from 147 million in 2020 to 146 million in 2024.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.frontierpartners.org/global-christianity-surges Global Christianity surges beyond projections in 2024], LiCAS.news • Mar 15, 2024, Frontiers Patners Intertnational, 2024&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Desecularization]] and [[Global atheism statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', 2% of the world's population self-identifies as atheist and the average annual global change for atheism from 2000 to 2010 was −0.17%.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;eb-2010&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|title=Religion: Year in Review 2010: Worldwide Adherents of All Religions|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150310135559/https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1731588/Religion-Year-In-Review-2010/298437/Worldwide-Adherents-of-All-Religions|work=Encyclopædia Britannica Online|publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.|accessdate=2013-11-21}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Decline of the number of atheists in the world ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Decline of the number of atheists in the world]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the [[Center for the Study of Global Christianity]], the number of atheists in the world is now shrinking and will continue to do so.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2024/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2024.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity, 2024, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2023.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity/other religions, 2023, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Decline of the number of atheists in the world]] and [[Future of atheism in China]] and [[European desecularization in the 21st century]] and [[Decline of Europe]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Demographics of atheism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Demography]] is the study of human populations, and is a major specialty in the disciplines of sociology, economics, history, geography, statistics and epidemiology.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Demographics of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Atheism and specific countries/areas ====&lt;br /&gt;
*[[China and atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[French atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[British atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Secular Europe]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[American atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Europe map.png|thumbnail|right|226px|[[Europe]], which is less religious than the United States has a subreplacement level of births, is projected to have a population that is 30% less small by the end of the century (see: [[Atheism and fertility rates]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/total-population-outlook-from-unstat-3/assessment-1#:~:text=The%20greatest%20declines%20occur%20under,30%20%25%20of%20its%20current%20size. Population trends 1950 – 2100: globally and within Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In 2014, the Pew Research Forum indicated that [[Europe]] will go from 11% of the world's population to 7% of the world's population by 2050.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/10-projections-for-the-global-population-in-2050/ 10 projections for the global population in 2050] By Rakesh Kochhar, Pew Research Forum, February 3, 2014&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[European desecularization in the 21st century]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion in Australia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion in New Zealand]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism in the Anglosphere]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Religious people moving to irreligious regions ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Religion and migration]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of evangelical Christianity in irreligious regions]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism statistics ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christianity vs. atheism statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist women statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Research on atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist movement and leadership ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheist movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Atheism and leadership]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Poor international cooperation among atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and international cooperation among atheists]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent years, international cooperation among atheists has been low (see: [[Atheism and international cooperation among atheists]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Views on atheists ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Views on atheists]] and [[Distrust of atheists]] and [[Atheism and social outcasts]] and [[Atheism and public relations]] and [[Atheophobia]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Sam Harris-2010.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Sam Harris]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sociological research indicates that atheists are widely distrusted in both religious cultures and nonreligious cultures.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;USATodayviewsonatheists&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1 Study: Atheists distrusted as much as rapists]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CPviewsonatheists&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-widely-distrusted-even-among-themselves-culturally-ingrained-uk-study-finds-160480/ Atheists Widely Distrusted, Even Among Themselves, UK Study Finds], Christian Post, 2015&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Independentviewsonatheists&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/anti-atheist-distrust-deeply-and-culturally-ingrained-study-finds-a6952276.html Anti-atheist distrust ‘deeply and culturally ingrained’, study finds], ''The Independent'', 2015&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edgell, Gerteis &amp;amp; Hartmann 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to a study published in the ''International Journal for The Psychology of Religion'': &amp;quot;anti-atheist prejudice is not confined either to dominantly religious countries or to religious individuals, but rather appears to be a robust judgment about atheists.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Independentviewsonatheists&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The study found that many atheists do not trust other atheists as well.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Independentviewsonatheists&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various atheists have attempted to change the public's perception of atheism and atheists, but their efforts were largely unsuccessful (see: [[Attempts to positively rebrand atheism]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other topics related to views on atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Persecution of atheists]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheophobia]] is a fear and/or hatred of atheism/atheists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Desecularization and its causes ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Desecularization]] and [[Causes of desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Desecularization]] is the process by which [[religion]] reasserts its societal influence though religious values, institutions, sectors of society and symbols in reaction to previous and/or co-occurring [[secularization]] processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival and Revival'' by Christopher Marsh, 2011, page 11 (Christopher Marsh cites the definitions of desecularization given by Peter L. Berger and Vyacheslav Karpov)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As noted above, from 2024 to 2025, the number of atheists in the world dropped by 831,000 atheists according to the [[Center for the Study of Global Christianity]] at [[Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2025/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2025.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity, 2025, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2024/01/Status-of-Global-Christianity-2024.pdf Status of Global Atheism/Christianity, 2024, in the Context of 1900–2050]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[theology|theologian]] and [[Harvard University]] academic Harvey Cox asserted that [[grassroots]] movements such as [[fundamentalism]] and the [[Charismatic movement]]/[[pentecostalism]] are significant religious forces that are resistant to secularization forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-8028-4691-4 Publisher's Weekly Review of'' The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics'' by Peter L. Berger]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/harvey-cox/fire-from-heaven/ Kirkus Reviews- ''FIRE FROM HEAVEN: Pentecostalism, Spirituality, and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century'' by Harvey Cox]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In her book ''The Battle for God'', Karen Armstrong wrote: &amp;quot;One of the most startling developments of the late 20th century has been the emergence within every major religious tradition of a militant piety known as 'fundamentalism'… this religious resurgence has taken many observers by surprise.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God, p. 9&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Today, even the highly [[secular]]ized public and political sphere of [[France]] is showing a new and more open attitude towards religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://edoc.unibas.ch/50856/3/20170119190142_5880ff06238b8.pdf How religious is the public sphere? – A critical stance on the debate about public religion and post-secularity], Draft Version, Jens Koehrsen (Köhrsen). Bielefeld Graduate School in History and Sociology, Germany. École des hautes études en sciences socials, France. Published in: Acta Sociologica 55 (3), S. 273-288.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism and sub-replacement levels of fertility ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and fertility rates]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Jacques Berlinerblau.jpg|thumbnail|250px|left|In 2011, atheist [[Jacques Berlinerblau]] declared: &amp;quot;The Golden Age of [[Secularism]] has passed.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chronicle.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Michael Blume, a researcher at the University of Jena in Germany, wrote about the sub-replacement level of fertility among [[Atheist Population|atheistic populations]]: &amp;quot;Most societies or communities that have espoused atheistic beliefs have not survived more than a century.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;scilogs.eu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2011-01-06/atheists-a-dying-breed-as-nature-favours-faithful-sunday-times-jan-02-2011-jonathan-leake-full-draft-version Atheist: A dying breed as nature favours faithful]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Blume also indicated concerning concerning his research on this matter: &amp;quot;What I found was the complete lack of a single case of a secular population, community or movement that would just manage to retain replacement level.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;scilogs.eu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  See also: [[Atheism and sexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 23, 2012, Professor [[Eric Kaufmann]] who teaches at Birbeck College, University of London wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population... In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/04/97-of-worlds-population-growth-is.html 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious], Tuesday, April 30, 2013&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At a conference, Kaufmann said of religious demographic projections concerning the 21st century:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Part of the reason I think [[demography]] is very important, at least if we are going to speak about the future, is that it is the most predictable of the [[social sciences]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...if you look at a population and its age structure now. You can tell a lot about the future.  ...So by looking at the relative age structure of different populations you can already say a lot about the future...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...Religious [[fundamentalism]] is going to be on the increase in the future and not just out there in the developing world..., but in the developed world as well.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7vCDeKPRSo Eric Kaufmann - Religion, Demography and Politics in the 21st Century]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Secularism is exhausted and unconfident ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Decline of the atheist movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Eric Kaufmann]], an [[agnosticism|agnostic]] professor whose academic research specialty is how demographic changes affect religion/irreligion and politics, wrote in 2010: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Worldwide, the march of religion can probably only be reversed by a renewed, self-aware secularism. Today, it appears exhausted and lacking in confidence... Secularism's greatest triumphs owe less to science than to popular social movements like nationalism, [[socialism]] and 1960s anarchist-[[liberalism]]. Ironically, secularism's demographic deficit means that it will probably only succeed in the twenty-first century if it can create a secular form of 'religious' enthusiasm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sneps.net/uploadsepk/JQR%20Demography.pdf Shall the religious inherit the earth? - Eric Kaufmann]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Edward Tabash 2013.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Eddie Tabash]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The American atheist activist [[Eddie Tabash]] said at the 2010 Michigan Atheists State Convention:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|In every generation there has been a promising beginning of a true vanguard movement that will finally achieve widespread public acceptance for nonbelief. Yet, in each generation there has been an ultimately disappointing failure to actually register the [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic alternative]] to supernatural claims in the public consciousness...&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iix6OjLH6aM Atheists Speak Up - Eddie Tabash]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In recent years, a number of notable atheists have expressed pessimism about the future of the [[atheist movement]] (see: [[Decline of the atheist movement]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Causes of desecularization ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Causes of desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Decline of the secular left]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Zero secularization rates in France and Protestant Europe ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[British atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2010, Eric Kaufmann declared &amp;quot;the rate of secularisation has flattened to zero in most of [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Europe]] and [[France]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/shall_the_religious_inherit_the_earth/ Shall the Religious Inherit the earth] by Eric Kaufmann&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Guardian'' published an article in 2017 entitled ''Nearly 50% are of [[Nones|no religion]] – but has [[UK]] hit ‘peak secular’?'' which declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|But, Bullivant told the Observer that the “growth of no religion may have stalled”. After consistent decline, in the past few years the proportion of [[nones]] appears to have stabilised. “Younger people tend to be more non-religious, so you’d expect it to keep going – but it hasn’t. The steady growth of non-Christian religions is a contributing factor, but I wonder if everyone who is going to give up their Anglican affiliation has done so by now? We’ve seen a vast shedding of nominal Christianity, and perhaps it’s now down to its hardcore.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/13/uk-losing-faith-religion-young-reject-parents-beliefs ''Nearly 50% are of no religion – but has UK hit ‘peak secular’?''], ''The Guardian'', 2017&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Growth of evangelical Christianity in secular regions ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of Christianity in China|Growth of evangelical Christianity in China]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[East Asia and global desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of evangelical Christianity#Evangelical Christianity and the developed world|Growth of evangelical Christianity in the developed world]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of Protestantism in Russia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of evangelical Christianity in New Zealand]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Future of desecularization via the continued global resurgence of religion ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Growth of global desecularization]] and [[Atheism vs. Christianity]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Birkbeck College, University of London.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Eric Kaufmann]] using a wealth of demographic studies, argues that there will be a significant decline of global atheism in the 21st century which will impact the [[Western World]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2011/05/eric-kaufmann-shall-religious-inherit.html Eric Kaufmann: Shall The Religious Inherit The Earth?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/search/label/atheist%20demographics Eric Kaufmann's Atheist Demographic series]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NtvDErEmBY Eric Kaufmann: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, Australian Broadcasting Corporation]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]] &lt;br /&gt;
Eric Kaufmann using a wealth of demographic studies, argues that there will be a significant decline of global atheism in the 21st century which will impact the [[Western World]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2011/05/eric-kaufmann-shall-religious-inherit.html Eric Kaufmann: Shall The Religious Inherit The Earth?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/search/label/atheist%20demographics Eric Kaufmann's Atheist Demographic series]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NtvDErEmBY Eric Kaufmann: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, Australian Broadcasting Corporation]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, Kaufmann argues that religious conservatism has a long term trend of rising and that their influence in the world will significantly increase.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kaufmann is author of the book ''Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://books.google.com/books/about/Shall_the_Religious_Inherit_the_Earth.html?id=nXVylycU2gQC Shall the religious inherit the earth by David Kaufmann]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sneps.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf Early paper - Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, Belfer Center, Harvard University/Birkbeck College, University of London]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the [[Western World]] due to immigration and the higher birth rates of religious people, Kaufman writes: &amp;quot;Committed religious populations are growing in the West, and will reverse the march of secularism before 2050.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sneps.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kaufmann told a secular audience in Australia: &amp;quot;The trends that are happening worldwide inevitably in an age of globalization are going to affect us.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NtvDErEmBY Shall the religious inherit the earth]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, Kaufmann also argues that secularization may reverse itself significantly earlier than 2050 in the West due to religious immigration and a religious population which is increasingly resistant to secularization in Europe.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/european-christian-immigration-will.html European immigration will pour Christian creationists into Europe]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-future-of-european-darwinism-and_16.html The future of European Darwinism and atheism is bleak]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, in the latter portion of the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century, the atheist movement has had lower confidence/morale due to various historical events/trends (see: [[Atheists and the endurance of religion]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Growth of desecularization in the 21st century ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Growth of global desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Acceleration of 21st century desecularization]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Future of atheism in China]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Notable atheists who became ex-atheists ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See:'' [[Ex-atheists]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Claims about the conditionality and existence of atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]] and [[There Are No Atheists In Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hannah More wrote: &amp;quot;[T]he mind, which knows not where to fly, flies to God.  In agony, nature is no Atheist.  The soul is drawn to God by a sort of natural impulse; not always, perhaps by an emotion of piety; but from a feeling conviction, that every other refuge is 'a refuge of lies'.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;More, Hannah (1815).  [https://archive.org/details/anessayoncharac00moregoog ''An Essay on the Character and Practical Writings of St. Paul''], 5th ed., vol. 2 (London:  T. Cadell and W. Davies), p. 234.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== There are no atheists in foxholes ===&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[There Are No Atheists In Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]] and [[There are no atheists on a sinking ship]] and [[There are no atheists on turbulent airplanes]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Foxhole.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Reverend William T. Cummings is famous for declaring ''[[There Are No Atheists In Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]]''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Multiple references:&lt;br /&gt;
* Taylor-Blake, Bonnie (September 24, 2006). [https://web.archive.org/web/20080617035633/http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0609D&amp;amp;L=ads-l&amp;amp;P=15696 &amp;quot;'There are no atheists in [the&amp;amp;#93; foxholes'&amp;quot;]. Message posted to The American Dialect Society [Electronic] Mailing List, archived at ListServ 16.0. Archive at Internet Archive.&lt;br /&gt;
*Osborn, Neale (December 15, 2012).  [http://nealebooks.newsvine.com/_news/2012/12/15/15931810-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes &amp;quot;There are no atheists in foxholes...&amp;quot;]. Newsvine website/Neal Osborn.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Reverend William T. Cummings is famous for declaring &amp;quot;[[There Are No Atheists In Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,792459,00.html &amp;quot;Milestones [excerpt&amp;amp;#93;&amp;quot;] (October 15, 1945).  ''Time''.  magazine website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Chaplain F. W. Lawson of the 302d Machine Gun Battalion, who was wounded twice in wartime, stated &amp;quot;I doubt if there is such a thing as an atheist.  At least there isn't in a front line trench.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9905EFD91239E13ABC4D51DFB7678383609EDE &amp;quot;Tells of religion in army.  Chaplain Lawson says there are no atheists in front line&amp;quot;] (November 25, 1918).  ''New York Times'', p. 13.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, the news organization NBC featured a story in which atheist veterans claimed that there are atheists in foxholes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Breen, Tom (April 2, 2011).[https://www.nbcnews.com/id/42391558/ns/us_news-military/t/army-group-coming-out-atheist-closet/#.UbgMndihjSg &amp;quot;Army group 'coming out of the atheist closet'&amp;quot;] from NBCNews.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research indicates that heavy combat has a positive correlation to the strength of the religious faith in soldiers during the battles and subsequent to the war if they indicated their experience was a negative experience (for more information please see: [[There Are No Atheists In Foxholes|There are no atheists in foxholes]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, due to research showing that death anxiety increases atheists' unconscious belief in God, Dr. Nathan Heflick declared in a ''Psychology Today'' article, &amp;quot;But, at a less conscious (or pre-conscious) level, this research suggests that there might be less atheism in foxholes than atheists in foxholes report.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Heflick&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Please see: [[Atheism and death]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Denials that atheists exist ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Denials that atheists exist]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Causes of atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article: [[Causes of atheism]]'' and [[Atheism and hedonism]] and [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a number of psychological, societal, familial, economic and spiritual factors which cause atheism which have been proposed over the centuries.  Please see: [[Causes of atheism]] and [[Atheism and hedonism]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christian websites and other resources with a large focus on the topic of atheism  ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:TFT.JPG|thumb|right|275px|[[True Freethinker]] is a [[Christian apologetics]] Facebook page run by Ken Ammi which offers many [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments|refutations of atheism]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism vs. Christianity]] and [[Internet atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Five of the more notable Christian apologetics websites/blogs which have a large focus on the topic of atheism are: the [[Atheism is dead (website)|Atheism is dead]] website; the [[Shadow To Light blog]]; the [[True Freethinker]] website; the [[Creation Ministries International and atheism|Creation Ministries International resources on atheism]] and the [[Fixed Point Foundation]] website.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Freedom from Atheism Foundation (FFAF) ===&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, the [[Freedom From Atheism Foundation]] (FFAF) was formed as an online interfaith civil rights group to provide support for victims of militant atheism, protect the rights of religious believers, and address the increasing amount of atheist intolerance around the world.  The groups' many admins are all anonymous due to the large amount of hate mail, threats, and stalking the site receives from militant atheists.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As of October 2017 the group has [https://www.facebook.com/FFAF.International over 750,000 followers] and makes an average of 80 posts a week.  Along with tens of thousands of religious supporters, the group also found support from atheist author and biologist PZ Myers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/05/09/i-support-the-freedom-from-atheism-foundation/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A May 2014 article in the ''Christian Post'' titled &amp;quot;Freedom From Religion? How About Freedom From Atheism?&amp;quot; profiled the Freedom From Atheism Foundation in greater detail.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christianpost.com/news/freedom-from-religion-how-about-freedom-from-atheism-119389/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Online videos related to atheism  ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Militant atheism YouTube channel]] has a collection of videos on militant atheism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and the media ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and the media]] and  [[Atheism and public relations]] and [[Atheism news]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Media Research Center released a study in 2008 reporting pro-atheism bias by major press outlets in the [[United States]].&amp;lt;ref name=mrc&amp;gt;[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTxORumTarg &amp;quot;Smoking gun proof that there is an atheist media bias&amp;quot;] (July 17, 2008).  YouTube video, 2:56, posted by Atheism Sucks!&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   The study found that 80% of mainstream media coverage of atheism was positive and that 71% of Christian-themed stories had an atheist counterpoint or were written from an atheist perspective.&amp;lt;ref name=mrc/&amp;gt;  The study is not surprising given the liberal bias [[Liberal bias|that commonly exists in the major media outlets]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and the media#Post 2010 drop in volume of atheism news stories|Drop in news stories about atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and the media#Post 2010 the percentage of negative news stories about atheism has increased|Negative news stories about atheism]].&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Attempts to positively rebrand atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Celebrity atheists ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Celebrity atheists]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and homosexuality ==&lt;br /&gt;
See: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist actions against homosexuals]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other well-known proponents of atheism ==&lt;br /&gt;
''See:'' [[Famous atheists]] and [[Famous agnostics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:nietzsche2.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Friedrich Nietzsche]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Diagoras of Melos]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[A. J. Ayer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ludwig Feuerbach]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Friedrich Engels]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sigmund Freud]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Adolf Hitler]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today's atheists&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Albert Camus]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ayn Rand]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Madalyn Murray O'Hair]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Paul Kurtz]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Well-known proponents of skepticism/atheism/agnosticism ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David Hume]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bertrand Russell]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheist organizations ==&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheist organizations]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheist organizations and fundraising ===&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheist organizations and fundraising]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Atheism quotes==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See articles: [[Atheism Quotes]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism news ==&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Atheism news]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recommended reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christian apologetics books on atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/good-news Some good news]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://rightsmarts.com/atheism-is-dead Atheism Is Dead]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Doubt]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism symbols]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay: Atheism and evolution essays]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and satanic deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Second generation atheist]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Humor:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedies and satires of atheism and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Conservapedia statistics about its atheism articles:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Atheism articles statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Atheism Project|Conservapedia Atheism Project]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
''see also:'' [[Atheism website resources]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''General articles on atheism:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/atheism Atheism] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.wnd.com/2013/03/horrific-human-toll-of-militant-atheism-exposed/ Horrific Human Toll of 'Militant Atheism' Exposed: USSR's genocide against Christians largely ignored - World Net Daily]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/atheism-agnosticism-and-humanism-godless-religions-questions-and-answers Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: godless religions] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.bethinking.org/tag/atheism/page/all Atheism articles - Bethinking.org]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/atheism True Free Thinker - atheism section]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm Atheism] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.wnd.com/2017/04/former-atheists-case-for-christ-hits-big-screen/ Former Atheist's 'Case For Christ Hits Big Screen], 2017&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Prominent atheists:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and leadership]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2011/12/01/50-top-atheists-in-the-world-today/ 50 most prominent atheists in the world today]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Other articles on atheism:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism articles|Atheism articles on various topical areas - External websites]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia atheism articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2163495</id>
		<title>Origin of life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2163495"/>
		<updated>2025-10-01T19:37:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Intelligent design]] theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
There have been a number of proposals regarding the '''origin of life''' on earth.  However, the various proposals fall into two general schools of thought: one held by [[Creationism|creationists]] is that life originated divinely/[[supernatural]]ly and the other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250924233524/https://www.britannica.com/science/life/The-origin-of-life Hypotheses of origins] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The latter category is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' or &amp;quot;chemical [[evolution]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=86&amp;amp;Itemid=85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; High-profile evolutionists [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origin of life&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, as acknowledged by the National Academies of Sciences in 2023,  not a developed or accepted scientific theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2023. ISBN 0309475783. &amp;quot;Studies of the chemical origins of life start with the hypothesis that mixtures of simple small [[molecule]]s under the influence of various energy sources and early Earth environments created the building blocks of life and that interactions among these molecules eventually lead to life itself (Figure 12-2).&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first organisms are thought to have emerged around 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (earth being 4.6 billion years old) which means that he earliest life emerged very early on in the history of the earth with a very small window of opportunity (500-600 million years).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth Scientists may have found the earliest evidence of life on Earth]. Julia Rosen. Science. 2015. doi: 10.1126/science.aad4732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Molecules like RNA and peptides degrade within hours to days, limiting any potential for any chemical synthesis in real life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tour, James M., et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; What complicates the origin of life research is that all fossils ever found have been DNA-based life forms, indicating that there is a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) which implies that it is possible that life only formed and survived once since no other genetic variants of life, other than DNA, has ever been found.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://theconversation.com/did-life-evolve-more-than-once-researchers-are-closing-in-on-an-answer-205678 Did life evolve more than once? Researchers are closing in on an answer]. The Conversation. Jordi Paps. May 2023.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two main classes of origin-of-life research: chemical synthesis and molecular assembly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The transition from non-living to living has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Nor has self organizing [[molecule]]s to a living cell, ever been observed in the wild or in a laboratory either, possibly due to the complex chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Committees for the National Academies of Sciences have observed that chemists have held skeptical views of abiogenesis because of extensive laboratory experience indicating that there are numerous chemical problems that inhibit nature, which has no direction or goal, from synthesizing any complex biochemical molecules that are needed for cellular life to even emerge.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (2007). The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. National Academies Press. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0309104845. &amp;quot;Chemists’ objection to the notion that life is a natural consequence of organic reactivity is simple and comes from broadly based empirical experience in organic-chemistry laboratories. Addition of energy to mixtures of organic species makes the mixtures more complex and less likely to support life. Shapiro has provided a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the difficulties. Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules. In the complex chemical mixtures generated under prebiotic conditions, one may be able to find trace amounts of amino acids and perhaps nucleobases. Some might indeed catalyze reactions that have some utility. But other compounds may well inhibit catalysis or catalyze undesired reactions. For example, Joyce and Orgel pointed out that the clay-catalyzed condensation of nucleotides to yield small chains performed best, under the conditions that they considered, if only one enantiomer of the starting material was present. If both were present, the desired reaction with the desired enantiomer might be inhibited by the other enantiomer. Furthermore, the combination of any bifunctional molecule into an information-bearing polymer would be expected to be terminated at an early stage by the presence of an excess of molecules that bear only one functionality. Even crystallization, a well-documented method of obtaining order through self-organization, is not a particularly powerful way to separate mixtures of organic chemicals into their constituents. Normally, an organic compound must be relatively pure before crystallization occurs. That salts crystallize better may explain why crystals are more common in the mineral world than in the organic world. Even organic salts can have problems in crystallizing from an impure mixture. Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem in prebiotic chemistry is '''the water paradox''', the fact that water is essential for all living cells and yet it is very destructive to cellular machinery and components when isolated from the cell, a balance that is incredibly chemically delicate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Marshall, Michael (10 December 2020). &amp;quot;How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat — water&amp;quot;. Nature. 588 (7837): 210–213. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03461-4. &amp;quot;This suggested to many researchers that life arose near the surface of the ocean. But many scientists today say there’s a fundamental problem with that idea: life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis. This is the water paradox. Today, cells solve it by limiting the free movement of water in their interiors, says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. For this reason, popular images of the cytoplasm — the substance inside the cell — are often wrong. “We are taught that cytoplasm is just a bag that holds everything, and everything is swimming around,” she adds. “That’s not true, everything is incredibly scaffolded in cells, and it’s scaffolded in a gel, not a water bag.” If living things keep water controlled, then the implication, say many researchers, is obvious. Life probably formed on land, where water was only intermittently present.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem is a &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts) never have sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Among the most common problems in prebiotic chemistry is the fact that origin of life research and experimentation relies on so much human intervention and fails to provide evidence for abiogenesis as a result of reliance on such frequent intervention.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;&amp;gt;James Tour, Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley. 2020. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Discovery Press. ISBN 1936599740. 13. We're Still Clueless About the Origin of Life&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Richert&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Richert, C. Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention. Nature Communications 9, 5177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07219-5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life is more complex than just having the right cellular components merely existing or even being in the right place since even in the case of extensive prebiotic chemical cheating such as using a completely dead cell with all the components in place, it is not possible generate life out of it once more by blind nature alone.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Deamer&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Deamer. 2020. Origin of life: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190098996. pages 87-88 &amp;quot;The bottom line is that ALL the essential parts of bacterial cells have been shown to work in isolation. However, no one has ever tried to put them back together. Is this even possible? Can a mixture of bacterial parts that is not alive be revived?...Are they alive? Will they grow and reproduce? After all, the ribosomes, genomes, and enzymes are all back together in one place. Most knowledgeable scientists would say, &amp;quot;No! They will NOT be alive!&amp;quot; But they can't know for sure, because no one has done the experiment. I tend share their skepticism - for a very good reason. All the components of the cell may have been put back together in a tiny membranous bag, but we have disrupted an invisible order having to do with feedback loops that regulate metabolism. In the absence of feedback controlling thousands of enzymes, it may be impossible for the cells to come back to life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20170717223959/https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Organic synthesis has been ongoing for at least 200 years and millions of molecules have been successfully synthesized, which makes it puzzling that prebiotic chemistry has not had much success in synthesizing anything close to any of the thousands of complex biomolecular machinery that make up a cell.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gilles Bruylants et al. 2011. &amp;quot;Prebiotic chemistry: A fuzzy field&amp;quot;. Comptes Rendus Chimie (Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences France). 14 (4): 388–391. doi:10.1016/j.crci.2010.04.002. ISSN 1631-0748.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; As of 2024 numerous problems still persist for prebiotic chemists trying to solve abiogenesis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cell]]s are very optimized entities and appear to be fine tuned. Studies on raw materials used by cells such as the 20 chiral-specific [[amino acid]]s, which permeate all life on earth, are the optimal or ideal set of amino acids out of all the possible amino acid combinations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ilardo, M., Meringer, M., Freeland, S. et al. Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids. Scientific Reports 5, 9414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09414&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Doig, A.J. (2017), Frozen, but no accident – why the 20 standard amino acids were selected. FEBS J, 284: 1296-1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13982&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Current status ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin of life researcher David Abel in 2024 summarizes the chemical problems that abiogenesis faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Lynn Abel. [https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html Why is Abiogenesis Such a Tough Nut to Crack?]. Archives of Microbiology and Immunology. 8 (2024): 338-364.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin researcher Pier Luisi in 2018 stated &amp;quot;the turning point of non-life to life has never been put into one experimental set up. There are, of course, several hypotheses, and this plethora of ideas means already that we do not have a convincing one.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Pier Luigi Luisi. 2018. The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108735506. p. 416.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Walter Bradley said: &amp;quot;The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference of the origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Quoted in Strobel, Lee, [https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M The case for Faith], p.107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the &amp;quot;immensity of the problem&amp;quot; for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, &amp;quot;At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996, John Horgan wrote in [[Scientific American]]: &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Even [[Stanley Miller]] of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in ''Scientific American'' that the &amp;quot;problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as &amp;quot;nonsense&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;paper chemistry&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means.  Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that &amp;quot;[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl02.html#orgnflfscntfcthrsnvblscntfcthrsnthrgnflfllthrsndxprmntsthrndnstlmtrncnfssnfgnrnc Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prebiotic chemistry==&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Miller-Urey experiment===&lt;br /&gt;
Main article: [[Miller-Urey experiment]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:MillerUreyExperiment.PNG|300px|thumb|right|The setup of the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1953. It attempted to simulate primitive Earth gases (Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, Water Vapor), primitive oceans (Water), and lightning.]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1953 American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago performed an experiment that tried to produce components that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiotically (from inorganic molecules).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.britannica.com/science/Miller-Urey-experiment Miller-Urey experiment] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Early earth atmosphere====&lt;br /&gt;
There is significant uncertainty to what the primitive atmosphere was composed of.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The Miller-Urey experiment assumed an a primitive atmosphere was composed of ''reducing'' (oxygen poor)  gases [e.g. methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), hydrogen (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O)], but by the 1980s geochemists believed that early earth atmospheres probably had ''neutral'' gases like those emitted by volcanoes [e.g. water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O), carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and nitrogen (N&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)] and perhaps some ''reducing'' gases like carbon monoxide (CO). Since hydrogen was a light element, there probably would not have been any or perhaps very little in early earth.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bada JL. [https://web.archive.org/web/20190225141103id_/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f46/3e8a3611fa7f25c143991dfddac49c396b73.pdf New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller's spark discharge experiments]. Chem Soc Rev. 2013 Mar 7;42(5):2186-96. doi: 10.1039/c3cs35433d&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wells&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Wells. 2017. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. ISBN: 978-1936599448. 3. Survival of the Fakest&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A possible source of lightning could have been &amp;quot;volcanic lightning&amp;quot;, which occurs sometimes near volcanic eruption plumes, and some volcanic gases emitted have been hydrogen sulfide (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;S), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Some scientists believe that early earth atmosphere was similar to earth today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250902132614/https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/ Earth's Early Atmosphere: An Update] - NASA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Hydrothermal vents====&lt;br /&gt;
Hydrothermal vents have been prosed as an alternative source of prebiotic compounds like amino acids, but they face significant limitations. For example, vent systems tend to have very short lives of about 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Limited time frames for prebiotic synthesis====&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists believe that there was a time limit for meteorites for form simple to slightly more complex compounds: greater than 1,000 to less than 1,000,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; This poses a problem for hydrothermal vents since they have a very short life span of 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Leading Miller-Urey experiment researcher Jeffrey Bada admits:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|&amp;quot;An important issue is whether these timescales are compatible with the time required for the transition from abiotic to biotic chemistry. As noted, in carbonaceous meteorites the timescale for amino acid production is between &amp;gt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; years, perhaps even as short as 1–10 years, and there is no evidence that the prebiotic chemistry that took place on the meteorite parent bodies during this aqueous alteration period produced anything beyond simple monomeric compounds. It has been suggested that catalysts such as metal sulfides present in vent systems would promote more rapid synthesis, but by the principle of microscopic reversibility, these must also catalyze the decomposition of any synthesized compounds. Moreover, if this was the case there are certainly potential metal catalysts present on meteorite parent bodies and, as has been indicated, nothing beyond simple molecules were apparently synthesized.&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Chemical yield of amino acids====&lt;br /&gt;
Amino acid yield in spark discharge experiments depends critically on the pH of the aqueous phase since at lower pH, amino acid production is greatly reduced and hydroxy acids in greatly increased.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Hydrothermal vents have been proposed as an alternative prebiotic chemistry source but they face severe limitations and actual synthesis have never been demonstrated using plausible geochemical conditions.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Chemical requirements for life===&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading water &amp;amp; life chemist Felix Franks, life processes must encompass all of the following functions in sequence:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other researchers have proposed minimal requirements for genes needed for a living organism. A minimal gene set would include genes for:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joana Xavier, Kiran Patil, Isabel Rocha. September 2014. &amp;quot;Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells&amp;quot;. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 78 (3): 487–509. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00050-13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* a basic transcription machinery&lt;br /&gt;
* aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis&lt;br /&gt;
* tRNA maturation and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosomal proteins&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosome function, maturation, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* translation factors&lt;br /&gt;
* RNA degradation&lt;br /&gt;
* protein processing, folding, and secretion&lt;br /&gt;
* cellular division&lt;br /&gt;
* transport&lt;br /&gt;
* energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycolysis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)&lt;br /&gt;
* all 20 amino acids&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chemical problems facing abiogenesis==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Francis_Crick.jpg|thumb|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Francis Crick]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:&lt;br /&gt;
#Laboratory experience from centuries of organic chemistry indicate that cross contamination of impure reactants and products in the natural world inhibit further formation of more complex biomolecules from simple ones, separation of necessary compounds generally does not occur in nature, any functional molecule that could even form would get terminated by the majority of nonfunctional material it emerged from, and self-organization is not a intrinsic property of biological matter.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts of a compound) usually occurs and ensures that there is never sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction. For example, if only 1 gram of new product emerges from 100 grams of raw material, then that 1 gram of new product can only yield less than 1 gram in the next chemical step. You get less and less yield with each chemical step since no raw material is being replenished.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''water paradox''' is the chemical reality that water is essential for life and yet it destroys cellular components (e.g. proteins, enzymes and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Naturally, molecules never direct themselves towards life or even complex cellular machinery, they don't control when to start or stop synthesis, and do not preform purification processes to separate useful material from waste and byproducts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The problem of homochirality (see [[Chirality]])&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1719 Origin of life: the chirality problem], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):263–266, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; refers to a fundamental puzzle in the origin of life, where essential biomolecules like amino acids and sugars are exclusively one &amp;quot;handedness&amp;quot; (enantiomer) in living cells which use: only left-handed amino acids [designated as &amp;quot;L-&amp;quot; such as in L-Lysine] and only right-handed sugars [designated as &amp;quot;D-&amp;quot; such as in D-glucose]). The problem is that laboratory experiments show that natural prebiotic chemistry produces equal amounts of both right and left handed forms (a racemic mixture) of amino acids and sugars and this contaminates and inhibits any further synthesis, essentially killing synthesis of any useful molecules.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#Polymerization problem &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1791 Origin of life: the polymerization problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):281–284, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The window of opportunity for any chemical synthesis in the wild is very short (hours and days at best, not thousands or millions of years). For example, when it comes to the spontaneous formation of the long and complex molecules like RNA and proteins, these molecules degrade rapidly in water, with a 600-unit RNA chain having a half-life of only about four hours.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;James Tour et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
#''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s'': John Horgan wrote: &amp;quot;Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?&amp;quot; - (John Horgan,[science writer], &amp;quot;In The Beginning...,&amp;quot; ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;100–109, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;103)&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: &amp;quot;To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the &amp;quot;catch 22&amp;quot; dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: &amp;quot;If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don't have oxygen we have none either.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532 Self-replicating enzymes?], ''Journal of Creation'' 11(1):4–6, April 1997.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cairns-Smith, Graham, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/ Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life], Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presuppositions in origin of life==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted [[Physics|physicist]] and [[bioinformatics|bioinformatician]] Hubert Yockey, who worked under [[Robert Oppenheimer]] on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the [[philosophical]] presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of [[Dialectical materialism|dialectic materialism]] plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in [[exobiology]] and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir [[Francis Crick]] the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]].  Crick has described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the ''International Journal of Solar System Studies'' (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on [[earth]] by a process they called &amp;quot;[[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a &amp;quot;theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Michael Behe]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1992, the popular magazine ''Scientific American'' published an interview  which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[United States|American]] [[Biochemistry|biochemist]] and [[intelligent design]] advocate [[Michael Behe]] wrote concerning the interview: &amp;quot;The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/125 Designed by aliens?], ''Creation'' 25(4):54–55, September 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
He also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of [[DNA]] without [[God]], Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested.  After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creationists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biblical creation organizations argue that the biblical and scientific evidence suggests that God did not create intelligent life on other planets nor did it naturally arise through [[Evolution|macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?] by Gary Bates, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/qa Creation vs. evolution - Questions and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intelligent design and life on other planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Public debates==&lt;br /&gt;
===1990s debates===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1997, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], stated that he believed that in regards to [[atheism]] &amp;quot;the most impressive debater to date&amp;quot; was [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[Douglas Jesseph]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: &amp;quot;Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===2009 debate===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution]]ary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] and Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]] debating Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Discovery Institute]] declared concerning the debate: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate &amp;quot;[[creationism|creationists]]&amp;quot; — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation Science and Intelligent Design Views ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible.  They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In ''[[Darwin's Doubt]]'', he writes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;... invoking natural selection does not help to explain the origin of the first life&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce.&amp;quot; [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062071475/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=anncoulter-20&amp;amp;camp=14573&amp;amp;creative=327641&amp;amp;linkCode=as1&amp;amp;creativeASIN=0062071475&amp;amp;adid=1QSNY85R152GT1QTA6NH&amp;amp;&amp;amp;ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anncoulter.com%2F (prologue, p. viii)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christian apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Origin of life on Earth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Creation science articles and videos:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life questions and answers] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible] by [[Creation Research Society]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/james-tour-dismantles-dave-farinas-expert-witnesses-on-the-state-of-origin-of-life-research/ James Tour Dismantles Dave Farina’s Expert Witnesses on the State of Origin-of-Life Research], 2023&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Videos:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBO6Z0f84Q The Origin of Life by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/biogenesis_scientific.html Is Naturalistic Biogenesis Scientific?] by Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKG1RbN4lU Did the Miller Experiment Solve the Origin of Life Puzzle? - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP7ojkrZ1sc&amp;amp;list=PLILWudw_84t22BWvWsoXCmaXNllbfJ2h7 Addressing Abiogenesis] by James Tour &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&amp;amp;feature=related Evolution vs Creation: Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFM-hQKkmhs Origin of Life Interview with Dr. Thaxton - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XytvCOJ6_7E Focus on Origins of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeTVKrgzeHQ The Origin of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqU2t84Jyw4 The Myth Of Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CKsYV5pVAs&amp;amp;feature=related Chemical Evolution: The Miller Experiment - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design theorists articles and audio:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?objectID=15997 Darwin’s Defenders Deny Life’s Evident Design] by [[Stephen C. Meyer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.discovery.org/a/2184 DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html DNA BY Design: An Inference To the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/06/seeking-a-way-around-rna-world-new-study-only-increases-perplexity-of-abiogenesis/ Seeking a Way Around RNA World, New Study Only Increases Perplexity of Abiogenesis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Audio:&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD79-1/ DNA by Design Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - Audio]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Creationism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Origin of Life]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2163493</id>
		<title>Origin of life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2163493"/>
		<updated>2025-10-01T19:32:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Intelligent design]] theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
There have been a number of proposals regarding the '''origin of life''' on earth.  However, the various proposals fall into two general schools of thought: one, held by [[Creationism|creationists]], is that life originated divinely/[[supernatural]]ly and the other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.britannica.com/science/life/Production-of-polymers Hypotheses of origins] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The latter category is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' or &amp;quot;chemical [[evolution]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=86&amp;amp;Itemid=85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; High-profile evolutionists [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origin of life&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, as acknowledged by the National Academies of Sciences in 2023,  not a developed or accepted scientific theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2023. ISBN 0309475783. &amp;quot;Studies of the chemical origins of life start with the hypothesis that mixtures of simple small [[molecule]]s under the influence of various energy sources and early Earth environments created the building blocks of life and that interactions among these molecules eventually lead to life itself (Figure 12-2).&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first organisms are thought to have emerged around 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (earth being 4.6 billion years old) which means that he earliest life emerged very early on in the history of the earth with a very small window of opportunity (500-600 million years).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth Scientists may have found the earliest evidence of life on Earth]. Julia Rosen. Science. 2015. doi: 10.1126/science.aad4732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Molecules like RNA and peptides degrade within hours to days, limiting any potential for any chemical synthesis in real life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tour, James M., et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; What complicates the origin of life research is that all fossils ever found have been DNA-based life forms, indicating that there is a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) which implies that it is possible that life only formed and survived once since no other genetic variants of life, other than DNA, has ever been found.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://theconversation.com/did-life-evolve-more-than-once-researchers-are-closing-in-on-an-answer-205678 Did life evolve more than once? Researchers are closing in on an answer]. The Conversation. Jordi Paps. May 2023.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two main classes of origin-of-life research: chemical synthesis and molecular assembly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The transition from non-living to living has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Nor has self organizing [[molecule]]s to a living cell, ever been observed in the wild or in a laboratory either, possibly due to the complex chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Committees for the National Academies of Sciences have observed that chemists have held skeptical views of abiogenesis because of extensive laboratory experience indicating that there are numerous chemical problems that inhibit nature, which has no direction or goal, from synthesizing any complex biochemical molecules that are needed for cellular life to even emerge.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (2007). The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. National Academies Press. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0309104845. &amp;quot;Chemists’ objection to the notion that life is a natural consequence of organic reactivity is simple and comes from broadly based empirical experience in organic-chemistry laboratories. Addition of energy to mixtures of organic species makes the mixtures more complex and less likely to support life. Shapiro has provided a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the difficulties. Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules. In the complex chemical mixtures generated under prebiotic conditions, one may be able to find trace amounts of amino acids and perhaps nucleobases. Some might indeed catalyze reactions that have some utility. But other compounds may well inhibit catalysis or catalyze undesired reactions. For example, Joyce and Orgel pointed out that the clay-catalyzed condensation of nucleotides to yield small chains performed best, under the conditions that they considered, if only one enantiomer of the starting material was present. If both were present, the desired reaction with the desired enantiomer might be inhibited by the other enantiomer. Furthermore, the combination of any bifunctional molecule into an information-bearing polymer would be expected to be terminated at an early stage by the presence of an excess of molecules that bear only one functionality. Even crystallization, a well-documented method of obtaining order through self-organization, is not a particularly powerful way to separate mixtures of organic chemicals into their constituents. Normally, an organic compound must be relatively pure before crystallization occurs. That salts crystallize better may explain why crystals are more common in the mineral world than in the organic world. Even organic salts can have problems in crystallizing from an impure mixture. Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem in prebiotic chemistry is '''the water paradox''', the fact that water is essential for all living cells and yet it is very destructive to cellular machinery and components when isolated from the cell, a balance that is incredibly chemically delicate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Marshall, Michael (10 December 2020). &amp;quot;How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat — water&amp;quot;. Nature. 588 (7837): 210–213. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03461-4. &amp;quot;This suggested to many researchers that life arose near the surface of the ocean. But many scientists today say there’s a fundamental problem with that idea: life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis. This is the water paradox. Today, cells solve it by limiting the free movement of water in their interiors, says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. For this reason, popular images of the cytoplasm — the substance inside the cell — are often wrong. “We are taught that cytoplasm is just a bag that holds everything, and everything is swimming around,” she adds. “That’s not true, everything is incredibly scaffolded in cells, and it’s scaffolded in a gel, not a water bag.” If living things keep water controlled, then the implication, say many researchers, is obvious. Life probably formed on land, where water was only intermittently present.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem is a &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts) never have sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Among the most common problems in prebiotic chemistry is the fact that origin of life research and experimentation relies on so much human intervention and fails to provide evidence for abiogenesis as a result of reliance on such frequent intervention.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;&amp;gt;James Tour, Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley. 2020. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Discovery Press. ISBN 1936599740. 13. We're Still Clueless About the Origin of Life&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Richert&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Richert, C. Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention. Nature Communications 9, 5177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07219-5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life is more complex than just having the right cellular components merely existing or even being in the right place since even in the case of extensive prebiotic chemical cheating such as using a completely dead cell with all the components in place, it is not possible generate life out of it once more by blind nature alone.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Deamer&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Deamer. 2020. Origin of life: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190098996. pages 87-88 &amp;quot;The bottom line is that ALL the essential parts of bacterial cells have been shown to work in isolation. However, no one has ever tried to put them back together. Is this even possible? Can a mixture of bacterial parts that is not alive be revived?...Are they alive? Will they grow and reproduce? After all, the ribosomes, genomes, and enzymes are all back together in one place. Most knowledgeable scientists would say, &amp;quot;No! They will NOT be alive!&amp;quot; But they can't know for sure, because no one has done the experiment. I tend share their skepticism - for a very good reason. All the components of the cell may have been put back together in a tiny membranous bag, but we have disrupted an invisible order having to do with feedback loops that regulate metabolism. In the absence of feedback controlling thousands of enzymes, it may be impossible for the cells to come back to life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20170717223959/https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Organic synthesis has been ongoing for at least 200 years and millions of molecules have been successfully synthesized, which makes it puzzling that prebiotic chemistry has not had much success in synthesizing anything close to any of the thousands of complex biomolecular machinery that make up a cell.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gilles Bruylants et al. 2011. &amp;quot;Prebiotic chemistry: A fuzzy field&amp;quot;. Comptes Rendus Chimie (Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences France). 14 (4): 388–391. doi:10.1016/j.crci.2010.04.002. ISSN 1631-0748.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; As of 2024 numerous problems still persist for prebiotic chemists trying to solve abiogenesis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cell]]s are very optimized entities and appear to be fine tuned. Studies on raw materials used by cells such as the 20 chiral-specific [[amino acid]]s, which permeate all life on earth, are the optimal or ideal set of amino acids out of all the possible amino acid combinations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ilardo, M., Meringer, M., Freeland, S. et al. Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids. Scientific Reports 5, 9414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09414&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Doig, A.J. (2017), Frozen, but no accident – why the 20 standard amino acids were selected. FEBS J, 284: 1296-1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13982&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Current status ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin of life researcher David Abel in 2024 summarizes the chemical problems that abiogenesis faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Lynn Abel. [https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html Why is Abiogenesis Such a Tough Nut to Crack?]. Archives of Microbiology and Immunology. 8 (2024): 338-364.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin researcher Pier Luisi in 2018 stated &amp;quot;the turning point of non-life to life has never been put into one experimental set up. There are, of course, several hypotheses, and this plethora of ideas means already that we do not have a convincing one.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Pier Luigi Luisi. 2018. The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108735506. p. 416.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Walter Bradley said: &amp;quot;The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference of the origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Quoted in Strobel, Lee, [https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M The case for Faith], p.107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the &amp;quot;immensity of the problem&amp;quot; for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, &amp;quot;At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996, John Horgan wrote in [[Scientific American]]: &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Even [[Stanley Miller]] of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in ''Scientific American'' that the &amp;quot;problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as &amp;quot;nonsense&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;paper chemistry&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means.  Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that &amp;quot;[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl02.html#orgnflfscntfcthrsnvblscntfcthrsnthrgnflfllthrsndxprmntsthrndnstlmtrncnfssnfgnrnc Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prebiotic chemistry==&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Miller-Urey experiment===&lt;br /&gt;
Main article: [[Miller-Urey experiment]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:MillerUreyExperiment.PNG|300px|thumb|right|The setup of the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1953. It attempted to simulate primitive Earth gases (Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, Water Vapor), primitive oceans (Water), and lightning.]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1953 American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago performed an experiment that tried to produce components that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiotically (from inorganic molecules).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.britannica.com/science/Miller-Urey-experiment Miller-Urey experiment] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Early earth atmosphere====&lt;br /&gt;
There is significant uncertainty to what the primitive atmosphere was composed of.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The Miller-Urey experiment assumed an a primitive atmosphere was composed of ''reducing'' (oxygen poor)  gases [e.g. methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), hydrogen (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O)], but by the 1980s geochemists believed that early earth atmospheres probably had ''neutral'' gases like those emitted by volcanoes [e.g. water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O), carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and nitrogen (N&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)] and perhaps some ''reducing'' gases like carbon monoxide (CO). Since hydrogen was a light element, there probably would not have been any or perhaps very little in early earth.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bada JL. [https://web.archive.org/web/20190225141103id_/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f46/3e8a3611fa7f25c143991dfddac49c396b73.pdf New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller's spark discharge experiments]. Chem Soc Rev. 2013 Mar 7;42(5):2186-96. doi: 10.1039/c3cs35433d&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wells&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Wells. 2017. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. ISBN: 978-1936599448. 3. Survival of the Fakest&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A possible source of lightning could have been &amp;quot;volcanic lightning&amp;quot;, which occurs sometimes near volcanic eruption plumes, and some volcanic gases emitted have been hydrogen sulfide (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;S), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Some scientists believe that early earth atmosphere was similar to earth today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250902132614/https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/ Earth's Early Atmosphere: An Update] - NASA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Hydrothermal vents====&lt;br /&gt;
Hydrothermal vents have been prosed as an alternative source of prebiotic compounds like amino acids, but they face significant limitations. For example, vent systems tend to have very short lives of about 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Limited time frames for prebiotic synthesis====&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists believe that there was a time limit for meteorites for form simple to slightly more complex compounds: greater than 1,000 to less than 1,000,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; This poses a problem for hydrothermal vents since they have a very short life span of 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Leading Miller-Urey experiment researcher Jeffrey Bada admits:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|&amp;quot;An important issue is whether these timescales are compatible with the time required for the transition from abiotic to biotic chemistry. As noted, in carbonaceous meteorites the timescale for amino acid production is between &amp;gt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; years, perhaps even as short as 1–10 years, and there is no evidence that the prebiotic chemistry that took place on the meteorite parent bodies during this aqueous alteration period produced anything beyond simple monomeric compounds. It has been suggested that catalysts such as metal sulfides present in vent systems would promote more rapid synthesis, but by the principle of microscopic reversibility, these must also catalyze the decomposition of any synthesized compounds. Moreover, if this was the case there are certainly potential metal catalysts present on meteorite parent bodies and, as has been indicated, nothing beyond simple molecules were apparently synthesized.&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Chemical yield of amino acids====&lt;br /&gt;
Amino acid yield in spark discharge experiments depends critically on the pH of the aqueous phase since at lower pH, amino acid production is greatly reduced and hydroxy acids in greatly increased.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Hydrothermal vents have been proposed as an alternative prebiotic chemistry source but they face severe limitations and actual synthesis have never been demonstrated using plausible geochemical conditions.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Chemical requirements for life===&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading water &amp;amp; life chemist Felix Franks, life processes must encompass all of the following functions in sequence:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other researchers have proposed minimal requirements for genes needed for a living organism. A minimal gene set would include genes for:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joana Xavier, Kiran Patil, Isabel Rocha. September 2014. &amp;quot;Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells&amp;quot;. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 78 (3): 487–509. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00050-13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* a basic transcription machinery&lt;br /&gt;
* aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis&lt;br /&gt;
* tRNA maturation and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosomal proteins&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosome function, maturation, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* translation factors&lt;br /&gt;
* RNA degradation&lt;br /&gt;
* protein processing, folding, and secretion&lt;br /&gt;
* cellular division&lt;br /&gt;
* transport&lt;br /&gt;
* energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycolysis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)&lt;br /&gt;
* all 20 amino acids&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chemical problems facing abiogenesis==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Francis_Crick.jpg|thumb|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Francis Crick]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:&lt;br /&gt;
#Laboratory experience from centuries of organic chemistry indicate that cross contamination of impure reactants and products in the natural world inhibit further formation of more complex biomolecules from simple ones, separation of necessary compounds generally does not occur in nature, any functional molecule that could even form would get terminated by the majority of nonfunctional material it emerged from, and self-organization is not a intrinsic property of biological matter.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts of a compound) usually occurs and ensures that there is never sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction. For example, if only 1 gram of new product emerges from 100 grams of raw material, then that 1 gram of new product can only yield less than 1 gram in the next chemical step. You get less and less yield with each chemical step since no raw material is being replenished.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''water paradox''' is the chemical reality that water is essential for life and yet it destroys cellular components (e.g. proteins, enzymes and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Naturally, molecules never direct themselves towards life or even complex cellular machinery, they don't control when to start or stop synthesis, and do not preform purification processes to separate useful material from waste and byproducts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The problem of homochirality (see [[Chirality]])&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1719 Origin of life: the chirality problem], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):263–266, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; refers to a fundamental puzzle in the origin of life, where essential biomolecules like amino acids and sugars are exclusively one &amp;quot;handedness&amp;quot; (enantiomer) in living cells which use: only left-handed amino acids [designated as &amp;quot;L-&amp;quot; such as in L-Lysine] and only right-handed sugars [designated as &amp;quot;D-&amp;quot; such as in D-glucose]). The problem is that laboratory experiments show that natural prebiotic chemistry produces equal amounts of both right and left handed forms (a racemic mixture) of amino acids and sugars and this contaminates and inhibits any further synthesis, essentially killing synthesis of any useful molecules.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#Polymerization problem &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1791 Origin of life: the polymerization problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):281–284, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The window of opportunity for any chemical synthesis in the wild is very short (hours and days at best, not thousands or millions of years). For example, when it comes to the spontaneous formation of the long and complex molecules like RNA and proteins, these molecules degrade rapidly in water, with a 600-unit RNA chain having a half-life of only about four hours.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;James Tour et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
#''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s'': John Horgan wrote: &amp;quot;Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?&amp;quot; - (John Horgan,[science writer], &amp;quot;In The Beginning...,&amp;quot; ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;100–109, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;103)&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: &amp;quot;To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the &amp;quot;catch 22&amp;quot; dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: &amp;quot;If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don't have oxygen we have none either.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532 Self-replicating enzymes?], ''Journal of Creation'' 11(1):4–6, April 1997.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cairns-Smith, Graham, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/ Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life], Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presuppositions in origin of life==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted [[Physics|physicist]] and [[bioinformatics|bioinformatician]] Hubert Yockey, who worked under [[Robert Oppenheimer]] on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the [[philosophical]] presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of [[Dialectical materialism|dialectic materialism]] plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in [[exobiology]] and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir [[Francis Crick]] the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]].  Crick has described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the ''International Journal of Solar System Studies'' (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on [[earth]] by a process they called &amp;quot;[[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a &amp;quot;theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Michael Behe]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1992, the popular magazine ''Scientific American'' published an interview  which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[United States|American]] [[Biochemistry|biochemist]] and [[intelligent design]] advocate [[Michael Behe]] wrote concerning the interview: &amp;quot;The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/125 Designed by aliens?], ''Creation'' 25(4):54–55, September 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
He also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of [[DNA]] without [[God]], Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested.  After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creationists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biblical creation organizations argue that the biblical and scientific evidence suggests that God did not create intelligent life on other planets nor did it naturally arise through [[Evolution|macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?] by Gary Bates, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/qa Creation vs. evolution - Questions and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intelligent design and life on other planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Public debates==&lt;br /&gt;
===1990s debates===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1997, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], stated that he believed that in regards to [[atheism]] &amp;quot;the most impressive debater to date&amp;quot; was [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[Douglas Jesseph]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: &amp;quot;Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===2009 debate===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution]]ary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] and Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]] debating Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Discovery Institute]] declared concerning the debate: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate &amp;quot;[[creationism|creationists]]&amp;quot; — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation Science and Intelligent Design Views ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible.  They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In ''[[Darwin's Doubt]]'', he writes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;... invoking natural selection does not help to explain the origin of the first life&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce.&amp;quot; [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062071475/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=anncoulter-20&amp;amp;camp=14573&amp;amp;creative=327641&amp;amp;linkCode=as1&amp;amp;creativeASIN=0062071475&amp;amp;adid=1QSNY85R152GT1QTA6NH&amp;amp;&amp;amp;ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anncoulter.com%2F (prologue, p. viii)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christian apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Origin of life on Earth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Creation science articles and videos:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life questions and answers] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible] by [[Creation Research Society]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/james-tour-dismantles-dave-farinas-expert-witnesses-on-the-state-of-origin-of-life-research/ James Tour Dismantles Dave Farina’s Expert Witnesses on the State of Origin-of-Life Research], 2023&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Videos:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBO6Z0f84Q The Origin of Life by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/biogenesis_scientific.html Is Naturalistic Biogenesis Scientific?] by Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKG1RbN4lU Did the Miller Experiment Solve the Origin of Life Puzzle? - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP7ojkrZ1sc&amp;amp;list=PLILWudw_84t22BWvWsoXCmaXNllbfJ2h7 Addressing Abiogenesis] by James Tour &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&amp;amp;feature=related Evolution vs Creation: Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFM-hQKkmhs Origin of Life Interview with Dr. Thaxton - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XytvCOJ6_7E Focus on Origins of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeTVKrgzeHQ The Origin of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqU2t84Jyw4 The Myth Of Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CKsYV5pVAs&amp;amp;feature=related Chemical Evolution: The Miller Experiment - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design theorists articles and audio:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?objectID=15997 Darwin’s Defenders Deny Life’s Evident Design] by [[Stephen C. Meyer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.discovery.org/a/2184 DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html DNA BY Design: An Inference To the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/06/seeking-a-way-around-rna-world-new-study-only-increases-perplexity-of-abiogenesis/ Seeking a Way Around RNA World, New Study Only Increases Perplexity of Abiogenesis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Audio:&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD79-1/ DNA by Design Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - Audio]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Creationism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Origin of Life]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2163491</id>
		<title>Origin of life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2163491"/>
		<updated>2025-10-01T19:30:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Intelligent design]] theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
There have been a number of proposals regarding the '''origin of life''' on earth.  However, the various proposals fall into two general schools of thought: one, held by [[Creationism|creationists]], is that life originated divinely/[[supernatural]]ly and the other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.britannica.com/science/life/Production-of-polymers Hypotheses of origins] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' and &amp;quot;chemical [[evolution]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=86&amp;amp;Itemid=85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; High-profile evolutionists [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origin of life&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, as acknowledged by the National Academies of Sciences in 2023,  not a developed or accepted scientific theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2023. ISBN 0309475783. &amp;quot;Studies of the chemical origins of life start with the hypothesis that mixtures of simple small [[molecule]]s under the influence of various energy sources and early Earth environments created the building blocks of life and that interactions among these molecules eventually lead to life itself (Figure 12-2).&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first organisms are thought to have emerged around 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (earth being 4.6 billion years old) which means that he earliest life emerged very early on in the history of the earth with a very small window of opportunity (500-600 million years).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth Scientists may have found the earliest evidence of life on Earth]. Julia Rosen. Science. 2015. doi: 10.1126/science.aad4732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Molecules like RNA and peptides degrade within hours to days, limiting any potential for any chemical synthesis in real life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tour, James M., et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; What complicates the origin of life research is that all fossils ever found have been DNA-based life forms, indicating that there is a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) which implies that it is possible that life only formed and survived once since no other genetic variants of life, other than DNA, has ever been found.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://theconversation.com/did-life-evolve-more-than-once-researchers-are-closing-in-on-an-answer-205678 Did life evolve more than once? Researchers are closing in on an answer]. The Conversation. Jordi Paps. May 2023.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two main classes of origin-of-life research: chemical synthesis and molecular assembly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The transition from non-living to living has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Nor has self organizing [[molecule]]s to a living cell, ever been observed in the wild or in a laboratory either, possibly due to the complex chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Committees for the National Academies of Sciences have observed that chemists have held skeptical views of abiogenesis because of extensive laboratory experience indicating that there are numerous chemical problems that inhibit nature, which has no direction or goal, from synthesizing any complex biochemical molecules that are needed for cellular life to even emerge.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (2007). The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. National Academies Press. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0309104845. &amp;quot;Chemists’ objection to the notion that life is a natural consequence of organic reactivity is simple and comes from broadly based empirical experience in organic-chemistry laboratories. Addition of energy to mixtures of organic species makes the mixtures more complex and less likely to support life. Shapiro has provided a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the difficulties. Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules. In the complex chemical mixtures generated under prebiotic conditions, one may be able to find trace amounts of amino acids and perhaps nucleobases. Some might indeed catalyze reactions that have some utility. But other compounds may well inhibit catalysis or catalyze undesired reactions. For example, Joyce and Orgel pointed out that the clay-catalyzed condensation of nucleotides to yield small chains performed best, under the conditions that they considered, if only one enantiomer of the starting material was present. If both were present, the desired reaction with the desired enantiomer might be inhibited by the other enantiomer. Furthermore, the combination of any bifunctional molecule into an information-bearing polymer would be expected to be terminated at an early stage by the presence of an excess of molecules that bear only one functionality. Even crystallization, a well-documented method of obtaining order through self-organization, is not a particularly powerful way to separate mixtures of organic chemicals into their constituents. Normally, an organic compound must be relatively pure before crystallization occurs. That salts crystallize better may explain why crystals are more common in the mineral world than in the organic world. Even organic salts can have problems in crystallizing from an impure mixture. Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem in prebiotic chemistry is '''the water paradox''', the fact that water is essential for all living cells and yet it is very destructive to cellular machinery and components when isolated from the cell, a balance that is incredibly chemically delicate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Marshall, Michael (10 December 2020). &amp;quot;How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat — water&amp;quot;. Nature. 588 (7837): 210–213. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03461-4. &amp;quot;This suggested to many researchers that life arose near the surface of the ocean. But many scientists today say there’s a fundamental problem with that idea: life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis. This is the water paradox. Today, cells solve it by limiting the free movement of water in their interiors, says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. For this reason, popular images of the cytoplasm — the substance inside the cell — are often wrong. “We are taught that cytoplasm is just a bag that holds everything, and everything is swimming around,” she adds. “That’s not true, everything is incredibly scaffolded in cells, and it’s scaffolded in a gel, not a water bag.” If living things keep water controlled, then the implication, say many researchers, is obvious. Life probably formed on land, where water was only intermittently present.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem is a &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts) never have sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Among the most common problems in prebiotic chemistry is the fact that origin of life research and experimentation relies on so much human intervention and fails to provide evidence for abiogenesis as a result of reliance on such frequent intervention.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;&amp;gt;James Tour, Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley. 2020. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Discovery Press. ISBN 1936599740. 13. We're Still Clueless About the Origin of Life&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Richert&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Richert, C. Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention. Nature Communications 9, 5177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07219-5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life is more complex than just having the right cellular components merely existing or even being in the right place since even in the case of extensive prebiotic chemical cheating such as using a completely dead cell with all the components in place, it is not possible generate life out of it once more by blind nature alone.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Deamer&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Deamer. 2020. Origin of life: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190098996. pages 87-88 &amp;quot;The bottom line is that ALL the essential parts of bacterial cells have been shown to work in isolation. However, no one has ever tried to put them back together. Is this even possible? Can a mixture of bacterial parts that is not alive be revived?...Are they alive? Will they grow and reproduce? After all, the ribosomes, genomes, and enzymes are all back together in one place. Most knowledgeable scientists would say, &amp;quot;No! They will NOT be alive!&amp;quot; But they can't know for sure, because no one has done the experiment. I tend share their skepticism - for a very good reason. All the components of the cell may have been put back together in a tiny membranous bag, but we have disrupted an invisible order having to do with feedback loops that regulate metabolism. In the absence of feedback controlling thousands of enzymes, it may be impossible for the cells to come back to life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20170717223959/https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Organic synthesis has been ongoing for at least 200 years and millions of molecules have been successfully synthesized, which makes it puzzling that prebiotic chemistry has not had much success in synthesizing anything close to any of the thousands of complex biomolecular machinery that make up a cell.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gilles Bruylants et al. 2011. &amp;quot;Prebiotic chemistry: A fuzzy field&amp;quot;. Comptes Rendus Chimie (Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences France). 14 (4): 388–391. doi:10.1016/j.crci.2010.04.002. ISSN 1631-0748.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; As of 2024 numerous problems still persist for prebiotic chemists trying to solve abiogenesis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cell]]s are very optimized entities and appear to be fine tuned. Studies on raw materials used by cells such as the 20 chiral-specific [[amino acid]]s, which permeate all life on earth, are the optimal or ideal set of amino acids out of all the possible amino acid combinations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ilardo, M., Meringer, M., Freeland, S. et al. Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids. Scientific Reports 5, 9414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09414&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Doig, A.J. (2017), Frozen, but no accident – why the 20 standard amino acids were selected. FEBS J, 284: 1296-1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13982&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Current status ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin of life researcher David Abel in 2024 summarizes the chemical problems that abiogenesis faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Lynn Abel. [https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html Why is Abiogenesis Such a Tough Nut to Crack?]. Archives of Microbiology and Immunology. 8 (2024): 338-364.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin researcher Pier Luisi in 2018 stated &amp;quot;the turning point of non-life to life has never been put into one experimental set up. There are, of course, several hypotheses, and this plethora of ideas means already that we do not have a convincing one.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Pier Luigi Luisi. 2018. The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108735506. p. 416.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Walter Bradley said: &amp;quot;The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference of the origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Quoted in Strobel, Lee, [https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M The case for Faith], p.107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the &amp;quot;immensity of the problem&amp;quot; for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, &amp;quot;At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996, John Horgan wrote in [[Scientific American]]: &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Even [[Stanley Miller]] of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in ''Scientific American'' that the &amp;quot;problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as &amp;quot;nonsense&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;paper chemistry&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means.  Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that &amp;quot;[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl02.html#orgnflfscntfcthrsnvblscntfcthrsnthrgnflfllthrsndxprmntsthrndnstlmtrncnfssnfgnrnc Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prebiotic chemistry==&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Miller-Urey experiment===&lt;br /&gt;
Main article: [[Miller-Urey experiment]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:MillerUreyExperiment.PNG|300px|thumb|right|The setup of the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1953. It attempted to simulate primitive Earth gases (Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, Water Vapor), primitive oceans (Water), and lightning.]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1953 American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago performed an experiment that tried to produce components that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiotically (from inorganic molecules).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.britannica.com/science/Miller-Urey-experiment Miller-Urey experiment] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Early earth atmosphere====&lt;br /&gt;
There is significant uncertainty to what the primitive atmosphere was composed of.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The Miller-Urey experiment assumed an a primitive atmosphere was composed of ''reducing'' (oxygen poor)  gases [e.g. methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), hydrogen (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O)], but by the 1980s geochemists believed that early earth atmospheres probably had ''neutral'' gases like those emitted by volcanoes [e.g. water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O), carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and nitrogen (N&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)] and perhaps some ''reducing'' gases like carbon monoxide (CO). Since hydrogen was a light element, there probably would not have been any or perhaps very little in early earth.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bada JL. [https://web.archive.org/web/20190225141103id_/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f46/3e8a3611fa7f25c143991dfddac49c396b73.pdf New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller's spark discharge experiments]. Chem Soc Rev. 2013 Mar 7;42(5):2186-96. doi: 10.1039/c3cs35433d&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wells&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Wells. 2017. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. ISBN: 978-1936599448. 3. Survival of the Fakest&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A possible source of lightning could have been &amp;quot;volcanic lightning&amp;quot;, which occurs sometimes near volcanic eruption plumes, and some volcanic gases emitted have been hydrogen sulfide (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;S), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Some scientists believe that early earth atmosphere was similar to earth today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250902132614/https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/ Earth's Early Atmosphere: An Update] - NASA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Hydrothermal vents====&lt;br /&gt;
Hydrothermal vents have been prosed as an alternative source of prebiotic compounds like amino acids, but they face significant limitations. For example, vent systems tend to have very short lives of about 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Limited time frames for prebiotic synthesis====&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists believe that there was a time limit for meteorites for form simple to slightly more complex compounds: greater than 1,000 to less than 1,000,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; This poses a problem for hydrothermal vents since they have a very short life span of 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Leading Miller-Urey experiment researcher Jeffrey Bada admits:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|&amp;quot;An important issue is whether these timescales are compatible with the time required for the transition from abiotic to biotic chemistry. As noted, in carbonaceous meteorites the timescale for amino acid production is between &amp;gt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; years, perhaps even as short as 1–10 years, and there is no evidence that the prebiotic chemistry that took place on the meteorite parent bodies during this aqueous alteration period produced anything beyond simple monomeric compounds. It has been suggested that catalysts such as metal sulfides present in vent systems would promote more rapid synthesis, but by the principle of microscopic reversibility, these must also catalyze the decomposition of any synthesized compounds. Moreover, if this was the case there are certainly potential metal catalysts present on meteorite parent bodies and, as has been indicated, nothing beyond simple molecules were apparently synthesized.&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Chemical yield of amino acids====&lt;br /&gt;
Amino acid yield in spark discharge experiments depends critically on the pH of the aqueous phase since at lower pH, amino acid production is greatly reduced and hydroxy acids in greatly increased.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Hydrothermal vents have been proposed as an alternative prebiotic chemistry source but they face severe limitations and actual synthesis have never been demonstrated using plausible geochemical conditions.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Chemical requirements for life===&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading water &amp;amp; life chemist Felix Franks, life processes must encompass all of the following functions in sequence:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other researchers have proposed minimal requirements for genes needed for a living organism. A minimal gene set would include genes for:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joana Xavier, Kiran Patil, Isabel Rocha. September 2014. &amp;quot;Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells&amp;quot;. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 78 (3): 487–509. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00050-13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* a basic transcription machinery&lt;br /&gt;
* aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis&lt;br /&gt;
* tRNA maturation and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosomal proteins&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosome function, maturation, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* translation factors&lt;br /&gt;
* RNA degradation&lt;br /&gt;
* protein processing, folding, and secretion&lt;br /&gt;
* cellular division&lt;br /&gt;
* transport&lt;br /&gt;
* energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycolysis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)&lt;br /&gt;
* all 20 amino acids&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chemical problems facing abiogenesis==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Francis_Crick.jpg|thumb|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Francis Crick]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:&lt;br /&gt;
#Laboratory experience from centuries of organic chemistry indicate that cross contamination of impure reactants and products in the natural world inhibit further formation of more complex biomolecules from simple ones, separation of necessary compounds generally does not occur in nature, any functional molecule that could even form would get terminated by the majority of nonfunctional material it emerged from, and self-organization is not a intrinsic property of biological matter.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts of a compound) usually occurs and ensures that there is never sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction. For example, if only 1 gram of new product emerges from 100 grams of raw material, then that 1 gram of new product can only yield less than 1 gram in the next chemical step. You get less and less yield with each chemical step since no raw material is being replenished.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''water paradox''' is the chemical reality that water is essential for life and yet it destroys cellular components (e.g. proteins, enzymes and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Naturally, molecules never direct themselves towards life or even complex cellular machinery, they don't control when to start or stop synthesis, and do not preform purification processes to separate useful material from waste and byproducts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The problem of homochirality (see [[Chirality]])&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1719 Origin of life: the chirality problem], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):263–266, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; refers to a fundamental puzzle in the origin of life, where essential biomolecules like amino acids and sugars are exclusively one &amp;quot;handedness&amp;quot; (enantiomer) in living cells which use: only left-handed amino acids [designated as &amp;quot;L-&amp;quot; such as in L-Lysine] and only right-handed sugars [designated as &amp;quot;D-&amp;quot; such as in D-glucose]). The problem is that laboratory experiments show that natural prebiotic chemistry produces equal amounts of both right and left handed forms (a racemic mixture) of amino acids and sugars and this contaminates and inhibits any further synthesis, essentially killing synthesis of any useful molecules.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#Polymerization problem &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1791 Origin of life: the polymerization problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):281–284, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The window of opportunity for any chemical synthesis in the wild is very short (hours and days at best, not thousands or millions of years). For example, when it comes to the spontaneous formation of the long and complex molecules like RNA and proteins, these molecules degrade rapidly in water, with a 600-unit RNA chain having a half-life of only about four hours.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;James Tour et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
#''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s'': John Horgan wrote: &amp;quot;Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?&amp;quot; - (John Horgan,[science writer], &amp;quot;In The Beginning...,&amp;quot; ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;100–109, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;103)&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: &amp;quot;To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the &amp;quot;catch 22&amp;quot; dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: &amp;quot;If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don't have oxygen we have none either.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532 Self-replicating enzymes?], ''Journal of Creation'' 11(1):4–6, April 1997.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cairns-Smith, Graham, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/ Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life], Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presuppositions in origin of life==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted [[Physics|physicist]] and [[bioinformatics|bioinformatician]] Hubert Yockey, who worked under [[Robert Oppenheimer]] on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the [[philosophical]] presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of [[Dialectical materialism|dialectic materialism]] plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in [[exobiology]] and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir [[Francis Crick]] the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]].  Crick has described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the ''International Journal of Solar System Studies'' (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on [[earth]] by a process they called &amp;quot;[[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a &amp;quot;theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Michael Behe]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1992, the popular magazine ''Scientific American'' published an interview  which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[United States|American]] [[Biochemistry|biochemist]] and [[intelligent design]] advocate [[Michael Behe]] wrote concerning the interview: &amp;quot;The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/125 Designed by aliens?], ''Creation'' 25(4):54–55, September 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
He also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of [[DNA]] without [[God]], Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested.  After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creationists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biblical creation organizations argue that the biblical and scientific evidence suggests that God did not create intelligent life on other planets nor did it naturally arise through [[Evolution|macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?] by Gary Bates, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/qa Creation vs. evolution - Questions and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intelligent design and life on other planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Public debates==&lt;br /&gt;
===1990s debates===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1997, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], stated that he believed that in regards to [[atheism]] &amp;quot;the most impressive debater to date&amp;quot; was [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[Douglas Jesseph]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: &amp;quot;Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===2009 debate===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution]]ary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] and Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]] debating Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Discovery Institute]] declared concerning the debate: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate &amp;quot;[[creationism|creationists]]&amp;quot; — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation Science and Intelligent Design Views ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible.  They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In ''[[Darwin's Doubt]]'', he writes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;... invoking natural selection does not help to explain the origin of the first life&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce.&amp;quot; [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062071475/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=anncoulter-20&amp;amp;camp=14573&amp;amp;creative=327641&amp;amp;linkCode=as1&amp;amp;creativeASIN=0062071475&amp;amp;adid=1QSNY85R152GT1QTA6NH&amp;amp;&amp;amp;ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anncoulter.com%2F (prologue, p. viii)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christian apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Origin of life on Earth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Creation science articles and videos:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life questions and answers] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible] by [[Creation Research Society]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/james-tour-dismantles-dave-farinas-expert-witnesses-on-the-state-of-origin-of-life-research/ James Tour Dismantles Dave Farina’s Expert Witnesses on the State of Origin-of-Life Research], 2023&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Videos:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBO6Z0f84Q The Origin of Life by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/biogenesis_scientific.html Is Naturalistic Biogenesis Scientific?] by Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKG1RbN4lU Did the Miller Experiment Solve the Origin of Life Puzzle? - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP7ojkrZ1sc&amp;amp;list=PLILWudw_84t22BWvWsoXCmaXNllbfJ2h7 Addressing Abiogenesis] by James Tour &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&amp;amp;feature=related Evolution vs Creation: Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFM-hQKkmhs Origin of Life Interview with Dr. Thaxton - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XytvCOJ6_7E Focus on Origins of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeTVKrgzeHQ The Origin of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqU2t84Jyw4 The Myth Of Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CKsYV5pVAs&amp;amp;feature=related Chemical Evolution: The Miller Experiment - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design theorists articles and audio:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?objectID=15997 Darwin’s Defenders Deny Life’s Evident Design] by [[Stephen C. Meyer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.discovery.org/a/2184 DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html DNA BY Design: An Inference To the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/06/seeking-a-way-around-rna-world-new-study-only-increases-perplexity-of-abiogenesis/ Seeking a Way Around RNA World, New Study Only Increases Perplexity of Abiogenesis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Audio:&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD79-1/ DNA by Design Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - Audio]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Creationism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Origin of Life]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2162712</id>
		<title>Origin of life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2162712"/>
		<updated>2025-09-27T23:40:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Intelligent design]] theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
There have been a number of proposals regarding the '''origin of life''' on earth.  However, the various proposals fall into two schools of thought.&lt;br /&gt;
One, held by [[Creationism|creationists]], is that life originated divinely/[[supernatural]]ly.&lt;br /&gt;
The other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.  This is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' and &amp;quot;chemical [[evolution]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=86&amp;amp;Itemid=85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; High-profile evolutionists [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origin of life&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, as acknowledged by the National Academies of Sciences in 2023,  not a developed or accepted scientific theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2023. ISBN 0309475783. &amp;quot;Studies of the chemical origins of life start with the hypothesis that mixtures of simple small [[molecule]]s under the influence of various energy sources and early Earth environments created the building blocks of life and that interactions among these molecules eventually lead to life itself (Figure 12-2).&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first organisms are thought to have emerged around 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (earth being 4.6 billion years old) which means that he earliest life emerged very early on in the history of the earth with a very small window of opportunity (500-600 million years).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth Scientists may have found the earliest evidence of life on Earth]. Julia Rosen. Science. 2015. doi: 10.1126/science.aad4732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Molecules like RNA and peptides degrade within hours to days, limiting any potential for any chemical synthesis in real life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tour, James M., et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; What complicates the origin of life research is that all fossils ever found have been DNA-based life forms, indicating that there is a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) which implies that it is possible that life only formed and survived once since no other genetic variants of life, other than DNA, has ever been found.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://theconversation.com/did-life-evolve-more-than-once-researchers-are-closing-in-on-an-answer-205678 Did life evolve more than once? Researchers are closing in on an answer]. The Conversation. Jordi Paps. May 2023.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two main classes of origin-of-life research: chemical synthesis and molecular assembly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The transition from non-living to living has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Nor has self organizing [[molecule]]s to a living cell, ever been observed in the wild or in a laboratory either, possibly due to the complex chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Committees for the National Academies of Sciences have observed that chemists have held skeptical views of abiogenesis because of extensive laboratory experience indicating that there are numerous chemical problems that inhibit nature, which has no direction or goal, from synthesizing any complex biochemical molecules that are needed for cellular life to even emerge.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (2007). The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. National Academies Press. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0309104845. &amp;quot;Chemists’ objection to the notion that life is a natural consequence of organic reactivity is simple and comes from broadly based empirical experience in organic-chemistry laboratories. Addition of energy to mixtures of organic species makes the mixtures more complex and less likely to support life. Shapiro has provided a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the difficulties. Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules. In the complex chemical mixtures generated under prebiotic conditions, one may be able to find trace amounts of amino acids and perhaps nucleobases. Some might indeed catalyze reactions that have some utility. But other compounds may well inhibit catalysis or catalyze undesired reactions. For example, Joyce and Orgel pointed out that the clay-catalyzed condensation of nucleotides to yield small chains performed best, under the conditions that they considered, if only one enantiomer of the starting material was present. If both were present, the desired reaction with the desired enantiomer might be inhibited by the other enantiomer. Furthermore, the combination of any bifunctional molecule into an information-bearing polymer would be expected to be terminated at an early stage by the presence of an excess of molecules that bear only one functionality. Even crystallization, a well-documented method of obtaining order through self-organization, is not a particularly powerful way to separate mixtures of organic chemicals into their constituents. Normally, an organic compound must be relatively pure before crystallization occurs. That salts crystallize better may explain why crystals are more common in the mineral world than in the organic world. Even organic salts can have problems in crystallizing from an impure mixture. Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem in prebiotic chemistry is '''the water paradox''', the fact that water is essential for all living cells and yet it is very destructive to cellular machinery and components when isolated from the cell, a balance that is incredibly chemically delicate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Marshall, Michael (10 December 2020). &amp;quot;How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat — water&amp;quot;. Nature. 588 (7837): 210–213. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03461-4. &amp;quot;This suggested to many researchers that life arose near the surface of the ocean. But many scientists today say there’s a fundamental problem with that idea: life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis. This is the water paradox. Today, cells solve it by limiting the free movement of water in their interiors, says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. For this reason, popular images of the cytoplasm — the substance inside the cell — are often wrong. “We are taught that cytoplasm is just a bag that holds everything, and everything is swimming around,” she adds. “That’s not true, everything is incredibly scaffolded in cells, and it’s scaffolded in a gel, not a water bag.” If living things keep water controlled, then the implication, say many researchers, is obvious. Life probably formed on land, where water was only intermittently present.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem is a &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts) never have sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Among the most common problems in prebiotic chemistry is the fact that origin of life research and experimentation relies on so much human intervention and fails to provide evidence for abiogenesis as a result of reliance on such frequent intervention.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;&amp;gt;James Tour, Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley. 2020. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Discovery Press. ISBN 1936599740. 13. We're Still Clueless About the Origin of Life&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Richert&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Richert, C. Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention. Nature Communications 9, 5177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07219-5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life is more complex than just having the right cellular components merely existing or even being in the right place since even in the case of extensive prebiotic chemical cheating such as using a completely dead cell with all the components in place, it is not possible generate life out of it once more by blind nature alone.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Deamer&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Deamer. 2020. Origin of life: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190098996. pages 87-88 &amp;quot;The bottom line is that ALL the essential parts of bacterial cells have been shown to work in isolation. However, no one has ever tried to put them back together. Is this even possible? Can a mixture of bacterial parts that is not alive be revived?...Are they alive? Will they grow and reproduce? After all, the ribosomes, genomes, and enzymes are all back together in one place. Most knowledgeable scientists would say, &amp;quot;No! They will NOT be alive!&amp;quot; But they can't know for sure, because no one has done the experiment. I tend share their skepticism - for a very good reason. All the components of the cell may have been put back together in a tiny membranous bag, but we have disrupted an invisible order having to do with feedback loops that regulate metabolism. In the absence of feedback controlling thousands of enzymes, it may be impossible for the cells to come back to life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20170717223959/https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Organic synthesis has been ongoing for at least 200 years and millions of molecules have been successfully synthesized, which makes it puzzling that prebiotic chemistry has not had much success in synthesizing anything close to any of the thousands of complex biomolecular machinery that make up a cell.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gilles Bruylants et al. 2011. &amp;quot;Prebiotic chemistry: A fuzzy field&amp;quot;. Comptes Rendus Chimie (Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences France). 14 (4): 388–391. doi:10.1016/j.crci.2010.04.002. ISSN 1631-0748.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; As of 2024 numerous problems still persist for prebiotic chemists trying to solve abiogenesis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cell]]s are very optimized entities and appear to be fine tuned. Studies on raw materials used by cells such as the 20 chiral-specific [[amino acid]]s, which permeate all life on earth, are the optimal or ideal set of amino acids out of all the possible amino acid combinations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ilardo, M., Meringer, M., Freeland, S. et al. Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids. Scientific Reports 5, 9414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09414&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Doig, A.J. (2017), Frozen, but no accident – why the 20 standard amino acids were selected. FEBS J, 284: 1296-1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13982&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Current status ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin of life researcher David Abel in 2024 summarizes the chemical problems that abiogenesis faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Lynn Abel. [https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html Why is Abiogenesis Such a Tough Nut to Crack?]. Archives of Microbiology and Immunology. 8 (2024): 338-364.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin researcher Pier Luisi in 2018 stated &amp;quot;the turning point of non-life to life has never been put into one experimental set up. There are, of course, several hypotheses, and this plethora of ideas means already that we do not have a convincing one.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Pier Luigi Luisi. 2018. The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108735506. p. 416.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Walter Bradley said: &amp;quot;The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference of the origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Quoted in Strobel, Lee, [https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M The case for Faith], p.107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the &amp;quot;immensity of the problem&amp;quot; for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, &amp;quot;At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996, John Horgan wrote in [[Scientific American]]: &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Even [[Stanley Miller]] of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in ''Scientific American'' that the &amp;quot;problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as &amp;quot;nonsense&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;paper chemistry&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means.  Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that &amp;quot;[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl02.html#orgnflfscntfcthrsnvblscntfcthrsnthrgnflfllthrsndxprmntsthrndnstlmtrncnfssnfgnrnc Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prebiotic chemistry==&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Miller-Urey experiment===&lt;br /&gt;
Main article: [[Miller-Urey experiment]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:MillerUreyExperiment.PNG|300px|thumb|right|The setup of the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1953. It attempted to simulate primitive Earth gases (Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, Water Vapor), primitive oceans (Water), and lightning.]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1953 American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago performed an experiment that tried to produce components that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiotically (from inorganic molecules).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.britannica.com/science/Miller-Urey-experiment Miller-Urey experiment] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Early earth atmosphere====&lt;br /&gt;
There is significant uncertainty to what the primitive atmosphere was composed of.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The Miller-Urey experiment assumed an a primitive atmosphere was composed of ''reducing'' (oxygen poor)  gases [e.g. methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), hydrogen (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O)], but by the 1980s geochemists believed that early earth atmospheres probably had ''neutral'' gases like those emitted by volcanoes [e.g. water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O), carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and nitrogen (N&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)] and perhaps some ''reducing'' gases like carbon monoxide (CO). Since hydrogen was a light element, there probably would not have been any or perhaps very little in early earth.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bada JL. [https://web.archive.org/web/20190225141103id_/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f46/3e8a3611fa7f25c143991dfddac49c396b73.pdf New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller's spark discharge experiments]. Chem Soc Rev. 2013 Mar 7;42(5):2186-96. doi: 10.1039/c3cs35433d&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wells&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Wells. 2017. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. ISBN: 978-1936599448. 3. Survival of the Fakest&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A possible source of lightning could have been &amp;quot;volcanic lightning&amp;quot;, which occurs sometimes near volcanic eruption plumes, and some volcanic gases emitted have been hydrogen sulfide (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;S), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Some scientists believe that early earth atmosphere was similar to earth today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250902132614/https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/ Earth's Early Atmosphere: An Update] - NASA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Hydrothermal vents====&lt;br /&gt;
Hydrothermal vents have been prosed as an alternative source of prebiotic compounds like amino acids, but they face significant limitations. For example, vent systems tend to have very short lives of about 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Limited time frames for prebiotic synthesis====&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists believe that there was a time limit for meteorites for form simple to slightly more complex compounds: greater than 1,000 to less than 1,000,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; This poses a problem for hydrothermal vents since they have a very short life span of 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Leading Miller-Urey experiment researcher Jeffrey Bada admits:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|&amp;quot;An important issue is whether these timescales are compatible with the time required for the transition from abiotic to biotic chemistry. As noted, in carbonaceous meteorites the timescale for amino acid production is between &amp;gt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; years, perhaps even as short as 1–10 years, and there is no evidence that the prebiotic chemistry that took place on the meteorite parent bodies during this aqueous alteration period produced anything beyond simple monomeric compounds. It has been suggested that catalysts such as metal sulfides present in vent systems would promote more rapid synthesis, but by the principle of microscopic reversibility, these must also catalyze the decomposition of any synthesized compounds. Moreover, if this was the case there are certainly potential metal catalysts present on meteorite parent bodies and, as has been indicated, nothing beyond simple molecules were apparently synthesized.&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Chemical yield of amino acids====&lt;br /&gt;
Amino acid yield in spark discharge experiments depends critically on the pH of the aqueous phase since at lower pH, amino acid production is greatly reduced and hydroxy acids in greatly increased.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Hydrothermal vents have been proposed as an alternative prebiotic chemistry source but they face severe limitations and actual synthesis have never been demonstrated using plausible geochemical conditions.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Chemical requirements for life===&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading water &amp;amp; life chemist Felix Franks, life processes must encompass all of the following functions in sequence:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other researchers have proposed minimal requirements for genes needed for a living organism. A minimal gene set would include genes for:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joana Xavier, Kiran Patil, Isabel Rocha. September 2014. &amp;quot;Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells&amp;quot;. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 78 (3): 487–509. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00050-13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* a basic transcription machinery&lt;br /&gt;
* aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis&lt;br /&gt;
* tRNA maturation and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosomal proteins&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosome function, maturation, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* translation factors&lt;br /&gt;
* RNA degradation&lt;br /&gt;
* protein processing, folding, and secretion&lt;br /&gt;
* cellular division&lt;br /&gt;
* transport&lt;br /&gt;
* energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycolysis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)&lt;br /&gt;
* all 20 amino acids&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chemical problems facing abiogenesis==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Francis_Crick.jpg|thumb|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Francis Crick]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:&lt;br /&gt;
#Laboratory experience from centuries of organic chemistry indicate that cross contamination of impure reactants and products in the natural world inhibit further formation of more complex biomolecules from simple ones, separation of necessary compounds generally does not occur in nature, any functional molecule that could even form would get terminated by the majority of nonfunctional material it emerged from, and self-organization is not a intrinsic property of biological matter.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts of a compound) usually occurs and ensures that there is never sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction. For example, if only 1 gram of new product emerges from 100 grams of raw material, then that 1 gram of new product can only yield less than 1 gram in the next chemical step. You get less and less yield with each chemical step since no raw material is being replenished.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''water paradox''' is the chemical reality that water is essential for life and yet it destroys cellular components (e.g. proteins, enzymes and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Naturally, molecules never direct themselves towards life or even complex cellular machinery, they don't control when to start or stop synthesis, and do not preform purification processes to separate useful material from waste and byproducts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The problem of homochirality (see [[Chirality]])&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1719 Origin of life: the chirality problem], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):263–266, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; refers to a fundamental puzzle in the origin of life, where essential biomolecules like amino acids and sugars are exclusively one &amp;quot;handedness&amp;quot; (enantiomer) in living cells which use: only left-handed amino acids [designated as &amp;quot;L-&amp;quot; such as in L-Lysine] and only right-handed sugars [designated as &amp;quot;D-&amp;quot; such as in D-glucose]). The problem is that laboratory experiments show that natural prebiotic chemistry produces equal amounts of both right and left handed forms (a racemic mixture) of amino acids and sugars and this contaminates and inhibits any further synthesis, essentially killing synthesis of any useful molecules.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#Polymerization problem &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1791 Origin of life: the polymerization problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):281–284, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The window of opportunity for any chemical synthesis in the wild is very short (hours and days at best, not thousands or millions of years). For example, when it comes to the spontaneous formation of the long and complex molecules like RNA and proteins, these molecules degrade rapidly in water, with a 600-unit RNA chain having a half-life of only about four hours.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;James Tour et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
#''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s'': John Horgan wrote: &amp;quot;Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?&amp;quot; - (John Horgan,[science writer], &amp;quot;In The Beginning...,&amp;quot; ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;100–109, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;103)&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: &amp;quot;To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the &amp;quot;catch 22&amp;quot; dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: &amp;quot;If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don't have oxygen we have none either.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532 Self-replicating enzymes?], ''Journal of Creation'' 11(1):4–6, April 1997.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cairns-Smith, Graham, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/ Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life], Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presuppositions in origin of life==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted [[Physics|physicist]] and [[bioinformatics|bioinformatician]] Hubert Yockey, who worked under [[Robert Oppenheimer]] on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the [[philosophical]] presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of [[Dialectical materialism|dialectic materialism]] plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in [[exobiology]] and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir [[Francis Crick]] the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]].  Crick has described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the ''International Journal of Solar System Studies'' (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on [[earth]] by a process they called &amp;quot;[[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a &amp;quot;theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Michael Behe]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1992, the popular magazine ''Scientific American'' published an interview  which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[United States|American]] [[Biochemistry|biochemist]] and [[intelligent design]] advocate [[Michael Behe]] wrote concerning the interview: &amp;quot;The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/125 Designed by aliens?], ''Creation'' 25(4):54–55, September 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
He also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of [[DNA]] without [[God]], Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested.  After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creationists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biblical creation organizations argue that the biblical and scientific evidence suggests that God did not create intelligent life on other planets nor did it naturally arise through [[Evolution|macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?] by Gary Bates, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/qa Creation vs. evolution - Questions and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intelligent design and life on other planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Public debates==&lt;br /&gt;
===1990s debates===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1997, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], stated that he believed that in regards to [[atheism]] &amp;quot;the most impressive debater to date&amp;quot; was [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[Douglas Jesseph]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: &amp;quot;Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===2009 debate===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution]]ary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] and Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]] debating Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Discovery Institute]] declared concerning the debate: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate &amp;quot;[[creationism|creationists]]&amp;quot; — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation Science and Intelligent Design Views ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible.  They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In ''[[Darwin's Doubt]]'', he writes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;... invoking natural selection does not help to explain the origin of the first life&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce.&amp;quot; [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062071475/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=anncoulter-20&amp;amp;camp=14573&amp;amp;creative=327641&amp;amp;linkCode=as1&amp;amp;creativeASIN=0062071475&amp;amp;adid=1QSNY85R152GT1QTA6NH&amp;amp;&amp;amp;ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anncoulter.com%2F (prologue, p. viii)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christian apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Origin of life on Earth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Creation science articles and videos:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life questions and answers] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible] by [[Creation Research Society]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/james-tour-dismantles-dave-farinas-expert-witnesses-on-the-state-of-origin-of-life-research/ James Tour Dismantles Dave Farina’s Expert Witnesses on the State of Origin-of-Life Research], 2023&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Videos:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBO6Z0f84Q The Origin of Life by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/biogenesis_scientific.html Is Naturalistic Biogenesis Scientific?] by Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKG1RbN4lU Did the Miller Experiment Solve the Origin of Life Puzzle? - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP7ojkrZ1sc&amp;amp;list=PLILWudw_84t22BWvWsoXCmaXNllbfJ2h7 Addressing Abiogenesis] by James Tour &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&amp;amp;feature=related Evolution vs Creation: Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFM-hQKkmhs Origin of Life Interview with Dr. Thaxton - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XytvCOJ6_7E Focus on Origins of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeTVKrgzeHQ The Origin of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqU2t84Jyw4 The Myth Of Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CKsYV5pVAs&amp;amp;feature=related Chemical Evolution: The Miller Experiment - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design theorists articles and audio:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?objectID=15997 Darwin’s Defenders Deny Life’s Evident Design] by [[Stephen C. Meyer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.discovery.org/a/2184 DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html DNA BY Design: An Inference To the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/06/seeking-a-way-around-rna-world-new-study-only-increases-perplexity-of-abiogenesis/ Seeking a Way Around RNA World, New Study Only Increases Perplexity of Abiogenesis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Audio:&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD79-1/ DNA by Design Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - Audio]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Creationism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Origin of Life]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2161635</id>
		<title>The Crusades</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2161635"/>
		<updated>2025-09-24T23:54:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Christianity}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Middle Ages}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Crusader.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A returning Crusader]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''The Crusades''' (1095-1291) were a series of European Catholic campaigns into the Middle East, fought during the Middle Ages. They were the military responses made by Catholics, from western Europe to the Pope's pleas to re-capture the Holy Land from Islamic influence. After centuries of Islamic attacks, prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250908132840/https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades The Crusades] Encyclopedia Britannica &amp;quot;Approximately two-thirds of the ancient Christian world had been conquered by Muslims by the end of the 11th century, including the important regions of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia. The Crusades, attempting to check this advance, initially enjoyed success, founding a Christian state in Palestine and Syria, but the continued growth of Islamic states ultimately reversed those gains.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prior Islamic expansion&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250801015722/https://www.onthewing.org/user/Islam%20-%20Conquests.pdf List of Islamic Expansion on the West Prior to First Crusade]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;O'Neill, John J. (2010) &amp;quot;[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1805&amp;amp;context=ccr The Crusades: A Response to Islamic Aggression],&amp;quot; Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 63: No. 63, Article 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The First Crusade was Western Europeans performing a counter offensive, thus the First Crusade was not a initiation of conflict, but was instead the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 28 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Riley-Smith. 2024. The Crusades: a History (4th edition). Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 1350028614. Page 21 &amp;quot;The cause for a crusade was particularly important because at least at first, these wars were fought primarily by volunteers. The first crusaders were such by virtue of the vows they had made; in canon law a vow had to be a voluntary act. When a pope proclaimed a crusade this could be no more than an appeal to men and women to join an expedition of their own free will. He might threaten them with hell-fire, but he could not force them to make vows, or punish them if they did not, and there were occasions when efforts at recruitment failed. A convincing case was therefore essential, even if it had to be made post hoc. Expeditions to the eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, or the Iberian Peninsula could be justified as responses to present Muslim aggression or as attempts to recover “Christian” territory that had been injuriously seized in the past.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250827143542/https://www.britannica.com/question/What-was-the-purpose-of-the-Crusades What was the purpose of the Crusades?] - Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250616161718/https://apholt.com/2017/06/06/the-first-crusade-as-a-defensive-war-a-response-to-prof-gabriele/ The First Crusade as a “Defensive War”: A Response to Prof. Gabriele - Andrew Holt (2017)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The '''First Crusade''' created new Latin states in the Holy Land. Subsequent crusades were less successful except when they attacked Byzantium.  Other medieval movements against heretics and infidels were also called crusades. The crusades ended with the Islamic recapture of all the Holy Land in 1291, when the last city controlled by crusaders, Acre, fell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades comprise a major chapter of [[Middle Ages|Medieval History]]. Extending over three centuries, they attracted every social class in western Europe. Kings and commoners, barons and bishops, knights and commoners&amp;amp;mdash;even teenagers&amp;amp;mdash;all participated in these expeditions to the eastern end of the Mediterranean. The motives of the crusaders were numerous: some sought riches; many sought adventure; most were moved by faith alone. Historians stress the central role of religious fervor, while mentioning as well the socio-economic factors crucial in enticing larger contingents. For example, crusaders often were fulfilling their feudal obligations. There were strong links between the papal reforms, the social necessity of violence and the exploitation of this inherent revivalistic imagination of the age of the Papacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas James, &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade,&amp;quot; ''History Review,'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades failed to achieve the permanent control of the Holy Land. However, their influence was wide and deep. Much of &lt;br /&gt;
the crusading fervor carried over to the successful fights against the Moors (Muslims) in Spain and the pagan Slavs in eastern Europe. Politically the crusades weakened the decrepit Byzantine Empire, but temporarily kept the Muslims away from it. The First Crusade strengthened the moral leadership of the &lt;br /&gt;
papacy in Europe, but the failures of the later crusades weakened both the crusading ideal and respect for the papacy&lt;br /&gt;
Contact with the East widened the scope of the Europeans, ended their isolation, and exposed them to an rich civilization. The economic effects of the crusades were modest, but they did reopen of the eastern Mediterranean to Western commerce, which itself had an effect on the rise of great cities such as Venice and the emergence of a money economy in the West.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusaders derived their name from the Latin word for &amp;quot;cross&amp;quot;—crux. A crusader went to the Holy Land with a cross of cloth sewn over his breast; when he returned, he had a similar cross for his back.   Originally called to repel the Islamic forces that controlled [[Jerusalem]], the crusades evolved into a form of political decree called by the Papacy for political, social or economic reasons. The campaigns of [[Teutonic knight]]s against [[pagan]] strongholds in [[Eastern Europe]] are also sometimes called crusades.  Lastly, military actions within Christendom against heretical and schismatic groups are sometimes called a crusade. Thus a crusade in most general terms was a directive of war issued by the Pope to all Rome-friendly nations against forces, whether Muslim, pagan or Eastern Orthodox, which were hostile to the Papacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. The fourth crusade resulted in a very damaged relationship between [[Orthodox Church|Greek]] and [[Roman Catholic|Latin]] Christendom.  Islamic expansion into remained a threat for centuries, with crusading orders establishing strongholds to protect Mediterranean islands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the crusades in southern [[Spain]] were militarily successful, eventually leading to the end of Islamic power in the region in 1492.  The Teutonic knights expanded Christian domains in Eastern Europe, and the [[Albigensian Crusade]], achieved its goal of destroying heretics in France.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, ''Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300–1475''. 6th ed. (McGraw-Hill 1998)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Origin of the Crusades ==&lt;br /&gt;
Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world after centuries of attacks and so Western Europeans performed a counter offensive with the First Crusade.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Thus, Westerners were not the initiators of conflict, but and instead the First Crusade was the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Holy Land had been part of the [[Roman Empire]], and thus the [[Byzantine Empire]], until the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries that forced the Byzantines out and saw the area gradually turn Islamic. Calm returned and Christians had generally been permitted to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land until 1071, when the [[Seljuk Turks]] assailed the Byzantines, defeating them at the [[Battle of Manzikert]], and conquered Jerusalem from the Egyptian Fatimids the same year.  They were not friendly to Christian pilgrims, in contrast to how the Fatimids had been, and soon pilgrims came under threat of robbery or even death as they were no longer welcome.  The Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius I]] asked for aid from the west both to the Popes and the Christian monarchs.  Nothing meaningful happened.  Alexius may have been hoping for money from the Pope for the hiring of mercenaries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Timeline - Prior to the First Crusade===&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades are traditionally taught in university courses as a stand-alone event that had no precedent.  There is some problem with this thought process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The first Crusade began in 1095:&lt;br /&gt;
** 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies. (The Battle of Fahl and the 634 Siege of Damascus)&lt;br /&gt;
** 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslims armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 443 years after Muslims first plundered Italy.&lt;br /&gt;
** 427 years after Muslims armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople.&lt;br /&gt;
** 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions from Christianity to Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20160322080651/http://christianheritagefellowship.com/the-crusades/ The Truth about the Crusades]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Papal call==&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to fight for the defense of the Christian East and the protection of pilgrims in a speech made at the [[Council of Clermont]] on November 27, 1095. Pope Urban specified the call to skilled fighters, not priests or monks, and specified that clergy were not to participate without consent of their superiors, reflecting a cool minded approach, not religious fervor to fight for Christian lands.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 39-41 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Urban demanded that all internal feuds within Christendom end, threatening [[excommunication]] for anyone who continued to bicker internally, and promising an indulgence (less time in purgatory) to anyone who died in the crusade.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This time Europe listened.  Those who were there erupted in spontaneous cries of &amp;quot;Deus le vult!&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;God wills it!&amp;quot;) - which would become the watchword of what we now know as the Crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Nothing like this had ever been done, and the Pope himself had no military power and had to count on those who were in positions of power to supply it.  While the monarchs of Europe did not get directly involved, it was a series of prominent nobles who answered the call, among the most famous being:  the Norman Bohemund of Taranto, former claimant to the Duchy of Apulia, his nephew Tancred, Count Raymond of Toulouse, [[Godfrey Of Bouillon|Duke Godfrey de Bouillon]] of Lorraine, Duke Hugh of Vermandois (brother of the King of France), Duke Robert of Normandy, and Count Robert of Flanders.  The spiritual leader who accompanied them was French Bishop Adhemar du Puy, who was appointed Papal legate.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All that was known at the start was that the forces to participate would meet together in [[Constantinople]], where Alexius had no idea what was being unleashed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The First Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[First Crusade]], properly speaking, was lead by Feudal lords, mostly of [[Franks|Frankish]] origin.  Many of the knights left home never expecting to return, knowing virtually nothing about the [[Holy Land]], and trusting in God for victory.  The army consisted of almost 20,000 men, including a mass of [[squire]]s and other servants necessary to support a mounted knight.  Arriving at Constantinople the force, which eventually reached almost 50,000 total men, was not what the Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius]] had expected.  He had hoped for a few thousand well trained mercenaries to help him retake his lands from the Turks, and had little in common with the goal of 'freeing the Holy Land'.  An uneasy tension ensued from 1096 to 1097 as the forces gathered, but through a combination of firmness and diplomacy, Alexius avoided serious complications. In return for his assurance of assistance, he obtained oaths of allegiance from the Crusader leaders, and their promise that they would help recapture [[Nicaea]] from the Turks and return to him any other former possessions which they conquered.  Alexius then transported them across the Bosporus - being careful not to allow any large number of Crusader forces inside the walls of his capital at any given time.  He also provided them with food and with an escort of Byzantine troops to guide them towards their objectives (and incidentally to prevent Crusader plundering).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy &amp;amp; Dupuy, 1979, Pg. 312-313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a hard march to the Holy Land, the army captured invested Nicaea in 1097.  By a combination of skillful fighting and skillful diplomacy, Alexius arrange for the surrender of the city to him after a successful Crusader-Byzantine assault on the outer walls.  The Crusaders were upset at Alexius' refusal to give them permission to sack the city.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusaders continued to the southeast in parallel columns, without any one commander in charge.  After fighting the inconclusive [[Battle of Dorylaeum]], the army split in half. Tancred and Baldwin, brother of Godfrey of Lorraine and future King of Jerusalem, went east took the Armenian fortress-city of [[Edessa]] - an action that destroyed the support of many local Armenian Christians for the Crusade, and weakened its internal bonds, as Baldwin and Tancred's men clashed over possession of the city, with Baldwin emerging triumphant. The main body of the army continued onward and besieged [[Antioch]].  The city was surrounded for 8 months from October 21, 1097 to June 3, 1098.  Two relieving armies were driven off in the [[Battles of Harenc]] in December and February.  Due to poor arrangements for supplies, the Crusading army was actually close to starvation, but was saved by the fortuitous arrival of English and Pisan flotillas which seized two nearby ports and brought provisions.  Bickering among the Crusader leaders, especially [[Bohemund]] and [[Raymond]] was rampant.  The initiative of Bohemund led to the capture of Antioch just 2 days before a relieving army of 75,000 strong under the atabeg of [[Mosul]], [[Kerboga]] would arrived, delayed itself after a fruitless three-week long attempt to dislodge Baldwin from Edessa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now it was the Crusaders turn to be trapped inside the city as Kerboga sieged Antioch from June 5, to June 28, 1098.  The Crusaders were cut off from supplies and again near starvation.  A Byzantine army was coming to take the city as agreed, but hearing that the Crusaders were doomed, turned back to Constantinople.  It was then the 'Holy Lance' was discovered; the weapon said to have pierced Jesus' side.  While few historians or theologians believe this miraculous discovery was valid, it energized the Crusader army at just the time they needed it.  The [[Battle of the Orontes]] was fought on June 28 where 15,000 Crusaders left Antioch to battle and drove off the entire Moslem army and broke the siege, helped in part by the decision of several of the local emirs serving under Kerbogha to abandon him during the battle, fearing that he coveted their territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to internal bickering, many of the Crusaders did not continue on to [[Jerusalem]].  The force that arrived in June 1099 was only about 12,000 strong, far fewer than the army of defenders.  They sieged the city from June 9 to July 18.  Realizing they didn't have enough men to keep out supplies and starve the defenders, they boldly attacked.  Overrunning the city, many of the inhabitants were massacred, including other Christians.  A relieving force of 50,000 strong arrived in August to fight the Crusaders, but were routed at the [[Battle of Ascalon]].  The military aspects of the First Crusade had ended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four feudal kingdoms were established, which would remain for nearly 100 years.  Several Military Orders, consisting of [[paladin]]s, were also set up within the next few years, focusing mainly around the protection of the welfare of pilgrims and the defense of Christendom within the framework of an organization that was both spiritual and martial in nature. The best known of these orders were the Knights of the Temple, or [[Templars]], and the Knights of the Hospital of St. John, or [[Hospitallers]]. The Hospitallers still exist today in the form of the Order of Malta and St. John's Ambulance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Second Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Second Crusade]] occurred in 1145 when [[Edessa]] was retaken by Islamic forces.  It was ultimately a failure, owing in part to the French king's insistence on betraying and attacking his only Muslim ally, [[Damascus]].  In 1187 the Muslims&lt;br /&gt;
captured Jerusalem under their leader [[Saladin]], which brought about a new call for a Crusade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Third Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Saladin2.jpg|thumb|left|270px]]The [[Third Crusade]] (1189–92) is famous for the battles between [[Richard I|Richard the Lionheart]] and [[Saladin]], highlighted by the deep respect the two enemies had for each other, and the sense of [[chivalry|chivalric]] honor of King Richard.  The crusade also involved the king of France (who returned home after an argument with Richard at Acre) and the Holy Roman Emperor (who drowned en route).  The crusade had the limited success of obtaining a truce between Richard and Saladin that promised to allow Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Fourth Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Fourth Crusade]], begun by [[Innocent III]] in 1202, intended to retake the Holy Land but was soon subverted by [[Venetian]]s who used the forces to sack the Christian city of [[Zara]]. Innocent excommunicated the Venetians and crusaders.  Eventually the crusaders arrived in [[Constantinople]], but due to strife which arose between them and the [[Byzantines]], rather than proceed to the Holy Land the crusaders instead sacked Constantinople and other parts of [[Asia Minor]] effectively establishing the Latin Empire of Constantinople in [[Greece]] and Asia Minor .  Both Zara and Constantinople were Christian cities, and the ultimate effect was a severely damaged relationship between Greek and Latin Christendom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was effectively the last crusade sponsored by the papacy; later crusades were sponsored by individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Crusades==&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the four main crusades there were several minor ones. &lt;br /&gt;
===The People's (Peasants') Crusade (1095-96)===&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the Pope issued his appeal in 1095 preachers like Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless fanned out across Western Europe, reaching [[Piety|pious]] common people in rural areas, including many peasants. They aroused such an enthusiasm among the peasants that neither the secular lords nor the local clergy could stop the people from marching east, filled with hopes for freedom from serfdom and the zest for adventure. Thousands of peasants set off with few supplies or weapons and no money, and no idea of the enormous distance to be traveled. They believed that God would provide the guidance for direction and the sustenance for life.  More prosperous farmers and burghers were also involved. Five uncoordinated bands trekked across the Balkan region toward Constantinople. The Byzantine Christians welcomed them reluctantly and even contemptuously, for the pilgrims robbed them and raided their farms and villages. The Byzantine army fought them in pitched battles; most peasants never reached Constantinople. The thousands who did arrive were militarily useless and unwelcome. The Emperor Alexius temporarily fed and housed them outside the city, then hurried them across the Bosporus into Asia Minor. There the peasants were all killed by the Turkish forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Steven Runciman, &amp;quot;The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch,&amp;quot;   in M. W. Baldwin, ed. ''The first hundred years'' (1969) pp. 281-85 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&amp;amp;entity=History.CrusOne.p0313&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]; &lt;br /&gt;
Frederic Duncalf, &amp;quot;The Peasants' Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 26, No. 3 (Apr., 1921), pp. 440-453 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(192104)26%3A3%3C440%3ATPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P in JSTOR]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Attacking Jews====&lt;br /&gt;
A smaller group of peasants led by Gottschalk took out their fervor on a more local target, the Jewish communities of Lotharingia.  Their actions were condemned by the Church and the local populace.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Age of Faith, Will Durant, 1950, Pg. 589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;RS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Riley-Smith, Jonathan.  ''The Crusades: a History.'' (2005)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A much larger threat against Jews took the form of a larger mob led by Count Emico of Leiningen, who was more organized and more brutal.  Already a man with a sullied reputation, he ignored the pleas of the Bishops in town after town to desist.  Apart from being hidden by the local populace when they heard Emico was coming, there was little the Jews could do.  Previously in Europe, local difficulties against Jewish communities would rise from time to time in various places, but would be isolated to that local area.  This started a phase not previously seen, a systematic effort to weed out and attack Jewish communities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Children's Crusade (1212)===&lt;br /&gt;
Even more [[pathetic]] than the peasant crusade of 1095-96 was a movement in France and Germany which attracted large numbers of peasant teenagers and young people (few were under age 15). They were convinced they could succeed where older and more sinful crusaders had failed: the miraculous power of their faith would triumph where the force of arms had not. Many parish priests and parents encouraged such religious fervor and urged them on. The Pope and bishops opposed the attempt but failed to stop it entirely. A band of several thousand youth and young men led by a German named Nicholas set out for Italy. About a third survived the march over the Alps and got as far as Genoa; another group came to Marseilles. The luckier ones eventually managed to get safely home, but many others were sold as lifetime slaves on the auction blocks of Marseilles slave dealers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dana C. Munro, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 19, No. 3 (Apr., 1914), pp. 516-524 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(191404)19%3A3%3C516%3ATCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C in JSTOR]; and Norman P. Zacour, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 325-342, esp. 330-37 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTWO.I0023&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221)===&lt;br /&gt;
Instigated by Pope Innocent III in 1215, this crusade was led in 1217 by John Brienne, king of Jerusalem, with the object of conquering Egypt. In 1219 the crusaders captured Damietta. The sultan of Egypt offered to exchange Jerusalem for Damietta but this was rejected. After an unsuccessful assault on Cairo in 1221, the defeated crusaders surrendered Damietta in return for the freedom to retreat.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomas C. Van Cleve, &amp;quot;The Fifth Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 377-428 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=377 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
===The Sixth Crusade (1228-1229)===&lt;br /&gt;
The sixth or &amp;quot; Diplomatic Crusade&amp;quot; was led by Emperor Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire.  He began in 1228, but fought no battles. Instead, by negotiation he obtained Jerusalem and a strip of territory from Acre to Jerusalem for the Christians. In 1225 he married Yolanda, the young heiress to the kingdom of Jerusalem; upon her death in 1228, Frederick crowned himself king of Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Seventh Crusade (1248-1250)===&lt;br /&gt;
Led by King Louis IX of France (reigned. 1226-1270) and directed against the Arabs of Egypt, this crusade was a complete failure. The crusaders were decisively defeated en route to Cairo and King Louis was captured; the Arabs demanded and received a huge ransom for the release of the hapless king.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition];  Peter Jackson, ''The Seventh Crusade, 1244-1254'' (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Crusade-12441254-Texts-Translation/dp/0754657221/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205399558&amp;amp;sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===The Eighth Crusade (1270)===&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring his advisers, King Louis IX again attacked the Arabs in Tunis in North Africa. He picked the hottest season of the year for campaigning and his army was devastated by disease. The king himself died, ending the last major attempt to free the Holy Land.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other Medieval Crusades===&lt;br /&gt;
At the time people used &amp;quot;crusade&amp;quot; to describe other religious wars waged against heretics, such as Hussites and Albigensian, as well as Moors in Spain and pagans in the Baltic region.&lt;br /&gt;
====The Albigensian Crusade (13th century)====&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Innocent III in 1209 called for a war against the Albigensians, a religious sect which had sprung up in southern France, centered near the cities of Albi and Toulouse in Provence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Essentially, the Albigensians believed in a non-Christian dualist doctrine: there was a coexistence, they affirmed, between good and evil, represented by such opposites as God and the Evil One, light and darkness, soul and body, afterlife and earthly life.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A bloody series of campaigns ended with Provence in ruins (1229) and the heretics defeated. In 1233 Pope Gregory IX placed the Dominicans in charge of investigating the remnants of Albigensianism with the legal power to name and condemn any surviving heretics. This marked the start of the [[Inquisition]].&lt;br /&gt;
====Teutonic Knights (1229-1525)====&lt;br /&gt;
A German religious and military order originally founded during the siege of Acre in the Third Crusade and modeled after the Knights Templars and Hospitalers, the Teutonic Knights moved to eastern Europe early in the 13th century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Moeller, &amp;quot;Teutonic Order,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14541b.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1912) vol 14 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There, under their grand master, Hermann von Salza, they became powerful and prominent. In 1229, responding to an appeal from the [[Poland, history|Duke of Poland]], they began a crusade against the pagan Slavs of Prussia. They became sovereigns over lands they conquered over the next century. In a series of campaigns, the Teutonic Knights gained control over the whole Baltic coast, founding numerous towns and fortresses and establishing Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edgar N. Johnson, &amp;quot;The German Crusade on the Baltic,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTHREE.I0028&amp;amp;isize=M H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 545-85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Crusades in Spain (711-1492)===&lt;br /&gt;
Muslims crossed from Africa into Spain early in the eighth century and in 711 at the battle of Río Barbate, they defeated the Visigoths and pressed forward to capture Toledo. By 718, the Moors (the name given North African Muslims by the Spaniards) had completed their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, except for small Christian remnants in the Pyrenees. They remained on for the next 674 years until driven out by Spanish and Portuguese Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The period of the Spanish Crusades began in the eleventh century when a religious revival was initiated by Cluniac monks in the small kingdoms in the north of Spain, which had recovered some of their lost territory. The revival expressed itself in a growing hatred for the infidel. Slowly yet steadily, at first sparked mainly by Burgundians and Normans from France, the Christians began to force the Moors out of northern and central Spain. Known as the [[Wars of the Reconquest]], these centuries-long conflicts intensified the Catholic sentiments of the people, developing an intense, even fanatical unity of religion and patriotism which was long characteristic of the Spaniards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the middle of the 15th century, the last bastion of Moorish power on the peninsula was the kingdom of Granada in southwestern Spain. When the marriage of Isabella, Queen of Castile, to Ferdinand, Prince of Aragon, in 1469 united Spain, they vigorously began their last campaign against the Moors.  In January 1492 the Spanish entered the city of Granada and Moorish power ended in Europe. The expulsion of the Moors from Spain may be considered the last of the many medieval crusades.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Julian Bishko, &amp;quot;The Spanish and Portuguese Reconquest, 1095-1492&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=396 H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 396-456&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Long-term Impact==&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, though Jerusalem was held for nearly a century and other strongholds in the Near East would remain in Christian possession much longer, the crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. Islamic expansion into Europe, while temporarily stalled, would renew and remain a threat for centuries with the disintegration of the [[Byzantine Empire]] and culminate with the campaigns of [[Suleiman the Magnificent]] in the sixteenth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the crusades achieved only temporary military success, they had a powerful impact on western Europe. The crusaders returned with a vastly widened knowledge of the world they lived in, and a willingness to explore that became a permanent part of the west European mindset. In religion, culture, and commerce, post-Crusades Europe was visibly affected by its prolonged encounter with another continent and another way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Commerce and economy===&lt;br /&gt;
The merchants of Venice and other Italian cities gained the most profit. They amassed considerable income in payment for the services they rendered the crusaders and were enriched by the commercial rights they obtained throughout the Near East. Genoa, Pisa, and Venice gained special monopolies throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Their merchants used these privileges to introduce into the Western world such oriental luxuries as silks, spices, and pearls, whose transportation and sale made the cities rich. The demand for these products encouraged explorers to seek out new and more direct routes to the East—most famously in the discovery and exploration of the Americas by Columbus and others starting in 1492. The crusades helped create a moneyed aristocracy and encouraged the growth of capitalism in the Italian cities. Silks and spices not only raised the standard of living of the rich, they stimulated the entire urban economy, although cities remained small. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The returning crusaders came back to Europe with new tastes in dress and diet, such as peaches and spinach. They gave up the custom of wearing a load of heavy armor at nearly all times and appeared in the flowing robes of silk or cotton which were the traditional habit of the Muslims.&lt;br /&gt;
===Weakens feudalism===&lt;br /&gt;
In rural areas, where the vast majority of Europeans lives, the crusades tended to weaken feudalism and strengthen central governments. Thousands of feudal aristocrats died young and many baronial families lost heavily or even went bankrupt because they borrowed money for the adventure and could not repay. Since credit markets were undeveloped and inefficient, the crusaders paid high premiums to borrow; many accepted donations from friends and family.  For a local baron to bring along 10 knights on a crusade cost some 3000 livres a year. There was some plunder along the way, but plunder was hard to liquefy to pay off loans back home. Instead of acquiring new rich new lands and fabulous wealth in the East, many noble families sold, pawned or mortgaged lands, castles, benefices, and jewels; most saw their finances damaged. Money lenders in Italian cities grew rich. The feudal barons were the basis of localism; power now tended to become more centralized and national. Of course when the kings crusaded, it cost them dearly and weakened their throne. [[Richard the Lionhearted]] of England sold off the income he was owed from Scotland, and tried to sell London itself but could not find a buyer. By contributing to the rise of the cities, the development of a money economy, and the strengthening of national monarchies, hastened, to some extent, feudalism's collapse.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fred A. Cazel, Jr. &amp;quot;Financing the Crusades,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix N. P. Zacour,  and H.W. Hazard, eds. ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe'' (1989), pp 116-49 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Church===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades at first helped, then hurt the church and the [[Papacy, history|papacy]]. In the early stages, the popes took the leadership of Europe in a great holy cause against the infidel world.  Germany, France and England in particular responded to the popes. However the popes lost that leadership to secular princes by the time of the Third Crusade; during the Fourth Crusade the crusaders rejected Innocent III's demands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades were a major contributing factor in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches. The Crusaders deposed the native Patriarchs and appointed Latin Patriarchs in their place. These appointments were ratified by the Pope. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the kingdom of Jerusalem, the commercial interests fostered an unexpected friendship with the Muslims, leading to an acceptance of oriental customs, and toleration of the rival religion. No such tolerance was visible in Western Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Culture===&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the West====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of cultural influence, 20th century historians have revised the traditionally positive picture of the Crusades, finding little evidence of significant impact.  19th century historians saw in the Crusades a major stimulus for the renewed interest in learning, art, literature, and architecture that took place across Western Europe, and some historians had even argued the Crusades were mainly responsible for the [[Renaissance]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been argued that the crusades stimulated broader vision and better understanding of the wider world for the countries who embarked on them. Men who had never been 30 miles beyond their village or manor saw firsthand new places, peoples and customs. One impact the Crusades did have on literary art was the immortalisation of the Crusading heroes in oft-recited poems.  The ''Estoire de la guerre sainte'' is in Old French couplets, lauding the exploits of Richard the Lion-Hearted in the Third Crusade. A free poetical spirit characterizes ''Le Chanson d'Antioche'' that describes the First Crusade. The ages-old tales of Arthur and Charlemagne were given a fresh crusading complexion during the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the East====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A significant long-term cultural impact on the Muslim world is the resultant resentment, fear and distrust of Christian Europe, evidence of which as survived into the 21st century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Philip Khurl Pitti, &amp;quot;The Impact of the Crusades on Moslem Lands,&amp;quot; in N. P. Zacour and H. W. Hazard, eds., [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSFIVE.I0015&amp;amp;isize=M ''The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East,'' (1985) pp. 33-58, online]; Car Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When The US president [[George W. Bush]] described in 2001 the newly defined [[War on terror]] as a &amp;quot;Crusade&amp;quot;, the Islamic world in particular was alarmed at what was widely considered to be ill-judged language.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2006, [[Osama Bin Laden]], speaking from hiding, described Western policy towards the Muslim world as a &amp;quot;Zionist-Crusader war against Islam&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Byzantine Empire===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades postponed the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine Empire until 1453, but the determination of Westerners to conquer and colonize the lands of Byzantium led to its downfall. Rather than curing its ills, they made its death inevitable. The plunder of Constantinople in 1204 and the Venetian monopoly of its trade were a fatal blow to the political and economic life of the empire. Even after its restoration in 1261, Constantinople never regained its former strength.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historiography and Memory==&lt;br /&gt;
===Legend and literature in the West===&lt;br /&gt;
Both legend and literature has surrounded the Crusades with an aura of romance, grandeur, chivalry and courage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Dana Carleton Munro, [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The myth is only remotely related to reality. The countless tales of the gallant knights of the Cross glitter in hyperbole. Many stories are true about the crusaders' feats of valor. However the crusaders occupied the Holy Land only temporarily.  In their major mission, the crusaders lost in the very long run. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical memory of the crusades has been sharply divided. The Catholic tradition in Europe looked upon the Crusades favorably, but the Protestant historians were more negative. [[Martin Luther]] once suggested that the Turks were God's instrument for punishing Christians. In recent decades a sense of western guilt is apparent, as in the 1995 BBC television series, presented by Terry Jones, which portrayed the crusades as a long, misguided war of intolerance, ignorance and barbarism against a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald E. Queller and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999), p. 1, Most historians have a negative view of the reliability of the BBC series.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) examines the use of the crusades as a national symbol from the 19th century to the 1910s in France, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Ethiopia, Britain, Russia, and Bulgaria. Though the Enlightenment and its secular ideological successors held the crusades as an example of medieval barbarity. Enlightenment thinkers like historian-philosophers [[Voltaire]] and [[David Hume]] denounced the crusades, as did the great historian of Byzantium [[Edward Gibbon]], who wrote: &lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and the most important effects were analogous to the cause…. The belief of the Catholics was corrupted by new legends…. The active spirit of the Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion…. The lives and labours of millions, which were buried in the East, would have been more profitably employed in the improvement of their native country.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edward Gibbon, ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,'' (1776), [https://books.google.com/books?id=Hy8OAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PT249&amp;amp;lpg=PT249&amp;amp;dq=%22principle+of+the+crusades+was+a+savage+fanaticism%22&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=PGcJRsXv2k&amp;amp;sig=gH4PAb31uRoQu2u54z7h_hzGp8U&amp;amp;hl=en ch 61 p. 1086]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In the 19th century, however, romantic writers like novelist Sir [[Walter Scott]] created heroic images of the crusaders. The romantics and conservative adherents of the European ancien régimes appropriated crusading imagery for their own 19th century political goals, downplaying religion to fit within a modern, secular context and presenting crusades as a counterpoint to liberal ideas of nationalism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) explores three primary themes: memory of the crusades as it relates to debates over the generation and use of national symbols; the crusader as a romantic hero; and the Muslim recollection of the crusades as a shameful blot on the past of Christian nations. The crusades appealed to many Europeans because they reflected a morally unambiguous time, sparked romanticized images of warfare in a time of imperialist expansion, and provided heroic templates for modern &amp;quot;crusading&amp;quot; imperialist heroes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adam Knobler, &amp;quot;Holy Wars, Empires, and the Portability of the Past: the Modern Uses of Medieval Crusades.&amp;quot; ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2006 48(2): 293-325. Issn: 0010-4175 Fulltext: [[Cambridge Journals]]; see also Elizabeth Siberry, ''The New Crusaders: Images of the Crusades in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries'' (2000)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Muslim world===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muslim historiography does not cover the crusades with the same intensity as the West. One reason could be that Turks were primarily responsible for the defeat of the crusaders and Arab historians (who have written much of modern Islamic history) may have underplayed this, due to the Turks role in establishing the Ottoman Empire - a period that suppressed Arab nationalism for seven centuries into the era of World War I.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives'' p. 5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great Muslim hero was a [[Kurdistan|Kurd]], Saladin (1138–93). Having defeated the crusaders in 1187, and become sovereign and founder of the Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt and Syria, Salah al-Din (Saladin) has been for a century the object of an intense glorification in the Arab world.  Farah Antun's play ''Sultan Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1914) illustrates how the historical figure of Saladin came to be presented as a prophet of Arab nationalism. Antun (1874-1922) was a Syrian Christian who presents Saladin as the champion of a just jihad against the Crusaders and as a faithful upholder of the virtues of wisdom, determination, and frankness, calling on the peoples of all Arab countries to unite against Western imperialists. The refusal of Antun's Saladin to become embroiled in quarrels within Europe had obvious echoes in World War I and caused the play to be censored by the British authorities in Egypt.  In Palestine, the glorification also took the form of pilgrimages to Nabi Musa and became an occasion to celebrate the memory of the great hero of Muslim history. A recent myth proclaims him the initiator of Palestinian pilgrimages. The figure of the past has become the modern hero of Arab nationalism, giving hope to a society prey to war and dispersion. At the same time, however, the pilgrimage ritual highlights the limits of the hero: constantly appealed to and put to the test, he has begun to show signs of fragility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emma Aubin-Boltanski, &amp;quot;Salah Al-din, un Heros a l'epreuve: Mythe et Pelerinage en Palestine,&amp;quot; [Saladin, a Hero under Scrutiny: Myth and Pilgrimage in Palestine]. ''Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales'' [[in French]] 2005 60(1): 91-107. Issn: 0395-2649&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Church Liturgy===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Linder (2001) examines 15th century Church liturgy designed to generate support for the war effort against the Turks and to legitimize its aims. Two types of Contra Turcos Masses were used: masses converted to this function through the addition of appropriate three core prayers and complete dedicated masses. The most popular example of the first type was the triple prayer set originally established by Clement V as a Holy Land crusade liturgy and subsequently mobilized against the Turks. The second type is represented by nine different mass formularies that were introduced after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Most surviving liturgies are of German or French provenance, indicating extensive use not only among the front-line populations but also in areas far removed from any threat. The liturgy displays an its intense crisis rhetoric. Its predominant stance of vulnerability and defensiveness entailed aggressive mobilization and the conceptualization of the Turk as the actual, specific manifestation of the generic infidel, the competing religious Other; and the remarkable continuity - in form and in content - that linked this liturgy with its parent liturgies (mainly those of the campaigns against the pagans and the Holy Land Crusades) further accentuated these traits. The communicative function and value of this liturgy is highlighted by the concentration of the direct, unmediated communicative elements in that part of the mass that was the most accessible to the laity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Amnon Linder, &amp;quot;The War Liturgy Against the Turks in the Late Middle Ages.&amp;quot; ''Historia: Journal of the Historical Society of Israel'' . 2001 (8): 73-105. Issn: 0334-4843; the text is in Hebrew.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dome of the Rock]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Al-Aqsa Mosque]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Famous Castles in the World]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Eastern Catholic Churches]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Basic further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003). ISBN 9780313316593. Bloomsbury Publishing.&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005). Rowman &amp;amp; Littlefield Publishers. 3rd Edition. ISBN 9781442215757.&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Detailed Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
===Surveys===&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).&lt;br /&gt;
* Phillips, Jonathan, and Martin Hoch. ''The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Second-Crusade-Scope-Consequences/dp/0719057116/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205372474&amp;amp;sr=1-4 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* Queller, Donald E., and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999) [https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Crusade-Conquest-Constantinople-Middle/dp/0812217136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270938&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Runciman, Steven. ''A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusade and the Foundations of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.''; ''Volume II: The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East 1100-1187.'' and ''Volume III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades'' (1951–53), the classic history; very hostile toward the crusaders &lt;br /&gt;
*Setton, Kenneth ed., ''A History of the Crusades''. (1969-1989), the standard scholarly history in six volumes, published by the University of Wisconsin Press  [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=browse&amp;amp;scope=History.HistCrusades complete text online]. &lt;br /&gt;
: Includes: [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?id=History.CrusOne ''The first hundred years''] (2nd ed. 1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311''] (1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFour ''The art and architecture of the crusader states''] (1977); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFive ''The impact of the Crusades on the Near East''] (1985); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe''] (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Specialized studies===&lt;br /&gt;
* Abulafia, David. ''Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor'' (1988)&lt;br /&gt;
* Boas, Adrian J. ''Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades: Society, Landscape, and Art in the Holy City under Frankish Rule'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/107613849 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Crusades,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1908) vol 4. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1291),&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08361a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1910) vol 8. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bull, Marcus, and Norman Housley, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 1, Western Approaches.'' (2003) (323pp) &lt;br /&gt;
** Edbury, Peter, and Jonathan Phillips, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 2, Defining the Crusader Kingdom.'' (2003) 326pp; specialized articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Butler, R. Urban. &amp;quot;Urban II,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1911) online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Edgington, Susan B., and Sarah Lambert, eds. ''Gendering the Crusades.'' (2002) 232pp essays by scholars. &lt;br /&gt;
*  Folda, Jaroslav. ''Crusader Art in the Holy Land, From the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusader-Holy-Land-Third-Crusade/dp/0521835836/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205436596&amp;amp;sr=8-3 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* James, Douglas. &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''History Review'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53; online at [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Kagay, Donald J., and L. J. Andrew Villalon, eds. ''Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon: Medieval Warfare in Societies around the Mediterranean.'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/read/109303998 online edition] &lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. ''The Kingdom of the Crusaders'' (1936) [http://www.questia.com/read/3840921 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Peters, Edward. ''Christian Society and the Crusades, 1198-1229'' (1971) [http://www.questia.com/read/14405191 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Powell, James M. ''Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213-1221,'' (1986) [http://www.questia.com/read/3123539 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Richard, Jean. ''Saint Louis: Crusader King of France'' (1992)&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Smail, R. C. &amp;quot;Crusaders' Castles of the Twelfth Century&amp;quot;   ''Cambridge Historical Journal'' Vol. 10, No. 2. (1951), pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;133–149. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1474-6913%281951%2910%3A2%3C133%3ACCOTTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J in JSTOR]&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher.  ''England and the Crusades, 1095-1588.'' (1988). 492 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
===Islam and Byzantium===&lt;br /&gt;
* Florean, Dana. &amp;quot;East Meets West: Cultural Confrontation and Exchange after the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''Language &amp;amp; Intercultural Communication,'' 2007, Vol. 7 Issue 2, pp144–151 in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Gabrieli, Francesco. ''Arab Historians of the Crusades'' (2009)&lt;br /&gt;
* Harris, Jonathan. ''Byzantium and the Crusades.'' (2003). Pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;276pp &lt;br /&gt;
* Hillenbrand, Carole. ''The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Surveys/dp/0748606300/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294196&amp;amp;sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*  Lane-Poole, Stanley. ''Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1898) [https://books.google.com/books?id=sb4bAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=intitle:Saladin+intitle:and+intitle:the+intitle:Fall+intitle:of+intitle:the+intitle:Kingdom+intitle:of+intitle:Jerusalem&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;num=30&amp;amp;as_brr=0&amp;amp;ei=gm3bR9CgCYPQiQGb0P3VAQ full text online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Maalouf, Amin. ''Crusades Through Arab Eyes'' (1989) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Through-Arab-Eyes-Maalouf/dp/0805208984/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146248/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294049&amp;amp;sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Historiography===&lt;br /&gt;
*  Constable, Giles. &amp;quot;The Historiography of the Crusades&amp;quot;  in Angeliki E.  Laiou, ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001); major overview of scholarship [http://www.doaks.org/Crusades/CR01.pdf online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Laiou, Angeliki E. ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001) [http://www.doaks.org/CRcnts.html online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ed. ''The Crusades: The Essential Readings'' (2002) ISBN 0-631-23023-8 284pp, articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31. On medieval histories of the crusades. [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Primary sources===&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman, ed. ''Documents on the Later Crusades, 1274-1580'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* Krey, August C. ''The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants'' (1958). &lt;br /&gt;
* Shaw, M. R. B. ed.''Chronicles of the Crusades'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/read/58956484 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Villehardouin, Geoffrey, and Jean de Joinville. ''Chronicles of the Crusades'' ed. by Sir Frank Marzials (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-Crusades-Dover-Value-Editions/dp/0486454363/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270195&amp;amp;sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
:Villehardouin's ''Conquest of Constantinople'' is a standard reference work on the Fourth Crusade; it is the first work in medieval French prose. Joinville's life of St. Louis is a classic description of the life and times of King Louis IX; it is written in Old French and is perhaps the best biography written in the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Military History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Medieval History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Christian History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Crusades]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Crusades}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2161311</id>
		<title>Origin of life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2161311"/>
		<updated>2025-09-23T20:15:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Intelligent design]] theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
There have been a number of proposals regarding the '''origin of life''' on earth.  However, the various proposals fall into two schools of thought.&lt;br /&gt;
One, held by [[Creationism|creationists]], is that life originated divinely/[[supernatural]]ly.&lt;br /&gt;
The other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.  This is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' and &amp;quot;chemical [[evolution]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=86&amp;amp;Itemid=85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; High-profile evolutionists [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origin of life&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, as acknowledged by the National Academies of Sciences in 2023,  not a developed or accepted scientific theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2023. ISBN 0309475783. &amp;quot;Studies of the chemical origins of life start with the hypothesis that mixtures of simple small [[molecule]]s under the influence of various energy sources and early Earth environments created the building blocks of life and that interactions among these molecules eventually lead to life itself (Figure 12-2).&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first organisms are thought to have emerged around 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (earth being 4.6 billion years old) which means that he earliest life emerged very early on in the history of the earth with a very small window of opportunity (500-600 million years).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth Scientists may have found the earliest evidence of life on Earth]. Julia Rosen. Science. 2015. doi: 10.1126/science.aad4732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Molecules like RNA and peptides degrade within hours to days, limiting any potential for any chemical synthesis in real life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tour, James M., et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; What complicates the origin of life research is that all fossils ever found have been DNA-based life forms, indicating that there is a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) which implies that it is possible that life only formed and survived once since no other genetic variants of life, other than DNA, has ever been found.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://theconversation.com/did-life-evolve-more-than-once-researchers-are-closing-in-on-an-answer-205678 Did life evolve more than once? Researchers are closing in on an answer]. The Conversation. Jordi Paps. May 2023.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two main classes of origin-of-life research: chemical synthesis and molecular assembly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The transition from non-living to living has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Nor has self organizing [[molecule]]s to a living cell, ever been observed in the wild or in a laboratory either, possibly due to the complex chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Committees for the National Academies of Sciences have observed that chemists have held skeptical views of abiogenesis because of extensive laboratory experience indicating that there are numerous chemical problems that inhibit nature, which has no direction or goal, from synthesizing any complex biochemical molecules that are needed for cellular life to even emerge.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (2007). The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. National Academies Press. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0309104845. &amp;quot;Chemists’ objection to the notion that life is a natural consequence of organic reactivity is simple and comes from broadly based empirical experience in organic-chemistry laboratories. Addition of energy to mixtures of organic species makes the mixtures more complex and less likely to support life. Shapiro has provided a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the difficulties. Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules. In the complex chemical mixtures generated under prebiotic conditions, one may be able to find trace amounts of amino acids and perhaps nucleobases. Some might indeed catalyze reactions that have some utility. But other compounds may well inhibit catalysis or catalyze undesired reactions. For example, Joyce and Orgel pointed out that the clay-catalyzed condensation of nucleotides to yield small chains performed best, under the conditions that they considered, if only one enantiomer of the starting material was present. If both were present, the desired reaction with the desired enantiomer might be inhibited by the other enantiomer. Furthermore, the combination of any bifunctional molecule into an information-bearing polymer would be expected to be terminated at an early stage by the presence of an excess of molecules that bear only one functionality. Even crystallization, a well-documented method of obtaining order through self-organization, is not a particularly powerful way to separate mixtures of organic chemicals into their constituents. Normally, an organic compound must be relatively pure before crystallization occurs. That salts crystallize better may explain why crystals are more common in the mineral world than in the organic world. Even organic salts can have problems in crystallizing from an impure mixture. Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem in prebiotic chemistry is '''the water paradox''', the fact that water is essential for all living cells and yet it is very destructive to cellular machinery and components when isolated from the cell, a balance that is incredibly chemically delicate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Marshall, Michael (10 December 2020). &amp;quot;How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat — water&amp;quot;. Nature. 588 (7837): 210–213. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03461-4. &amp;quot;This suggested to many researchers that life arose near the surface of the ocean. But many scientists today say there’s a fundamental problem with that idea: life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis. This is the water paradox. Today, cells solve it by limiting the free movement of water in their interiors, says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. For this reason, popular images of the cytoplasm — the substance inside the cell — are often wrong. “We are taught that cytoplasm is just a bag that holds everything, and everything is swimming around,” she adds. “That’s not true, everything is incredibly scaffolded in cells, and it’s scaffolded in a gel, not a water bag.” If living things keep water controlled, then the implication, say many researchers, is obvious. Life probably formed on land, where water was only intermittently present.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem is a &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts) never have sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Among the most common problems in prebiotic chemistry is the fact that origin of life research and experimentation relies on so much human intervention and fails to provide evidence for abiogenesis as a result of reliance on such frequent intervention.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;&amp;gt;James Tour, Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley. 2020. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Discovery Press. ISBN 1936599740. 13. We're Still Clueless About the Origin of Life&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Richert&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Richert, C. Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention. Nature Communications 9, 5177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07219-5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life is more complex than just having the right cellular components merely existing or even being in the right place since even in the case of extensive prebiotic chemical cheating such as using a completely dead cell with all the components in place, it is not possible generate life out of it once more by blind nature alone.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Deamer&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Deamer. 2020. Origin of life: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190098996. pages 87-88 &amp;quot;The bottom line is that ALL the essential parts of bacterial cells have been shown to work in isolation. However, no one has ever tried to put them back together. Is this even possible? Can a mixture of bacterial parts that is not alive be revived?...Are they alive? Will they grow and reproduce? After all, the ribosomes, genomes, and enzymes are all back together in one place. Most knowledgeable scientists would say, &amp;quot;No! They will NOT be alive!&amp;quot; But they can't know for sure, because no one has done the experiment. I tend share their skepticism - for a very good reason. All the components of the cell may have been put back together in a tiny membranous bag, but we have disrupted an invisible order having to do with feedback loops that regulate metabolism. In the absence of feedback controlling thousands of enzymes, it may be impossible for the cells to come back to life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20170717223959/https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Organic synthesis has been ongoing for at least 200 years and millions of molecules have been successfully synthesized, which makes it puzzling that prebiotic chemistry has not had much success in synthesizing anything close to any of the thousands of complex biomolecular machinery that make up a cell.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gilles Bruylants et al. 2011. &amp;quot;Prebiotic chemistry: A fuzzy field&amp;quot;. Comptes Rendus Chimie (Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences France). 14 (4): 388–391. doi:10.1016/j.crci.2010.04.002. ISSN 1631-0748.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; As of 2024 numerous problems still persist for prebiotic chemists trying to solve abiogenesis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cell]]s are very optimized entities and appear to be fine tuned. Studies on raw materials used by cells such as the 20 chiral-specific [[amino acid]]s, which permeate all life on earth, are the optimal or ideal set of amino acids out of all the possible amino acid combinations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ilardo, M., Meringer, M., Freeland, S. et al. Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids. Scientific Reports 5, 9414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09414&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Doig, A.J. (2017), Frozen, but no accident – why the 20 standard amino acids were selected. FEBS J, 284: 1296-1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13982&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Current status ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin of life researcher David Abel in 2024 summarizes the chemical problems that abiogenesis faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Lynn Abel. [https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html Why is Abiogenesis Such a Tough Nut to Crack?]. Archives of Microbiology and Immunology. 8 (2024): 338-364.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin researcher Pier Luisi in 2018 stated &amp;quot;the turning point of non-life to life has never been put into one experimental set up. There are, of course, several hypotheses, and this plethora of ideas means already that we do not have a convincing one.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Pier Luigi Luisi. 2018. The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108735506. p. 416.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Walter Bradley said: &amp;quot;The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference of the origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Quoted in Strobel, Lee, [https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M The case for Faith], p.107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the &amp;quot;immensity of the problem&amp;quot; for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, &amp;quot;At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996, John Horgan wrote in [[Scientific American]]: &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Even [[Stanley Miller]] of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in ''Scientific American'' that the &amp;quot;problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as &amp;quot;nonsense&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;paper chemistry&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means.  Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that &amp;quot;[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl02.html#orgnflfscntfcthrsnvblscntfcthrsnthrgnflfllthrsndxprmntsthrndnstlmtrncnfssnfgnrnc Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prebiotic chemistry==&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Miller-Urey experiment===&lt;br /&gt;
Main article: [[Miller-Urey experiment]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:MillerUreyExperiment.PNG|300px|thumb|right|The setup of the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1953. It attempted to simulate primitive Earth gases (Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, Water Vapor), primitive oceans (Water), and lightning.]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1953 American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago performed an experiment that tried to produce components that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiotically (from inorganic molecules).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.britannica.com/science/Miller-Urey-experiment Miller-Urey experiment] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Early earth atmosphere====&lt;br /&gt;
There is significant uncertainty to what the primitive atmosphere was composed of.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The Miller-Urey experiment assumed an a primitive atmosphere was composed of ''reducing'' (oxygen poor)  gases [e.g. methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), hydrogen (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O)], but by the 1980s geochemists believed that early earth atmospheres probably had ''neutral'' gases like those emitted by volcanoes [e.g. water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O), carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and nitrogen (N&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)] and perhaps some ''reducing'' gases like carbon monoxide (CO). Since hydrogen was a light element, there probably would not have been any or perhaps very little in early earth.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bada JL. [https://web.archive.org/web/20190225141103id_/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f46/3e8a3611fa7f25c143991dfddac49c396b73.pdf New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller's spark discharge experiments]. Chem Soc Rev. 2013 Mar 7;42(5):2186-96. doi: 10.1039/c3cs35433d&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wells&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Wells. 2017. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. ISBN: 978-1936599448. 3. Survival of the Fakest&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A possible source of lightning could have been &amp;quot;volcanic lightning&amp;quot;, which occurs sometimes near volcanic eruption plumes, and some volcanic gases emitted have been hydrogen sulfide (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;S), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Some scientists believe that early earth atmosphere was similar to earth today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250902132614/https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/ Earth's Early Atmosphere: An Update] - NASA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Hydrothermal vents====&lt;br /&gt;
Hydrothermal vents have been prosed as an alternative source of prebiotic compounds like amino acids, but they face significant limitations. For example, vent systems tend to have very short lives of about 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Limited time frames for prebiotic synthesis====&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists believe that there was a time limit for meteorites for form simple to slightly more complex compounds: greater than 1,000 to less than 1,000,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; This poses a problem for hydrothermal vents since they have a very short life span of 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Leading Miller-Urey experiment researcher Jeffrey Bada admits:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|&amp;quot;An important issue is whether these timescales are compatible with the time required for the transition from abiotic to biotic chemistry. As noted, in carbonaceous meteorites the timescale for amino acid production is between &amp;gt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; years, perhaps even as short as 1–10 years, and there is no evidence that the prebiotic chemistry that took place on the meteorite parent bodies during this aqueous alteration period produced anything beyond simple monomeric compounds. It has been suggested that catalysts such as metal sulfides present in vent systems would promote more rapid synthesis, but by the principle of microscopic reversibility, these must also catalyze the decomposition of any synthesized compounds. Moreover, if this was the case there are certainly potential metal catalysts present on meteorite parent bodies and, as has been indicated, nothing beyond simple molecules were apparently synthesized.&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Chemical yield of amino acids====&lt;br /&gt;
Amino acid yield in spark discharge experiments depends critically on the pH of the aqueous phase since at lower pH, amino acid production is greatly reduced and hydroxy acids in greatly increased.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Hydrothermal vents have been proposed as an alternative prebiotic chemistry source but they face severe limitations and actual synthesis have never been demonstrated using plausible geochemical conditions.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Chemical requirements for life===&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading water &amp;amp; life chemist Felix Franks, life processes must encompass all of the following functions in sequence:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other researchers have proposed minimal requirements for genes needed for a living organism. A minimal gene set would include genes for:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joana Xavier, Kiran Patil, Isabel Rocha. September 2014. &amp;quot;Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells&amp;quot;. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 78 (3): 487–509. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00050-13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* a basic transcription machinery&lt;br /&gt;
* aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis&lt;br /&gt;
* tRNA maturation and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosomal proteins&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosome function, maturation, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* translation factors&lt;br /&gt;
* RNA degradation&lt;br /&gt;
* protein processing, folding, and secretion&lt;br /&gt;
* cellular division&lt;br /&gt;
* transport&lt;br /&gt;
* energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycolysis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)&lt;br /&gt;
* all 20 amino acids&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chemical problems facing abiogenesis==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Francis_Crick.jpg|thumb|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Francis Crick]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:&lt;br /&gt;
#Laboratory experience from centuries of organic chemistry indicate that cross contamination of impure reactants and products in the natural world inhibit further formation of more complex biomolecules from simple ones, separation of necessary compounds generally does not occur in nature, any functional molecule that could even form would get terminated by the majority of nonfunctional material it emerged from, and self-organization is not a intrinsic property of biological matter.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts of a compound) usually occurs and ensures that there is never sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction. For example, if only 1 gram of new product emerges from 100 grams of raw material, then that 1 gram of new product can only yield less than 1 gram in the next chemical step. You get less and less yield with each chemical step since no raw material is being replenished.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''water paradox''' is the chemical reality that water is essential for life and yet it destroys cellular components (e.g. proteins, enzymes and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Naturally, molecules never direct themselves towards life or even complex cellular machinery, they don't control when to start or stop synthesis, and do not preform purification processes to separate useful material from waste and byproducts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The problem of homochirality (see [[Chirality]])&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1719 Origin of life: the chirality problem], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):263–266, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; refers to a fundamental puzzle in the origin of life, where essential biomolecules like amino acids and sugars are exclusively one &amp;quot;handedness&amp;quot; (enantiomer) in living cells which use: only left-handed amino acids [designated as &amp;quot;L-&amp;quot; such as in L-Lysine] and only right-handed sugars [designated as &amp;quot;D-&amp;quot; such as in D-glucose]). The problem is that laboratory experiments show that natural prebiotic chemistry produces equal amounts of both right and left handed forms (a racemic mixture) of amino acids and sugars and this contaminates and inhibits any further synthesis, essentially killing synthesis of any useful molecules.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#Polymerization problem &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1791 Origin of life: the polymerization problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):281–284, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The window of opportunity for any chemical synthesis in the wild is very short (hours and days at best, not thousands or millions of years). For example, when it comes to the spontaneous formation of the long and complex molecules like RNA and proteins, these molecules degrade rapidly in water, with a 600-unit RNA chain having a half-life of only about four hours.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;James Tour et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
#''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s'': John Horgan wrote: &amp;quot;Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?&amp;quot; - (John Horgan,[science writer], &amp;quot;In The Beginning...,&amp;quot; ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;100–109, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;103)&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: &amp;quot;To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the &amp;quot;catch 22&amp;quot; dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: &amp;quot;If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don't have oxygen we have none either.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532 Self-replicating enzymes?], ''Journal of Creation'' 11(1):4–6, April 1997.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cairns-Smith, Graham, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/ Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life], Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presuppositions in origin of life==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted [[Physics|physicist]] and [[bioinformatics|bioinformatician]] Hubert Yockey, who worked under [[Robert Oppenheimer]] on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the [[philosophical]] presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of [[Dialectical materialism|dialectic materialism]] plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in [[exobiology]] and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir [[Francis Crick]] the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]].  Crick has described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the ''International Journal of Solar System Studies'' (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on [[earth]] by a process they called &amp;quot;[[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a &amp;quot;theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Michael Behe]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1992, the popular magazine ''Scientific American'' published an interview  which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[United States|American]] [[Biochemistry|biochemist]] and [[intelligent design]] advocate [[Michael Behe]] wrote concerning the interview: &amp;quot;The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/125 Designed by aliens?], ''Creation'' 25(4):54–55, September 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
He also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of [[DNA]] without [[God]], Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested.  After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creationists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biblical creation organizations argue that the biblical and scientific evidence suggests that God did not create intelligent life on other planets nor did it naturally arise through [[Evolution|macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?] by Gary Bates, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/qa Creation vs. evolution - Questions and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intelligent design and life on other planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Public debates==&lt;br /&gt;
===1990s debates===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1997, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], stated that he believed that in regards to [[atheism]] &amp;quot;the most impressive debater to date&amp;quot; was [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[Douglas Jesseph]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: &amp;quot;Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===2009 debate===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution]]ary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] and Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]] debating Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Discovery Institute]] declared concerning the debate: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate &amp;quot;[[creationism|creationists]]&amp;quot; — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation Science and Intelligent Design Views ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible.  They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In ''[[Darwin's Doubt]]'', he writes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;... invoking natural selection does not help to explain the origin of the first life&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce.&amp;quot; [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062071475/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=anncoulter-20&amp;amp;camp=14573&amp;amp;creative=327641&amp;amp;linkCode=as1&amp;amp;creativeASIN=0062071475&amp;amp;adid=1QSNY85R152GT1QTA6NH&amp;amp;&amp;amp;ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anncoulter.com%2F (prologue, p. viii)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christian apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Origin of life on Earth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Creation science articles and videos:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life questions and answers] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible] by [[Creation Research Society]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/james-tour-dismantles-dave-farinas-expert-witnesses-on-the-state-of-origin-of-life-research/ James Tour Dismantles Dave Farina’s Expert Witnesses on the State of Origin-of-Life Research], 2023&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Videos:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBO6Z0f84Q The Origin of Life by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/biogenesis_scientific.html Is Naturalistic Biogenesis Scientific?] by Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKG1RbN4lU Did the Miller Experiment Solve the Origin of Life Puzzle? - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP7ojkrZ1sc&amp;amp;list=PLILWudw_84t22BWvWsoXCmaXNllbfJ2h7 Addressing Abiogenesis] by James Tour &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&amp;amp;feature=related Evolution vs Creation: Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFM-hQKkmhs Origin of Life Interview with Dr. Thaxton - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XytvCOJ6_7E Focus on Origins of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeTVKrgzeHQ The Origin of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqU2t84Jyw4 The Myth Of Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CKsYV5pVAs&amp;amp;feature=related Chemical Evolution: The Miller Experiment - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design theorists articles and audio:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?objectID=15997 Darwin’s Defenders Deny Life’s Evident Design] by [[Stephen C. Meyer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.discovery.org/a/2184 DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html DNA BY Design: An Inference To the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/06/seeking-a-way-around-rna-world-new-study-only-increases-perplexity-of-abiogenesis/ Seeking a Way Around RNA World, New Study Only Increases Perplexity of Abiogenesis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Audio:&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD79-1/ DNA by Design Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - Audio]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Creationism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Origin of Life]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2161300</id>
		<title>Origin of life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2161300"/>
		<updated>2025-09-23T19:51:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Intelligent design]] theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
There have been a number of proposals regarding the '''origin of life''' on earth.  However, the various proposals fall into two schools of thought.&lt;br /&gt;
One, held by [[Creationism|creationists]], is that life originated divinely/[[supernatural]]ly.&lt;br /&gt;
The other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.  This is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' and &amp;quot;chemical [[evolution]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=86&amp;amp;Itemid=85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; High-profile evolutionists [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origin of life&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, as acknowledged by the National Academies of Sciences in 2023,  not a developed or accepted scientific theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2023. ISBN 0309475783. &amp;quot;Studies of the chemical origins of life start with the hypothesis that mixtures of simple small [[molecule]]s under the influence of various energy sources and early Earth environments created the building blocks of life and that interactions among these molecules eventually lead to life itself (Figure 12-2).&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first organisms are thought to have emerged around 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (earth being 4.6 billion years old) which means that he earliest life emerged very early on in the history of the earth with a very small window of opportunity (500-600 million years).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth Scientists may have found the earliest evidence of life on Earth]. Julia Rosen. Science. 2015. doi: 10.1126/science.aad4732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Molecules like RNA and peptides degrade within hours to days, limiting any potential for any chemical synthesis in real life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tour, James M., et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; What complicates the origin of life research is that all fossils ever found have been DNA-based life forms, indicating that there is a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) which implies that it is possible that life only formed and survived once since no other genetic variants of life, other than DNA, has ever been found.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://theconversation.com/did-life-evolve-more-than-once-researchers-are-closing-in-on-an-answer-205678 Did life evolve more than once? Researchers are closing in on an answer]. The Conversation. Jordi Paps. May 2023.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two main classes of origin-of-life research: chemical synthesis and molecular assembly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The transition from non-living to living has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Nor has self organizing [[molecule]]s to a living cell, ever been observed in the wild or in a laboratory either, possibly due to the complex chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Committees for the National Academies of Sciences have observed that chemists have held skeptical views of abiogenesis because of extensive laboratory experience indicating that there are numerous chemical problems that inhibit nature, which has no direction or goal, from synthesizing any complex biochemical molecules that are needed for cellular life to even emerge.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (2007). The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. National Academies Press. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0309104845. &amp;quot;Chemists’ objection to the notion that life is a natural consequence of organic reactivity is simple and comes from broadly based empirical experience in organic-chemistry laboratories. Addition of energy to mixtures of organic species makes the mixtures more complex and less likely to support life. Shapiro has provided a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the difficulties. Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules. In the complex chemical mixtures generated under prebiotic conditions, one may be able to find trace amounts of amino acids and perhaps nucleobases. Some might indeed catalyze reactions that have some utility. But other compounds may well inhibit catalysis or catalyze undesired reactions. For example, Joyce and Orgel pointed out that the clay-catalyzed condensation of nucleotides to yield small chains performed best, under the conditions that they considered, if only one enantiomer of the starting material was present. If both were present, the desired reaction with the desired enantiomer might be inhibited by the other enantiomer. Furthermore, the combination of any bifunctional molecule into an information-bearing polymer would be expected to be terminated at an early stage by the presence of an excess of molecules that bear only one functionality. Even crystallization, a well-documented method of obtaining order through self-organization, is not a particularly powerful way to separate mixtures of organic chemicals into their constituents. Normally, an organic compound must be relatively pure before crystallization occurs. That salts crystallize better may explain why crystals are more common in the mineral world than in the organic world. Even organic salts can have problems in crystallizing from an impure mixture. Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem in prebiotic chemistry is '''the water paradox''', the fact that water is essential for all living cells and yet it is very destructive to cellular machinery and components when isolated from the cell, a balance that is incredibly chemically delicate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Marshall, Michael (10 December 2020). &amp;quot;How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat — water&amp;quot;. Nature. 588 (7837): 210–213. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03461-4. &amp;quot;This suggested to many researchers that life arose near the surface of the ocean. But many scientists today say there’s a fundamental problem with that idea: life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis. This is the water paradox. Today, cells solve it by limiting the free movement of water in their interiors, says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. For this reason, popular images of the cytoplasm — the substance inside the cell — are often wrong. “We are taught that cytoplasm is just a bag that holds everything, and everything is swimming around,” she adds. “That’s not true, everything is incredibly scaffolded in cells, and it’s scaffolded in a gel, not a water bag.” If living things keep water controlled, then the implication, say many researchers, is obvious. Life probably formed on land, where water was only intermittently present.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem is a &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts) never have sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Among the most common problems in prebiotic chemistry is the fact that origin of life research and experimentation relies on so much human intervention and fails to provide evidence for abiogenesis as a result of reliance on such frequent intervention.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;&amp;gt;James Tour, Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley. 2020. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Discovery Press. ISBN 1936599740. 13. We're Still Clueless About the Origin of Life&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Richert&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Richert, C. Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention. Nature Communications 9, 5177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07219-5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life is more complex than just having the right cellular components merely existing or even being in the right place since even in the case of extensive prebiotic chemical cheating such as using a completely dead cell with all the components in place, it is not possible generate life out of it once more by blind nature alone.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Deamer&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Deamer. 2020. Origin of life: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190098996. pages 87-88 &amp;quot;The bottom line is that ALL the essential parts of bacterial cells have been shown to work in isolation. However, no one has ever tried to put them back together. Is this even possible? Can a mixture of bacterial parts that is not alive be revived?...Are they alive? Will they grow and reproduce? After all, the ribosomes, genomes, and enzymes are all back together in one place. Most knowledgeable scientists would say, &amp;quot;No! They will NOT be alive!&amp;quot; But they can't know for sure, because no one has done the experiment. I tend share their skepticism - for a very good reason. All the components of the cell may have been put back together in a tiny membranous bag, but we have disrupted an invisible order having to do with feedback loops that regulate metabolism. In the absence of feedback controlling thousands of enzymes, it may be impossible for the cells to come back to life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20170717223959/https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Organic synthesis has been ongoing for at least 200 years and millions of molecules have been successfully synthesized, which makes it puzzling that prebiotic chemistry has not had much success in synthesizing anything close to any of the thousands of complex biomolecular machinery that make up a cell.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gilles Bruylants et al. 2011. &amp;quot;Prebiotic chemistry: A fuzzy field&amp;quot;. Comptes Rendus Chimie (Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences France). 14 (4): 388–391. doi:10.1016/j.crci.2010.04.002. ISSN 1631-0748.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; As of 2024 numerous problems still persist for prebiotic chemists trying to solve abiogenesis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cell]]s are very optimized entities and appear to be fine tuned. Studies on raw materials used by cells such as the 20 chiral-specific [[amino acid]]s, which permeate all life on earth, are the optimal or ideal set of amino acids out of all the possible amino acid combinations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ilardo, M., Meringer, M., Freeland, S. et al. Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids. Scientific Reports 5, 9414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09414&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Doig, A.J. (2017), Frozen, but no accident – why the 20 standard amino acids were selected. FEBS J, 284: 1296-1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13982&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Current status ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin of life researcher David Abel in 2024 summarizes the chemical problems that abiogenesis faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Lynn Abel. [https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html Why is Abiogenesis Such a Tough Nut to Crack?]. Archives of Microbiology and Immunology. 8 (2024): 338-364.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin researcher Pier Luisi in 2018 stated &amp;quot;the turning point of non-life to life has never been put into one experimental set up. There are, of course, several hypotheses, and this plethora of ideas means already that we do not have a convincing one.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Pier Luigi Luisi. 2018. The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108735506. p. 416.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Walter Bradley said: &amp;quot;The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference of the origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Quoted in Strobel, Lee, [https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M The case for Faith], p.107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the &amp;quot;immensity of the problem&amp;quot; for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, &amp;quot;At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996, John Horgan wrote in [[Scientific American]]: &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Even [[Stanley Miller]] of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in ''Scientific American'' that the &amp;quot;problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as &amp;quot;nonsense&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;paper chemistry&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means.  Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that &amp;quot;[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl02.html#orgnflfscntfcthrsnvblscntfcthrsnthrgnflfllthrsndxprmntsthrndnstlmtrncnfssnfgnrnc Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prebiotic chemistry==&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Miller-Urey experiment===&lt;br /&gt;
Main article: [[Miller-Urey experiment]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:MillerUreyExperiment.PNG|300px|thumb|right|The setup of the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1953. It attempted to simulate primitive Earth gases (Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, Water Vapor), primitive oceans (Water), and lightning.]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1953 American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago performed an experiment that tried to produce components that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiotically (from inorganic molecules).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.britannica.com/science/Miller-Urey-experiment Miller-Urey experiment] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Early earth atmosphere====&lt;br /&gt;
There is significant uncertainty to what the primitive atmosphere was composed of.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The Miller-Urey experiment assumed an a primitive atmosphere was composed of ''reducing'' (oxygen poor)  gases [e.g. methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), hydrogen (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O)], but by the 1980s geochemists believed that early earth atmospheres probably had ''neutral'' gases like those emitted by volcanoes [e.g. water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O), carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and nitrogen (N&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)] and perhaps some ''reducing'' gases like carbon monoxide (CO). Since hydrogen was a light element, there probably would not have been any or perhaps very little in early earth.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bada JL. [https://web.archive.org/web/20190225141103id_/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f46/3e8a3611fa7f25c143991dfddac49c396b73.pdf New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller's spark discharge experiments]. Chem Soc Rev. 2013 Mar 7;42(5):2186-96. doi: 10.1039/c3cs35433d&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wells&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Wells. 2017. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. ISBN: 978-1936599448. 3. Survival of the Fakest&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A possible source of lightning could have been &amp;quot;volcanic lightning&amp;quot;, which occurs sometimes near volcanic eruption plumes, and some volcanic gases emitted have been hydrogen sulfide (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;S), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Some scientists believe that early earth atmosphere was similar to earth today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250902132614/https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/ Earth's Early Atmosphere: An Update] - NASA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Hydrothermal vents====&lt;br /&gt;
Hydrothermal vents have been prosed as an alternative source of prebiotic compounds like amino acids, but they face significant limitations. For example, vent systems tend to have very short lives of about 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Limited time frames for prebiotic synthesis====&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists believe that there was a time limit for meteorites for form simple to slightly more complex compounds: greater than 1,000 to less than 1,000,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; This poses a problem for hydrothermal vents since they have a very short life span of 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Leading Miller-Urey experiment researcher Jeffrey Bada admits:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|&amp;quot;An important issue is whether these timescales are compatible with the time required for the transition from abiotic to biotic chemistry. As noted, in carbonaceous meteorites the timescale for amino acid production is between &amp;gt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; years, perhaps even as short as 1–10 years, and there is no evidence that the prebiotic chemistry that took place on the meteorite parent bodies during this aqueous alteration period produced anything beyond simple monomeric compounds. It has been suggested that catalysts such as metal sulfides present in vent systems would promote more rapid synthesis, but by the principle of microscopic reversibility, these must also catalyze the decomposition of any synthesized compounds. Moreover, if this was the case there are certainly potential metal catalysts present on meteorite parent bodies and, as has been indicated, nothing beyond simple molecules were apparently synthesized.&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Chemical yield of amino acids====&lt;br /&gt;
Amino acid yield in spark discharge experiments depends critically on the pH of the aqueous phase since at lower pH, amino acid production is greatly reduced and hydroxy acids in greatly increased.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Hydrothermal vents have been proposed as an alternative prebiotic chemistry source but they face severe limitations and actual synthesis have never been demonstrated using plausible geochemical conditions.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Chemical requirements for life===&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading water &amp;amp; life chemist Felix Franks&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To translate the dictionary definition into scientific terms, life processes, as we understand them, must encompass all of the following functions in sequence: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other researchers have proposed minimal requirements for genes needed for a living organism. A minimal gene set would include genes for:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joana Xavier, Kiran Patil, Isabel Rocha. September 2014. &amp;quot;Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells&amp;quot;. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 78 (3): 487–509. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00050-13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* a basic transcription machinery&lt;br /&gt;
* aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis&lt;br /&gt;
* tRNA maturation and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosomal proteins&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosome function, maturation, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* translation factors&lt;br /&gt;
* RNA degradation&lt;br /&gt;
* protein processing, folding, and secretion&lt;br /&gt;
* cellular division&lt;br /&gt;
* transport&lt;br /&gt;
* energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycolysis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides&lt;br /&gt;
and cofactors)&lt;br /&gt;
* all 20 amino acids&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chemical problems facing abiogenesis==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Francis_Crick.jpg|thumb|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Francis Crick]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:&lt;br /&gt;
#Laboratory experience from centuries of organic chemistry indicate that cross contamination of impure reactants and products in the natural world inhibit further formation of more complex biomolecules from simple ones, separation of necessary compounds generally does not occur in nature, any functional molecule that could even form would get terminated by the majority of nonfunctional material it emerged from, and self-organization is not a intrinsic property of biological matter.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts of a compound) usually occurs and ensures that there is never sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction. For example, if only 1 gram of new product emerges from 100 grams of raw material, then that 1 gram of new product can only yield less than 1 gram in the next chemical step. You get less and less yield with each chemical step since no raw material is being replenished.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''water paradox''' is the chemical reality that water is essential for life and yet it destroys cellular components (e.g. proteins, enzymes and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Naturally, molecules never direct themselves towards life or even complex cellular machinery, they don't control when to start or stop synthesis, and do not preform purification processes to separate useful material from waste and byproducts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The problem of homochirality (see [[Chirality]])&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1719 Origin of life: the chirality problem], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):263–266, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; refers to a fundamental puzzle in the origin of life, where essential biomolecules like amino acids and sugars are exclusively one &amp;quot;handedness&amp;quot; (enantiomer) in living cells which use: only left-handed amino acids [designated as &amp;quot;L-&amp;quot; such as in L-Lysine] and only right-handed sugars [designated as &amp;quot;D-&amp;quot; such as in D-glucose]). The problem is that laboratory experiments show that natural prebiotic chemistry produces equal amounts of both right and left handed forms (a racemic mixture) of amino acids and sugars and this contaminates and inhibits any further synthesis, essentially killing synthesis of any useful molecules.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#Polymerization problem &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1791 Origin of life: the polymerization problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):281–284, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The window of opportunity for any chemical synthesis in the wild is very short (hours and days at best, not thousands or millions of years). For example, when it comes to the spontaneous formation of the long and complex molecules like RNA and proteins, these molecules degrade rapidly in water, with a 600-unit RNA chain having a half-life of only about four hours.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;James Tour et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
#''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s'': John Horgan wrote: &amp;quot;Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?&amp;quot; - (John Horgan,[science writer], &amp;quot;In The Beginning...,&amp;quot; ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;100–109, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;103)&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: &amp;quot;To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the &amp;quot;catch 22&amp;quot; dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: &amp;quot;If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don't have oxygen we have none either.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532 Self-replicating enzymes?], ''Journal of Creation'' 11(1):4–6, April 1997.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cairns-Smith, Graham, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/ Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life], Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presuppositions in origin of life==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted [[Physics|physicist]] and [[bioinformatics|bioinformatician]] Hubert Yockey, who worked under [[Robert Oppenheimer]] on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the [[philosophical]] presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of [[Dialectical materialism|dialectic materialism]] plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in [[exobiology]] and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir [[Francis Crick]] the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]].  Crick has described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the ''International Journal of Solar System Studies'' (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on [[earth]] by a process they called &amp;quot;[[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a &amp;quot;theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Michael Behe]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1992, the popular magazine ''Scientific American'' published an interview  which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[United States|American]] [[Biochemistry|biochemist]] and [[intelligent design]] advocate [[Michael Behe]] wrote concerning the interview: &amp;quot;The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/125 Designed by aliens?], ''Creation'' 25(4):54–55, September 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
He also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of [[DNA]] without [[God]], Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested.  After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creationists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biblical creation organizations argue that the biblical and scientific evidence suggests that God did not create intelligent life on other planets nor did it naturally arise through [[Evolution|macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?] by Gary Bates, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/qa Creation vs. evolution - Questions and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intelligent design and life on other planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Public debates==&lt;br /&gt;
===1990s debates===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1997, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], stated that he believed that in regards to [[atheism]] &amp;quot;the most impressive debater to date&amp;quot; was [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[Douglas Jesseph]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: &amp;quot;Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===2009 debate===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution]]ary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] and Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]] debating Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Discovery Institute]] declared concerning the debate: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate &amp;quot;[[creationism|creationists]]&amp;quot; — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation Science and Intelligent Design Views ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible.  They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In ''[[Darwin's Doubt]]'', he writes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;... invoking natural selection does not help to explain the origin of the first life&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce.&amp;quot; [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062071475/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=anncoulter-20&amp;amp;camp=14573&amp;amp;creative=327641&amp;amp;linkCode=as1&amp;amp;creativeASIN=0062071475&amp;amp;adid=1QSNY85R152GT1QTA6NH&amp;amp;&amp;amp;ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anncoulter.com%2F (prologue, p. viii)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christian apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Origin of life on Earth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Creation science articles and videos:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life questions and answers] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible] by [[Creation Research Society]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/james-tour-dismantles-dave-farinas-expert-witnesses-on-the-state-of-origin-of-life-research/ James Tour Dismantles Dave Farina’s Expert Witnesses on the State of Origin-of-Life Research], 2023&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Videos:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBO6Z0f84Q The Origin of Life by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/biogenesis_scientific.html Is Naturalistic Biogenesis Scientific?] by Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKG1RbN4lU Did the Miller Experiment Solve the Origin of Life Puzzle? - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP7ojkrZ1sc&amp;amp;list=PLILWudw_84t22BWvWsoXCmaXNllbfJ2h7 Addressing Abiogenesis] by James Tour &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&amp;amp;feature=related Evolution vs Creation: Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFM-hQKkmhs Origin of Life Interview with Dr. Thaxton - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XytvCOJ6_7E Focus on Origins of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeTVKrgzeHQ The Origin of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqU2t84Jyw4 The Myth Of Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CKsYV5pVAs&amp;amp;feature=related Chemical Evolution: The Miller Experiment - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design theorists articles and audio:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?objectID=15997 Darwin’s Defenders Deny Life’s Evident Design] by [[Stephen C. Meyer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.discovery.org/a/2184 DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html DNA BY Design: An Inference To the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/06/seeking-a-way-around-rna-world-new-study-only-increases-perplexity-of-abiogenesis/ Seeking a Way Around RNA World, New Study Only Increases Perplexity of Abiogenesis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Audio:&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD79-1/ DNA by Design Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - Audio]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Creationism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Origin of Life]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2161295</id>
		<title>Origin of life</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&amp;diff=2161295"/>
		<updated>2025-09-23T19:32:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Intelligent design]] theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
There have been a number of proposals regarding the '''origin of life''' on earth.  However, the various proposals fall into two schools of thought.&lt;br /&gt;
One, held by [[Creationism|creationists]], is that life originated divinely/[[supernatural]]ly.&lt;br /&gt;
The other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.  This is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' and &amp;quot;chemical [[evolution]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;view=article&amp;amp;id=86&amp;amp;Itemid=85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; High-profile evolutionists [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Origin of life&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, as acknowledged by the National Academies of Sciences in 2023,  not a developed or accepted scientific theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2023. ISBN 0309475783. &amp;quot;Studies of the chemical origins of life start with the hypothesis that mixtures of simple small [[molecule]]s under the influence of various energy sources and early Earth environments created the building blocks of life and that interactions among these molecules eventually lead to life itself (Figure 12-2).&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first organisms are thought to have emerged around 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (earth being 4.6 billion years old) which means that he earliest life emerged very early on in the history of the earth with a very small window of opportunity (500-600 million years).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-may-have-found-earliest-evidence-life-earth Scientists may have found the earliest evidence of life on Earth]. Julia Rosen. Science. 2015. doi: 10.1126/science.aad4732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Molecules like RNA and peptides degrade within hours to days, limiting any potential for any chemical synthesis in real life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Tour, James M., et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; What complicates the origin of life research is that all fossils ever found have been DNA-based life forms, indicating that there is a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) which implies that it is possible that life only formed and survived once since no other genetic variants of life, other than DNA, has ever been found.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://theconversation.com/did-life-evolve-more-than-once-researchers-are-closing-in-on-an-answer-205678 Did life evolve more than once? Researchers are closing in on an answer]. The Conversation. Jordi Paps. May 2023.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two main classes of origin-of-life research: chemical synthesis and molecular assembly.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The transition from non-living to living has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Nor has self organizing [[molecule]]s to a living cell, ever been observed in the wild or in a laboratory either, possibly due to the complex chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Committees for the National Academies of Sciences have observed that chemists have held skeptical views of abiogenesis because of extensive laboratory experience indicating that there are numerous chemical problems that inhibit nature, which has no direction or goal, from synthesizing any complex biochemical molecules that are needed for cellular life to even emerge.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (2007). The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. National Academies Press. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0309104845. &amp;quot;Chemists’ objection to the notion that life is a natural consequence of organic reactivity is simple and comes from broadly based empirical experience in organic-chemistry laboratories. Addition of energy to mixtures of organic species makes the mixtures more complex and less likely to support life. Shapiro has provided a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the difficulties. Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules. In the complex chemical mixtures generated under prebiotic conditions, one may be able to find trace amounts of amino acids and perhaps nucleobases. Some might indeed catalyze reactions that have some utility. But other compounds may well inhibit catalysis or catalyze undesired reactions. For example, Joyce and Orgel pointed out that the clay-catalyzed condensation of nucleotides to yield small chains performed best, under the conditions that they considered, if only one enantiomer of the starting material was present. If both were present, the desired reaction with the desired enantiomer might be inhibited by the other enantiomer. Furthermore, the combination of any bifunctional molecule into an information-bearing polymer would be expected to be terminated at an early stage by the presence of an excess of molecules that bear only one functionality. Even crystallization, a well-documented method of obtaining order through self-organization, is not a particularly powerful way to separate mixtures of organic chemicals into their constituents. Normally, an organic compound must be relatively pure before crystallization occurs. That salts crystallize better may explain why crystals are more common in the mineral world than in the organic world. Even organic salts can have problems in crystallizing from an impure mixture. Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem in prebiotic chemistry is '''the water paradox''', the fact that water is essential for all living cells and yet it is very destructive to cellular machinery and components when isolated from the cell, a balance that is incredibly chemically delicate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Marshall, Michael (10 December 2020). &amp;quot;How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat — water&amp;quot;. Nature. 588 (7837): 210–213. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03461-4. &amp;quot;This suggested to many researchers that life arose near the surface of the ocean. But many scientists today say there’s a fundamental problem with that idea: life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis. This is the water paradox. Today, cells solve it by limiting the free movement of water in their interiors, says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. For this reason, popular images of the cytoplasm — the substance inside the cell — are often wrong. “We are taught that cytoplasm is just a bag that holds everything, and everything is swimming around,” she adds. “That’s not true, everything is incredibly scaffolded in cells, and it’s scaffolded in a gel, not a water bag.” If living things keep water controlled, then the implication, say many researchers, is obvious. Life probably formed on land, where water was only intermittently present.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Another major problem is a &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts) never have sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Among the most common problems in prebiotic chemistry is the fact that origin of life research and experimentation relies on so much human intervention and fails to provide evidence for abiogenesis as a result of reliance on such frequent intervention.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot;&amp;gt;James Tour, Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley. 2020. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Discovery Press. ISBN 1936599740. 13. We're Still Clueless About the Origin of Life&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Richert&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Richert, C. Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention. Nature Communications 9, 5177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07219-5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life is more complex than just having the right cellular components merely existing or even being in the right place since even in the case of extensive prebiotic chemical cheating such as using a completely dead cell with all the components in place, it is not possible generate life out of it once more by blind nature alone.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Deamer&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Deamer. 2020. Origin of life: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190098996. pages 87-88 &amp;quot;The bottom line is that ALL the essential parts of bacterial cells have been shown to work in isolation. However, no one has ever tried to put them back together. Is this even possible? Can a mixture of bacterial parts that is not alive be revived?...Are they alive? Will they grow and reproduce? After all, the ribosomes, genomes, and enzymes are all back together in one place. Most knowledgeable scientists would say, &amp;quot;No! They will NOT be alive!&amp;quot; But they can't know for sure, because no one has done the experiment. I tend share their skepticism - for a very good reason. All the components of the cell may have been put back together in a tiny membranous bag, but we have disrupted an invisible order having to do with feedback loops that regulate metabolism. In the absence of feedback controlling thousands of enzymes, it may be impossible for the cells to come back to life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20170717223959/https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Organic synthesis has been ongoing for at least 200 years and millions of molecules have been successfully synthesized, which makes it puzzling that prebiotic chemistry has not had much success in synthesizing anything close to any of the thousands of complex biomolecular machinery that make up a cell.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Gilles Bruylants et al. 2011. &amp;quot;Prebiotic chemistry: A fuzzy field&amp;quot;. Comptes Rendus Chimie (Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences France). 14 (4): 388–391. doi:10.1016/j.crci.2010.04.002. ISSN 1631-0748.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; As of 2024 numerous problems still persist for prebiotic chemists trying to solve abiogenesis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Cell]]s are very optimized entities and appear to be fine tuned. Studies on raw materials used by cells such as the 20 chiral-specific [[amino acid]]s, which permeate all life on earth, are the optimal or ideal set of amino acids out of all the possible amino acid combinations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ilardo, M., Meringer, M., Freeland, S. et al. Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids. Scientific Reports 5, 9414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09414&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Doig, A.J. (2017), Frozen, but no accident – why the 20 standard amino acids were selected. FEBS J, 284: 1296-1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13982&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Current status ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin of life researcher David Abel in 2024 summarizes the chemical problems that abiogenesis faces.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;abio 2024&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Lynn Abel. [https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/why-is-abiogenesis-such-a-tough-nut-to-crack.html Why is Abiogenesis Such a Tough Nut to Crack?]. Archives of Microbiology and Immunology. 8 (2024): 338-364.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Origin researcher Pier Luisi in 2018 stated &amp;quot;the turning point of non-life to life has never been put into one experimental set up. There are, of course, several hypotheses, and this plethora of ideas means already that we do not have a convincing one.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Luisi&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Pier Luigi Luisi. 2018. The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108735506. p. 416.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Walter Bradley said: &amp;quot;The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference of the origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Quoted in Strobel, Lee, [https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M The case for Faith], p.107.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the &amp;quot;immensity of the problem&amp;quot; for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, &amp;quot;At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1996, John Horgan wrote in [[Scientific American]]: &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Even [[Stanley Miller]] of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in ''Scientific American'' that the &amp;quot;problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CfF&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as &amp;quot;nonsense&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;paper chemistry&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationresearch.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means.  Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that &amp;quot;[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl02.html#orgnflfscntfcthrsnvblscntfcthrsnthrgnflfllthrsndxprmntsthrndnstlmtrncnfssnfgnrnc Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prebiotic chemistry==&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the prebiotic chemistry research has remained in in searching for prebiotic pathways for the formation of very simple building blocks such as amino acids, riboses or nucleic bases - similar to the [[Miller-Urey experiment]] level, not higher molecular and complex machinery level like RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes; due to the significantly higher level of chemistry required.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;fuzzy&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Miller-Urey experiment===&lt;br /&gt;
Main article: [[Miller-Urey experiment]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:MillerUreyExperiment.PNG|300px|thumb|right|The setup of the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1953. It attempted to simulate primitive Earth gases (Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, Water Vapor), primitive oceans (Water), and lightning.]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1953 American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago performed an experiment that tried to produce components that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiotically (from inorganic molecules).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.britannica.com/science/Miller-Urey-experiment Miller-Urey experiment] Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Early earth atmosphere====&lt;br /&gt;
There is significant uncertainty to what the primitive atmosphere was composed of.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The Miller-Urey experiment assumed an a primitive atmosphere was composed of ''reducing'' (oxygen poor)  gases [e.g. methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), hydrogen (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O)], but by the 1980s geochemists believed that early earth atmospheres probably had ''neutral'' gases like those emitted by volcanoes [e.g. water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O), carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and nitrogen (N&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)] and perhaps some ''reducing'' gases like carbon monoxide (CO). Since hydrogen was a light element, there probably would not have been any or perhaps very little in early earth.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bada JL. [https://web.archive.org/web/20190225141103id_/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f46/3e8a3611fa7f25c143991dfddac49c396b73.pdf New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller's spark discharge experiments]. Chem Soc Rev. 2013 Mar 7;42(5):2186-96. doi: 10.1039/c3cs35433d&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wells&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Wells. 2017. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. ISBN: 978-1936599448. 3. Survival of the Fakest&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A possible source of lightning could have been &amp;quot;volcanic lightning&amp;quot;, which occurs sometimes near volcanic eruption plumes, and some volcanic gases emitted have been hydrogen sulfide (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;S), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Some scientists believe that early earth atmosphere was similar to earth today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250902132614/https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/ Earth's Early Atmosphere: An Update] - NASA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Hydrothermal vents====&lt;br /&gt;
Hydrothermal vents have been prosed as an alternative source of prebiotic compounds like amino acids, but they face significant limitations. For example, vent systems tend to have very short lives of about 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Limited time frames for prebiotic synthesis====&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists believe that there was a time limit for meteorites for form simple to slightly more complex compounds: greater than 1,000 to less than 1,000,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; This poses a problem for hydrothermal vents since they have a very short life span of 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Leading Miller-Urey experiment researcher Jeffrey Bada admits:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|&amp;quot;An important issue is whether these timescales are compatible with the time required for the transition from abiotic to biotic chemistry. As noted, in carbonaceous meteorites the timescale for amino acid production is between &amp;gt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; years, perhaps even as short as 1–10 years, and there is no evidence that the prebiotic chemistry that took place on the meteorite parent bodies during this aqueous alteration period produced anything beyond simple monomeric compounds. It has been suggested that catalysts such as metal sulfides present in vent systems would promote more rapid synthesis, but by the principle of microscopic reversibility, these must also catalyze the decomposition of any synthesized compounds. Moreover, if this was the case there are certainly potential metal catalysts present on meteorite parent bodies and, as has been indicated, nothing beyond simple molecules were apparently synthesized.&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Chemical yield of amino acids====&lt;br /&gt;
Amino acid yield in spark discharge experiments depends critically on the pH of the aqueous phase since at lower pH, amino acid production is greatly reduced and hydroxy acids in greatly increased.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Hydrothermal vents have been proposed as an alternative prebiotic chemistry source but they face severe limitations and actual synthesis have never been demonstrated using plausible geochemical conditions.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Requirements for non-living chemicals to become living===&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading water &amp;amp; life chemist Felix Franks&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To translate the dictionary definition into scientific terms, life processes, as we understand them, must encompass all of the following functions in sequence: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other researchers have proposed minimal requirements for genes needed for a living organism. A minimal gene set would include genes for:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joana Xavier, Kiran Patil, Isabel Rocha. September 2014. &amp;quot;Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells&amp;quot;. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 78 (3): 487–509. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00050-13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* a basic transcription machinery&lt;br /&gt;
* aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis&lt;br /&gt;
* tRNA maturation and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosomal proteins&lt;br /&gt;
* ribosome function, maturation, and modification&lt;br /&gt;
* translation factors&lt;br /&gt;
* RNA degradation&lt;br /&gt;
* protein processing, folding, and secretion&lt;br /&gt;
* cellular division&lt;br /&gt;
* transport&lt;br /&gt;
* energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycolysis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides&lt;br /&gt;
and cofactors)&lt;br /&gt;
* all 20 amino acids &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chemical problems facing abiogenesis==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Francis_Crick.jpg|thumb|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Francis Crick]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:&lt;br /&gt;
#Laboratory experience from centuries of organic chemistry indicate that cross contamination of impure reactants and products in the natural world inhibit further formation of more complex biomolecules from simple ones, separation of necessary compounds generally does not occur in nature, any functional molecule that could even form would get terminated by the majority of nonfunctional material it emerged from, and self-organization is not a intrinsic property of biological matter.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The &amp;quot;mass transfer&amp;quot; problem, whereby poor chemical yield (usually very little product or trace amounts of a compound) usually occurs and ensures that there is never sufficient material to move in any further chemical direction. For example, if only 1 gram of new product emerges from 100 grams of raw material, then that 1 gram of new product can only yield less than 1 gram in the next chemical step. You get less and less yield with each chemical step since no raw material is being replenished.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The '''water paradox''' is the chemical reality that water is essential for life and yet it destroys cellular components (e.g. proteins, enzymes and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;water paradox&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Naturally, molecules never direct themselves towards life or even complex cellular machinery, they don't control when to start or stop synthesis, and do not preform purification processes to separate useful material from waste and byproducts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The problem of homochirality (see [[Chirality]])&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1719 Origin of life: the chirality problem], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):263–266, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; refers to a fundamental puzzle in the origin of life, where essential biomolecules like amino acids and sugars are exclusively one &amp;quot;handedness&amp;quot; (enantiomer) in living cells which use: only left-handed amino acids [designated as &amp;quot;L-&amp;quot; such as in L-Lysine] and only right-handed sugars [designated as &amp;quot;D-&amp;quot; such as in D-glucose]). The problem is that laboratory experiments show that natural prebiotic chemistry produces equal amounts of both right and left handed forms (a racemic mixture) of amino acids and sugars and this contaminates and inhibits any further synthesis, essentially killing synthesis of any useful molecules.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Tour&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#Polymerization problem &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1791 Origin of life: the polymerization problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):281–284, December 1998.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#The window of opportunity for any chemical synthesis in the wild is very short (hours and days at best, not thousands or millions of years). For example, when it comes to the spontaneous formation of the long and complex molecules like RNA and proteins, these molecules degrade rapidly in water, with a 600-unit RNA chain having a half-life of only about four hours.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;James Tour et al. &amp;quot;Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life&amp;quot; BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
#''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s'': John Horgan wrote: &amp;quot;Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?&amp;quot; - (John Horgan,[science writer], &amp;quot;In The Beginning...,&amp;quot; ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;100–109, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;103)&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: &amp;quot;To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the &amp;quot;catch 22&amp;quot; dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: &amp;quot;If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don't have oxygen we have none either.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532 Self-replicating enzymes?], ''Journal of Creation'' 11(1):4–6, April 1997.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cairns-Smith, Graham, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/ Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life], Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presuppositions in origin of life==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted [[Physics|physicist]] and [[bioinformatics|bioinformatician]] Hubert Yockey, who worked under [[Robert Oppenheimer]] on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the [[philosophical]] presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of [[Dialectical materialism|dialectic materialism]] plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in [[exobiology]] and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir [[Francis Crick]] the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]].  Crick has described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist [[Leslie Orgel]] published an article in the ''International Journal of Solar System Studies'' (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on [[earth]] by a process they called &amp;quot;[[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a &amp;quot;theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spacedaily.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:6748yuhg.jpg|right|thumb|250px|[[Michael Behe]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 1992, the popular magazine ''Scientific American'' published an interview  which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[United States|American]] [[Biochemistry|biochemist]] and [[intelligent design]] advocate [[Michael Behe]] wrote concerning the interview: &amp;quot;The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;genesispark.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an [[Creation Research Quarterly]] September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationist]] Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bates, Gary, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/125 Designed by aliens?], ''Creation'' 25(4):54–55, September 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
He also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of [[DNA]] without [[God]], Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested.  After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bates&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creationists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Biblical creation organizations argue that the biblical and scientific evidence suggests that God did not create intelligent life on other planets nor did it naturally arise through [[Evolution|macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?] by Gary Bates, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten, Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/qa Creation vs. evolution - Questions and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intelligent design and life on other planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Public debates==&lt;br /&gt;
===1990s debates===&lt;br /&gt;
In October 1997, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]], stated that he believed that in regards to [[atheism]] &amp;quot;the most impressive debater to date&amp;quot; was [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] [[Douglas Jesseph]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with [[William Lane Craig]] in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: &amp;quot;Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in ''[[Scientific American]]'': &amp;quot;The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;members.iinet.net.au&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===2009 debate===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the [[evolution]]ary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] and Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]] debating Dr. [[Michael Shermer]] and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Discovery Institute]] declared concerning the debate: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate &amp;quot;[[creationism|creationists]]&amp;quot; — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to [[junk DNA]] — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;greatcloud.wordpress.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation Science and Intelligent Design Views ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible.  They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&amp;amp;pg=PA107&amp;amp;lpg=PA107&amp;amp;dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=iyVq9fDDDR&amp;amp;sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In ''[[Darwin's Doubt]]'', he writes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;... invoking natural selection does not help to explain the origin of the first life&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce.&amp;quot; [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062071475/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=anncoulter-20&amp;amp;camp=14573&amp;amp;creative=327641&amp;amp;linkCode=as1&amp;amp;creativeASIN=0062071475&amp;amp;adid=1QSNY85R152GT1QTA6NH&amp;amp;&amp;amp;ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anncoulter.com%2F (prologue, p. viii)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christian apologetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Origin of life on Earth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Creation science articles and videos:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life] by Dr. Don Batten&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers Origin of life questions and answers] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible] by [[Creation Research Society]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/james-tour-dismantles-dave-farinas-expert-witnesses-on-the-state-of-origin-of-life-research/ James Tour Dismantles Dave Farina’s Expert Witnesses on the State of Origin-of-Life Research], 2023&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Videos:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBO6Z0f84Q The Origin of Life by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/biogenesis_scientific.html Is Naturalistic Biogenesis Scientific?] by Dr. Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKG1RbN4lU Did the Miller Experiment Solve the Origin of Life Puzzle? - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP7ojkrZ1sc&amp;amp;list=PLILWudw_84t22BWvWsoXCmaXNllbfJ2h7 Addressing Abiogenesis] by James Tour &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQb6e1w1I9E&amp;amp;feature=related Evolution vs Creation: Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFM-hQKkmhs Origin of Life Interview with Dr. Thaxton - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XytvCOJ6_7E Focus on Origins of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeTVKrgzeHQ The Origin of Life - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqU2t84Jyw4 The Myth Of Chemical Evolution - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CKsYV5pVAs&amp;amp;feature=related Chemical Evolution: The Miller Experiment - Video Clip]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design theorists articles and audio:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?objectID=15997 Darwin’s Defenders Deny Life’s Evident Design] by [[Stephen C. Meyer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.discovery.org/a/2184 DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html DNA BY Design: An Inference To the Best Explanation for the Origin of Biological Information] by Stephen C. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://evolutionnews.org/2019/06/seeking-a-way-around-rna-world-new-study-only-increases-perplexity-of-abiogenesis/ Seeking a Way Around RNA World, New Study Only Increases Perplexity of Abiogenesis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Audio:&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.khouse.org/6640/DVD79-1/ DNA by Design Stephen C. Meyer, PhD - Audio]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Creationism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Origin of Life]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Miller-Urey_experiment&amp;diff=2157168</id>
		<title>Miller-Urey experiment</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Miller-Urey_experiment&amp;diff=2157168"/>
		<updated>2025-09-08T21:05:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Miller-Urey experiment''' is an experiment from 1953 that tried to form organic material using assumed early earth conditions in [[earth]]'s [[atmosphere]]. Some scientists relate it to [[abiogenesis]] &amp;amp;ndash; the production of life from non-life, but it is generally considered just an attempt to find out a potential scenario of how life, or organic material for life, could have emerged. By recent analysis, the experiment did produce quite a few [[amino acid]]s, but not many of the ones used for making proteins in a cell or in any significant chemically usable quantity. Furthermore, it produced those acids in a racemic mixture (left and right handed amino acids). Life uses specific chirality (left handed amino acids only). Even secular scientists are not willing to accept this as the definitive proof of how life began.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The 1953 experiment==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:MillerUreyExperiment.PNG|300px|thumb|right|The setup of the Miller-Urey Experiment of 1953. It attempted to simulate primitive Earth gases (Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, Water Vapor), primitive oceans (Water), and lightning.]]&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1920s, Russian scientist A. I. Oparin and British scientist J. B. S. Haldane suggested that the Earth’s primitive atmosphere had &amp;quot;reducing&amp;quot; (oxygen poor) gases consisted mainly of methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), hydrogen (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wells&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Wells. 2017. Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. ISBN: 978-1936599448. 3. Survival of the Fakest&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1953, Stanley Miller performed an experiment with those exact same ''reducing'' gases and  reported the production of biomolecules from simple gaseous starting materials using an apparatus constructed to simulate the primordial Earth's atmosphere-ocean system. Miller used what he thought was primitive gases that would be available on a primitive earth: 200 mmHg of CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, 100 mmHg of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, 200 mmHg of NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and 200 ml of H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O into the equipment. In other words the ratio was 2:1:2:2 for CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;:H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;:NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;:H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O. Then he subjected this mixture, under reflux, to an electric discharge simulating lightning for a week while the water was simultaneously heated for that time period.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;exp setup&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Parker, E. T., Cleaves, J. H., Burton, A. S., Glavin, D. P., Dworkin, J. P., Zhou, M., Bada, J. L., Fernández, F. M. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4089479/ Conducting Miller-Urey Experiments]. J. Vis. Exp. (83), e51039, doi:10.3791/51039 (2014).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Results===&lt;br /&gt;
In his original paper, Miller was able to identify some amino acids glycine, α-alanine and β-alanine while Aspartic acid and α-aminobutyric acid  were less certain.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Miller1953&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Stanley Miller. 1953. &amp;quot;[https://web.archive.org/web/20120317062622/http://www.abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions]&amp;quot;. Science. 117 (3046): 528–9.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Miller also stated &amp;quot;it is estimated that the total yield of amino acids was in the milligram range&amp;quot; which means that very little material formed after a week of continuously running of the experiment non-stop.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Miller1953&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Re-analysis of samples and other discharge experiments=== &lt;br /&gt;
Miller had performed other experiments between 1952-1954 using two other apparatuses. A few vials of the samples he made were found in the 2000s and analyzed using modern techniques that have more sensitivity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bada, J. L. (2016). One of the foremost experiments of the 20th century: Stanley Miller and the origin of prebiotic chemistry. Metode Science Studies Journal, (6), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.6.4994&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Bada JL. [https://web.archive.org/web/20190225141103id_/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6f46/3e8a3611fa7f25c143991dfddac49c396b73.pdf New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller's spark discharge experiments]. Chem Soc Rev. 2013 Mar 7;42(5):2186-96. doi: 10.1039/c3cs35433d&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; After modern analysis of his 1950s samples (including the 1953 experiment and volcano experiment), 31 amino acids, 6 amines, and 12 dipeptides/cyclodipeptides formed in very small amounts.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''NOTE: moles in Table are relative to glycine = 1 mol [where 4.8 mg was the amount of glycine synthesized. The amount of carbon was 710 mg from methane]''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;text-align:left&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! Amino Acid !!  Miller-Urey Experiment 1953&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Miller1953&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;  !!  Bada 2016 Re-evaluation of 1953 samples&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
(moles)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|  glycine  || Detected || 1.0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| α-alanine || Detected || 0.54&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| β-alanine || Detected || 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Aspartic acid || Unsure but possible || 0.006&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| α-aminobutyric acid || Unsure but possible || 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| a-aminoisobutyric acid || N/A || 0.002&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Glycolic acid  || N/A || 0.89&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Sarcosine (N-methylglycine)  || N/A || 0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Lactic acid  || N/A || 0.49&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|  N-Methylalanine || N/A || 0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| a-Hydroxybutyric acid || N/A ||  0.08&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Succinic acid  || N/A || 0.06&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Glutamic acid || N/A || 0.01&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Iminodiacetic acid || N/A || 0.09&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Iminoacetic-propionic acid || N/A || 0.02&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Formic acid || N/A || 3.70&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Acetic acid || N/A || 0.24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Propionic acid || N/A || 0.21&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Urea || N/A || 0.03&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Modern Interpretations==&lt;br /&gt;
===Early earth atmosphere===&lt;br /&gt;
There is significant uncertainty to what the primitive atmosphere was composed of.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The Miller-Urey experiment assumed an a primitive atmosphere was composed of ''reducing'' (oxygen poor)  gases [e.g. methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), hydrogen (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O)], but by the 1980s geochemists believed that early earth atmospheres probably had ''neutral'' gases like those emitted by volcanoes [e.g. water vapor (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;O), carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and nitrogen (N&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;)] and perhaps some ''reducing'' gases like carbon monoxide (CO). Since hydrogen was a light element, there probably would not have been any or perhaps very little in early earth.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wells&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; A possible source of lightning could have been &amp;quot;volcanic lightning&amp;quot;, which occurs sometimes near volcanic eruption plumes, and some volcanic gases emitted have been hydrogen sulfide (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;S), ammonia (NH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), methane (CH&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;), and carbon dioxide (CO&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Some scientists believe that early earth atmosphere was similar to earth today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250902132614/https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/earths-early-atmosphere-an-update/ Earth's Early Atmosphere: An Update] - NASA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Chemical yield of amino acids===&lt;br /&gt;
Amino acid yield in spark discharge experiments depends critically on the pH of the aqueous phase since at lower pH, amino acid production is greatly reduced and hydroxy acids in greatly increased.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Hydrothermal vents have been proposed as an alternative prebiotic chemistry source but they face severe limitations and actual synthesis have never been demonstrated using plausible geochemical conditions.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Limited time frames for prebiotic synthesis===&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists believe that there was a time limit for meteorites for form simple to slightly more complex compounds: greater than 1,000 to less than 1,000,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; This poses a problem for hydrothermal vents since they have a very short life span of 100-10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Leading Miller-Urey experiment researcher Jeffrey Bada admits:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bada2013&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|&amp;quot;An important issue is whether these timescales are compatible with the time required for the transition from abiotic to biotic chemistry. As noted, in carbonaceous meteorites the timescale for amino acid production is between &amp;gt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; to &amp;lt;10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; years, perhaps even as short as 1–10 years, and there is no evidence that the prebiotic chemistry that took place on the meteorite parent bodies during this aqueous alteration period produced anything beyond simple monomeric compounds. It has been suggested that catalysts such as metal sulfides present in vent systems would promote more rapid synthesis, but by the principle of microscopic reversibility, these must also catalyze the decomposition of any synthesized compounds. Moreover, if this was the case there are certainly potential metal catalysts present on meteorite parent bodies and, as has been indicated, nothing beyond simple molecules were apparently synthesized.&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Origin of life]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abiogenesis]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;References/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]] [[Category:Evolution]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2157164</id>
		<title>Evolution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2157164"/>
		<updated>2025-09-08T17:58:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://electricscotland.com/history/glasgow/anec305.htm The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Darwin  - As told in Glasgow]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). In biology, evolution is understood as a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time from adaptations of organisms to their environments. The study of evolution can be performed on different scales: ''[[microevolution]]'' reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time (e.g. mutations, interbreeding), ''[[macroevolution]]'' reflects large-scale changes at the species level which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. [[Natural selection]] is one commonly cited mechanism for driving evolution, but there are others such a genetic drift.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/ Evolution - Nature (Journal)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]].  See also: [[Theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is often linked to Charles Darwin and [[natural selection]]. However, naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]]. Wallace eventually came to believe that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's views challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and allow for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Before 1864, Wallace also believed that man was a result of natural selection, but by 1869, Wallace had changed his view since he felt that natural selection was insufficient to craft man's features like rationality, and postulated that higher intelligences may have been involved in man's evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Malcolm Jay Kottler. [https://www.newdualism.org/papers/M.Kottler/Kottler-Isis1974.pdf Alfred Russel Wallace, the Origin of Man, and Spiritualism]. Isis, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 144-192 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society&lt;br /&gt;
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229369.&amp;quot;In 1864 Wallace was firmly committed to the action of natural selection alone in the development of man. In 1869 he first expressed publicly his new point of view that natural selection was unable to explain the origin of man and that higher intelligences guiding man's development were required.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Microevolution]] and natural selection are accepted to occur by all creationists,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory or in the wild.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC&lt;br /&gt;
*Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current ongoing long term evolutionary experiments such as the experiment on E.coli bacteria which &amp;quot;exceed 63,000 generations, equivalent to over 1 million years of human evolution&amp;quot; have not shown speciation or novel functions in the organism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Hofwegen DJ, Hovde CJ, Minnich SA.2016.Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. J Bacteriol198:.https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00831-15&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the [[creation]] versus evolution controversy. The [[fossil]] record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were cataloged and identified in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: &amp;quot;In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.icr.org/article/280/ More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists Excerpted from the New Book by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 28, 2022, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?'' which indicated: &amp;quot;A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of [[natural selection]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?''] by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian,  June 28, 2022&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Teaching evolution &amp;amp; views of experts==   &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:View from Levering Plaza.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|''Johns Hopkins University Press'' reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2024, the assistant to [[Russia]]n Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, former [[Chechen]] Prime Minister Muslim Khuchiev called for a ban on the teaching of Darwinian theory in schools at a meeting of the All-Russian Parents' Committee. &amp;quot;Everyone knows that this is an erroneous theory, it goes against [[religion]]. This is the first step, I believe, in the [[spiritual]] degradation of children.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://meduza.io/news/2024/09/20/pomoschnik-mishustina-predlozhil-ubrat-teoriyu-darvina-iz-shkolnoy-programmy-ideyu-podderzhal-pravoslavnyy-oligarh-konstantin-malofeev Mishustin's assistant suggested removing Darwin's theory from the school curriculum. The idea was supported by the &amp;quot;Orthodox oligarch&amp;quot; Konstantin Malofeev], Meduza, 20 September 2024. meduza.io&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9851&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that &amp;quot;Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2010, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} [[Johns Hopkins University]] Press reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[China]] has the world's largest [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] and the rapid growth of biblical [[creationism]]/[[Evangelical Christianity|Evangelical Christianity]] in China may have a significant impact on the number of individuals in the world who believe in evolution and also on [[global atheism]] (see: [[China and biblical creationism]] and [[Asian atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of natural selection==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of natural selection was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'' (1859) and also by Alfred Russel Wallace in his paper ''On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'' (1858). Wallace's works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker decided on a joint publication at the Linnean Society of London in 1858 of Wallace's paper together with an extract from Darwin's 1844 essay and his letter to Asa Gray and summarized:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 3, Issue 9, August 1858, Pages 45–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2311239#page/127/mode/1up 1858 Online link to Summary by Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, and both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society. Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. Extract from an unpublished Work on Species, by C. DARWIN, Esq., consisting of a portion of a Chapter entitled, &amp;quot;On the Variation of Organic Beings in a state of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species.&amp;quot;..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
II. Abstract of a Letter from C. DARWIN, Esq., to Prof. ASA GRAY, Boston, US, dated Down, September 5th, 1857...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
III. On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type. By ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE.''}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: &amp;quot;...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin was a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]]/[[agnosticism|agnostic]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin) ].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html Charles Darwin - The Truth]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or &amp;quot;survival of the fittest&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major difference between Darwin and Wallace is that Wallace argued that nature exhibited design and purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's view of evolution allows for an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life, some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution was incorporated later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of evolution==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Belief in evolution and intuition ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In January of 2012, the  ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: &amp;quot;They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to [[evolutionary indoctrination]] and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization [[Creation Ministries International]] created a [[Question evolution! campaign]] which poses [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use Arguments evolutionists should not use] by Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/ 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid] by Answers in Genesis&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mutations and the Life Sciences ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote concerning the theory of evolution: &amp;quot;The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;NorthWest Creation Network, [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Concerning various [[theories of evolution]], most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of Life|life first came about on earth]] although [[Theory of evolution and little consensus|there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.&amp;quot; Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have &amp;quot;stabilized&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grassé  regards the &amp;quot;unceasing mutations&amp;quot; to be &amp;quot;merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html Life Sciences]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,[http://creation.com/Whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-Lawrence-S-Lerner Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3835 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 6, Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creation scientists provide sound reasons why [[homology|the homology argument is not a valid argument]]. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; to the point where it is defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of &amp;quot;Evolution&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as &amp;quot;The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet&amp;quot; but it is very poorly done.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and equivocation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Biological diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|When [[Richard Dawkins]] was a young man, he recognized [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the originally created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Origin of life ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic entropy ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:John C Sanford.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The [[genetic entropy]] theory by [[Cornell University]] Professor Dr. [[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] on eroding [[genome]]s of all living organisms due to [[mutations]] inherited from one generation to the next is declared to be one of the major challenges to [[evolutionary theory]]. The central part of Sanford’s argument is that mutations, represented by spelling mistakes in [[DNA]], are accumulating so quickly in some creatures (and particularly in people) that [[natural selection]] cannot stop the ''functional degradation'' of the genome, let alone drive an evolutionary process that could lead for example, from apes into people.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web&lt;br /&gt;
|title=Genetic entropy and simple organisms: If genetic entropy is true, why do bacteria still exist?&lt;br /&gt;
|author=Robert Carter&lt;br /&gt;
|publisher=Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
|url=http://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms&lt;br /&gt;
|accessdate=2012-10-29}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sanford's book ''Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'' explains why human [[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/john-sanford John Sanford - bio] at [[Creation Ministries International]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the  ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'' in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'' (taken from the abstract): &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961 ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Genetic Code and Biological Information ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp Information Theory Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[William Dembski]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=118 Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[code|codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Dr. Brown also asserts that the &amp;quot;information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|No matter how many &amp;quot;bits&amp;quot; of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it &amp;quot;information&amp;quot; if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In [[computer science]], we call it a &amp;quot;program.&amp;quot; Another name for [[computer software]] is an &amp;quot;[[algorithm]].&amp;quot; No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology &amp;amp; Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742 Notes and References: Codes, Programs, and Information]&lt;br /&gt;
* PubMed Central (PMC), [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific consensus  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: &amp;quot;It happened.&amp;quot; Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], &amp;quot;Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&lt;br /&gt;
* Simon Conway Morris, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;amp;_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&amp;amp;_user=681891&amp;amp;_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&amp;amp;_rdoc=1&amp;amp;_fmt=&amp;amp;_orig=search&amp;amp;_sort=d&amp;amp;view=c&amp;amp;_acct=C000037419&amp;amp;_version=1&amp;amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;amp;_userid=681891&amp;amp;md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with [[molecule]]s or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/ Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends, There Is No Theory of Evolution, February 20, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species.&amp;quot; - [[Niles Eldredge]], &amp;quot;Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|Theory of Punctuated Equilibria]],&amp;quot; Simon &amp;amp; Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Through use and abuse of hidden [[postulate]]s, of bold, often ill-founded [[extrapolation]]s, a [[pseudoscience]] has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of [[biology]] and is leading astray many [[biochemistry|biochemists]] and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that [[theory|theoreticians]] put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their [[sectarianism]], purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
One of the regrettable consequences of Charles Darwin’s ''On the Origin of Species'' was the advent of the [[pseudoscience]] known as [[geopolitics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/geopolitics-ill-suited-for-challenges-of-today-endangers-global-economy-by-robert-skidelsky-2023-06 The Costly Return of Geopolitics], Robert Skidelsky, Jun 19, 2023. www.project-syndicate.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Conservative%27s_essays&amp;amp;oldid=2072209#International_politics_and_geopolitics User:Conservative's essays#International politics and geopolitics], August 16, 2024.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Modern evolutionary synthesis revision===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation on evolution‎ ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|170px|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Haeckel]]. Noted evolutionist and [[Stephen Gould]], who held a [[agnostic|agnostic]] worldview&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and promoted the notion of [[Non-Overlapping Magisteria|non-overlapping magesteria]], wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again. ... Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationism.org/wakefield/haeckel.htm &amp;quot;Another Evolution Fraud Exposed&amp;quot;] - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the [[NY Times]]  refers to Ernst Haeckel as the &amp;quot;celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical [[Atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: &amp;quot;I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Transitional Forms ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged [[fossils]] in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.halos.com/printer.htm?page=/book/ctm-07-e.htm Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; is &amp;quot;missing links&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin.jpg|alt=charles darwin's theory of evolution|right|thumb|205px|[[Charles Darwin]] wrote: &amp;quot;When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of &amp;quot;transitional forms.&amp;quot; Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? [[Geology]] assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because &amp;quot;only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Charles Darwin]], ''Origin of the Species'', [http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, &amp;quot;“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, &amp;quot;Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Edmund Leech, [http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241 Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and [[Geophysics]] at the University of Oklahoma wrote that &amp;quot;Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.&amp;quot; - David M. Raup, &amp;quot;Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,&amp;quot; ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late [[Harvard]] paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html References and Notes: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Paleoanthropology]] or [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Fossil Record quotes ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creationism|Creationists]] can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Christian Answers Network, [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html The Fossil Record - References]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html Notes and References: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.&amp;quot; - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html Early Man]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm Solly Zuckerman: Biography]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether&amp;quot;. Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes] and [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Additional fossil record quotes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Paleoanthropology ==&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see'': [[Paleoanthropology]] and [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nebraska Man.jpg|thumb|alt=human evolution|150px|right|[[Nebraska man]] was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Paleoanthropology]] is an interdisciplinary branch of [[anthropology]] that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and [[artifact]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058075/paleoanthropology Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at [[Yale]] University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at [[Harvard]] University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those Fossils Are A Problem]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book ''Origins'' in the journal ''American Scientist'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, &amp;quot;theory&amp;quot; - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates &amp;quot;data&amp;quot;. ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist and Harvard professor [[Richard Lewontin]] wrote in 1995 that &amp;quot;Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&amp;amp;article=153 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the September 2005 issue of [[National Geographic]], Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology &amp;quot;has again become a rather glorious mess.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=126&amp;amp;article=1555 ''The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[National Geographic]] (online edition), Joel Achenbach, [http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_who.html PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, &amp;quot;We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=823 &amp;quot;Human Evolution&amp;quot; An Update]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Answers in Genesis]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/127 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|300px|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species.]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations do produce “[[microevolution]],” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the evolutionary [[paradigm]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of their key resources on this matter are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Punctuated Equilibrium ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:StephenGould.jpg|left|thumbnail|170px|[[Stephen Jay Gould]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]] was developed and its chief proponents were [[Stephen Gould]], Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley.  According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium &amp;quot;asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented.  In 1930, Austin H. Clark,  an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called [[zoogenesis]] which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Prior to publishing his work entitled ''The New Evolution: Zoogenesis'', Clark wrote in a journal article published in the ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' that &amp;quot;so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation#endRef4&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1995, there was an essay in the ''New York Review of Books'' by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-Darwinists]], and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Implausible Explanations ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]] &lt;br /&gt;
Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible &amp;quot;just so stories&amp;quot; to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
A well-known example of a &amp;quot;just so story&amp;quot; is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled &amp;quot;Difficulties on Theory&amp;quot; in which he stated:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to [[materialism]]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.&amp;quot; - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:&lt;br /&gt;
*various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/5044&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/146/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[flagellum|bacterial flagellum]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[homing]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/wings-on-the-wind  Wings on the wind&lt;br /&gt;
How do migrating birds know exactly when, and where, to go?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the origin of flight in the animal kingdom&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* human [[brain]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-brain-brainier-than-believed-before&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-human-bodygods-masterpiece&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/mind-by-design-peter-line-interview&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[migration]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-magnificent-migrating-monarch&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[whale]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/whale-explodes-fossil-theory&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Venus flytrap]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/4340&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Bombardier beetle]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, biochemist [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.&amp;quot; - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statements of Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article:'' [[Intelligent design]] and [[Argument from beauty]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Autumn.jpg|201px|right|thumbnail|[[Autumn]] foliage is one of the many of examples of beauty in [[God]]'s [[creation]].  See also: [[Argument from beauty]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Phillip E. Johnson]] cites [[Francis Crick]] in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.&amp;quot; - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, &amp;quot;Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.&amp;quot; Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age.&amp;quot; - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin monkey cartoon.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists and views of design ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?''],'' New York Times'', October 17, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed] by  David Catchpoole, [[Creation Ministries International]], Published: 16 July 2009&lt;br /&gt;
*Atheist [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] made the candid confession: &amp;quot;As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise.&amp;quot; Source: ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility'' By Dean Turner, page 109&lt;br /&gt;
*The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' declares: &amp;quot;In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away.'(Argyll 1885, 244)[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html Notes to Teleological Arguments for God's Existence]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Argument from beauty ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detractors of Evolution and the Scientific Journals ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer-reviewed journals that favor the creationist position).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3873/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unqualified to be a scientific theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; stated that Darwinism is &amp;quot;not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: &amp;quot;Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch &amp;amp; Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted&lt;br /&gt;
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that &amp;quot;there has never been a theory of evolution&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and the [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], argue for [[atheism]] and evolution with religious fervor (See also: [[Atheism and evolution]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions that make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion &amp;quot;Atheism: A religion&amp;quot;], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Please see: [http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]and [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] and [[Atheism is a religion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism is a religion and its legal implications as far as the teaching of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Paul gosselin.JPG|thumbnail|right|200px|The Canadian [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Paul Gosselin]] points out that evolution is a [[secular]] origins [[myth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm Myths of Origin and the Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution is a Religion and Not Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution is a religion]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michael Ruse]], the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the leading American science science journal ''Science'', Michael Ruse published an article in 2003 entitled ''Is Evolution a Secular Religion?''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Is Evolution a Secular Religion?] by Dr. [[Michael Ruse]], ''Science'',  March 7, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationist opponents of evolution commonly point out that evolution is a religion and not science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; *[http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution The religious nature of evolution] by Dr. [[Carl Wieland]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-religious Religious Nature of Evolution and its Attack on Christianity]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.icr.org/article/455/ Evolution is a religion - not science] by Dr. [[Henry Morris]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-as-religion Evolution as religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Evolution is a religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution as a secular origins myth ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is a secular origins myth of [[atheism|atheists]], [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and members of other [[liberal Christianity|theologically liberal]] religious sects (theologically [[liberal]] religious sects often dismiss out of hand various [[supernatural]] events in history due to their hostility towards [[God]] and the supernatural). See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[religion]] of [[evolutionism]] is contrary to  [[creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists - Question 15 deals with the fact that evolution is a religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Wolfram]] in his book ''A New Kind of Science'' has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, &amp;quot;increasingly been applied outside of biology.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Lysenkoism===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regard to atheistic communism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong]] caused famines and the death of millions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Medical Science===&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of [[medicine|medical science]]. According to Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]] the list of [[vestigial organs]] in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Astronomy===&lt;br /&gt;
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the &amp;quot;evolution of the universe&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MoIzN....Q....Z&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995deun.book.....S&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3836&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|““...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html Strange Planets] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html Star Births? Stellar Evolution?] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html Galaxies] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concerning the [[Milky Way]] galaxy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;. . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, &amp;quot;The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way,&amp;quot; American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/547/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe [[paradigm]] explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Origin of Life===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/the-origin-of-life-a-problem-for-evolution Origin of life - a problem for evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9057170/Oparin,%20Aleksandr&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of the evolutionary paradigm, but this is not the case  (see: [https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Young Earth Creationism]] and [[Geologic system]]'' and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sarfati, 1999, [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth Chapter 8, How old is the earth?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[William R. Corliss]] was a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Corliss cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young Earth Creationism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the earth and the universe]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief|Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lion6.jpg|thumb|210px|right|Until the 1970s the scientific consensus was wrong on how [[lion]]s killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Bible]] was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
A 1997 [[Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere], Kenneth Chang, ''ABCNews.com'', 1999.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As noted earlier, in 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Poll results regarding the number of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view.  Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.expelledthemovie.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx Scientists and belief]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. declared: &amp;quot;...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious ''British Medical Journal'' begun in 1828 chose the name ''Lancet'' to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote: &amp;quot;There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&amp;amp;cmd=Retrieve&amp;amp;dopt=AbstractPlus&amp;amp;list_uids=1932964&amp;amp;query_hl=6&amp;amp;itool=pubmed_docsum]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/ Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge  beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1718/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information see: [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and  [[Atheism, evolution and morality]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]''&lt;br /&gt;
‎&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to [[Social Darwinism]], [[Nazism]] and [[Communism]] and has also been a source of racism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/454/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n1p04.htm&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3031/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/55/&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Belief in evolution and sexual immorality ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] and [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue that highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of [[abortion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, according to [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the [[sexual revolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism  and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution and Nazism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The staunch evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] admitted the following: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, &amp;quot;Ontogeny and Phylogeny,&amp;quot; Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler]] wrote the following [[Evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] material in his work ''[[Mein Kampf]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/15/a-church-apology-to-darwin/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] also wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Josef Mengele]]'s evolutionary thinking was in accordance with [[Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]] theories that [[Adolph Hitler]] and a number of [[German]] academics found appealing.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/herero-genocide Herero Genecide]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the &amp;quot;unworthy life&amp;quot;  branch of evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link The Darwin–Hitler connection]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with [[Nazi]] death camps and the [[Holocaust]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mengele obtained an infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at [[Auschwitz]]-Birkenau.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding [[Nazism]] and the theory of evolution: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … [[Jew]]s, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is indeed [[history|historical]] precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal [[atheism|atheist]] [[Joseph Stalin]] was greatly influenced by the work of [[Charles Darwin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century [[Communism|Communists]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, &amp;quot;Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history.&amp;quot; Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and communism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Governments under the banner of [[atheism|atheistic]] [[communism]] have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr.  R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government).  Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and racism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary racism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of [[racism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Charles Darwin and [[Thomas Huxley]] contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th-century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work  ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, ''The Descent of Man'', Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg|thumb|[[Ota Benga]] in the Bronx Zoo]]&lt;br /&gt;
John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal ''Science'', the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The [[Africa]]n was inferior — he represented the missing link between [[ape]] and Teuton.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harvard University's [[Stephen Jay Gould]] stated, &amp;quot;Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Recent [[racism]] directed at [[Michelle Obama]] was the result of [[evolutionary racism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/obama-racism-row&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the ''Psychology Today'' website called ''The Scientific Fundamentalist''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.scribd.com/doc/55558908/Why-Are-Black-Women-Rated-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-But-Black-Men-Are-Rated-Better-Looking-Than-Other-Men&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kanazawa has a &amp;quot;Savanna principle&amp;quot; hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/38933&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and brutality in war ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian Jacques Barzun observed how Darwinism caused the horrendous brutality of the wars leading up to [[WWI]]: &amp;quot;Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens — all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/making-a-monkey-out-of-darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Common behavior of online evolutionists ===&lt;br /&gt;
In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] was &amp;quot;embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given that atheists often have poor social skills and are often contentious, it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter (See: [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social skills]] and [[Atheist factions]]). In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote: &amp;quot;Scienceblogger [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys Chad Orzel described]  the commentators on [[PZ Myers]] ' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as &amp;quot;screechy monkeys.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, there is a widespread problem with [[Atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullying]] on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and [[creationism|creationist]] YouTube channels.  [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video Creationist YouTube video] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Duane Gish]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''For additional information please see the article: [[Atheism and Debate]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Creation vs. evolution debates]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]] (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”&lt;br /&gt;
Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally speaking, [[Atheism and Debate|leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists]] because creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/811/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]].  Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: &amp;quot;Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties...&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: &amp;quot;A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also:   [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]] and &lt;br /&gt;
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism]]'' and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, in the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{cquote|The CBS News reported the following:&lt;br /&gt;
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the aforementioned lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and the aforementioned counter evidential nature of the evolutionary paradigm, atheists and liberals persist in advocating the evolutionary paradigm.  The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolutionary paradigm is not surprising given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book &amp;quot;The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,&amp;quot; skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolutionary belief, irreligion, extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for creation science and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ &amp;quot;Understanding Evolution&amp;quot; website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he is not a [[creationism|creationist]], the atheist [[philosophy|philosopher]] John Gray admitted in 2008 in ''The Guardian'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into [[pseudoscience|pseudo-science]]. [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]]'s notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society The atheist delusion, John Gray, The Guardian, Friday 14 March 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins  ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Discovery Institute]] provides a transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: &amp;quot;What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DAWKINS: &amp;quot;Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ho, ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In &amp;quot;Message from the Designers&amp;quot;, Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins and Rael; &amp;quot;clear thinking&amp;quot; kindred spirits!&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/4589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist===&lt;br /&gt;
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stumped&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].&lt;br /&gt;
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.&lt;br /&gt;
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provide any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview  which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of a Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that &amp;quot;organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;SD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supppession of scientific inquiry concerning alternative theories of origins ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
see also: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]] (for more information please see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please see:  [[Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity]] [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent uptick of Lamarckism school of evolutionary thought ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As can be seen below, there has been an uptick in [[macroevolution]]ary [[Lamarckism]] [[pseudoscience]] due to [[microevolution]]ary processes/changes that have been discovered in organisms related to Lamarckism: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/epigenetics-and-darwin Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/mutations-epigenetics-information Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information] by Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, due to intellectual inertia, the [[Schools and evolution|evolutionist indoctrination]] of students into [[Neo-Darwinism]] (also called the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]]) and people's natural tendency to resist change, the neo-darwinian school of evolutionary thought is still dominant within the evolutionary biology community (see also: [[Paradigm|Paradigm shift]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The weight of evidence still supports the biblical [[creation]] model (see also: [[Creation science]]). See also: [[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Causes of evolutionary belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of articles have been written concerning the reasons why evolutionists commonly hold their evolutionary views:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-is-evolution-is-pushed-in-america.html Why is evolution pushed by dogmatic evolutionists?] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution Why do people believe in evolution?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/evolutionary-gut-feelings-belief-in.html Evolutionary gut feelings, &amp;quot;Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling&amp;quot;] (Cites study in ''Live Science'' article)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to belief in evolution] (cites Australian National University study)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. Evolution Videos ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. evolution news ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution news]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Further Reading (including free on-line versions) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Top-Evidences-God-Creation-ebook/dp/B00E4DS2J0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1380144491&amp;amp;sr=8-1&amp;amp;keywords=jason+browning Top 15 Evidences for God and Creation] by Jason Browning&lt;br /&gt;
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&amp;amp;products_id=2176&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 9780890511121&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872 &lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7&lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy'', Inquiry Press (Midland, MI), 1976. ISBN 978-0-918-112-02-6&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 0-8308-1324-1&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 080105852X&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Social effects of the theory of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Absolute-Cynical-Observations-Postmodern/dp/2980777447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1384179653&amp;amp;sr=8-3&amp;amp;keywords=flight+from+absolutes Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] by [[Paul Gosselin]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77k9QDQBi54 Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] - Paul Gosselin discusses his book (video)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other biblical creation-related publications ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation magazine]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, naturalism and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christianity and Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution quotes]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Science evolves]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links and other links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com Creation Ministries International] - Over 7,000 articles on the creation vs. evolution issue&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation vs. evolution news]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Other resources:''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/creation-answers Evidence and arguments against evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53 The Nine Great 'Proofs' for Evolution: and Why They Are All False!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm Human evolutionary theory]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm Theory of evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.windmillministries.org/theory-of-evolution Theory of evolution] by [[Windmill Ministries]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/ Intelligent Design vs. Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Social effects of Darwinism:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/eth_ev_pg.htm Problems with Ethics in an Evolutionary / Materialistic World-View]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Anti-Darwinism/creationist, French/English website:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Samizdat]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT: Evolution, theory of}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Life Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2157163</id>
		<title>Evolution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2157163"/>
		<updated>2025-09-08T17:44:52Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://electricscotland.com/history/glasgow/anec305.htm The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Darwin  - As told in Glasgow]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). In biology, evolution is understood as a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time from adaptations of organisms to their environments. The study of evolution can be performed on different scales: ''[[microevolution]]'' reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time (e.g. mutations, interbreeding), ''[[macroevolution]]'' reflects large-scale changes at the species level which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. [[Natural selection]] is one commonly cited mechanism for driving evolution, but there are others such a genetic drift.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/ Evolution - Nature (Journal)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]].  See also: [[Theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is often linked to Charles Darwin and [[natural selection]]. However, naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]]. Wallace eventually came to believe that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's views challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and allow for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Before 1864, Wallace also believed that man was a result of natural selection, but by 1869, Wallace had changed his view since he felt that natural selection was insufficient to craft man's features like rationality, and postulated that higher intelligences may have been involved in man's evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Malcolm Jay Kottler. [https://www.newdualism.org/papers/M.Kottler/Kottler-Isis1974.pdf Alfred Russel Wallace, the Origin of Man, and Spiritualism]. Isis, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 144-192 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society&lt;br /&gt;
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229369.&amp;quot;In 1864 Wallace was firmly committed to the action of natural selection alone in the development of man. In 1869 he first expressed publicly his new point of view that natural selection was unable to explain the origin of man and that higher intelligences guiding man's development were required.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Microevolution]] and natural selection are accepted to occur by all creationists,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory or in the wild.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC&lt;br /&gt;
*Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current ongoing long term evolutionary experiments such as the experiment on E.coli bacteria which &amp;quot;exceed 63,000 generations, equivalent to over 1 million years of human evolution&amp;quot; have not shown speciation or novel functions in the organism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Hofwegen DJ, Hovde CJ, Minnich SA.2016.Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. J Bacteriol198:.https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00831-15&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the [[creation]] versus evolution controversy. The [[fossil]] record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were cataloged and identified in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: &amp;quot;In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.icr.org/article/280/ More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists Excerpted from the New Book by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 28, 2022, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?'' which indicated: &amp;quot;A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of [[natural selection]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?''] by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian,  June 28, 2022&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Teaching evolution &amp;amp; views of experts==   &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:View from Levering Plaza.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|''Johns Hopkins University Press'' reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2024, the assistant to [[Russia]]n Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, former [[Chechen]] Prime Minister Muslim Khuchiev called for a ban on the teaching of Darwinian theory in schools at a meeting of the All-Russian Parents' Committee. &amp;quot;Everyone knows that this is an erroneous theory, it goes against [[religion]]. This is the first step, I believe, in the [[spiritual]] degradation of children.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://meduza.io/news/2024/09/20/pomoschnik-mishustina-predlozhil-ubrat-teoriyu-darvina-iz-shkolnoy-programmy-ideyu-podderzhal-pravoslavnyy-oligarh-konstantin-malofeev Mishustin's assistant suggested removing Darwin's theory from the school curriculum. The idea was supported by the &amp;quot;Orthodox oligarch&amp;quot; Konstantin Malofeev], Meduza, 20 September 2024. meduza.io&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9851&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that &amp;quot;Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2010, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} [[Johns Hopkins University]] Press reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[China]] has the world's largest [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] and the rapid growth of biblical [[creationism]]/[[Evangelical Christianity|Evangelical Christianity]] in China may have a significant impact on the number of individuals in the world who believe in evolution and also on [[global atheism]] (see: [[China and biblical creationism]] and [[Asian atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of natural selection==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of natural selection was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'' (1859) and also by Alfred Russel Wallace in his paper ''On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'' (1858). Wallace's works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker decided on a joint publication at the Linnean Society of London in 1858 of Wallace's paper together with an extract from Darwin's 1844 essay and his letter to Asa Gray and summarized:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 3, Issue 9, August 1858, Pages 45–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2311239#page/127/mode/1up 1858 Online link to Summary by Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, and both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society. Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. Extract from an unpublished Work on Species, by C. DARWIN, Esq., consisting of a portion of a Chapter entitled, &amp;quot;On the Variation of Organic Beings in a state of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species.&amp;quot;..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
II. Abstract of a Letter from C. DARWIN, Esq., to Prof. ASA GRAY, Boston, US, dated Down, September 5th, 1857...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
III. On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type. By ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE.''}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: &amp;quot;...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin was a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]]/[[agnosticism|agnostic]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin) ].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html Charles Darwin - The Truth]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or &amp;quot;survival of the fittest&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major difference between Darwin and Wallace is that Wallace argued that nature exhibited design and purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's view of evolution allows for an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life, some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution was incorporated later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of evolution==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Belief in evolution and intuition ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In January of 2012, the  ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: &amp;quot;They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to [[evolutionary indoctrination]] and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization [[Creation Ministries International]] created a [[Question evolution! campaign]] which poses [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use Arguments evolutionists should not use] by Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/ 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid] by Answers in Genesis&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mutations and the Life Sciences ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote concerning the theory of evolution: &amp;quot;The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;NorthWest Creation Network, [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Concerning various [[theories of evolution]], most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of Life|life first came about on earth]] although [[Theory of evolution and little consensus|there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.&amp;quot; Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have &amp;quot;stabilized&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grassé  regards the &amp;quot;unceasing mutations&amp;quot; to be &amp;quot;merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html Life Sciences]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,[http://creation.com/Whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-Lawrence-S-Lerner Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3835 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 6, Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creation scientists provide sound reasons why [[homology|the homology argument is not a valid argument]]. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; to the point where it is defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of &amp;quot;Evolution&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as &amp;quot;The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet&amp;quot; but it is very poorly done.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and equivocation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Biological diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|When [[Richard Dawkins]] was a young man, he recognized [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the originally created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Origin of life ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic entropy ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:John C Sanford.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The [[genetic entropy]] theory by [[Cornell University]] Professor Dr. [[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] on eroding [[genome]]s of all living organisms due to [[mutations]] inherited from one generation to the next is declared to be one of the major challenges to [[evolutionary theory]]. The central part of Sanford’s argument is that mutations, represented by spelling mistakes in [[DNA]], are accumulating so quickly in some creatures (and particularly in people) that [[natural selection]] cannot stop the ''functional degradation'' of the genome, let alone drive an evolutionary process that could lead for example, from apes into people.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web&lt;br /&gt;
|title=Genetic entropy and simple organisms: If genetic entropy is true, why do bacteria still exist?&lt;br /&gt;
|author=Robert Carter&lt;br /&gt;
|publisher=Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
|url=http://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms&lt;br /&gt;
|accessdate=2012-10-29}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sanford's book ''Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'' explains why human [[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/john-sanford John Sanford - bio] at [[Creation Ministries International]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic entropy ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the  ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'' in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'' (taken from the abstract): &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961 ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Genetic Code and Biological Information ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp Information Theory Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[William Dembski]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=118 Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[code|codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Dr. Brown also asserts that the &amp;quot;information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|No matter how many &amp;quot;bits&amp;quot; of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it &amp;quot;information&amp;quot; if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In [[computer science]], we call it a &amp;quot;program.&amp;quot; Another name for [[computer software]] is an &amp;quot;[[algorithm]].&amp;quot; No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology &amp;amp; Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742 Notes and References: Codes, Programs, and Information]&lt;br /&gt;
* PubMed Central (PMC), [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific consensus  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: &amp;quot;It happened.&amp;quot; Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], &amp;quot;Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&lt;br /&gt;
* Simon Conway Morris, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;amp;_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&amp;amp;_user=681891&amp;amp;_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&amp;amp;_rdoc=1&amp;amp;_fmt=&amp;amp;_orig=search&amp;amp;_sort=d&amp;amp;view=c&amp;amp;_acct=C000037419&amp;amp;_version=1&amp;amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;amp;_userid=681891&amp;amp;md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with [[molecule]]s or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/ Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends, There Is No Theory of Evolution, February 20, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species.&amp;quot; - [[Niles Eldredge]], &amp;quot;Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|Theory of Punctuated Equilibria]],&amp;quot; Simon &amp;amp; Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Through use and abuse of hidden [[postulate]]s, of bold, often ill-founded [[extrapolation]]s, a [[pseudoscience]] has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of [[biology]] and is leading astray many [[biochemistry|biochemists]] and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that [[theory|theoreticians]] put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their [[sectarianism]], purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
One of the regrettable consequences of Charles Darwin’s ''On the Origin of Species'' was the advent of the [[pseudoscience]] known as [[geopolitics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/geopolitics-ill-suited-for-challenges-of-today-endangers-global-economy-by-robert-skidelsky-2023-06 The Costly Return of Geopolitics], Robert Skidelsky, Jun 19, 2023. www.project-syndicate.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Conservative%27s_essays&amp;amp;oldid=2072209#International_politics_and_geopolitics User:Conservative's essays#International politics and geopolitics], August 16, 2024.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Modern evolutionary synthesis revision===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation on evolution‎ ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|170px|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Haeckel]]. Noted evolutionist and [[Stephen Gould]], who held a [[agnostic|agnostic]] worldview&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and promoted the notion of [[Non-Overlapping Magisteria|non-overlapping magesteria]], wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again. ... Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationism.org/wakefield/haeckel.htm &amp;quot;Another Evolution Fraud Exposed&amp;quot;] - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the [[NY Times]]  refers to Ernst Haeckel as the &amp;quot;celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical [[Atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: &amp;quot;I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Transitional Forms ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged [[fossils]] in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.halos.com/printer.htm?page=/book/ctm-07-e.htm Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; is &amp;quot;missing links&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin.jpg|alt=charles darwin's theory of evolution|right|thumb|205px|[[Charles Darwin]] wrote: &amp;quot;When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of &amp;quot;transitional forms.&amp;quot; Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? [[Geology]] assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because &amp;quot;only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Charles Darwin]], ''Origin of the Species'', [http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, &amp;quot;“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, &amp;quot;Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Edmund Leech, [http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241 Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and [[Geophysics]] at the University of Oklahoma wrote that &amp;quot;Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.&amp;quot; - David M. Raup, &amp;quot;Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,&amp;quot; ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late [[Harvard]] paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html References and Notes: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Paleoanthropology]] or [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Fossil Record quotes ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creationism|Creationists]] can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Christian Answers Network, [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html The Fossil Record - References]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html Notes and References: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.&amp;quot; - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html Early Man]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm Solly Zuckerman: Biography]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether&amp;quot;. Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes] and [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Additional fossil record quotes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Paleoanthropology ==&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see'': [[Paleoanthropology]] and [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nebraska Man.jpg|thumb|alt=human evolution|150px|right|[[Nebraska man]] was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Paleoanthropology]] is an interdisciplinary branch of [[anthropology]] that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and [[artifact]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058075/paleoanthropology Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at [[Yale]] University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at [[Harvard]] University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those Fossils Are A Problem]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book ''Origins'' in the journal ''American Scientist'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, &amp;quot;theory&amp;quot; - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates &amp;quot;data&amp;quot;. ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist and Harvard professor [[Richard Lewontin]] wrote in 1995 that &amp;quot;Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&amp;amp;article=153 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the September 2005 issue of [[National Geographic]], Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology &amp;quot;has again become a rather glorious mess.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=126&amp;amp;article=1555 ''The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[National Geographic]] (online edition), Joel Achenbach, [http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_who.html PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, &amp;quot;We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=823 &amp;quot;Human Evolution&amp;quot; An Update]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Answers in Genesis]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/127 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|300px|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species.]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations do produce “[[microevolution]],” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the evolutionary [[paradigm]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of their key resources on this matter are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Punctuated Equilibrium ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:StephenGould.jpg|left|thumbnail|170px|[[Stephen Jay Gould]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]] was developed and its chief proponents were [[Stephen Gould]], Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley.  According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium &amp;quot;asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented.  In 1930, Austin H. Clark,  an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called [[zoogenesis]] which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Prior to publishing his work entitled ''The New Evolution: Zoogenesis'', Clark wrote in a journal article published in the ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' that &amp;quot;so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation#endRef4&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1995, there was an essay in the ''New York Review of Books'' by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-Darwinists]], and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Implausible Explanations ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]] &lt;br /&gt;
Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible &amp;quot;just so stories&amp;quot; to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
A well-known example of a &amp;quot;just so story&amp;quot; is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled &amp;quot;Difficulties on Theory&amp;quot; in which he stated:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to [[materialism]]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.&amp;quot; - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:&lt;br /&gt;
*various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/5044&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/146/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[flagellum|bacterial flagellum]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[homing]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/wings-on-the-wind  Wings on the wind&lt;br /&gt;
How do migrating birds know exactly when, and where, to go?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the origin of flight in the animal kingdom&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* human [[brain]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-brain-brainier-than-believed-before&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-human-bodygods-masterpiece&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/mind-by-design-peter-line-interview&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[migration]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-magnificent-migrating-monarch&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[whale]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/whale-explodes-fossil-theory&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Venus flytrap]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/4340&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Bombardier beetle]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, biochemist [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.&amp;quot; - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statements of Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article:'' [[Intelligent design]] and [[Argument from beauty]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Autumn.jpg|201px|right|thumbnail|[[Autumn]] foliage is one of the many of examples of beauty in [[God]]'s [[creation]].  See also: [[Argument from beauty]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Phillip E. Johnson]] cites [[Francis Crick]] in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.&amp;quot; - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, &amp;quot;Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.&amp;quot; Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age.&amp;quot; - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin monkey cartoon.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheists and views of design ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?''],'' New York Times'', October 17, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed] by  David Catchpoole, [[Creation Ministries International]], Published: 16 July 2009&lt;br /&gt;
*Atheist [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] made the candid confession: &amp;quot;As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise.&amp;quot; Source: ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility'' By Dean Turner, page 109&lt;br /&gt;
*The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' declares: &amp;quot;In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away.'(Argyll 1885, 244)[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html Notes to Teleological Arguments for God's Existence]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Argument from beauty ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detractors of Evolution and the Scientific Journals ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer-reviewed journals that favor the creationist position).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3873/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unqualified to be a scientific theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; stated that Darwinism is &amp;quot;not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: &amp;quot;Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch &amp;amp; Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted&lt;br /&gt;
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that &amp;quot;there has never been a theory of evolution&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and the [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], argue for [[atheism]] and evolution with religious fervor (See also: [[Atheism and evolution]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions that make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion &amp;quot;Atheism: A religion&amp;quot;], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Please see: [http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]and [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] and [[Atheism is a religion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism is a religion and its legal implications as far as the teaching of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Paul gosselin.JPG|thumbnail|right|200px|The Canadian [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Paul Gosselin]] points out that evolution is a [[secular]] origins [[myth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm Myths of Origin and the Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution is a Religion and Not Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution is a religion]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michael Ruse]], the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the leading American science science journal ''Science'', Michael Ruse published an article in 2003 entitled ''Is Evolution a Secular Religion?''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Is Evolution a Secular Religion?] by Dr. [[Michael Ruse]], ''Science'',  March 7, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationist opponents of evolution commonly point out that evolution is a religion and not science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; *[http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution The religious nature of evolution] by Dr. [[Carl Wieland]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-religious Religious Nature of Evolution and its Attack on Christianity]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.icr.org/article/455/ Evolution is a religion - not science] by Dr. [[Henry Morris]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-as-religion Evolution as religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Evolution is a religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution as a secular origins myth ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is a secular origins myth of [[atheism|atheists]], [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and members of other [[liberal Christianity|theologically liberal]] religious sects (theologically [[liberal]] religious sects often dismiss out of hand various [[supernatural]] events in history due to their hostility towards [[God]] and the supernatural). See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[religion]] of [[evolutionism]] is contrary to  [[creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists - Question 15 deals with the fact that evolution is a religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Wolfram]] in his book ''A New Kind of Science'' has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, &amp;quot;increasingly been applied outside of biology.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Lysenkoism===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regard to atheistic communism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong]] caused famines and the death of millions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Medical Science===&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of [[medicine|medical science]]. According to Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]] the list of [[vestigial organs]] in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Astronomy===&lt;br /&gt;
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the &amp;quot;evolution of the universe&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MoIzN....Q....Z&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995deun.book.....S&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3836&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|““...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html Strange Planets] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html Star Births? Stellar Evolution?] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html Galaxies] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concerning the [[Milky Way]] galaxy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;. . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, &amp;quot;The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way,&amp;quot; American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/547/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe [[paradigm]] explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Origin of Life===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/the-origin-of-life-a-problem-for-evolution Origin of life - a problem for evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9057170/Oparin,%20Aleksandr&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of the evolutionary paradigm, but this is not the case  (see: [https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Young Earth Creationism]] and [[Geologic system]]'' and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sarfati, 1999, [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth Chapter 8, How old is the earth?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[William R. Corliss]] was a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Corliss cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young Earth Creationism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the earth and the universe]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief|Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lion6.jpg|thumb|210px|right|Until the 1970s the scientific consensus was wrong on how [[lion]]s killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Bible]] was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
A 1997 [[Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere], Kenneth Chang, ''ABCNews.com'', 1999.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As noted earlier, in 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Poll results regarding the number of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view.  Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.expelledthemovie.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx Scientists and belief]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. declared: &amp;quot;...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious ''British Medical Journal'' begun in 1828 chose the name ''Lancet'' to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote: &amp;quot;There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&amp;amp;cmd=Retrieve&amp;amp;dopt=AbstractPlus&amp;amp;list_uids=1932964&amp;amp;query_hl=6&amp;amp;itool=pubmed_docsum]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/ Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge  beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1718/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information see: [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and  [[Atheism, evolution and morality]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]''&lt;br /&gt;
‎&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to [[Social Darwinism]], [[Nazism]] and [[Communism]] and has also been a source of racism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/454/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n1p04.htm&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3031/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/55/&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Belief in evolution and sexual immorality ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] and [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue that highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of [[abortion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, according to [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the [[sexual revolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism  and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution and Nazism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The staunch evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] admitted the following: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, &amp;quot;Ontogeny and Phylogeny,&amp;quot; Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler]] wrote the following [[Evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] material in his work ''[[Mein Kampf]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/15/a-church-apology-to-darwin/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] also wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Josef Mengele]]'s evolutionary thinking was in accordance with [[Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]] theories that [[Adolph Hitler]] and a number of [[German]] academics found appealing.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/herero-genocide Herero Genecide]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the &amp;quot;unworthy life&amp;quot;  branch of evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link The Darwin–Hitler connection]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with [[Nazi]] death camps and the [[Holocaust]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mengele obtained an infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at [[Auschwitz]]-Birkenau.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding [[Nazism]] and the theory of evolution: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … [[Jew]]s, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is indeed [[history|historical]] precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal [[atheism|atheist]] [[Joseph Stalin]] was greatly influenced by the work of [[Charles Darwin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century [[Communism|Communists]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, &amp;quot;Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history.&amp;quot; Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and communism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Governments under the banner of [[atheism|atheistic]] [[communism]] have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr.  R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government).  Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and racism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary racism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of [[racism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Charles Darwin and [[Thomas Huxley]] contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th-century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work  ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, ''The Descent of Man'', Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg|thumb|[[Ota Benga]] in the Bronx Zoo]]&lt;br /&gt;
John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal ''Science'', the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The [[Africa]]n was inferior — he represented the missing link between [[ape]] and Teuton.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harvard University's [[Stephen Jay Gould]] stated, &amp;quot;Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Recent [[racism]] directed at [[Michelle Obama]] was the result of [[evolutionary racism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/obama-racism-row&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the ''Psychology Today'' website called ''The Scientific Fundamentalist''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.scribd.com/doc/55558908/Why-Are-Black-Women-Rated-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-But-Black-Men-Are-Rated-Better-Looking-Than-Other-Men&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kanazawa has a &amp;quot;Savanna principle&amp;quot; hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/38933&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and brutality in war ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian Jacques Barzun observed how Darwinism caused the horrendous brutality of the wars leading up to [[WWI]]: &amp;quot;Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens — all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/making-a-monkey-out-of-darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Common behavior of online evolutionists ===&lt;br /&gt;
In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] was &amp;quot;embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given that atheists often have poor social skills and are often contentious, it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter (See: [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social skills]] and [[Atheist factions]]). In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote: &amp;quot;Scienceblogger [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys Chad Orzel described]  the commentators on [[PZ Myers]] ' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as &amp;quot;screechy monkeys.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, there is a widespread problem with [[Atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullying]] on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and [[creationism|creationist]] YouTube channels.  [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video Creationist YouTube video] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Duane Gish]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''For additional information please see the article: [[Atheism and Debate]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Creation vs. evolution debates]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]] (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”&lt;br /&gt;
Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally speaking, [[Atheism and Debate|leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists]] because creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/811/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]].  Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: &amp;quot;Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties...&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: &amp;quot;A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also:   [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]] and &lt;br /&gt;
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism]]'' and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, in the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{cquote|The CBS News reported the following:&lt;br /&gt;
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the aforementioned lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and the aforementioned counter evidential nature of the evolutionary paradigm, atheists and liberals persist in advocating the evolutionary paradigm.  The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolutionary paradigm is not surprising given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book &amp;quot;The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,&amp;quot; skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolutionary belief, irreligion, extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for creation science and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ &amp;quot;Understanding Evolution&amp;quot; website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he is not a [[creationism|creationist]], the atheist [[philosophy|philosopher]] John Gray admitted in 2008 in ''The Guardian'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into [[pseudoscience|pseudo-science]]. [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]]'s notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society The atheist delusion, John Gray, The Guardian, Friday 14 March 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins  ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Discovery Institute]] provides a transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: &amp;quot;What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DAWKINS: &amp;quot;Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ho, ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In &amp;quot;Message from the Designers&amp;quot;, Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins and Rael; &amp;quot;clear thinking&amp;quot; kindred spirits!&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/4589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist===&lt;br /&gt;
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stumped&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].&lt;br /&gt;
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.&lt;br /&gt;
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provide any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview  which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of a Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that &amp;quot;organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;SD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supppession of scientific inquiry concerning alternative theories of origins ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
see also: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]] (for more information please see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please see:  [[Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity]] [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent uptick of Lamarckism school of evolutionary thought ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As can be seen below, there has been an uptick in [[macroevolution]]ary [[Lamarckism]] [[pseudoscience]] due to [[microevolution]]ary processes/changes that have been discovered in organisms related to Lamarckism: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/epigenetics-and-darwin Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/mutations-epigenetics-information Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information] by Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, due to intellectual inertia, the [[Schools and evolution|evolutionist indoctrination]] of students into [[Neo-Darwinism]] (also called the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]]) and people's natural tendency to resist change, the neo-darwinian school of evolutionary thought is still dominant within the evolutionary biology community (see also: [[Paradigm|Paradigm shift]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The weight of evidence still supports the biblical [[creation]] model (see also: [[Creation science]]). See also: [[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Causes of evolutionary belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of articles have been written concerning the reasons why evolutionists commonly hold their evolutionary views:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-is-evolution-is-pushed-in-america.html Why is evolution pushed by dogmatic evolutionists?] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution Why do people believe in evolution?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/evolutionary-gut-feelings-belief-in.html Evolutionary gut feelings, &amp;quot;Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling&amp;quot;] (Cites study in ''Live Science'' article)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to belief in evolution] (cites Australian National University study)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. Evolution Videos ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. evolution news ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution news]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Further Reading (including free on-line versions) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Top-Evidences-God-Creation-ebook/dp/B00E4DS2J0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1380144491&amp;amp;sr=8-1&amp;amp;keywords=jason+browning Top 15 Evidences for God and Creation] by Jason Browning&lt;br /&gt;
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&amp;amp;products_id=2176&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 9780890511121&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872 &lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7&lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy'', Inquiry Press (Midland, MI), 1976. ISBN 978-0-918-112-02-6&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 0-8308-1324-1&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 080105852X&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Social effects of the theory of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Absolute-Cynical-Observations-Postmodern/dp/2980777447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1384179653&amp;amp;sr=8-3&amp;amp;keywords=flight+from+absolutes Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] by [[Paul Gosselin]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77k9QDQBi54 Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] - Paul Gosselin discusses his book (video)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other biblical creation-related publications ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation magazine]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, naturalism and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christianity and Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution quotes]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Science evolves]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links and other links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com Creation Ministries International] - Over 7,000 articles on the creation vs. evolution issue&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation vs. evolution news]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Other resources:''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/creation-answers Evidence and arguments against evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53 The Nine Great 'Proofs' for Evolution: and Why They Are All False!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm Human evolutionary theory]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm Theory of evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.windmillministries.org/theory-of-evolution Theory of evolution] by [[Windmill Ministries]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/ Intelligent Design vs. Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Social effects of Darwinism:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/eth_ev_pg.htm Problems with Ethics in an Evolutionary / Materialistic World-View]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Anti-Darwinism/creationist, French/English website:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Samizdat]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT: Evolution, theory of}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Life Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2157155</id>
		<title>Evolution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2157155"/>
		<updated>2025-09-08T17:08:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://electricscotland.com/history/glasgow/anec305.htm The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Darwin  - As told in Glasgow]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). In biology, evolution is understood as a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time from adaptations of organisms to their environments. The study of evolution can be performed on different scales: ''[[microevolution]]'' reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time (e.g. mutations, interbreeding), ''[[macroevolution]]'' reflects large-scale changes at the species level which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. [[Natural selection]] is one commonly cited mechanism for driving evolution, but there are others such a genetic drift.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/ Evolution - Nature (Journal)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]].  See also: [[Theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is often linked to Charles Darwin and [[natural selection]]. However, naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]]. Wallace eventually came to believe that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's views challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and allow for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Before 1864, Wallace also believed that man was a result of natural selection, but by 1869, Wallace had changed his view since he felt that natural selection was insufficient to craft man's features like rationality, and postulated that higher intelligences may have been involved in man's evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Malcolm Jay Kottler. [https://www.newdualism.org/papers/M.Kottler/Kottler-Isis1974.pdf Alfred Russel Wallace, the Origin of Man, and Spiritualism]. Isis, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 144-192 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society&lt;br /&gt;
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229369.&amp;quot;In 1864 Wallace was firmly committed to the action of natural selection alone in the development of man. In 1869 he first expressed publicly his new point of view that natural selection was unable to explain the origin of man and that higher intelligences guiding man's development were required.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Microevolution]] and natural selection are accepted to occur by all creationists,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory or in the wild.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC&lt;br /&gt;
*Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current ongoing long term evolutionary experiments such as the experiment on E.coli bacteria which &amp;quot;exceed 63,000 generations, equivalent to over 1 million years of human evolution&amp;quot; have not shown speciation or novel functions in the organism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Hofwegen DJ, Hovde CJ, Minnich SA.2016.Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. J Bacteriol198:.https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00831-15&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the [[creation]] versus evolution controversy. The [[fossil]] record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were cataloged and identified in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: &amp;quot;In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.icr.org/article/280/ More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists Excerpted from the New Book by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 28, 2022, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?'' which indicated: &amp;quot;A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of [[natural selection]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?''] by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian,  June 28, 2022&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Teaching evolution &amp;amp; views of experts==   &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:View from Levering Plaza.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|''Johns Hopkins University Press'' reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2024, the assistant to [[Russia]]n Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, former [[Chechen]] Prime Minister Muslim Khuchiev called for a ban on the teaching of Darwinian theory in schools at a meeting of the All-Russian Parents' Committee. &amp;quot;Everyone knows that this is an erroneous theory, it goes against [[religion]]. This is the first step, I believe, in the [[spiritual]] degradation of children.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://meduza.io/news/2024/09/20/pomoschnik-mishustina-predlozhil-ubrat-teoriyu-darvina-iz-shkolnoy-programmy-ideyu-podderzhal-pravoslavnyy-oligarh-konstantin-malofeev Mishustin's assistant suggested removing Darwin's theory from the school curriculum. The idea was supported by the &amp;quot;Orthodox oligarch&amp;quot; Konstantin Malofeev], Meduza, 20 September 2024. meduza.io&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9851&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that &amp;quot;Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2010, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} [[Johns Hopkins University]] Press reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[China]] has the world's largest [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] and the rapid growth of biblical [[creationism]]/[[Evangelical Christianity|Evangelical Christianity]] in China may have a significant impact on the number of individuals in the world who believe in evolution and also on [[global atheism]] (see: [[China and biblical creationism]] and [[Asian atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of natural selection==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of natural selection was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'' (1859) and also by Alfred Russel Wallace in his paper ''On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'' (1858). Wallace's works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker decided on a joint publication at the Linnean Society of London in 1858 of Wallace's paper together with an extract from Darwin's 1844 essay and his letter to Asa Gray and summarized:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 3, Issue 9, August 1858, Pages 45–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2311239#page/127/mode/1up 1858 Online link to Summary by Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, and both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society. Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. Extract from an unpublished Work on Species, by C. DARWIN, Esq., consisting of a portion of a Chapter entitled, &amp;quot;On the Variation of Organic Beings in a state of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species.&amp;quot;..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
II. Abstract of a Letter from C. DARWIN, Esq., to Prof. ASA GRAY, Boston, US, dated Down, September 5th, 1857...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
III. On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type. By ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE.''}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: &amp;quot;...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin was a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]]/[[agnosticism|agnostic]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin) ].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html Charles Darwin - The Truth]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or &amp;quot;survival of the fittest&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major difference between Darwin and Wallace is that Wallace argued that nature exhibited design and purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's view of evolution allows for an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life, some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution was incorporated later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of evolution==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Belief in evolution and intuition ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In January of 2012, the  ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: &amp;quot;They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to [[evolutionary indoctrination]] and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization [[Creation Ministries International]] created a [[Question evolution! campaign]] which poses [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use Arguments evolutionists should not use] by Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/ 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid] by Answers in Genesis&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mutations and the Life Sciences ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote concerning the theory of evolution: &amp;quot;The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;NorthWest Creation Network, [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Concerning various [[theories of evolution]], most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of Life|life first came about on earth]] although [[Theory of evolution and little consensus|there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.&amp;quot; Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have &amp;quot;stabilized&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grassé  regards the &amp;quot;unceasing mutations&amp;quot; to be &amp;quot;merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html Life Sciences]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,[http://creation.com/Whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-Lawrence-S-Lerner Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3835 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 6, Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creation scientists provide sound reasons why [[homology|the homology argument is not a valid argument]]. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; to the point where it is defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of &amp;quot;Evolution&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as &amp;quot;The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet&amp;quot; but it is very poorly done.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and equivocation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Biological diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|When [[Richard Dawkins]] was a young man, he recognized [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the originally created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Origin of life ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic entropy ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:John C Sanford.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The [[genetic entropy]] theory by [[Cornell University]] Professor Dr. [[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] on eroding [[genome]]s of all living organisms due to [[mutations]] inherited from one generation to the next is declared to be one of the major challenges to [[evolutionary theory]]. The central part of Sanford’s argument is that mutations, represented by spelling mistakes in [[DNA]], are accumulating so quickly in some creatures (and particularly in people) that [[natural selection]] cannot stop the ''functional degradation'' of the genome, let alone drive an evolutionary process that could lead for example, from apes into people.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web&lt;br /&gt;
|title=Genetic entropy and simple organisms: If genetic entropy is true, why do bacteria still exist?&lt;br /&gt;
|author=Robert Carter&lt;br /&gt;
|publisher=Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
|url=http://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms&lt;br /&gt;
|accessdate=2012-10-29}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sanford's book ''Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'' explains why human [[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/john-sanford John Sanford - bio] at [[Creation Ministries International]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic entropy ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the  ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'' in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'' (taken from the abstract): &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961 ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Genetic Code and Biological Information ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp Information Theory Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[William Dembski]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=118 Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[code|codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Dr. Brown also asserts that the &amp;quot;information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|No matter how many &amp;quot;bits&amp;quot; of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it &amp;quot;information&amp;quot; if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In [[computer science]], we call it a &amp;quot;program.&amp;quot; Another name for [[computer software]] is an &amp;quot;[[algorithm]].&amp;quot; No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology &amp;amp; Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742 Notes and References: Codes, Programs, and Information]&lt;br /&gt;
* PubMed Central (PMC), [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific consensus  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: &amp;quot;It happened.&amp;quot; Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], &amp;quot;Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&lt;br /&gt;
* Simon Conway Morris, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;amp;_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&amp;amp;_user=681891&amp;amp;_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&amp;amp;_rdoc=1&amp;amp;_fmt=&amp;amp;_orig=search&amp;amp;_sort=d&amp;amp;view=c&amp;amp;_acct=C000037419&amp;amp;_version=1&amp;amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;amp;_userid=681891&amp;amp;md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with [[molecule]]s or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/ Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends, There Is No Theory of Evolution, February 20, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species.&amp;quot; - [[Niles Eldredge]], &amp;quot;Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|Theory of Punctuated Equilibria]],&amp;quot; Simon &amp;amp; Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Through use and abuse of hidden [[postulate]]s, of bold, often ill-founded [[extrapolation]]s, a [[pseudoscience]] has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of [[biology]] and is leading astray many [[biochemistry|biochemists]] and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that [[theory|theoreticians]] put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their [[sectarianism]], purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
One of the regrettable consequences of Charles Darwin’s ''On the Origin of Species'' was the advent of the [[pseudoscience]] known as [[geopolitics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/geopolitics-ill-suited-for-challenges-of-today-endangers-global-economy-by-robert-skidelsky-2023-06 The Costly Return of Geopolitics], Robert Skidelsky, Jun 19, 2023. www.project-syndicate.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Conservative%27s_essays&amp;amp;oldid=2072209#International_politics_and_geopolitics User:Conservative's essays#International politics and geopolitics], August 16, 2024.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Modern evolutionary synthesis revision===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation on evolution‎ ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|170px|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Haeckel]]. Noted evolutionist and [[Stephen Gould]], who held a [[agnostic|agnostic]] worldview&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and promoted the notion of [[Non-Overlapping Magisteria|non-overlapping magesteria]], wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again. ... Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationism.org/wakefield/haeckel.htm &amp;quot;Another Evolution Fraud Exposed&amp;quot;] - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the [[NY Times]]  refers to Ernst Haeckel as the &amp;quot;celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical [[Atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: &amp;quot;I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Transitional Forms ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged [[fossils]] in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.halos.com/printer.htm?page=/book/ctm-07-e.htm Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; is &amp;quot;missing links&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin.jpg|alt=charles darwin's theory of evolution|right|thumb|205px|[[Charles Darwin]] wrote: &amp;quot;When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of &amp;quot;transitional forms.&amp;quot; Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? [[Geology]] assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because &amp;quot;only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Charles Darwin]], ''Origin of the Species'', [http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, &amp;quot;“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, &amp;quot;Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Edmund Leech, [http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241 Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and [[Geophysics]] at the University of Oklahoma wrote that &amp;quot;Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.&amp;quot; - David M. Raup, &amp;quot;Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,&amp;quot; ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late [[Harvard]] paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html References and Notes: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Paleoanthropology]] or [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Fossil Record quotes ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creationism|Creationists]] can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Christian Answers Network, [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html The Fossil Record - References]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html Notes and References: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.&amp;quot; - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html Early Man]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm Solly Zuckerman: Biography]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether&amp;quot;. Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes] and [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Additional fossil record quotes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Paleoanthropology ==&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see'': [[Paleoanthropology]] and [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nebraska Man.jpg|thumb|alt=human evolution|150px|right|[[Nebraska man]] was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Paleoanthropology]] is an interdisciplinary branch of [[anthropology]] that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and [[artifact]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058075/paleoanthropology Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at [[Yale]] University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at [[Harvard]] University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those Fossils Are A Problem]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book ''Origins'' in the journal ''American Scientist'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, &amp;quot;theory&amp;quot; - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates &amp;quot;data&amp;quot;. ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist and Harvard professor [[Richard Lewontin]] wrote in 1995 that &amp;quot;Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&amp;amp;article=153 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the September 2005 issue of [[National Geographic]], Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology &amp;quot;has again become a rather glorious mess.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=126&amp;amp;article=1555 ''The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[National Geographic]] (online edition), Joel Achenbach, [http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_who.html PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, &amp;quot;We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=823 &amp;quot;Human Evolution&amp;quot; An Update]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Answers in Genesis]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/127 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|300px|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species.]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations do produce “[[microevolution]],” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the evolutionary [[paradigm]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of their key resources on this matter are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Punctuated Equilibrium ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:StephenGould.jpg|left|thumbnail|170px|[[Stephen Jay Gould]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]] was developed and its chief proponents were [[Stephen Gould]], Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley.  According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium &amp;quot;asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented.  In 1930, Austin H. Clark,  an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called [[zoogenesis]] which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Prior to publishing his work entitled ''The New Evolution: Zoogenesis'', Clark wrote in a journal article published in the ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' that &amp;quot;so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation#endRef4&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1995, there was an essay in the ''New York Review of Books'' by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-Darwinists]], and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]] &lt;br /&gt;
Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible &amp;quot;just so stories&amp;quot; to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
A well-known example of a &amp;quot;just so story&amp;quot; is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled &amp;quot;Difficulties on Theory&amp;quot; in which he stated:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to [[materialism]]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.&amp;quot; - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:&lt;br /&gt;
*various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/5044&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/146/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[flagellum|bacterial flagellum]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[homing]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/wings-on-the-wind  Wings on the wind&lt;br /&gt;
How do migrating birds know exactly when, and where, to go?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the origin of flight in the animal kingdom&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* human [[brain]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-brain-brainier-than-believed-before&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-human-bodygods-masterpiece&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/mind-by-design-peter-line-interview&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[migration]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-magnificent-migrating-monarch&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[whale]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/whale-explodes-fossil-theory&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Venus flytrap]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/4340&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Bombardier beetle]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, biochemist [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.&amp;quot; - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statements of Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article:'' [[Intelligent design]] and [[Argument from beauty]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Autumn.jpg|201px|right|thumbnail|[[Autumn]] foliage is one of the many of examples of beauty in [[God]]'s [[creation]].  See also: [[Argument from beauty]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Phillip E. Johnson]] cites [[Francis Crick]] in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.&amp;quot; - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, &amp;quot;Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.&amp;quot; Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age.&amp;quot; - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin monkey cartoon.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== A significant portion of atheists see their lives and the world being the product of design ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?''],'' New York Times'', October 17, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed] by  David Catchpoole, [[Creation Ministries International]], Published: 16 July 2009&lt;br /&gt;
*Atheist [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] made the candid confession: &amp;quot;As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise.&amp;quot; Source: ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility'' By Dean Turner, page 109&lt;br /&gt;
*The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' declares: &amp;quot;In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away.'(Argyll 1885, 244)[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html Notes to Teleological Arguments for God's Existence]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Argument from beauty ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detractors of Evolution and the Scientific Journals ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer-reviewed journals that favor the creationist position).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3873/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unqualified to be a scientific theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; stated that Darwinism is &amp;quot;not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: &amp;quot;Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch &amp;amp; Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted&lt;br /&gt;
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that &amp;quot;there has never been a theory of evolution&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and the [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], argue for [[atheism]] and evolution with religious fervor (See also: [[Atheism and evolution]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions that make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion &amp;quot;Atheism: A religion&amp;quot;], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Please see: [http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]and [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] and [[Atheism is a religion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism is a religion and its legal implications as far as the teaching of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Paul gosselin.JPG|thumbnail|right|200px|The Canadian [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Paul Gosselin]] points out that evolution is a [[secular]] origins [[myth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm Myths of Origin and the Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution is a Religion and Not Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution is a religion]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michael Ruse]], the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the leading American science science journal ''Science'', Michael Ruse published an article in 2003 entitled ''Is Evolution a Secular Religion?''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Is Evolution a Secular Religion?] by Dr. [[Michael Ruse]], ''Science'',  March 7, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationist opponents of evolution commonly point out that evolution is a religion and not science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; *[http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution The religious nature of evolution] by Dr. [[Carl Wieland]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-religious Religious Nature of Evolution and its Attack on Christianity]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.icr.org/article/455/ Evolution is a religion - not science] by Dr. [[Henry Morris]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-as-religion Evolution as religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Evolution is a religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution as a secular origins myth ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is a secular origins myth of [[atheism|atheists]], [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and members of other [[liberal Christianity|theologically liberal]] religious sects (theologically [[liberal]] religious sects often dismiss out of hand various [[supernatural]] events in history due to their hostility towards [[God]] and the supernatural). See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[religion]] of [[evolutionism]] is contrary to  [[creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists - Question 15 deals with the fact that evolution is a religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Wolfram]] in his book ''A New Kind of Science'' has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, &amp;quot;increasingly been applied outside of biology.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Lysenkoism===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regard to atheistic communism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong]] caused famines and the death of millions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Medical Science===&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of [[medicine|medical science]]. According to Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]] the list of [[vestigial organs]] in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Astronomy===&lt;br /&gt;
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the &amp;quot;evolution of the universe&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MoIzN....Q....Z&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995deun.book.....S&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3836&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|““...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html Strange Planets] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html Star Births? Stellar Evolution?] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html Galaxies] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concerning the [[Milky Way]] galaxy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;. . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, &amp;quot;The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way,&amp;quot; American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/547/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe [[paradigm]] explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Origin of Life===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/the-origin-of-life-a-problem-for-evolution Origin of life - a problem for evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9057170/Oparin,%20Aleksandr&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of the evolutionary paradigm, but this is not the case  (see: [https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Young Earth Creationism]] and [[Geologic system]]'' and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sarfati, 1999, [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth Chapter 8, How old is the earth?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[William R. Corliss]] was a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Corliss cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young Earth Creationism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the earth and the universe]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief|Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lion6.jpg|thumb|210px|right|Until the 1970s the scientific consensus was wrong on how [[lion]]s killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Bible]] was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
A 1997 [[Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere], Kenneth Chang, ''ABCNews.com'', 1999.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As noted earlier, in 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Poll results regarding the number of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view.  Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.expelledthemovie.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx Scientists and belief]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. declared: &amp;quot;...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious ''British Medical Journal'' begun in 1828 chose the name ''Lancet'' to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote: &amp;quot;There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&amp;amp;cmd=Retrieve&amp;amp;dopt=AbstractPlus&amp;amp;list_uids=1932964&amp;amp;query_hl=6&amp;amp;itool=pubmed_docsum]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/ Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge  beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1718/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information see: [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and  [[Atheism, evolution and morality]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]''&lt;br /&gt;
‎&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to [[Social Darwinism]], [[Nazism]] and [[Communism]] and has also been a source of racism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/454/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n1p04.htm&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3031/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/55/&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Belief in evolution and sexual immorality ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] and [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue that highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of [[abortion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, according to [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the [[sexual revolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism  and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution and Nazism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The staunch evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] admitted the following: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, &amp;quot;Ontogeny and Phylogeny,&amp;quot; Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler]] wrote the following [[Evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] material in his work ''[[Mein Kampf]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/15/a-church-apology-to-darwin/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] also wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Josef Mengele]]'s evolutionary thinking was in accordance with [[Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]] theories that [[Adolph Hitler]] and a number of [[German]] academics found appealing.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/herero-genocide Herero Genecide]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the &amp;quot;unworthy life&amp;quot;  branch of evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link The Darwin–Hitler connection]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with [[Nazi]] death camps and the [[Holocaust]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mengele obtained an infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at [[Auschwitz]]-Birkenau.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding [[Nazism]] and the theory of evolution: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … [[Jew]]s, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is indeed [[history|historical]] precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal [[atheism|atheist]] [[Joseph Stalin]] was greatly influenced by the work of [[Charles Darwin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century [[Communism|Communists]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, &amp;quot;Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history.&amp;quot; Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and communism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Governments under the banner of [[atheism|atheistic]] [[communism]] have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr.  R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government).  Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and racism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary racism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of [[racism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Charles Darwin and [[Thomas Huxley]] contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th-century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work  ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, ''The Descent of Man'', Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg|thumb|[[Ota Benga]] in the Bronx Zoo]]&lt;br /&gt;
John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal ''Science'', the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The [[Africa]]n was inferior — he represented the missing link between [[ape]] and Teuton.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harvard University's [[Stephen Jay Gould]] stated, &amp;quot;Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Recent [[racism]] directed at [[Michelle Obama]] was the result of [[evolutionary racism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/obama-racism-row&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the ''Psychology Today'' website called ''The Scientific Fundamentalist''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.scribd.com/doc/55558908/Why-Are-Black-Women-Rated-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-But-Black-Men-Are-Rated-Better-Looking-Than-Other-Men&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kanazawa has a &amp;quot;Savanna principle&amp;quot; hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/38933&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and brutality in war ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian Jacques Barzun observed how Darwinism caused the horrendous brutality of the wars leading up to [[WWI]]: &amp;quot;Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens — all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/making-a-monkey-out-of-darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Common behavior of online evolutionists ===&lt;br /&gt;
In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] was &amp;quot;embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given that atheists often have poor social skills and are often contentious, it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter (See: [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social skills]] and [[Atheist factions]]). In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote: &amp;quot;Scienceblogger [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys Chad Orzel described]  the commentators on [[PZ Myers]] ' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as &amp;quot;screechy monkeys.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, there is a widespread problem with [[Atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullying]] on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and [[creationism|creationist]] YouTube channels.  [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video Creationist YouTube video] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Duane Gish]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''For additional information please see the article: [[Atheism and Debate]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Creation vs. evolution debates]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]] (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”&lt;br /&gt;
Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally speaking, [[Atheism and Debate|leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists]] because creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/811/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]].  Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: &amp;quot;Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties...&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: &amp;quot;A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also:   [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]] and &lt;br /&gt;
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism]]'' and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, in the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{cquote|The CBS News reported the following:&lt;br /&gt;
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the aforementioned lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and the aforementioned counter evidential nature of the evolutionary paradigm, atheists and liberals persist in advocating the evolutionary paradigm.  The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolutionary paradigm is not surprising given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book &amp;quot;The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,&amp;quot; skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolutionary belief, irreligion, extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for creation science and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ &amp;quot;Understanding Evolution&amp;quot; website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he is not a [[creationism|creationist]], the atheist [[philosophy|philosopher]] John Gray admitted in 2008 in ''The Guardian'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into [[pseudoscience|pseudo-science]]. [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]]'s notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society The atheist delusion, John Gray, The Guardian, Friday 14 March 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins  ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Discovery Institute]] provides a transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: &amp;quot;What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DAWKINS: &amp;quot;Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ho, ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In &amp;quot;Message from the Designers&amp;quot;, Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins and Rael; &amp;quot;clear thinking&amp;quot; kindred spirits!&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/4589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist===&lt;br /&gt;
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stumped&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].&lt;br /&gt;
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.&lt;br /&gt;
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provide any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview  which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of a Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that &amp;quot;organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;SD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supppession of scientific inquiry concerning alternative theories of origins ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
see also: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]] (for more information please see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please see:  [[Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity]] [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent uptick of Lamarckism school of evolutionary thought ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As can be seen below, there has been an uptick in [[macroevolution]]ary [[Lamarckism]] [[pseudoscience]] due to [[microevolution]]ary processes/changes that have been discovered in organisms related to Lamarckism: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/epigenetics-and-darwin Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/mutations-epigenetics-information Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information] by Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, due to intellectual inertia, the [[Schools and evolution|evolutionist indoctrination]] of students into [[Neo-Darwinism]] (also called the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]]) and people's natural tendency to resist change, the neo-darwinian school of evolutionary thought is still dominant within the evolutionary biology community (see also: [[Paradigm|Paradigm shift]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The weight of evidence still supports the biblical [[creation]] model (see also: [[Creation science]]). See also: [[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Causes of evolutionary belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of articles have been written concerning the reasons why evolutionists commonly hold their evolutionary views:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-is-evolution-is-pushed-in-america.html Why is evolution pushed by dogmatic evolutionists?] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution Why do people believe in evolution?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/evolutionary-gut-feelings-belief-in.html Evolutionary gut feelings, &amp;quot;Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling&amp;quot;] (Cites study in ''Live Science'' article)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to belief in evolution] (cites Australian National University study)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. Evolution Videos ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. evolution news ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution news]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Further Reading (including free on-line versions) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Top-Evidences-God-Creation-ebook/dp/B00E4DS2J0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1380144491&amp;amp;sr=8-1&amp;amp;keywords=jason+browning Top 15 Evidences for God and Creation] by Jason Browning&lt;br /&gt;
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&amp;amp;products_id=2176&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 9780890511121&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872 &lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7&lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy'', Inquiry Press (Midland, MI), 1976. ISBN 978-0-918-112-02-6&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 0-8308-1324-1&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 080105852X&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Social effects of the theory of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Absolute-Cynical-Observations-Postmodern/dp/2980777447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1384179653&amp;amp;sr=8-3&amp;amp;keywords=flight+from+absolutes Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] by [[Paul Gosselin]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77k9QDQBi54 Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] - Paul Gosselin discusses his book (video)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other biblical creation-related publications ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation magazine]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, naturalism and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christianity and Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution quotes]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Science evolves]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links and other links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com Creation Ministries International] - Over 7,000 articles on the creation vs. evolution issue&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation vs. evolution news]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Other resources:''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/creation-answers Evidence and arguments against evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53 The Nine Great 'Proofs' for Evolution: and Why They Are All False!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm Human evolutionary theory]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm Theory of evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.windmillministries.org/theory-of-evolution Theory of evolution] by [[Windmill Ministries]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/ Intelligent Design vs. Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Social effects of Darwinism:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/eth_ev_pg.htm Problems with Ethics in an Evolutionary / Materialistic World-View]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Anti-Darwinism/creationist, French/English website:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Samizdat]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT: Evolution, theory of}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Life Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2157153</id>
		<title>Evolution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2157153"/>
		<updated>2025-09-08T16:50:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://electricscotland.com/history/glasgow/anec305.htm The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Darwin  - As told in Glasgow]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). In biology, evolution is understood as a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time from adaptations of organisms to their environments. The study of evolution can be performed on different scales: ''microevolution'' reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time (e.g. mutations, interbreeding), ''macroevolution'' reflects large-scale changes at the species level which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. [[Natural selection]] is one commonly cited mechanism for driving evolution, but there are others such a genetic drift.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/ Evolution - Nature (Journal)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]].  See also: [[Theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is often linked to Charles Darwin and [[natural selection]]. However, naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]]. Wallace eventually came to believe that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's views challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and allow for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Before 1864, Wallace also believed that man was a result of natural selection, but by 1869, Wallace had changed his view since he felt that natural selection was insufficient to craft man's features like rationality, and postulated that higher intelligences may have been involved in man's evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Malcolm Jay Kottler. [https://www.newdualism.org/papers/M.Kottler/Kottler-Isis1974.pdf Alfred Russel Wallace, the Origin of Man, and Spiritualism]. Isis, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 144-192 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society&lt;br /&gt;
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229369.&amp;quot;In 1864 Wallace was firmly committed to the action of natural selection alone in the development of man. In 1869 he first expressed publicly his new point of view that natural selection was unable to explain the origin of man and that higher intelligences guiding man's development were required.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Microevolution]] and natural selection are accepted to occur by all creationists,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory or in the wild.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC&lt;br /&gt;
*Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current ongoing long term evolutionary experiments such as the experiment on E.coli bacteria which &amp;quot;exceed 63,000 generations, equivalent to over 1 million years of human evolution&amp;quot; have not shown speciation or novel functions in the organism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Hofwegen DJ, Hovde CJ, Minnich SA.2016.Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. J Bacteriol198:.https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00831-15&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the [[creation]] versus evolution controversy. The [[fossil]] record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were cataloged and identified in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: &amp;quot;In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.icr.org/article/280/ More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists Excerpted from the New Book by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 28, 2022, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?'' which indicated: &amp;quot;A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of [[natural selection]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?''] by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian,  June 28, 2022&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Teaching evolution &amp;amp; views of experts==   &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:View from Levering Plaza.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|''Johns Hopkins University Press'' reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2024, the assistant to [[Russia]]n Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, former [[Chechen]] Prime Minister Muslim Khuchiev called for a ban on the teaching of Darwinian theory in schools at a meeting of the All-Russian Parents' Committee. &amp;quot;Everyone knows that this is an erroneous theory, it goes against [[religion]]. This is the first step, I believe, in the [[spiritual]] degradation of children.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://meduza.io/news/2024/09/20/pomoschnik-mishustina-predlozhil-ubrat-teoriyu-darvina-iz-shkolnoy-programmy-ideyu-podderzhal-pravoslavnyy-oligarh-konstantin-malofeev Mishustin's assistant suggested removing Darwin's theory from the school curriculum. The idea was supported by the &amp;quot;Orthodox oligarch&amp;quot; Konstantin Malofeev], Meduza, 20 September 2024. meduza.io&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9851&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that &amp;quot;Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2010, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} [[Johns Hopkins University]] Press reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[China]] has the world's largest [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] and the rapid growth of biblical [[creationism]]/[[Evangelical Christianity|Evangelical Christianity]] in China may have a significant impact on the number of individuals in the world who believe in evolution and also on [[global atheism]] (see: [[China and biblical creationism]] and [[Asian atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of natural selection==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of natural selection was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'' (1859) and also by Alfred Russel Wallace in his paper ''On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'' (1858). Wallace's works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker decided on a joint publication at the Linnean Society of London in 1858 of Wallace's paper together with an extract from Darwin's 1844 essay and his letter to Asa Gray and summarized:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 3, Issue 9, August 1858, Pages 45–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2311239#page/127/mode/1up 1858 Online link to Summary by Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, and both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society. Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. Extract from an unpublished Work on Species, by C. DARWIN, Esq., consisting of a portion of a Chapter entitled, &amp;quot;On the Variation of Organic Beings in a state of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species.&amp;quot;..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
II. Abstract of a Letter from C. DARWIN, Esq., to Prof. ASA GRAY, Boston, US, dated Down, September 5th, 1857...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
III. On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type. By ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE.''}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: &amp;quot;...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin was a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]]/[[agnosticism|agnostic]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin) ].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html Charles Darwin - The Truth]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or &amp;quot;survival of the fittest&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major difference between Darwin and Wallace is that Wallace argued that nature exhibited design and purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's view of evolution allows for an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life, some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution was incorporated later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of evolution==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Belief in evolution and intuition ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In January of 2012, the  ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: &amp;quot;They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to [[evolutionary indoctrination]] and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization [[Creation Ministries International]] created a [[Question evolution! campaign]] which poses [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use Arguments evolutionists should not use] by Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/ 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid] by Answers in Genesis&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mutations and the Life Sciences ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote concerning the theory of evolution: &amp;quot;The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;NorthWest Creation Network, [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Concerning various [[theories of evolution]], most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of Life|life first came about on earth]] although [[Theory of evolution and little consensus|there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.&amp;quot; Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have &amp;quot;stabilized&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grassé  regards the &amp;quot;unceasing mutations&amp;quot; to be &amp;quot;merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html Life Sciences]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,[http://creation.com/Whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-Lawrence-S-Lerner Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3835 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 6, Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creation scientists provide sound reasons why [[homology|the homology argument is not a valid argument]]. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; to the point where it is defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of &amp;quot;Evolution&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as &amp;quot;The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet&amp;quot; but it is very poorly done.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and equivocation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Biological diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|When [[Richard Dawkins]] was a young man, he recognized [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the originally created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Origin of life ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic entropy ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:John C Sanford.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The [[genetic entropy]] theory by [[Cornell University]] Professor Dr. [[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] on eroding [[genome]]s of all living organisms due to [[mutations]] inherited from one generation to the next is declared to be one of the major challenges to [[evolutionary theory]]. The central part of Sanford’s argument is that mutations, represented by spelling mistakes in [[DNA]], are accumulating so quickly in some creatures (and particularly in people) that [[natural selection]] cannot stop the ''functional degradation'' of the genome, let alone drive an evolutionary process that could lead for example, from apes into people.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web&lt;br /&gt;
|title=Genetic entropy and simple organisms: If genetic entropy is true, why do bacteria still exist?&lt;br /&gt;
|author=Robert Carter&lt;br /&gt;
|publisher=Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
|url=http://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms&lt;br /&gt;
|accessdate=2012-10-29}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sanford's book ''Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'' explains why human [[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/john-sanford John Sanford - bio] at [[Creation Ministries International]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic entropy ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the  ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'' in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'' (taken from the abstract): &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961 ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Genetic Code and Biological Information ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp Information Theory Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[William Dembski]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=118 Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[code|codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Dr. Brown also asserts that the &amp;quot;information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|No matter how many &amp;quot;bits&amp;quot; of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it &amp;quot;information&amp;quot; if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In [[computer science]], we call it a &amp;quot;program.&amp;quot; Another name for [[computer software]] is an &amp;quot;[[algorithm]].&amp;quot; No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology &amp;amp; Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742 Notes and References: Codes, Programs, and Information]&lt;br /&gt;
* PubMed Central (PMC), [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific consensus  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: &amp;quot;It happened.&amp;quot; Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], &amp;quot;Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&lt;br /&gt;
* Simon Conway Morris, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;amp;_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&amp;amp;_user=681891&amp;amp;_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&amp;amp;_rdoc=1&amp;amp;_fmt=&amp;amp;_orig=search&amp;amp;_sort=d&amp;amp;view=c&amp;amp;_acct=C000037419&amp;amp;_version=1&amp;amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;amp;_userid=681891&amp;amp;md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with [[molecule]]s or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/ Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends, There Is No Theory of Evolution, February 20, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species.&amp;quot; - [[Niles Eldredge]], &amp;quot;Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|Theory of Punctuated Equilibria]],&amp;quot; Simon &amp;amp; Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Through use and abuse of hidden [[postulate]]s, of bold, often ill-founded [[extrapolation]]s, a [[pseudoscience]] has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of [[biology]] and is leading astray many [[biochemistry|biochemists]] and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that [[theory|theoreticians]] put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their [[sectarianism]], purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
One of the regrettable consequences of Charles Darwin’s ''On the Origin of Species'' was the advent of the [[pseudoscience]] known as [[geopolitics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/geopolitics-ill-suited-for-challenges-of-today-endangers-global-economy-by-robert-skidelsky-2023-06 The Costly Return of Geopolitics], Robert Skidelsky, Jun 19, 2023. www.project-syndicate.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Conservative%27s_essays&amp;amp;oldid=2072209#International_politics_and_geopolitics User:Conservative's essays#International politics and geopolitics], August 16, 2024.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Modern evolutionary synthesis revision===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation on evolution‎ ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|170px|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Haeckel]]. Noted evolutionist and [[Stephen Gould]], who held a [[agnostic|agnostic]] worldview&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and promoted the notion of [[Non-Overlapping Magisteria|non-overlapping magesteria]], wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again. ... Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationism.org/wakefield/haeckel.htm &amp;quot;Another Evolution Fraud Exposed&amp;quot;] - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the [[NY Times]]  refers to Ernst Haeckel as the &amp;quot;celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical [[Atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: &amp;quot;I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Transitional Forms ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged [[fossils]] in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.halos.com/printer.htm?page=/book/ctm-07-e.htm Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; is &amp;quot;missing links&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin.jpg|alt=charles darwin's theory of evolution|right|thumb|205px|[[Charles Darwin]] wrote: &amp;quot;When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of &amp;quot;transitional forms.&amp;quot; Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? [[Geology]] assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because &amp;quot;only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Charles Darwin]], ''Origin of the Species'', [http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, &amp;quot;“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, &amp;quot;Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Edmund Leech, [http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241 Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and [[Geophysics]] at the University of Oklahoma wrote that &amp;quot;Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.&amp;quot; - David M. Raup, &amp;quot;Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,&amp;quot; ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late [[Harvard]] paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html References and Notes: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Paleoanthropology]] or [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Fossil Record quotes ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creationism|Creationists]] can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Christian Answers Network, [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html The Fossil Record - References]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html Notes and References: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.&amp;quot; - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html Early Man]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm Solly Zuckerman: Biography]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether&amp;quot;. Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes] and [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Additional fossil record quotes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Paleoanthropology ==&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see'': [[Paleoanthropology]] and [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nebraska Man.jpg|thumb|alt=human evolution|150px|right|[[Nebraska man]] was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Paleoanthropology]] is an interdisciplinary branch of [[anthropology]] that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and [[artifact]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058075/paleoanthropology Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at [[Yale]] University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at [[Harvard]] University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those Fossils Are A Problem]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book ''Origins'' in the journal ''American Scientist'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, &amp;quot;theory&amp;quot; - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates &amp;quot;data&amp;quot;. ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist and Harvard professor [[Richard Lewontin]] wrote in 1995 that &amp;quot;Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&amp;amp;article=153 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the September 2005 issue of [[National Geographic]], Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology &amp;quot;has again become a rather glorious mess.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=126&amp;amp;article=1555 ''The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[National Geographic]] (online edition), Joel Achenbach, [http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_who.html PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, &amp;quot;We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=823 &amp;quot;Human Evolution&amp;quot; An Update]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Answers in Genesis]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/127 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|300px|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species.]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations do produce “[[microevolution]],” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the evolutionary [[paradigm]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of their key resources on this matter are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Punctuated Equilibrium ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:StephenGould.jpg|left|thumbnail|170px|[[Stephen Jay Gould]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]] was developed and its chief proponents were [[Stephen Gould]], Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley.  According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium &amp;quot;asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented.  In 1930, Austin H. Clark,  an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called [[zoogenesis]] which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Prior to publishing his work entitled ''The New Evolution: Zoogenesis'', Clark wrote in a journal article published in the ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' that &amp;quot;so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation#endRef4&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1995, there was an essay in the ''New York Review of Books'' by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-Darwinists]], and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]] &lt;br /&gt;
Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible &amp;quot;just so stories&amp;quot; to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
A well-known example of a &amp;quot;just so story&amp;quot; is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled &amp;quot;Difficulties on Theory&amp;quot; in which he stated:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to [[materialism]]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.&amp;quot; - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:&lt;br /&gt;
*various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/5044&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/146/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[flagellum|bacterial flagellum]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[homing]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/wings-on-the-wind  Wings on the wind&lt;br /&gt;
How do migrating birds know exactly when, and where, to go?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the origin of flight in the animal kingdom&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* human [[brain]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-brain-brainier-than-believed-before&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-human-bodygods-masterpiece&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/mind-by-design-peter-line-interview&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[migration]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-magnificent-migrating-monarch&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[whale]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/whale-explodes-fossil-theory&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Venus flytrap]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/4340&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Bombardier beetle]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, biochemist [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.&amp;quot; - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statements of Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article:'' [[Intelligent design]] and [[Argument from beauty]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Autumn.jpg|201px|right|thumbnail|[[Autumn]] foliage is one of the many of examples of beauty in [[God]]'s [[creation]].  See also: [[Argument from beauty]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Phillip E. Johnson]] cites [[Francis Crick]] in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.&amp;quot; - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, &amp;quot;Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.&amp;quot; Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age.&amp;quot; - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin monkey cartoon.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== A significant portion of atheists see their lives and the world being the product of design ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?''],'' New York Times'', October 17, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed] by  David Catchpoole, [[Creation Ministries International]], Published: 16 July 2009&lt;br /&gt;
*Atheist [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] made the candid confession: &amp;quot;As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise.&amp;quot; Source: ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility'' By Dean Turner, page 109&lt;br /&gt;
*The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' declares: &amp;quot;In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away.'(Argyll 1885, 244)[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html Notes to Teleological Arguments for God's Existence]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Argument from beauty ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detractors of Evolution and the Scientific Journals ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer-reviewed journals that favor the creationist position).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3873/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unqualified to be a scientific theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; stated that Darwinism is &amp;quot;not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: &amp;quot;Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch &amp;amp; Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted&lt;br /&gt;
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that &amp;quot;there has never been a theory of evolution&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and the [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], argue for [[atheism]] and evolution with religious fervor (See also: [[Atheism and evolution]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions that make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion &amp;quot;Atheism: A religion&amp;quot;], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Please see: [http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]and [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] and [[Atheism is a religion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism is a religion and its legal implications as far as the teaching of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Paul gosselin.JPG|thumbnail|right|200px|The Canadian [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Paul Gosselin]] points out that evolution is a [[secular]] origins [[myth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm Myths of Origin and the Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution is a Religion and Not Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution is a religion]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michael Ruse]], the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the leading American science science journal ''Science'', Michael Ruse published an article in 2003 entitled ''Is Evolution a Secular Religion?''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Is Evolution a Secular Religion?] by Dr. [[Michael Ruse]], ''Science'',  March 7, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationist opponents of evolution commonly point out that evolution is a religion and not science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; *[http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution The religious nature of evolution] by Dr. [[Carl Wieland]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-religious Religious Nature of Evolution and its Attack on Christianity]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.icr.org/article/455/ Evolution is a religion - not science] by Dr. [[Henry Morris]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-as-religion Evolution as religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Evolution is a religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution as a secular origins myth ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is a secular origins myth of [[atheism|atheists]], [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and members of other [[liberal Christianity|theologically liberal]] religious sects (theologically [[liberal]] religious sects often dismiss out of hand various [[supernatural]] events in history due to their hostility towards [[God]] and the supernatural). See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[religion]] of [[evolutionism]] is contrary to  [[creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists - Question 15 deals with the fact that evolution is a religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Wolfram]] in his book ''A New Kind of Science'' has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, &amp;quot;increasingly been applied outside of biology.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Lysenkoism===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regard to atheistic communism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong]] caused famines and the death of millions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Medical Science===&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of [[medicine|medical science]]. According to Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]] the list of [[vestigial organs]] in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Astronomy===&lt;br /&gt;
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the &amp;quot;evolution of the universe&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MoIzN....Q....Z&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995deun.book.....S&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3836&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|““...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html Strange Planets] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html Star Births? Stellar Evolution?] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html Galaxies] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concerning the [[Milky Way]] galaxy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;. . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, &amp;quot;The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way,&amp;quot; American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/547/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe [[paradigm]] explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Origin of Life===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/the-origin-of-life-a-problem-for-evolution Origin of life - a problem for evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9057170/Oparin,%20Aleksandr&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of the evolutionary paradigm, but this is not the case  (see: [https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Young Earth Creationism]] and [[Geologic system]]'' and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sarfati, 1999, [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth Chapter 8, How old is the earth?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[William R. Corliss]] was a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Corliss cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young Earth Creationism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the earth and the universe]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief|Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lion6.jpg|thumb|210px|right|Until the 1970s the scientific consensus was wrong on how [[lion]]s killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Bible]] was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
A 1997 [[Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere], Kenneth Chang, ''ABCNews.com'', 1999.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As noted earlier, in 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Poll results regarding the number of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view.  Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.expelledthemovie.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx Scientists and belief]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. declared: &amp;quot;...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious ''British Medical Journal'' begun in 1828 chose the name ''Lancet'' to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote: &amp;quot;There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&amp;amp;cmd=Retrieve&amp;amp;dopt=AbstractPlus&amp;amp;list_uids=1932964&amp;amp;query_hl=6&amp;amp;itool=pubmed_docsum]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/ Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge  beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1718/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information see: [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and  [[Atheism, evolution and morality]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]''&lt;br /&gt;
‎&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to [[Social Darwinism]], [[Nazism]] and [[Communism]] and has also been a source of racism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/454/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n1p04.htm&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3031/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/55/&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Belief in evolution and sexual immorality ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] and [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue that highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of [[abortion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, according to [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the [[sexual revolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism  and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution and Nazism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The staunch evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] admitted the following: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, &amp;quot;Ontogeny and Phylogeny,&amp;quot; Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler]] wrote the following [[Evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] material in his work ''[[Mein Kampf]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/15/a-church-apology-to-darwin/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] also wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Josef Mengele]]'s evolutionary thinking was in accordance with [[Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]] theories that [[Adolph Hitler]] and a number of [[German]] academics found appealing.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/herero-genocide Herero Genecide]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the &amp;quot;unworthy life&amp;quot;  branch of evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link The Darwin–Hitler connection]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with [[Nazi]] death camps and the [[Holocaust]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mengele obtained an infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at [[Auschwitz]]-Birkenau.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding [[Nazism]] and the theory of evolution: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … [[Jew]]s, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is indeed [[history|historical]] precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal [[atheism|atheist]] [[Joseph Stalin]] was greatly influenced by the work of [[Charles Darwin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century [[Communism|Communists]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, &amp;quot;Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history.&amp;quot; Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and communism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Governments under the banner of [[atheism|atheistic]] [[communism]] have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr.  R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government).  Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and racism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary racism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of [[racism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Charles Darwin and [[Thomas Huxley]] contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th-century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work  ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, ''The Descent of Man'', Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg|thumb|[[Ota Benga]] in the Bronx Zoo]]&lt;br /&gt;
John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal ''Science'', the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The [[Africa]]n was inferior — he represented the missing link between [[ape]] and Teuton.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harvard University's [[Stephen Jay Gould]] stated, &amp;quot;Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Recent [[racism]] directed at [[Michelle Obama]] was the result of [[evolutionary racism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/obama-racism-row&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the ''Psychology Today'' website called ''The Scientific Fundamentalist''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.scribd.com/doc/55558908/Why-Are-Black-Women-Rated-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-But-Black-Men-Are-Rated-Better-Looking-Than-Other-Men&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kanazawa has a &amp;quot;Savanna principle&amp;quot; hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/38933&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and brutality in war ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian Jacques Barzun observed how Darwinism caused the horrendous brutality of the wars leading up to [[WWI]]: &amp;quot;Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens — all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/making-a-monkey-out-of-darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Common behavior of online evolutionists ===&lt;br /&gt;
In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] was &amp;quot;embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given that atheists often have poor social skills and are often contentious, it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter (See: [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social skills]] and [[Atheist factions]]). In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote: &amp;quot;Scienceblogger [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys Chad Orzel described]  the commentators on [[PZ Myers]] ' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as &amp;quot;screechy monkeys.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, there is a widespread problem with [[Atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullying]] on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and [[creationism|creationist]] YouTube channels.  [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video Creationist YouTube video] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Duane Gish]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''For additional information please see the article: [[Atheism and Debate]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Creation vs. evolution debates]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]] (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”&lt;br /&gt;
Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally speaking, [[Atheism and Debate|leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists]] because creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/811/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]].  Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: &amp;quot;Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties...&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: &amp;quot;A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also:   [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]] and &lt;br /&gt;
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism]]'' and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, in the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{cquote|The CBS News reported the following:&lt;br /&gt;
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the aforementioned lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and the aforementioned counter evidential nature of the evolutionary paradigm, atheists and liberals persist in advocating the evolutionary paradigm.  The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolutionary paradigm is not surprising given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book &amp;quot;The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,&amp;quot; skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolutionary belief, irreligion, extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for creation science and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ &amp;quot;Understanding Evolution&amp;quot; website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he is not a [[creationism|creationist]], the atheist [[philosophy|philosopher]] John Gray admitted in 2008 in ''The Guardian'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into [[pseudoscience|pseudo-science]]. [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]]'s notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society The atheist delusion, John Gray, The Guardian, Friday 14 March 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins  ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Discovery Institute]] provides a transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: &amp;quot;What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DAWKINS: &amp;quot;Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ho, ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In &amp;quot;Message from the Designers&amp;quot;, Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins and Rael; &amp;quot;clear thinking&amp;quot; kindred spirits!&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/4589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist===&lt;br /&gt;
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stumped&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].&lt;br /&gt;
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.&lt;br /&gt;
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provide any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview  which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of a Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that &amp;quot;organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;SD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supppession of scientific inquiry concerning alternative theories of origins ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
see also: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]] (for more information please see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please see:  [[Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity]] [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent uptick of Lamarckism school of evolutionary thought ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As can be seen below, there has been an uptick in [[macroevolution]]ary [[Lamarckism]] [[pseudoscience]] due to [[microevolution]]ary processes/changes that have been discovered in organisms related to Lamarckism: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/epigenetics-and-darwin Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/mutations-epigenetics-information Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information] by Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, due to intellectual inertia, the [[Schools and evolution|evolutionist indoctrination]] of students into [[Neo-Darwinism]] (also called the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]]) and people's natural tendency to resist change, the neo-darwinian school of evolutionary thought is still dominant within the evolutionary biology community (see also: [[Paradigm|Paradigm shift]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The weight of evidence still supports the biblical [[creation]] model (see also: [[Creation science]]). See also: [[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Causes of evolutionary belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of articles have been written concerning the reasons why evolutionists commonly hold their evolutionary views:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-is-evolution-is-pushed-in-america.html Why is evolution pushed by dogmatic evolutionists?] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution Why do people believe in evolution?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/evolutionary-gut-feelings-belief-in.html Evolutionary gut feelings, &amp;quot;Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling&amp;quot;] (Cites study in ''Live Science'' article)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to belief in evolution] (cites Australian National University study)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. Evolution Videos ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. evolution news ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution news]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Further Reading (including free on-line versions) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Top-Evidences-God-Creation-ebook/dp/B00E4DS2J0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1380144491&amp;amp;sr=8-1&amp;amp;keywords=jason+browning Top 15 Evidences for God and Creation] by Jason Browning&lt;br /&gt;
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&amp;amp;products_id=2176&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 9780890511121&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872 &lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7&lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy'', Inquiry Press (Midland, MI), 1976. ISBN 978-0-918-112-02-6&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 0-8308-1324-1&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 080105852X&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Social effects of the theory of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Absolute-Cynical-Observations-Postmodern/dp/2980777447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1384179653&amp;amp;sr=8-3&amp;amp;keywords=flight+from+absolutes Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] by [[Paul Gosselin]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77k9QDQBi54 Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] - Paul Gosselin discusses his book (video)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other biblical creation-related publications ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation magazine]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, naturalism and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christianity and Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution quotes]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Science evolves]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links and other links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com Creation Ministries International] - Over 7,000 articles on the creation vs. evolution issue&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation vs. evolution news]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Other resources:''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/creation-answers Evidence and arguments against evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53 The Nine Great 'Proofs' for Evolution: and Why They Are All False!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm Human evolutionary theory]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm Theory of evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.windmillministries.org/theory-of-evolution Theory of evolution] by [[Windmill Ministries]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/ Intelligent Design vs. Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Social effects of Darwinism:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/eth_ev_pg.htm Problems with Ethics in an Evolutionary / Materialistic World-View]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Anti-Darwinism/creationist, French/English website:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Samizdat]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT: Evolution, theory of}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Life Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2157151</id>
		<title>Evolution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2157151"/>
		<updated>2025-09-08T16:27:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://electricscotland.com/history/glasgow/anec305.htm The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Darwin  - As told in Glasgow]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). In biology, evolution is understood as a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time from adaptations of organisms to their environments. The study of evolution can be performed on different scales: ''microevolution'' reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time (e.g. mutations, interbreeding), ''macroevolution'' reflects large-scale changes at the species level which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. [[Natural selection]] is one commonly cited mechanism for driving evolution, but there are others such a genetic drift.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/ Evolution - Nature (Journal)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]].  See also: [[Theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is often linked to Charles Darwin and [[natural selection]]. However, naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]]. Wallace eventually came to believe that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's views challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and allow for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Before 1864, Wallace also believed that man was a result of natural selection, but by 1869, Wallace had changed his view since he felt that natural selection was insufficient to craft man's features like rationality, and postulated that higher intelligences may have been involved in man's evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Malcolm Jay Kottler. [https://www.newdualism.org/papers/M.Kottler/Kottler-Isis1974.pdf Alfred Russel Wallace, the Origin of Man, and Spiritualism]. Isis, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 144-192 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society&lt;br /&gt;
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229369.&amp;quot;In 1864 Wallace was firmly committed to the action of natural selection alone in the development of man. In 1869 he first expressed publicly his new point of view that natural selection was unable to explain the origin of man and that higher intelligences guiding man's development were required.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Microevolution]] and natural selection are accepted to occur by all creationists,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory or in the wild.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC&lt;br /&gt;
*Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current ongoing long term evolutionary experiments such as the experiment on E.coli bacteria which &amp;quot;exceed 63,000 generations, equivalent to over 1 million years of human evolution&amp;quot; have not shown speciation or novel functions in the organism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Hofwegen DJ, Hovde CJ, Minnich SA.2016.Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. J Bacteriol198:.https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00831-15&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the [[creation]] versus evolution controversy. The [[fossil]] record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were cataloged and identified in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: &amp;quot;In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.icr.org/article/280/ More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists Excerpted from the New Book by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 28, 2022, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?'' which indicated: &amp;quot;A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of [[natural selection]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?''] by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian,  June 28, 2022&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Teaching evolution &amp;amp; views of experts==   &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:View from Levering Plaza.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|''Johns Hopkins University Press'' reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2024, the assistant to [[Russia]]n Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, former [[Chechen]] Prime Minister Muslim Khuchiev called for a ban on the teaching of Darwinian theory in schools at a meeting of the All-Russian Parents' Committee. &amp;quot;Everyone knows that this is an erroneous theory, it goes against [[religion]]. This is the first step, I believe, in the [[spiritual]] degradation of children.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://meduza.io/news/2024/09/20/pomoschnik-mishustina-predlozhil-ubrat-teoriyu-darvina-iz-shkolnoy-programmy-ideyu-podderzhal-pravoslavnyy-oligarh-konstantin-malofeev Mishustin's assistant suggested removing Darwin's theory from the school curriculum. The idea was supported by the &amp;quot;Orthodox oligarch&amp;quot; Konstantin Malofeev], Meduza, 20 September 2024. meduza.io&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9851&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that &amp;quot;Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2010, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} [[Johns Hopkins University]] Press reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[China]] has the world's largest [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] and the rapid growth of biblical [[creationism]]/[[Evangelical Christianity|Evangelical Christianity]] in China may have a significant impact on the number of individuals in the world who believe in evolution and also on [[global atheism]] (see: [[China and biblical creationism]] and [[Asian atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of natural selection==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of natural selection was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'' (1859) and also by Alfred Russel Wallace in his paper ''On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'' (1858). Wallace's works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker decided on a joint publication at the Linnean Society of London in 1858 of Wallace's paper together with an extract from Darwin's 1844 essay and his letter to Asa Gray and summarized:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 3, Issue 9, August 1858, Pages 45–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2311239#page/127/mode/1up 1858 Online link to Summary by Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, and both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society. Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. Extract from an unpublished Work on Species, by C. DARWIN, Esq., consisting of a portion of a Chapter entitled, &amp;quot;On the Variation of Organic Beings in a state of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species.&amp;quot;..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
II. Abstract of a Letter from C. DARWIN, Esq., to Prof. ASA GRAY, Boston, US, dated Down, September 5th, 1857...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
III. On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type. By ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE.''}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: &amp;quot;...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin was a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]]/[[agnosticism|agnostic]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin) ].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html Charles Darwin - The Truth]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or &amp;quot;survival of the fittest&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major difference between Darwin and Wallace is that Wallace argued that nature exhibited design and purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's view of evolution allows for an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life, some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution was incorporated later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of evolution==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Belief in evolution and intuition ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In January of 2012, the  ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: &amp;quot;They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to [[evolutionary indoctrination]] and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization [[Creation Ministries International]] created a [[Question evolution! campaign]] which poses [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use Arguments evolutionists should not use] by Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/ 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid] by Answers in Genesis&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mutations and the Life Sciences ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote concerning the theory of evolution: &amp;quot;The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;NorthWest Creation Network, [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Concerning various [[theories of evolution]], most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of Life|life first came about on earth]] although [[Theory of evolution and little consensus|there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.&amp;quot; Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have &amp;quot;stabilized&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grassé  regards the &amp;quot;unceasing mutations&amp;quot; to be &amp;quot;merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html Life Sciences]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,[http://creation.com/Whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-Lawrence-S-Lerner Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3835 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 6, Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creation scientists provide sound reasons why [[homology|the homology argument is not a valid argument]]. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; to the point where it is defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of &amp;quot;Evolution&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as &amp;quot;The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet&amp;quot; but it is very poorly done.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and equivocation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Biological diversity ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|When [[Richard Dawkins]] was a young man, he recognized [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the originally created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Origin of life ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic entropy ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:John C Sanford.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The [[genetic entropy]] theory by [[Cornell University]] Professor Dr. [[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] on eroding [[genome]]s of all living organisms due to [[mutations]] inherited from one generation to the next is declared to be one of the major challenges to [[evolutionary theory]]. The central part of Sanford’s argument is that mutations, represented by spelling mistakes in [[DNA]], are accumulating so quickly in some creatures (and particularly in people) that [[natural selection]] cannot stop the ''functional degradation'' of the genome, let alone drive an evolutionary process that could lead for example, from apes into people.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web&lt;br /&gt;
|title=Genetic entropy and simple organisms: If genetic entropy is true, why do bacteria still exist?&lt;br /&gt;
|author=Robert Carter&lt;br /&gt;
|publisher=Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
|url=http://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms&lt;br /&gt;
|accessdate=2012-10-29}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sanford's book ''Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'' explains why human [[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/john-sanford John Sanford - bio] at [[Creation Ministries International]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Genetic entropy ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the  ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'' in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'' (taken from the abstract): &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961 ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Genetic Code and Biological Information ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp Information Theory Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[William Dembski]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=118 Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[code|codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Dr. Brown also asserts that the &amp;quot;information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|No matter how many &amp;quot;bits&amp;quot; of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it &amp;quot;information&amp;quot; if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In [[computer science]], we call it a &amp;quot;program.&amp;quot; Another name for [[computer software]] is an &amp;quot;[[algorithm]].&amp;quot; No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology &amp;amp; Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742 Notes and References: Codes, Programs, and Information]&lt;br /&gt;
* PubMed Central (PMC), [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific consensus  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: &amp;quot;It happened.&amp;quot; Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], &amp;quot;Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&lt;br /&gt;
* Simon Conway Morris, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;amp;_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&amp;amp;_user=681891&amp;amp;_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&amp;amp;_rdoc=1&amp;amp;_fmt=&amp;amp;_orig=search&amp;amp;_sort=d&amp;amp;view=c&amp;amp;_acct=C000037419&amp;amp;_version=1&amp;amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;amp;_userid=681891&amp;amp;md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with [[molecule]]s or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/ Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends, There Is No Theory of Evolution, February 20, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species.&amp;quot; - [[Niles Eldredge]], &amp;quot;Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|Theory of Punctuated Equilibria]],&amp;quot; Simon &amp;amp; Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Through use and abuse of hidden [[postulate]]s, of bold, often ill-founded [[extrapolation]]s, a [[pseudoscience]] has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of [[biology]] and is leading astray many [[biochemistry|biochemists]] and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that [[theory|theoreticians]] put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their [[sectarianism]], purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
One of the regrettable consequences of Charles Darwin’s ''On the Origin of Species'' was the advent of the [[pseudoscience]] known as [[geopolitics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/geopolitics-ill-suited-for-challenges-of-today-endangers-global-economy-by-robert-skidelsky-2023-06 The Costly Return of Geopolitics], Robert Skidelsky, Jun 19, 2023. www.project-syndicate.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Conservative%27s_essays&amp;amp;oldid=2072209#International_politics_and_geopolitics User:Conservative's essays#International politics and geopolitics], August 16, 2024.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolutionary Theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎ ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|170px|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Haeckel]]. Noted evolutionist and [[Stephen Gould]], who held a [[agnostic|agnostic]] worldview&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and promoted the notion of [[Non-Overlapping Magisteria|non-overlapping magesteria]], wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again. ... Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationism.org/wakefield/haeckel.htm &amp;quot;Another Evolution Fraud Exposed&amp;quot;] - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the [[NY Times]]  refers to Ernst Haeckel as the &amp;quot;celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical [[Atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: &amp;quot;I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged [[fossils]] in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.halos.com/printer.htm?page=/book/ctm-07-e.htm Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; is &amp;quot;missing links&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin.jpg|alt=charles darwin's theory of evolution|right|thumb|205px|[[Charles Darwin]] wrote: &amp;quot;When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of &amp;quot;transitional forms.&amp;quot; Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? [[Geology]] assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because &amp;quot;only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Charles Darwin]], ''Origin of the Species'', [http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, &amp;quot;“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, &amp;quot;Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Edmund Leech, [http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241 Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and [[Geophysics]] at the University of Oklahoma wrote that &amp;quot;Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.&amp;quot; - David M. Raup, &amp;quot;Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,&amp;quot; ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late [[Harvard]] paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html References and Notes: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Paleoanthropology]] or [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Fossil Record quotes ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creationism|Creationists]] can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Christian Answers Network, [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html The Fossil Record - References]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html Notes and References: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.&amp;quot; - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html Early Man]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm Solly Zuckerman: Biography]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether&amp;quot;. Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes] and [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Additional fossil record quotes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Paleoanthropology ==&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see'': [[Paleoanthropology]] and [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nebraska Man.jpg|thumb|alt=human evolution|150px|right|[[Nebraska man]] was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Paleoanthropology]] is an interdisciplinary branch of [[anthropology]] that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and [[artifact]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058075/paleoanthropology Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at [[Yale]] University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at [[Harvard]] University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those Fossils Are A Problem]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book ''Origins'' in the journal ''American Scientist'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, &amp;quot;theory&amp;quot; - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates &amp;quot;data&amp;quot;. ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist and Harvard professor [[Richard Lewontin]] wrote in 1995 that &amp;quot;Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&amp;amp;article=153 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the September 2005 issue of [[National Geographic]], Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology &amp;quot;has again become a rather glorious mess.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=126&amp;amp;article=1555 ''The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[National Geographic]] (online edition), Joel Achenbach, [http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_who.html PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, &amp;quot;We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=823 &amp;quot;Human Evolution&amp;quot; An Update]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Answers in Genesis]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/127 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|300px|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species.]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations do produce “[[microevolution]],” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the evolutionary [[paradigm]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of their key resources on this matter are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Punctuated Equilibrium ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:StephenGould.jpg|left|thumbnail|170px|[[Stephen Jay Gould]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]] was developed and its chief proponents were [[Stephen Gould]], Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley.  According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium &amp;quot;asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented.  In 1930, Austin H. Clark,  an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called [[zoogenesis]] which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Prior to publishing his work entitled ''The New Evolution: Zoogenesis'', Clark wrote in a journal article published in the ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' that &amp;quot;so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation#endRef4&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1995, there was an essay in the ''New York Review of Books'' by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-Darwinists]], and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]] &lt;br /&gt;
Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible &amp;quot;just so stories&amp;quot; to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
A well-known example of a &amp;quot;just so story&amp;quot; is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled &amp;quot;Difficulties on Theory&amp;quot; in which he stated:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to [[materialism]]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.&amp;quot; - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:&lt;br /&gt;
*various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/5044&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/146/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[flagellum|bacterial flagellum]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[homing]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/wings-on-the-wind  Wings on the wind&lt;br /&gt;
How do migrating birds know exactly when, and where, to go?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the origin of flight in the animal kingdom&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* human [[brain]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-brain-brainier-than-believed-before&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-human-bodygods-masterpiece&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/mind-by-design-peter-line-interview&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[migration]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-magnificent-migrating-monarch&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[whale]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/whale-explodes-fossil-theory&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Venus flytrap]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/4340&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Bombardier beetle]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, biochemist [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.&amp;quot; - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statements of Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article:'' [[Intelligent design]] and [[Argument from beauty]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Autumn.jpg|201px|right|thumbnail|[[Autumn]] foliage is one of the many of examples of beauty in [[God]]'s [[creation]].  See also: [[Argument from beauty]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Phillip E. Johnson]] cites [[Francis Crick]] in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.&amp;quot; - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, &amp;quot;Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.&amp;quot; Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age.&amp;quot; - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin monkey cartoon.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== A significant portion of atheists see their lives and the world being the product of design ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?''],'' New York Times'', October 17, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed] by  David Catchpoole, [[Creation Ministries International]], Published: 16 July 2009&lt;br /&gt;
*Atheist [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] made the candid confession: &amp;quot;As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise.&amp;quot; Source: ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility'' By Dean Turner, page 109&lt;br /&gt;
*The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' declares: &amp;quot;In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away.'(Argyll 1885, 244)[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html Notes to Teleological Arguments for God's Existence]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Argument from beauty ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detractors of Evolution and the Scientific Journals ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer-reviewed journals that favor the creationist position).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3873/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unqualified to be a scientific theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; stated that Darwinism is &amp;quot;not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: &amp;quot;Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch &amp;amp; Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted&lt;br /&gt;
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that &amp;quot;there has never been a theory of evolution&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and the [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], argue for [[atheism]] and evolution with religious fervor (See also: [[Atheism and evolution]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions that make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion &amp;quot;Atheism: A religion&amp;quot;], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Please see: [http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]and [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] and [[Atheism is a religion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism is a religion and its legal implications as far as the teaching of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Paul gosselin.JPG|thumbnail|right|200px|The Canadian [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Paul Gosselin]] points out that evolution is a [[secular]] origins [[myth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm Myths of Origin and the Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution is a Religion and Not Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution is a religion]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michael Ruse]], the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the leading American science science journal ''Science'', Michael Ruse published an article in 2003 entitled ''Is Evolution a Secular Religion?''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Is Evolution a Secular Religion?] by Dr. [[Michael Ruse]], ''Science'',  March 7, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationist opponents of evolution commonly point out that evolution is a religion and not science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; *[http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution The religious nature of evolution] by Dr. [[Carl Wieland]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-religious Religious Nature of Evolution and its Attack on Christianity]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.icr.org/article/455/ Evolution is a religion - not science] by Dr. [[Henry Morris]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-as-religion Evolution as religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Evolution is a religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution as a secular origins myth ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is a secular origins myth of [[atheism|atheists]], [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and members of other [[liberal Christianity|theologically liberal]] religious sects (theologically [[liberal]] religious sects often dismiss out of hand various [[supernatural]] events in history due to their hostility towards [[God]] and the supernatural). See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[religion]] of [[evolutionism]] is contrary to  [[creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists - Question 15 deals with the fact that evolution is a religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Wolfram]] in his book ''A New Kind of Science'' has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, &amp;quot;increasingly been applied outside of biology.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Lysenkoism===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regard to atheistic communism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong]] caused famines and the death of millions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Medical Science===&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of [[medicine|medical science]]. According to Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]] the list of [[vestigial organs]] in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Astronomy===&lt;br /&gt;
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the &amp;quot;evolution of the universe&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MoIzN....Q....Z&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995deun.book.....S&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3836&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|““...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html Strange Planets] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html Star Births? Stellar Evolution?] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html Galaxies] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concerning the [[Milky Way]] galaxy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;. . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, &amp;quot;The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way,&amp;quot; American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/547/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe [[paradigm]] explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Origin of Life===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/the-origin-of-life-a-problem-for-evolution Origin of life - a problem for evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9057170/Oparin,%20Aleksandr&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of the evolutionary paradigm, but this is not the case  (see: [https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Young Earth Creationism]] and [[Geologic system]]'' and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sarfati, 1999, [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth Chapter 8, How old is the earth?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[William R. Corliss]] was a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Corliss cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young Earth Creationism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the earth and the universe]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief|Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lion6.jpg|thumb|210px|right|Until the 1970s the scientific consensus was wrong on how [[lion]]s killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Bible]] was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
A 1997 [[Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere], Kenneth Chang, ''ABCNews.com'', 1999.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As noted earlier, in 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Poll results regarding the number of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view.  Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.expelledthemovie.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx Scientists and belief]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. declared: &amp;quot;...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious ''British Medical Journal'' begun in 1828 chose the name ''Lancet'' to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote: &amp;quot;There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&amp;amp;cmd=Retrieve&amp;amp;dopt=AbstractPlus&amp;amp;list_uids=1932964&amp;amp;query_hl=6&amp;amp;itool=pubmed_docsum]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/ Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge  beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1718/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information see: [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and  [[Atheism, evolution and morality]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]''&lt;br /&gt;
‎&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to [[Social Darwinism]], [[Nazism]] and [[Communism]] and has also been a source of racism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/454/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n1p04.htm&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3031/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/55/&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Belief in evolution and sexual immorality ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] and [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue that highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of [[abortion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, according to [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the [[sexual revolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism  and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution and Nazism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The staunch evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] admitted the following: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, &amp;quot;Ontogeny and Phylogeny,&amp;quot; Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler]] wrote the following [[Evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] material in his work ''[[Mein Kampf]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/15/a-church-apology-to-darwin/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] also wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Josef Mengele]]'s evolutionary thinking was in accordance with [[Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]] theories that [[Adolph Hitler]] and a number of [[German]] academics found appealing.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/herero-genocide Herero Genecide]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the &amp;quot;unworthy life&amp;quot;  branch of evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link The Darwin–Hitler connection]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with [[Nazi]] death camps and the [[Holocaust]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mengele obtained an infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at [[Auschwitz]]-Birkenau.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding [[Nazism]] and the theory of evolution: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … [[Jew]]s, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is indeed [[history|historical]] precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal [[atheism|atheist]] [[Joseph Stalin]] was greatly influenced by the work of [[Charles Darwin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century [[Communism|Communists]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, &amp;quot;Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history.&amp;quot; Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and communism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Governments under the banner of [[atheism|atheistic]] [[communism]] have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr.  R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government).  Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and racism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary racism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of [[racism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Charles Darwin and [[Thomas Huxley]] contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th-century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work  ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, ''The Descent of Man'', Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg|thumb|[[Ota Benga]] in the Bronx Zoo]]&lt;br /&gt;
John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal ''Science'', the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The [[Africa]]n was inferior — he represented the missing link between [[ape]] and Teuton.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harvard University's [[Stephen Jay Gould]] stated, &amp;quot;Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Recent [[racism]] directed at [[Michelle Obama]] was the result of [[evolutionary racism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/obama-racism-row&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the ''Psychology Today'' website called ''The Scientific Fundamentalist''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.scribd.com/doc/55558908/Why-Are-Black-Women-Rated-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-But-Black-Men-Are-Rated-Better-Looking-Than-Other-Men&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kanazawa has a &amp;quot;Savanna principle&amp;quot; hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/38933&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and brutality in war ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian Jacques Barzun observed how Darwinism caused the horrendous brutality of the wars leading up to [[WWI]]: &amp;quot;Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens — all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/making-a-monkey-out-of-darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Common behavior of online evolutionists ===&lt;br /&gt;
In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] was &amp;quot;embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given that atheists often have poor social skills and are often contentious, it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter (See: [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social skills]] and [[Atheist factions]]). In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote: &amp;quot;Scienceblogger [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys Chad Orzel described]  the commentators on [[PZ Myers]] ' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as &amp;quot;screechy monkeys.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, there is a widespread problem with [[Atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullying]] on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and [[creationism|creationist]] YouTube channels.  [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video Creationist YouTube video] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Duane Gish]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''For additional information please see the article: [[Atheism and Debate]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Creation vs. evolution debates]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]] (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”&lt;br /&gt;
Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally speaking, [[Atheism and Debate|leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists]] because creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/811/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]].  Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: &amp;quot;Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties...&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: &amp;quot;A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also:   [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]] and &lt;br /&gt;
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism]]'' and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, in the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{cquote|The CBS News reported the following:&lt;br /&gt;
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the aforementioned lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and the aforementioned counter evidential nature of the evolutionary paradigm, atheists and liberals persist in advocating the evolutionary paradigm.  The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolutionary paradigm is not surprising given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book &amp;quot;The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,&amp;quot; skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolutionary belief, irreligion, extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for creation science and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ &amp;quot;Understanding Evolution&amp;quot; website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he is not a [[creationism|creationist]], the atheist [[philosophy|philosopher]] John Gray admitted in 2008 in ''The Guardian'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into [[pseudoscience|pseudo-science]]. [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]]'s notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society The atheist delusion, John Gray, The Guardian, Friday 14 March 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins  ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Discovery Institute]] provides a transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: &amp;quot;What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DAWKINS: &amp;quot;Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ho, ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In &amp;quot;Message from the Designers&amp;quot;, Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins and Rael; &amp;quot;clear thinking&amp;quot; kindred spirits!&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/4589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist===&lt;br /&gt;
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stumped&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].&lt;br /&gt;
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.&lt;br /&gt;
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provide any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview  which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of a Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that &amp;quot;organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;SD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supppession of scientific inquiry concerning alternative theories of origins ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
see also: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]] (for more information please see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please see:  [[Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity]] [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent uptick of Lamarckism school of evolutionary thought ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As can be seen below, there has been an uptick in [[macroevolution]]ary [[Lamarckism]] [[pseudoscience]] due to [[microevolution]]ary processes/changes that have been discovered in organisms related to Lamarckism: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/epigenetics-and-darwin Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/mutations-epigenetics-information Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information] by Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, due to intellectual inertia, the [[Schools and evolution|evolutionist indoctrination]] of students into [[Neo-Darwinism]] (also called the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]]) and people's natural tendency to resist change, the neo-darwinian school of evolutionary thought is still dominant within the evolutionary biology community (see also: [[Paradigm|Paradigm shift]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The weight of evidence still supports the biblical [[creation]] model (see also: [[Creation science]]). See also: [[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Causes of evolutionary belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of articles have been written concerning the reasons why evolutionists commonly hold their evolutionary views:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-is-evolution-is-pushed-in-america.html Why is evolution pushed by dogmatic evolutionists?] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution Why do people believe in evolution?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/evolutionary-gut-feelings-belief-in.html Evolutionary gut feelings, &amp;quot;Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling&amp;quot;] (Cites study in ''Live Science'' article)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to belief in evolution] (cites Australian National University study)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. Evolution Videos ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. evolution news ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution news]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Further Reading (including free on-line versions) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Top-Evidences-God-Creation-ebook/dp/B00E4DS2J0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1380144491&amp;amp;sr=8-1&amp;amp;keywords=jason+browning Top 15 Evidences for God and Creation] by Jason Browning&lt;br /&gt;
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&amp;amp;products_id=2176&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 9780890511121&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872 &lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7&lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy'', Inquiry Press (Midland, MI), 1976. ISBN 978-0-918-112-02-6&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 0-8308-1324-1&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 080105852X&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Social effects of the theory of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Absolute-Cynical-Observations-Postmodern/dp/2980777447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1384179653&amp;amp;sr=8-3&amp;amp;keywords=flight+from+absolutes Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] by [[Paul Gosselin]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77k9QDQBi54 Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] - Paul Gosselin discusses his book (video)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other biblical creation-related publications ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation magazine]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, naturalism and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christianity and Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution quotes]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Science evolves]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links and other links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com Creation Ministries International] - Over 7,000 articles on the creation vs. evolution issue&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation vs. evolution news]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Other resources:''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/creation-answers Evidence and arguments against evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53 The Nine Great 'Proofs' for Evolution: and Why They Are All False!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm Human evolutionary theory]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm Theory of evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.windmillministries.org/theory-of-evolution Theory of evolution] by [[Windmill Ministries]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/ Intelligent Design vs. Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Social effects of Darwinism:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/eth_ev_pg.htm Problems with Ethics in an Evolutionary / Materialistic World-View]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Anti-Darwinism/creationist, French/English website:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Samizdat]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT: Evolution, theory of}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Life Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2157146</id>
		<title>The Crusades</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2157146"/>
		<updated>2025-09-08T15:54:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Christianity}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Middle Ages}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Crusader.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A returning Crusader]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''The Crusades''' (1095-1291) were a series of European Catholic campaigns into the Middle East, fought during the Middle Ages. They were the military responses made by Catholics, from western Europe to the Pope's pleas to re-capture the Holy Land from Islamic influence. After centuries of Islamic attacks, prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250908132840/https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades The Crusades] Encyclopedia Britannica &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prior Islamic expansion&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250801015722/https://www.onthewing.org/user/Islam%20-%20Conquests.pdf List of Islamic Expansion on the West Prior to First Crusade]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;O'Neill, John J. (2010) &amp;quot;[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1805&amp;amp;context=ccr The Crusades: A Response to Islamic Aggression],&amp;quot; Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 63: No. 63, Article 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The First Crusade was Western Europeans performing a counter offensive, thus the First Crusade was not a initiation of conflict, but was instead the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 28 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Riley-Smith. 2024. The Crusades: a History (4th edition). Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 1350028614. Page 21 &amp;quot;The cause for a crusade was particularly important because at least at first, these wars were fought primarily by volunteers. The first crusaders were such by virtue of the vows they had made; in canon law a vow had to be a voluntary act. When a pope proclaimed a crusade this could be no more than an appeal to men and women to join an expedition of their own free will. He might threaten them with hell-fire, but he could not force them to make vows, or punish them if they did not, and there were occasions when efforts at recruitment failed. A convincing case was therefore essential, even if it had to be made post hoc. Expeditions to the eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, or the Iberian Peninsula could be justified as responses to present Muslim aggression or as attempts to recover “Christian” territory that had been injuriously seized in the past.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250827143542/https://www.britannica.com/question/What-was-the-purpose-of-the-Crusades What was the purpose of the Crusades?] - Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250616161718/https://apholt.com/2017/06/06/the-first-crusade-as-a-defensive-war-a-response-to-prof-gabriele/ The First Crusade as a “Defensive War”: A Response to Prof. Gabriele - Andrew Holt (2017)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The '''First Crusade''' created new Latin states in the Holy Land. Subsequent crusades were less successful except when they attacked Byzantium.  Other medieval movements against heretics and infidels were also called crusades. The crusades ended with the Islamic recapture of all the Holy Land in 1291, when the last city controlled by crusaders, Acre, fell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades comprise a major chapter of [[Middle Ages|Medieval History]]. Extending over three centuries, they attracted every social class in western Europe. Kings and commoners, barons and bishops, knights and commoners&amp;amp;mdash;even teenagers&amp;amp;mdash;all participated in these expeditions to the eastern end of the Mediterranean. The motives of the crusaders were numerous: some sought riches; many sought adventure; most were moved by faith alone. Historians stress the central role of religious fervor, while mentioning as well the socio-economic factors crucial in enticing larger contingents. For example, crusaders often were fulfilling their feudal obligations. There were strong links between the papal reforms, the social necessity of violence and the exploitation of this inherent revivalistic imagination of the age of the Papacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas James, &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade,&amp;quot; ''History Review,'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades failed to achieve the permanent control of the Holy Land. However, their influence was wide and deep. Much of &lt;br /&gt;
the crusading fervor carried over to the successful fights against the Moors (Muslims) in Spain and the pagan Slavs in eastern Europe. Politically the crusades weakened the decrepit Byzantine Empire, but temporarily kept the Muslims away from it. The First Crusade strengthened the moral leadership of the &lt;br /&gt;
papacy in Europe, but the failures of the later crusades weakened both the crusading ideal and respect for the papacy&lt;br /&gt;
Contact with the East widened the scope of the Europeans, ended their isolation, and exposed them to an rich civilization. The economic effects of the crusades were modest, but they did reopen of the eastern Mediterranean to Western commerce, which itself had an effect on the rise of great cities such as Venice and the emergence of a money economy in the West.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusaders derived their name from the Latin word for &amp;quot;cross&amp;quot;—crux. A crusader went to the Holy Land with a cross of cloth sewn over his breast; when he returned, he had a similar cross for his back.   Originally called to repel the Islamic forces that controlled [[Jerusalem]], the crusades evolved into a form of political decree called by the Papacy for political, social or economic reasons. The campaigns of [[Teutonic knight]]s against [[pagan]] strongholds in [[Eastern Europe]] are also sometimes called crusades.  Lastly, military actions within Christendom against heretical and schismatic groups are sometimes called a crusade. Thus a crusade in most general terms was a directive of war issued by the Pope to all Rome-friendly nations against forces, whether Muslim, pagan or Eastern Orthodox, which were hostile to the Papacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. The fourth crusade resulted in a very damaged relationship between [[Orthodox Church|Greek]] and [[Roman Catholic|Latin]] Christendom.  Islamic expansion into remained a threat for centuries, with crusading orders establishing strongholds to protect Mediterranean islands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the crusades in southern [[Spain]] were militarily successful, eventually leading to the end of Islamic power in the region in 1492.  The Teutonic knights expanded Christian domains in Eastern Europe, and the [[Albigensian Crusade]], achieved its goal of destroying heretics in France.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, ''Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300–1475''. 6th ed. (McGraw-Hill 1998)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Origin of the Crusades ==&lt;br /&gt;
Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world after centuries of attacks and so Western Europeans performed a counter offensive with the First Crusade.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Thus, Westerners were not the initiators of conflict, but and instead the First Crusade was the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Holy Land had been part of the [[Roman Empire]], and thus the [[Byzantine Empire]], until the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries that forced the Byzantines out and saw the area gradually turn Islamic. Calm returned and Christians had generally been permitted to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land until 1071, when the [[Seljuk Turks]] assailed the Byzantines, defeating them at the [[Battle of Manzikert]], and conquered Jerusalem from the Egyptian Fatimids the same year.  They were not friendly to Christian pilgrims, in contrast to how the Fatimids had been, and soon pilgrims came under threat of robbery or even death as they were no longer welcome.  The Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius I]] asked for aid from the west both to the Popes and the Christian monarchs.  Nothing meaningful happened.  Alexius may have been hoping for money from the Pope for the hiring of mercenaries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Timeline - Prior to the First Crusade===&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades are traditionally taught in university courses as a stand-alone event that had no precedent.  There is some problem with this thought process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The first Crusade began in 1095:&lt;br /&gt;
** 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies. (The Battle of Fahl and the 634 Siege of Damascus)&lt;br /&gt;
** 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslims armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 443 years after Muslims first plundered Italy.&lt;br /&gt;
** 427 years after Muslims armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople.&lt;br /&gt;
** 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions from Christianity to Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20160322080651/http://christianheritagefellowship.com/the-crusades/ The Truth about the Crusades]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Papal call==&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to fight for the defense of the Christian East and the protection of pilgrims in a speech made at the [[Council of Clermont]] on November 27, 1095. Pope Urban specified the call to skilled fighters, not priests or monks, and specified that clergy were not to participate without consent of their superiors, reflecting a cool minded approach, not religious fervor to fight for Christian lands.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 39-41 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Urban demanded that all internal feuds within Christendom end, threatening [[excommunication]] for anyone who continued to bicker internally, and promising an indulgence (less time in purgatory) to anyone who died in the crusade.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This time Europe listened.  Those who were there erupted in spontaneous cries of &amp;quot;Deus le vult!&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;God wills it!&amp;quot;) - which would become the watchword of what we now know as the Crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Nothing like this had ever been done, and the Pope himself had no military power and had to count on those who were in positions of power to supply it.  While the monarchs of Europe did not get directly involved, it was a series of prominent nobles who answered the call, among the most famous being:  the Norman Bohemund of Taranto, former claimant to the Duchy of Apulia, his nephew Tancred, Count Raymond of Toulouse, [[Godfrey Of Bouillon|Duke Godfrey de Bouillon]] of Lorraine, Duke Hugh of Vermandois (brother of the King of France), Duke Robert of Normandy, and Count Robert of Flanders.  The spiritual leader who accompanied them was French Bishop Adhemar du Puy, who was appointed Papal legate.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All that was known at the start was that the forces to participate would meet together in [[Constantinople]], where Alexius had no idea what was being unleashed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The First Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[First Crusade]], properly speaking, was lead by Feudal lords, mostly of [[Franks|Frankish]] origin.  Many of the knights left home never expecting to return, knowing virtually nothing about the [[Holy Land]], and trusting in God for victory.  The army consisted of almost 20,000 men, including a mass of [[squire]]s and other servants necessary to support a mounted knight.  Arriving at Constantinople the force, which eventually reached almost 50,000 total men, was not what the Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius]] had expected.  He had hoped for a few thousand well trained mercenaries to help him retake his lands from the Turks, and had little in common with the goal of 'freeing the Holy Land'.  An uneasy tension ensued from 1096 to 1097 as the forces gathered, but through a combination of firmness and diplomacy, Alexius avoided serious complications. In return for his assurance of assistance, he obtained oaths of allegiance from the Crusader leaders, and their promise that they would help recapture [[Nicaea]] from the Turks and return to him any other former possessions which they conquered.  Alexius then transported them across the Bosporus - being careful not to allow any large number of Crusader forces inside the walls of his capital at any given time.  He also provided them with food and with an escort of Byzantine troops to guide them towards their objectives (and incidentally to prevent Crusader plundering).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy &amp;amp; Dupuy, 1979, Pg. 312-313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a hard march to the Holy Land, the army captured invested Nicaea in 1097.  By a combination of skillful fighting and skillful diplomacy, Alexius arrange for the surrender of the city to him after a successful Crusader-Byzantine assault on the outer walls.  The Crusaders were upset at Alexius' refusal to give them permission to sack the city.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusaders continued to the southeast in parallel columns, without any one commander in charge.  After fighting the inconclusive [[Battle of Dorylaeum]], the army split in half. Tancred and Baldwin, brother of Godfrey of Lorraine and future King of Jerusalem, went east took the Armenian fortress-city of [[Edessa]] - an action that destroyed the support of many local Armenian Christians for the Crusade, and weakened its internal bonds, as Baldwin and Tancred's men clashed over possession of the city, with Baldwin emerging triumphant. The main body of the army continued onward and besieged [[Antioch]].  The city was surrounded for 8 months from October 21, 1097 to June 3, 1098.  Two relieving armies were driven off in the [[Battles of Harenc]] in December and February.  Due to poor arrangements for supplies, the Crusading army was actually close to starvation, but was saved by the fortuitous arrival of English and Pisan flotillas which seized two nearby ports and brought provisions.  Bickering among the Crusader leaders, especially [[Bohemund]] and [[Raymond]] was rampant.  The initiative of Bohemund led to the capture of Antioch just 2 days before a relieving army of 75,000 strong under the atabeg of [[Mosul]], [[Kerboga]] would arrived, delayed itself after a fruitless three-week long attempt to dislodge Baldwin from Edessa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now it was the Crusaders turn to be trapped inside the city as Kerboga sieged Antioch from June 5, to June 28, 1098.  The Crusaders were cut off from supplies and again near starvation.  A Byzantine army was coming to take the city as agreed, but hearing that the Crusaders were doomed, turned back to Constantinople.  It was then the 'Holy Lance' was discovered; the weapon said to have pierced Jesus' side.  While few historians or theologians believe this miraculous discovery was valid, it energized the Crusader army at just the time they needed it.  The [[Battle of the Orontes]] was fought on June 28 where 15,000 Crusaders left Antioch to battle and drove off the entire Moslem army and broke the siege, helped in part by the decision of several of the local emirs serving under Kerbogha to abandon him during the battle, fearing that he coveted their territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to internal bickering, many of the Crusaders did not continue on to [[Jerusalem]].  The force that arrived in June 1099 was only about 12,000 strong, far fewer than the army of defenders.  They sieged the city from June 9 to July 18.  Realizing they didn't have enough men to keep out supplies and starve the defenders, they boldly attacked.  Overrunning the city, many of the inhabitants were massacred, including other Christians.  A relieving force of 50,000 strong arrived in August to fight the Crusaders, but were routed at the [[Battle of Ascalon]].  The military aspects of the First Crusade had ended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four feudal kingdoms were established, which would remain for nearly 100 years.  Several Military Orders, consisting of [[paladin]]s, were also set up within the next few years, focusing mainly around the protection of the welfare of pilgrims and the defense of Christendom within the framework of an organization that was both spiritual and martial in nature. The best known of these orders were the Knights of the Temple, or [[Templars]], and the Knights of the Hospital of St. John, or [[Hospitallers]]. The Hospitallers still exist today in the form of the Order of Malta and St. John's Ambulance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Second Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Second Crusade]] occurred in 1145 when [[Edessa]] was retaken by Islamic forces.  It was ultimately a failure, owing in part to the French king's insistence on betraying and attacking his only Muslim ally, [[Damascus]].  In 1187 the Muslims&lt;br /&gt;
captured Jerusalem under their leader [[Saladin]], which brought about a new call for a Crusade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Third Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Saladin2.jpg|thumb|left|270px]]The [[Third Crusade]] (1189–92) is famous for the battles between [[Richard I|Richard the Lionheart]] and [[Saladin]], highlighted by the deep respect the two enemies had for each other, and the sense of [[chivalry|chivalric]] honor of King Richard.  The crusade also involved the king of France (who returned home after an argument with Richard at Acre) and the Holy Roman Emperor (who drowned en route).  The crusade had the limited success of obtaining a truce between Richard and Saladin that promised to allow Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Fourth Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Fourth Crusade]], begun by [[Innocent III]] in 1202, intended to retake the Holy Land but was soon subverted by [[Venetian]]s who used the forces to sack the Christian city of [[Zara]]. Innocent excommunicated the Venetians and crusaders.  Eventually the crusaders arrived in [[Constantinople]], but due to strife which arose between them and the [[Byzantines]], rather than proceed to the Holy Land the crusaders instead sacked Constantinople and other parts of [[Asia Minor]] effectively establishing the Latin Empire of Constantinople in [[Greece]] and Asia Minor .  Both Zara and Constantinople were Christian cities, and the ultimate effect was a severely damaged relationship between Greek and Latin Christendom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was effectively the last crusade sponsored by the papacy; later crusades were sponsored by individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Crusades==&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the four main crusades there were several minor ones. &lt;br /&gt;
===The People's (Peasants') Crusade (1095-96)===&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the Pope issued his appeal in 1095 preachers like Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless fanned out across Western Europe, reaching [[Piety|pious]] common people in rural areas, including many peasants. They aroused such an enthusiasm among the peasants that neither the secular lords nor the local clergy could stop the people from marching east, filled with hopes for freedom from serfdom and the zest for adventure. Thousands of peasants set off with few supplies or weapons and no money, and no idea of the enormous distance to be traveled. They believed that God would provide the guidance for direction and the sustenance for life.  More prosperous farmers and burghers were also involved. Five uncoordinated bands trekked across the Balkan region toward Constantinople. The Byzantine Christians welcomed them reluctantly and even contemptuously, for the pilgrims robbed them and raided their farms and villages. The Byzantine army fought them in pitched battles; most peasants never reached Constantinople. The thousands who did arrive were militarily useless and unwelcome. The Emperor Alexius temporarily fed and housed them outside the city, then hurried them across the Bosporus into Asia Minor. There the peasants were all killed by the Turkish forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Steven Runciman, &amp;quot;The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch,&amp;quot;   in M. W. Baldwin, ed. ''The first hundred years'' (1969) pp. 281-85 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&amp;amp;entity=History.CrusOne.p0313&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]; &lt;br /&gt;
Frederic Duncalf, &amp;quot;The Peasants' Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 26, No. 3 (Apr., 1921), pp. 440-453 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(192104)26%3A3%3C440%3ATPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P in JSTOR]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Attacking Jews====&lt;br /&gt;
A smaller group of peasants led by Gottschalk took out their fervor on a more local target, the Jewish communities of Lotharingia.  Their actions were condemned by the Church and the local populace.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Age of Faith, Will Durant, 1950, Pg. 589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;RS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Riley-Smith, Jonathan.  ''The Crusades: a History.'' (2005)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A much larger threat against Jews took the form of a larger mob led by Count Emico of Leiningen, who was more organized and more brutal.  Already a man with a sullied reputation, he ignored the pleas of the Bishops in town after town to desist.  Apart from being hidden by the local populace when they heard Emico was coming, there was little the Jews could do.  Previously in Europe, local difficulties against Jewish communities would rise from time to time in various places, but would be isolated to that local area.  This started a phase not previously seen, a systematic effort to weed out and attack Jewish communities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Children's Crusade (1212)===&lt;br /&gt;
Even more [[pathetic]] than the peasant crusade of 1095-96 was a movement in France and Germany which attracted large numbers of peasant teenagers and young people (few were under age 15). They were convinced they could succeed where older and more sinful crusaders had failed: the miraculous power of their faith would triumph where the force of arms had not. Many parish priests and parents encouraged such religious fervor and urged them on. The Pope and bishops opposed the attempt but failed to stop it entirely. A band of several thousand youth and young men led by a German named Nicholas set out for Italy. About a third survived the march over the Alps and got as far as Genoa; another group came to Marseilles. The luckier ones eventually managed to get safely home, but many others were sold as lifetime slaves on the auction blocks of Marseilles slave dealers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dana C. Munro, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 19, No. 3 (Apr., 1914), pp. 516-524 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(191404)19%3A3%3C516%3ATCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C in JSTOR]; and Norman P. Zacour, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 325-342, esp. 330-37 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTWO.I0023&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221)===&lt;br /&gt;
Instigated by Pope Innocent III in 1215, this crusade was led in 1217 by John Brienne, king of Jerusalem, with the object of conquering Egypt. In 1219 the crusaders captured Damietta. The sultan of Egypt offered to exchange Jerusalem for Damietta but this was rejected. After an unsuccessful assault on Cairo in 1221, the defeated crusaders surrendered Damietta in return for the freedom to retreat.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomas C. Van Cleve, &amp;quot;The Fifth Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 377-428 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=377 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
===The Sixth Crusade (1228-1229)===&lt;br /&gt;
The sixth or &amp;quot; Diplomatic Crusade&amp;quot; was led by Emperor Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire.  He began in 1228, but fought no battles. Instead, by negotiation he obtained Jerusalem and a strip of territory from Acre to Jerusalem for the Christians. In 1225 he married Yolanda, the young heiress to the kingdom of Jerusalem; upon her death in 1228, Frederick crowned himself king of Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Seventh Crusade (1248-1250)===&lt;br /&gt;
Led by King Louis IX of France (reigned. 1226-1270) and directed against the Arabs of Egypt, this crusade was a complete failure. The crusaders were decisively defeated en route to Cairo and King Louis was captured; the Arabs demanded and received a huge ransom for the release of the hapless king.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition];  Peter Jackson, ''The Seventh Crusade, 1244-1254'' (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Crusade-12441254-Texts-Translation/dp/0754657221/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205399558&amp;amp;sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===The Eighth Crusade (1270)===&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring his advisers, King Louis IX again attacked the Arabs in Tunis in North Africa. He picked the hottest season of the year for campaigning and his army was devastated by disease. The king himself died, ending the last major attempt to free the Holy Land.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other Medieval Crusades===&lt;br /&gt;
At the time people used &amp;quot;crusade&amp;quot; to describe other religious wars waged against heretics, such as Hussites and Albigensian, as well as Moors in Spain and pagans in the Baltic region.&lt;br /&gt;
====The Albigensian Crusade (13th century)====&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Innocent III in 1209 called for a war against the Albigensians, a religious sect which had sprung up in southern France, centered near the cities of Albi and Toulouse in Provence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Essentially, the Albigensians believed in a non-Christian dualist doctrine: there was a coexistence, they affirmed, between good and evil, represented by such opposites as God and the Evil One, light and darkness, soul and body, afterlife and earthly life.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A bloody series of campaigns ended with Provence in ruins (1229) and the heretics defeated. In 1233 Pope Gregory IX placed the Dominicans in charge of investigating the remnants of Albigensianism with the legal power to name and condemn any surviving heretics. This marked the start of the [[Inquisition]].&lt;br /&gt;
====Teutonic Knights (1229-1525)====&lt;br /&gt;
A German religious and military order originally founded during the siege of Acre in the Third Crusade and modeled after the Knights Templars and Hospitalers, the Teutonic Knights moved to eastern Europe early in the 13th century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Moeller, &amp;quot;Teutonic Order,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14541b.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1912) vol 14 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There, under their grand master, Hermann von Salza, they became powerful and prominent. In 1229, responding to an appeal from the [[Poland, history|Duke of Poland]], they began a crusade against the pagan Slavs of Prussia. They became sovereigns over lands they conquered over the next century. In a series of campaigns, the Teutonic Knights gained control over the whole Baltic coast, founding numerous towns and fortresses and establishing Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edgar N. Johnson, &amp;quot;The German Crusade on the Baltic,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTHREE.I0028&amp;amp;isize=M H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 545-85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Crusades in Spain (711-1492)===&lt;br /&gt;
Muslims crossed from Africa into Spain early in the eighth century and in 711 at the battle of Río Barbate, they defeated the Visigoths and pressed forward to capture Toledo. By 718, the Moors (the name given North African Muslims by the Spaniards) had completed their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, except for small Christian remnants in the Pyrenees. They remained on for the next 674 years until driven out by Spanish and Portuguese Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The period of the Spanish Crusades began in the eleventh century when a religious revival was initiated by Cluniac monks in the small kingdoms in the north of Spain, which had recovered some of their lost territory. The revival expressed itself in a growing hatred for the infidel. Slowly yet steadily, at first sparked mainly by Burgundians and Normans from France, the Christians began to force the Moors out of northern and central Spain. Known as the [[Wars of the Reconquest]], these centuries-long conflicts intensified the Catholic sentiments of the people, developing an intense, even fanatical unity of religion and patriotism which was long characteristic of the Spaniards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the middle of the 15th century, the last bastion of Moorish power on the peninsula was the kingdom of Granada in southwestern Spain. When the marriage of Isabella, Queen of Castile, to Ferdinand, Prince of Aragon, in 1469 united Spain, they vigorously began their last campaign against the Moors.  In January 1492 the Spanish entered the city of Granada and Moorish power ended in Europe. The expulsion of the Moors from Spain may be considered the last of the many medieval crusades.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Julian Bishko, &amp;quot;The Spanish and Portuguese Reconquest, 1095-1492&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=396 H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 396-456&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Long-term Impact==&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, though Jerusalem was held for nearly a century and other strongholds in the Near East would remain in Christian possession much longer, the crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. Islamic expansion into Europe, while temporarily stalled, would renew and remain a threat for centuries with the disintegration of the [[Byzantine Empire]] and culminate with the campaigns of [[Suleiman the Magnificent]] in the sixteenth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the crusades achieved only temporary military success, they had a powerful impact on western Europe. The crusaders returned with a vastly widened knowledge of the world they lived in, and a willingness to explore that became a permanent part of the west European mindset. In religion, culture, and commerce, post-Crusades Europe was visibly affected by its prolonged encounter with another continent and another way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Commerce and economy===&lt;br /&gt;
The merchants of Venice and other Italian cities gained the most profit. They amassed considerable income in payment for the services they rendered the crusaders and were enriched by the commercial rights they obtained throughout the Near East. Genoa, Pisa, and Venice gained special monopolies throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Their merchants used these privileges to introduce into the Western world such oriental luxuries as silks, spices, and pearls, whose transportation and sale made the cities rich. The demand for these products encouraged explorers to seek out new and more direct routes to the East—most famously in the discovery and exploration of the Americas by Columbus and others starting in 1492. The crusades helped create a moneyed aristocracy and encouraged the growth of capitalism in the Italian cities. Silks and spices not only raised the standard of living of the rich, they stimulated the entire urban economy, although cities remained small. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The returning crusaders came back to Europe with new tastes in dress and diet, such as peaches and spinach. They gave up the custom of wearing a load of heavy armor at nearly all times and appeared in the flowing robes of silk or cotton which were the traditional habit of the Muslims.&lt;br /&gt;
===Weakens feudalism===&lt;br /&gt;
In rural areas, where the vast majority of Europeans lives, the crusades tended to weaken feudalism and strengthen central governments. Thousands of feudal aristocrats died young and many baronial families lost heavily or even went bankrupt because they borrowed money for the adventure and could not repay. Since credit markets were undeveloped and inefficient, the crusaders paid high premiums to borrow; many accepted donations from friends and family.  For a local baron to bring along 10 knights on a crusade cost some 3000 livres a year. There was some plunder along the way, but plunder was hard to liquefy to pay off loans back home. Instead of acquiring new rich new lands and fabulous wealth in the East, many noble families sold, pawned or mortgaged lands, castles, benefices, and jewels; most saw their finances damaged. Money lenders in Italian cities grew rich. The feudal barons were the basis of localism; power now tended to become more centralized and national. Of course when the kings crusaded, it cost them dearly and weakened their throne. [[Richard the Lionhearted]] of England sold off the income he was owed from Scotland, and tried to sell London itself but could not find a buyer. By contributing to the rise of the cities, the development of a money economy, and the strengthening of national monarchies, hastened, to some extent, feudalism's collapse.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fred A. Cazel, Jr. &amp;quot;Financing the Crusades,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix N. P. Zacour,  and H.W. Hazard, eds. ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe'' (1989), pp 116-49 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Church===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades at first helped, then hurt the church and the [[Papacy, history|papacy]]. In the early stages, the popes took the leadership of Europe in a great holy cause against the infidel world.  Germany, France and England in particular responded to the popes. However the popes lost that leadership to secular princes by the time of the Third Crusade; during the Fourth Crusade the crusaders rejected Innocent III's demands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades were a major contributing factor in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches. The Crusaders deposed the native Patriarchs and appointed Latin Patriarchs in their place. These appointments were ratified by the Pope. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the kingdom of Jerusalem, the commercial interests fostered an unexpected friendship with the Muslims, leading to an acceptance of oriental customs, and toleration of the rival religion. No such tolerance was visible in Western Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Culture===&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the West====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of cultural influence, 20th century historians have revised the traditionally positive picture of the Crusades, finding little evidence of significant impact.  19th century historians saw in the Crusades a major stimulus for the renewed interest in learning, art, literature, and architecture that took place across Western Europe, and some historians had even argued the Crusades were mainly responsible for the [[Renaissance]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been argued that the crusades stimulated broader vision and better understanding of the wider world for the countries who embarked on them. Men who had never been 30 miles beyond their village or manor saw firsthand new places, peoples and customs. One impact the Crusades did have on literary art was the immortalisation of the Crusading heroes in oft-recited poems.  The ''Estoire de la guerre sainte'' is in Old French couplets, lauding the exploits of Richard the Lion-Hearted in the Third Crusade. A free poetical spirit characterizes ''Le Chanson d'Antioche'' that describes the First Crusade. The ages-old tales of Arthur and Charlemagne were given a fresh crusading complexion during the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the East====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A significant long-term cultural impact on the Muslim world is the resultant resentment, fear and distrust of Christian Europe, evidence of which as survived into the 21st century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Philip Khurl Pitti, &amp;quot;The Impact of the Crusades on Moslem Lands,&amp;quot; in N. P. Zacour and H. W. Hazard, eds., [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSFIVE.I0015&amp;amp;isize=M ''The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East,'' (1985) pp. 33-58, online]; Car Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When The US president [[George W. Bush]] described in 2001 the newly defined [[War on terror]] as a &amp;quot;Crusade&amp;quot;, the Islamic world in particular was alarmed at what was widely considered to be ill-judged language.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2006, [[Osama Bin Laden]], speaking from hiding, described Western policy towards the Muslim world as a &amp;quot;Zionist-Crusader war against Islam&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Byzantine Empire===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades postponed the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine Empire until 1453, but the determination of Westerners to conquer and colonize the lands of Byzantium led to its downfall. Rather than curing its ills, they made its death inevitable. The plunder of Constantinople in 1204 and the Venetian monopoly of its trade were a fatal blow to the political and economic life of the empire. Even after its restoration in 1261, Constantinople never regained its former strength.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historiography and Memory==&lt;br /&gt;
===Legend and literature in the West===&lt;br /&gt;
Both legend and literature has surrounded the Crusades with an aura of romance, grandeur, chivalry and courage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Dana Carleton Munro, [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The myth is only remotely related to reality. The countless tales of the gallant knights of the Cross glitter in hyperbole. Many stories are true about the crusaders' feats of valor. However the crusaders occupied the Holy Land only temporarily.  In their major mission, the crusaders lost in the very long run. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical memory of the crusades has been sharply divided. The Catholic tradition in Europe looked upon the Crusades favorably, but the Protestant historians were more negative. [[Martin Luther]] once suggested that the Turks were God's instrument for punishing Christians. In recent decades a sense of western guilt is apparent, as in the 1995 BBC television series, presented by Terry Jones, which portrayed the crusades as a long, misguided war of intolerance, ignorance and barbarism against a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald E. Queller and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999), p. 1, Most historians have a negative view of the reliability of the BBC series.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) examines the use of the crusades as a national symbol from the 19th century to the 1910s in France, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Ethiopia, Britain, Russia, and Bulgaria. Though the Enlightenment and its secular ideological successors held the crusades as an example of medieval barbarity. Enlightenment thinkers like historian-philosophers [[Voltaire]] and [[David Hume]] denounced the crusades, as did the great historian of Byzantium [[Edward Gibbon]], who wrote: &lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and the most important effects were analogous to the cause…. The belief of the Catholics was corrupted by new legends…. The active spirit of the Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion…. The lives and labours of millions, which were buried in the East, would have been more profitably employed in the improvement of their native country.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edward Gibbon, ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,'' (1776), [https://books.google.com/books?id=Hy8OAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PT249&amp;amp;lpg=PT249&amp;amp;dq=%22principle+of+the+crusades+was+a+savage+fanaticism%22&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=PGcJRsXv2k&amp;amp;sig=gH4PAb31uRoQu2u54z7h_hzGp8U&amp;amp;hl=en ch 61 p. 1086]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In the 19th century, however, romantic writers like novelist Sir [[Walter Scott]] created heroic images of the crusaders. The romantics and conservative adherents of the European ancien régimes appropriated crusading imagery for their own 19th century political goals, downplaying religion to fit within a modern, secular context and presenting crusades as a counterpoint to liberal ideas of nationalism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) explores three primary themes: memory of the crusades as it relates to debates over the generation and use of national symbols; the crusader as a romantic hero; and the Muslim recollection of the crusades as a shameful blot on the past of Christian nations. The crusades appealed to many Europeans because they reflected a morally unambiguous time, sparked romanticized images of warfare in a time of imperialist expansion, and provided heroic templates for modern &amp;quot;crusading&amp;quot; imperialist heroes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adam Knobler, &amp;quot;Holy Wars, Empires, and the Portability of the Past: the Modern Uses of Medieval Crusades.&amp;quot; ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2006 48(2): 293-325. Issn: 0010-4175 Fulltext: [[Cambridge Journals]]; see also Elizabeth Siberry, ''The New Crusaders: Images of the Crusades in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries'' (2000)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Muslim world===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muslim historiography does not cover the crusades with the same intensity as the West. One reason could be that Turks were primarily responsible for the defeat of the crusaders and Arab historians (who have written much of modern Islamic history) may have underplayed this, due to the Turks role in establishing the Ottoman Empire - a period that suppressed Arab nationalism for seven centuries into the era of World War I.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives'' p. 5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great Muslim hero was a [[Kurdistan|Kurd]], Saladin (1138–93). Having defeated the crusaders in 1187, and become sovereign and founder of the Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt and Syria, Salah al-Din (Saladin) has been for a century the object of an intense glorification in the Arab world.  Farah Antun's play ''Sultan Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1914) illustrates how the historical figure of Saladin came to be presented as a prophet of Arab nationalism. Antun (1874-1922) was a Syrian Christian who presents Saladin as the champion of a just jihad against the Crusaders and as a faithful upholder of the virtues of wisdom, determination, and frankness, calling on the peoples of all Arab countries to unite against Western imperialists. The refusal of Antun's Saladin to become embroiled in quarrels within Europe had obvious echoes in World War I and caused the play to be censored by the British authorities in Egypt.  In Palestine, the glorification also took the form of pilgrimages to Nabi Musa and became an occasion to celebrate the memory of the great hero of Muslim history. A recent myth proclaims him the initiator of Palestinian pilgrimages. The figure of the past has become the modern hero of Arab nationalism, giving hope to a society prey to war and dispersion. At the same time, however, the pilgrimage ritual highlights the limits of the hero: constantly appealed to and put to the test, he has begun to show signs of fragility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emma Aubin-Boltanski, &amp;quot;Salah Al-din, un Heros a l'epreuve: Mythe et Pelerinage en Palestine,&amp;quot; [Saladin, a Hero under Scrutiny: Myth and Pilgrimage in Palestine]. ''Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales'' [[in French]] 2005 60(1): 91-107. Issn: 0395-2649&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Church Liturgy===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Linder (2001) examines 15th century Church liturgy designed to generate support for the war effort against the Turks and to legitimize its aims. Two types of Contra Turcos Masses were used: masses converted to this function through the addition of appropriate three core prayers and complete dedicated masses. The most popular example of the first type was the triple prayer set originally established by Clement V as a Holy Land crusade liturgy and subsequently mobilized against the Turks. The second type is represented by nine different mass formularies that were introduced after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Most surviving liturgies are of German or French provenance, indicating extensive use not only among the front-line populations but also in areas far removed from any threat. The liturgy displays an its intense crisis rhetoric. Its predominant stance of vulnerability and defensiveness entailed aggressive mobilization and the conceptualization of the Turk as the actual, specific manifestation of the generic infidel, the competing religious Other; and the remarkable continuity - in form and in content - that linked this liturgy with its parent liturgies (mainly those of the campaigns against the pagans and the Holy Land Crusades) further accentuated these traits. The communicative function and value of this liturgy is highlighted by the concentration of the direct, unmediated communicative elements in that part of the mass that was the most accessible to the laity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Amnon Linder, &amp;quot;The War Liturgy Against the Turks in the Late Middle Ages.&amp;quot; ''Historia: Journal of the Historical Society of Israel'' . 2001 (8): 73-105. Issn: 0334-4843; the text is in Hebrew.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dome of the Rock]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Al-Aqsa Mosque]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Famous Castles in the World]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Eastern Catholic Churches]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Basic further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003). ISBN 9780313316593. Bloomsbury Publishing.&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005). Rowman &amp;amp; Littlefield Publishers. 3rd Edition. ISBN 9781442215757.&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Detailed Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
===Surveys===&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).&lt;br /&gt;
* Phillips, Jonathan, and Martin Hoch. ''The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Second-Crusade-Scope-Consequences/dp/0719057116/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205372474&amp;amp;sr=1-4 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* Queller, Donald E., and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999) [https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Crusade-Conquest-Constantinople-Middle/dp/0812217136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270938&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Runciman, Steven. ''A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusade and the Foundations of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.''; ''Volume II: The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East 1100-1187.'' and ''Volume III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades'' (1951–53), the classic history; very hostile toward the crusaders &lt;br /&gt;
*Setton, Kenneth ed., ''A History of the Crusades''. (1969-1989), the standard scholarly history in six volumes, published by the University of Wisconsin Press  [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=browse&amp;amp;scope=History.HistCrusades complete text online]. &lt;br /&gt;
: Includes: [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?id=History.CrusOne ''The first hundred years''] (2nd ed. 1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311''] (1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFour ''The art and architecture of the crusader states''] (1977); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFive ''The impact of the Crusades on the Near East''] (1985); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe''] (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Specialized studies===&lt;br /&gt;
* Abulafia, David. ''Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor'' (1988)&lt;br /&gt;
* Boas, Adrian J. ''Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades: Society, Landscape, and Art in the Holy City under Frankish Rule'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/107613849 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Crusades,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1908) vol 4. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1291),&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08361a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1910) vol 8. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bull, Marcus, and Norman Housley, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 1, Western Approaches.'' (2003) (323pp) &lt;br /&gt;
** Edbury, Peter, and Jonathan Phillips, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 2, Defining the Crusader Kingdom.'' (2003) 326pp; specialized articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Butler, R. Urban. &amp;quot;Urban II,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1911) online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Edgington, Susan B., and Sarah Lambert, eds. ''Gendering the Crusades.'' (2002) 232pp essays by scholars. &lt;br /&gt;
*  Folda, Jaroslav. ''Crusader Art in the Holy Land, From the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusader-Holy-Land-Third-Crusade/dp/0521835836/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205436596&amp;amp;sr=8-3 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* James, Douglas. &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''History Review'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53; online at [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Kagay, Donald J., and L. J. Andrew Villalon, eds. ''Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon: Medieval Warfare in Societies around the Mediterranean.'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/read/109303998 online edition] &lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. ''The Kingdom of the Crusaders'' (1936) [http://www.questia.com/read/3840921 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Peters, Edward. ''Christian Society and the Crusades, 1198-1229'' (1971) [http://www.questia.com/read/14405191 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Powell, James M. ''Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213-1221,'' (1986) [http://www.questia.com/read/3123539 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Richard, Jean. ''Saint Louis: Crusader King of France'' (1992)&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Smail, R. C. &amp;quot;Crusaders' Castles of the Twelfth Century&amp;quot;   ''Cambridge Historical Journal'' Vol. 10, No. 2. (1951), pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;133–149. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1474-6913%281951%2910%3A2%3C133%3ACCOTTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J in JSTOR]&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher.  ''England and the Crusades, 1095-1588.'' (1988). 492 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
===Islam and Byzantium===&lt;br /&gt;
* Florean, Dana. &amp;quot;East Meets West: Cultural Confrontation and Exchange after the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''Language &amp;amp; Intercultural Communication,'' 2007, Vol. 7 Issue 2, pp144–151 in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Gabrieli, Francesco. ''Arab Historians of the Crusades'' (2009)&lt;br /&gt;
* Harris, Jonathan. ''Byzantium and the Crusades.'' (2003). Pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;276pp &lt;br /&gt;
* Hillenbrand, Carole. ''The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Surveys/dp/0748606300/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294196&amp;amp;sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*  Lane-Poole, Stanley. ''Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1898) [https://books.google.com/books?id=sb4bAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=intitle:Saladin+intitle:and+intitle:the+intitle:Fall+intitle:of+intitle:the+intitle:Kingdom+intitle:of+intitle:Jerusalem&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;num=30&amp;amp;as_brr=0&amp;amp;ei=gm3bR9CgCYPQiQGb0P3VAQ full text online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Maalouf, Amin. ''Crusades Through Arab Eyes'' (1989) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Through-Arab-Eyes-Maalouf/dp/0805208984/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146248/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294049&amp;amp;sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Historiography===&lt;br /&gt;
*  Constable, Giles. &amp;quot;The Historiography of the Crusades&amp;quot;  in Angeliki E.  Laiou, ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001); major overview of scholarship [http://www.doaks.org/Crusades/CR01.pdf online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Laiou, Angeliki E. ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001) [http://www.doaks.org/CRcnts.html online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ed. ''The Crusades: The Essential Readings'' (2002) ISBN 0-631-23023-8 284pp, articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31. On medieval histories of the crusades. [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Primary sources===&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman, ed. ''Documents on the Later Crusades, 1274-1580'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* Krey, August C. ''The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants'' (1958). &lt;br /&gt;
* Shaw, M. R. B. ed.''Chronicles of the Crusades'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/read/58956484 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Villehardouin, Geoffrey, and Jean de Joinville. ''Chronicles of the Crusades'' ed. by Sir Frank Marzials (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-Crusades-Dover-Value-Editions/dp/0486454363/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270195&amp;amp;sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
:Villehardouin's ''Conquest of Constantinople'' is a standard reference work on the Fourth Crusade; it is the first work in medieval French prose. Joinville's life of St. Louis is a classic description of the life and times of King Louis IX; it is written in Old French and is perhaps the best biography written in the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Military History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Medieval History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Christian History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Crusades]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Crusades}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2157145</id>
		<title>The Crusades</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2157145"/>
		<updated>2025-09-08T15:31:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Christianity}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Middle Ages}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Crusader.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A returning Crusader]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''The Crusades''' (1095-1291) were a series of European Catholic campaigns into the Middle East, fought during the Middle Ages. They were the military responses made by Catholics, from western Europe to the Pope's pleas to re-capture the Holy Land from Islamic influence. After centuries of Islamic attacks, prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250908132840/https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades The Crusades] Encyclopedia Britannica &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prior Islamic expansion&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250801015722/https://www.onthewing.org/user/Islam%20-%20Conquests.pdf List of Islamic Expansion on the West Prior to First Crusade]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;O'Neill, John J. (2010) &amp;quot;[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1805&amp;amp;context=ccr The Crusades: A Response to Islamic Aggression],&amp;quot; Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 63: No. 63, Article 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The First Crusade was Western Europeans performing a counter offensive, thus the First Crusade was not a initiation of conflict, but was instead the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 28 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Riley-Smith. 2024. The Crusades: a History (4th edition). Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 1350028614. Page 21 &amp;quot;The cause for a crusade was particularly important because at least at first, these wars were fought primarily by volunteers. The first crusaders were such by virtue of the vows they had made; in canon law a vow had to be a voluntary act. When a pope proclaimed a crusade this could be no more than an appeal to men and women to join an expedition of their own free will. He might threaten them with hell-fire, but he could not force them to make vows, or punish them if they did not, and there were occasions when efforts at recruitment failed. A convincing case was therefore essential, even if it had to be made post hoc. Expeditions to the eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, or the Iberian Peninsula could be justified as responses to present Muslim aggression or as attempts to recover “Christian” territory that had been injuriously seized in the past.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250827143542/https://www.britannica.com/question/What-was-the-purpose-of-the-Crusades What was the purpose of the Crusades?] - Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250616161718/https://apholt.com/2017/06/06/the-first-crusade-as-a-defensive-war-a-response-to-prof-gabriele/ The First Crusade as a “Defensive War”: A Response to Prof. Gabriele - Andrew Holt (2017)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The '''First Crusade''' created new Latin states in the Holy Land. Subsequent crusades were less successful except when they attacked Byzantium.  Other medieval movements against heretics and infidels were also called crusades. The crusades ended with the Islamic recapture of all the Holy Land in 1291, when the last city controlled by crusaders, Acre, fell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades comprise a major chapter of [[Middle Ages|Medieval History]]. Extending over three centuries, they attracted every social class in western Europe. Kings and commoners, barons and bishops, knights and commoners&amp;amp;mdash;even teenagers&amp;amp;mdash;all participated in these expeditions to the eastern end of the Mediterranean. The motives of the crusaders were numerous: some sought riches; many sought adventure; most were moved by faith alone. Historians stress the central role of religious fervor, while mentioning as well the socio-economic factors crucial in enticing larger contingents. For example, crusaders often were fulfilling their feudal obligations. There were strong links between the papal reforms, the social necessity of violence and the exploitation of this inherent revivalistic imagination of the age of the Papacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas James, &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade,&amp;quot; ''History Review,'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades failed to achieve the permanent control of the Holy Land. However, their influence was wide and deep. Much of &lt;br /&gt;
the crusading fervor carried over to the successful fights against the Moors (Muslims) in Spain and the pagan Slavs in eastern Europe. Politically the crusades weakened the decrepit Byzantine Empire, but temporarily kept the Muslims away from it. The First Crusade strengthened the moral leadership of the &lt;br /&gt;
papacy in Europe, but the failures of the later crusades weakened both the crusading ideal and respect for the papacy&lt;br /&gt;
Contact with the East widened the scope of the Europeans, ended their isolation, and exposed them to an rich civilization. The economic effects of the crusades were modest, but they did reopen of the eastern Mediterranean to Western commerce, which itself had an effect on the rise of great cities such as Venice and the emergence of a money economy in the West.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusaders derived their name from the Latin word for &amp;quot;cross&amp;quot;—crux. A crusader went to the Holy Land with a cross of cloth sewn over his breast; when he returned, he had a similar cross for his back.   Originally called to repel the Islamic forces that controlled [[Jerusalem]], the crusades evolved into a form of political decree called by the Papacy for political, social or economic reasons. The campaigns of [[Teutonic knight]]s against [[pagan]] strongholds in [[Eastern Europe]] are also sometimes called crusades.  Lastly, military actions within Christendom against heretical and schismatic groups are sometimes called a crusade. Thus a crusade in most general terms was a directive of war issued by the Pope to all Rome-friendly nations against forces, whether Muslim, pagan or Eastern Orthodox, which were hostile to the Papacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. The fourth crusade resulted in a very damaged relationship between [[Orthodox Church|Greek]] and [[Roman Catholic|Latin]] Christendom.  Islamic expansion into remained a threat for centuries, with crusading orders establishing strongholds to protect Mediterranean islands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the crusades in southern [[Spain]] were militarily successful, eventually leading to the end of Islamic power in the region in 1492.  The Teutonic knights expanded Christian domains in Eastern Europe, and the [[Albigensian Crusade]], achieved its goal of destroying heretics in France.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, ''Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300–1475''. 6th ed. (McGraw-Hill 1998)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Origin of the Crusades ==&lt;br /&gt;
Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world after centuries of attacks and so Western Europeans performed a counter offensive with the First Crusade.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Thus, Westerners were not the initiators of conflict, but and instead the First Crusade was the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Holy Land had been part of the [[Roman Empire]], and thus the [[Byzantine Empire]], until the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries that forced the Byzantines out and saw the area gradually turn Islamic. Calm returned and Christians had generally been permitted to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land until 1071, when the [[Seljuk Turks]] assailed the Byzantines, defeating them at the [[Battle of Manzikert]], and conquered Jerusalem from the Egyptian Fatimids the same year.  They were not friendly to Christian pilgrims, in contrast to how the Fatimids had been, and soon pilgrims came under threat of robbery or even death as they were no longer welcome.  The Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius I]] asked for aid from the west both to the Popes and the Christian monarchs.  Nothing meaningful happened.  Alexius may have been hoping for money from the Pope for the hiring of mercenaries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Timeline - Prior to the First Crusade===&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades are traditionally taught in university courses as a stand-alone event that had no precedent.  There is some problem with this thought process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The first Crusade began in 1095:&lt;br /&gt;
** 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies. (The Battle of Fahl and the 634 Siege of Damascus)&lt;br /&gt;
** 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslims armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 443 years after Muslims first plundered Italy.&lt;br /&gt;
** 427 years after Muslims armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople.&lt;br /&gt;
** 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions from Christianity to Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20160322080651/http://christianheritagefellowship.com/the-crusades/ The Truth about the Crusades]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Papal call==&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to fight for the defense of the Christian East and the protection of pilgrims in a speech made at the [[Council of Clermont]] on November 27, 1095. Pope Urban specified the call to skilled fighters, not priests or monks, and specified that clergy were not to participate without consent of their superiors, reflecting a cool minded approach, not religious fervor to fight for Christian lands.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 39-41 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Urban demanded that all internal feuds within Christendom end, threatening [[excommunication]] for anyone who continued to bicker internally, and promising an indulgence (less time in purgatory) to anyone who died in the crusade.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This time Europe listened.  Those who were there erupted in spontaneous cries of &amp;quot;Deus le vult!&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;God wills it!&amp;quot;) - which would become the watchword of what we now know as the Crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Nothing like this had ever been done, and the Pope himself had no military power and had to count on those who were in positions of power to supply it.  While the monarchs of Europe did not get directly involved, it was a series of prominent nobles who answered the call, among the most famous being:  the Norman Bohemund of Taranto, former claimant to the Duchy of Apulia, his nephew Tancred, Count Raymond of Toulouse, [[Godfrey Of Bouillon|Duke Godfrey de Bouillon]] of Lorraine, Duke Hugh of Vermandois (brother of the King of France), Duke Robert of Normandy, and Count Robert of Flanders.  The spiritual leader who accompanied them was French Bishop Adhemar du Puy, who was appointed Papal legate.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All that was known at the start was that the forces to participate would meet together in [[Constantinople]], where Alexius had no idea what was being unleashed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The First Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[First Crusade]], properly speaking, was lead by Feudal lords, mostly of [[Franks|Frankish]] origin.  Many of the knights left home never expecting to return, knowing virtually nothing about the [[Holy Land]], and trusting in God for victory.  The army consisted of almost 20,000 men, including a mass of [[squire]]s and other servants necessary to support a mounted knight.  Arriving at Constantinople the force, which eventually reached almost 50,000 total men, was not what the Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius]] had expected.  He had hoped for a few thousand well trained mercenaries to help him retake his lands from the Turks, and had little in common with the goal of 'freeing the Holy Land'.  An uneasy tension ensued from 1096 to 1097 as the forces gathered, but through a combination of firmness and diplomacy, Alexius avoided serious complications. In return for his assurance of assistance, he obtained oaths of allegiance from the Crusader leaders, and their promise that they would help recapture [[Nicaea]] from the Turks and return to him any other former possessions which they conquered.  Alexius then transported them across the Bosporus - being careful not to allow any large number of Crusader forces inside the walls of his capital at any given time.  He also provided them with food and with an escort of Byzantine troops to guide them towards their objectives (and incidentally to prevent Crusader plundering).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy &amp;amp; Dupuy, 1979, Pg. 312-313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a hard march to the Holy Land, the army captured invested Nicaea in 1097.  By a combination of skillful fighting and skillful diplomacy, Alexius arrange for the surrender of the city to him after a successful Crusader-Byzantine assault on the outer walls.  The Crusaders were upset at Alexius' refusal to give them permission to sack the city.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusaders continued to the southeast in parallel columns, without any one commander in charge.  After fighting the inconclusive [[Battle of Dorylaeum]], the army split in half. Tancred and Baldwin, brother of Godfrey of Lorraine and future King of Jerusalem, went east took the Armenian fortress-city of [[Edessa]] - an action that destroyed the support of many local Armenian Christians for the Crusade, and weakened its internal bonds, as Baldwin and Tancred's men clashed over possession of the city, with Baldwin emerging triumphant. The main body of the army continued onward and besieged [[Antioch]].  The city was surrounded for 8 months from October 21, 1097 to June 3, 1098.  Two relieving armies were driven off in the [[Battles of Harenc]] in December and February.  Due to poor arrangements for supplies, the Crusading army was actually close to starvation, but was saved by the fortuitous arrival of English and Pisan flotillas which seized two nearby ports and brought provisions.  Bickering among the Crusader leaders, especially [[Bohemund]] and [[Raymond]] was rampant.  The initiative of Bohemund led to the capture of Antioch just 2 days before a relieving army of 75,000 strong under the atabeg of [[Mosul]], [[Kerboga]] would arrived, delayed itself after a fruitless three-week long attempt to dislodge Baldwin from Edessa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now it was the Crusaders turn to be trapped inside the city as Kerboga sieged Antioch from June 5, to June 28, 1098.  The Crusaders were cut off from supplies and again near starvation.  A Byzantine army was coming to take the city as agreed, but hearing that the Crusaders were doomed, turned back to Constantinople.  It was then the 'Holy Lance' was discovered; the weapon said to have pierced Jesus' side.  While few historians or theologians believe this miraculous discovery was valid, it energized the Crusader army at just the time they needed it.  The [[Battle of the Orontes]] was fought on June 28 where 15,000 Crusaders left Antioch to battle and drove off the entire Moslem army and broke the siege, helped in part by the decision of several of the local emirs serving under Kerbogha to abandon him during the battle, fearing that he coveted their territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to internal bickering, many of the Crusaders did not continue on to [[Jerusalem]].  The force that arrived in June 1099 was only about 12,000 strong, far fewer than the army of defenders.  They sieged the city from June 9 to July 18.  Realizing they didn't have enough men to keep out supplies and starve the defenders, they boldly attacked.  Overrunning the city, many of the inhabitants were massacred, including other Christians.  A relieving force of 50,000 strong arrived in August to fight the Crusaders, but were routed at the [[Battle of Ascalon]].  The military aspects of the First Crusade had ended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four feudal kingdoms were established, which would remain for nearly 100 years.  Several Military Orders, consisting of [[paladin]]s, were also set up within the next few years, focusing mainly around the protection of the welfare of pilgrims and the defense of Christendom within the framework of an organization that was both spiritual and martial in nature. The best known of these orders were the Knights of the Temple, or [[Templars]], and the Knights of the Hospital of St. John, or [[Hospitallers]]. The Hospitallers still exist today in the form of the Order of Malta and St. John's Ambulance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Second Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Second Crusade]] occurred in 1145 when [[Edessa]] was retaken by Islamic forces.  It was ultimately a failure, owing in part to the French king's insistence on betraying and attacking his only Muslim ally, [[Damascus]].  In 1187 the Muslims&lt;br /&gt;
captured Jerusalem under their leader [[Saladin]], which brought about a new call for a Crusade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Third Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Saladin2.jpg|thumb|left|270px]]The [[Third Crusade]] (1189–92) is famous for the battles between [[Richard I|Richard the Lionheart]] and [[Saladin]], highlighted by the deep respect the two enemies had for each other, and the sense of [[chivalry|chivalric]] honor of King Richard.  The crusade also involved the king of France (who returned home after an argument with Richard at Acre) and the Holy Roman Emperor (who drowned en route).  The crusade had the limited success of obtaining a truce between Richard and Saladin that promised to allow Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Fourth Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Fourth Crusade]], begun by [[Innocent III]] in 1202, intended to retake the Holy Land but was soon subverted by [[Venetian]]s who used the forces to sack the Christian city of [[Zara]]. Innocent excommunicated the Venetians and crusaders.  Eventually the crusaders arrived in [[Constantinople]], but due to strife which arose between them and the [[Byzantines]], rather than proceed to the Holy Land the crusaders instead sacked Constantinople and other parts of [[Asia Minor]] effectively establishing the Latin Empire of Constantinople in [[Greece]] and Asia Minor .  Both Zara and Constantinople were Christian cities, and the ultimate effect was a severely damaged relationship between Greek and Latin Christendom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was effectively the last crusade sponsored by the papacy; later crusades were sponsored by individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Crusades==&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the four main crusades there were several minor ones. &lt;br /&gt;
===The People's (Peasants') Crusade (1095-96)===&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the Pope issued his appeal in 1095 preachers like Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless fanned out across Western Europe, reaching [[Piety|pious]] common people in rural areas, including many peasants. They aroused such an enthusiasm among the peasants that neither the secular lords nor the local clergy could stop the people from marching east, filled with hopes for freedom from serfdom and the zest for adventure. Thousands of peasants set off with few supplies or weapons and no money, and no idea of the enormous distance to be traveled. They believed that God would provide the guidance for direction and the sustenance for life.  More prosperous farmers and burghers were also involved. Five uncoordinated bands trekked across the Balkan region toward Constantinople. The Byzantine Christians welcomed them reluctantly and even contemptuously, for the pilgrims robbed them and raided their farms and villages. The Byzantine army fought them in pitched battles; most peasants never reached Constantinople. The thousands who did arrive were militarily useless and unwelcome. The Emperor Alexius temporarily fed and housed them outside the city, then hurried them across the Bosporus into Asia Minor. There the peasants were all killed by the Turkish forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Steven Runciman, &amp;quot;The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch,&amp;quot;   in M. W. Baldwin, ed. ''The first hundred years'' (1969) pp. 281-85 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&amp;amp;entity=History.CrusOne.p0313&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]; &lt;br /&gt;
Frederic Duncalf, &amp;quot;The Peasants' Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 26, No. 3 (Apr., 1921), pp. 440-453 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(192104)26%3A3%3C440%3ATPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P in JSTOR]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Attacking Jews====&lt;br /&gt;
A smaller group of peasants led by Gottschalk took out their fervor on a more local target, the Jewish communities of Lotharingia.  Their actions were condemned by the Church and the local populace.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Age of Faith, Will Durant, 1950, Pg. 589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;RS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Riley-Smith, Jonathan.  ''The Crusades: a History.'' (2005)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A much larger threat against Jews took the form of a larger mob led by Count Emico of Leiningen, who was more organized and more brutal.  Already a man with a sullied reputation, he ignored the pleas of the Bishops in town after town to desist.  Apart from being hidden by the local populace when they heard Emico was coming, there was little the Jews could do.  Previously in Europe, local difficulties against Jewish communities would rise from time to time in various places, but would be isolated to that local area.  This started a phase not previously seen, a systematic effort to weed out and attack Jewish communities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Children's Crusade (1212)===&lt;br /&gt;
Even more [[pathetic]] than the peasant crusade of 1095-96 was a movement in France and Germany which attracted large numbers of peasant teenagers and young people (few were under age 15). They were convinced they could succeed where older and more sinful crusaders had failed: the miraculous power of their faith would triumph where the force of arms had not. Many parish priests and parents encouraged such religious fervor and urged them on. The Pope and bishops opposed the attempt but failed to stop it entirely. A band of several thousand youth and young men led by a German named Nicholas set out for Italy. About a third survived the march over the Alps and got as far as Genoa; another group came to Marseilles. The luckier ones eventually managed to get safely home, but many others were sold as lifetime slaves on the auction blocks of Marseilles slave dealers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dana C. Munro, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 19, No. 3 (Apr., 1914), pp. 516-524 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(191404)19%3A3%3C516%3ATCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C in JSTOR]; and Norman P. Zacour, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 325-342, esp. 330-37 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTWO.I0023&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221)===&lt;br /&gt;
Instigated by Pope Innocent III in 1215, this crusade was led in 1217 by John Brienne, king of Jerusalem, with the object of conquering Egypt. In 1219 the crusaders captured Damietta. The sultan of Egypt offered to exchange Jerusalem for Damietta but this was rejected. After an unsuccessful assault on Cairo in 1221, the defeated crusaders surrendered Damietta in return for the freedom to retreat.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomas C. Van Cleve, &amp;quot;The Fifth Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 377-428 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=377 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
===The Sixth Crusade (1228-1229)===&lt;br /&gt;
The sixth or &amp;quot; Diplomatic Crusade&amp;quot; was led by Emperor Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire.  He began in 1228, but fought no battles. Instead, by negotiation he obtained Jerusalem and a strip of territory from Acre to Jerusalem for the Christians. In 1225 he married Yolanda, the young heiress to the kingdom of Jerusalem; upon her death in 1228, Frederick crowned himself king of Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Seventh Crusade (1248-1250)===&lt;br /&gt;
Led by King Louis IX of France (reigned. 1226-1270) and directed against the Arabs of Egypt, this crusade was a complete failure. The crusaders were decisively defeated en route to Cairo and King Louis was captured; the Arabs demanded and received a huge ransom for the release of the hapless king.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition];  Peter Jackson, ''The Seventh Crusade, 1244-1254'' (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Crusade-12441254-Texts-Translation/dp/0754657221/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205399558&amp;amp;sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===The Eighth Crusade (1270)===&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring his advisers, King Louis IX again attacked the Arabs in Tunis in North Africa. He picked the hottest season of the year for campaigning and his army was devastated by disease. The king himself died, ending the last major attempt to free the Holy Land.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other Medieval Crusades===&lt;br /&gt;
At the time people used &amp;quot;crusade&amp;quot; to describe other religious wars waged against heretics, such as Hussites and Albigensian, as well as Moors in Spain and pagans in the Baltic region.&lt;br /&gt;
====The Albigensian Crusade (13th century)====&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Innocent III in 1209 called for a war against the Albigensians, a religious sect which had sprung up in southern France, centered near the cities of Albi and Toulouse in Provence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Essentially, the Albigensians believed in a non-Christian dualist doctrine: there was a coexistence, they affirmed, between good and evil, represented by such opposites as God and the Evil One, light and darkness, soul and body, afterlife and earthly life.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A bloody series of campaigns ended with Provence in ruins (1229) and the heretics defeated. In 1233 Pope Gregory IX placed the Dominicans in charge of investigating the remnants of Albigensianism with the legal power to name and condemn any surviving heretics. This marked the start of the [[Inquisition]].&lt;br /&gt;
====Teutonic Knights (1229-1525)====&lt;br /&gt;
A German religious and military order originally founded during the siege of Acre in the Third Crusade and modeled after the Knights Templars and Hospitalers, the Teutonic Knights moved to eastern Europe early in the 13th century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Moeller, &amp;quot;Teutonic Order,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14541b.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1912) vol 14 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There, under their grand master, Hermann von Salza, they became powerful and prominent. In 1229, responding to an appeal from the [[Poland, history|Duke of Poland]], they began a crusade against the pagan Slavs of Prussia. They became sovereigns over lands they conquered over the next century. In a series of campaigns, the Teutonic Knights gained control over the whole Baltic coast, founding numerous towns and fortresses and establishing Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edgar N. Johnson, &amp;quot;The German Crusade on the Baltic,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTHREE.I0028&amp;amp;isize=M H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 545-85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Crusades in Spain (711-1492)===&lt;br /&gt;
Muslims crossed from Africa into Spain early in the eighth century and in 711 at the battle of Río Barbate, they defeated the Visigoths and pressed forward to capture Toledo. By 718, the Moors (the name given North African Muslims by the Spaniards) had completed their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, except for small Christian remnants in the Pyrenees. They remained on for the next 674 years until driven out by Spanish and Portuguese Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The period of the Spanish Crusades began in the eleventh century when a religious revival was initiated by Cluniac monks in the small kingdoms in the north of Spain, which had recovered some of their lost territory. The revival expressed itself in a growing hatred for the infidel. Slowly yet steadily, at first sparked mainly by Burgundians and Normans from France, the Christians began to force the Moors out of northern and central Spain. Known as the [[Wars of the Reconquest]], these centuries-long conflicts intensified the Catholic sentiments of the people, developing an intense, even fanatical unity of religion and patriotism which was long characteristic of the Spaniards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the middle of the 15th century, the last bastion of Moorish power on the peninsula was the kingdom of Granada in southwestern Spain. When the marriage of Isabella, Queen of Castile, to Ferdinand, Prince of Aragon, in 1469 united Spain, they vigorously began their last campaign against the Moors.  In January 1492 the Spanish entered the city of Granada and Moorish power ended in Europe. The expulsion of the Moors from Spain may be considered the last of the many medieval crusades.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Julian Bishko, &amp;quot;The Spanish and Portuguese Reconquest, 1095-1492&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=396 H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 396-456&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Long-term Impact==&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, though Jerusalem was held for nearly a century and other strongholds in the Near East would remain in Christian possession much longer, the crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. Islamic expansion into Europe, while temporarily stalled, would renew and remain a threat for centuries with the disintegration of the [[Byzantine Empire]] and culminate with the campaigns of [[Suleiman the Magnificent]] in the sixteenth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the crusades achieved only temporary military success, they had a powerful impact on western Europe. The crusaders returned with a vastly widened knowledge of the world they lived in, and a willingness to explore that became a permanent part of the west European mindset. In religion, culture, and commerce, post-Crusades Europe was visibly affected by its prolonged encounter with another continent and another way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Commerce and economy===&lt;br /&gt;
The merchants of Venice and other Italian cities gained the most profit. They amassed considerable income in payment for the services they rendered the crusaders and were enriched by the commercial rights they obtained throughout the Near East. Genoa, Pisa, and Venice gained special monopolies throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Their merchants used these privileges to introduce into the Western world such oriental luxuries as silks, spices, and pearls, whose transportation and sale made the cities rich. The demand for these products encouraged explorers to seek out new and more direct routes to the East—most famously in the discovery and exploration of the Americas by Columbus and others starting in 1492. The crusades helped create a moneyed aristocracy and encouraged the growth of capitalism in the Italian cities. Silks and spices not only raised the standard of living of the rich, they stimulated the entire urban economy, although cities remained small. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The returning crusaders came back to Europe with new tastes in dress and diet, such as peaches and spinach. They gave up the custom of wearing a load of heavy armor at nearly all times and appeared in the flowing robes of silk or cotton which were the traditional habit of the Muslims.&lt;br /&gt;
===Weakens feudalism===&lt;br /&gt;
In rural areas, where the vast majority of Europeans lives, the crusades tended to weaken feudalism and strengthen central governments. Thousands of feudal aristocrats died young and many baronial families lost heavily or even went bankrupt because they borrowed money for the adventure and could not repay. Since credit markets were undeveloped and inefficient, the crusaders paid high premiums to borrow; many accepted donations from friends and family.  For a local baron to bring along 10 knights on a crusade cost some 3000 livres a year. There was some plunder along the way, but plunder was hard to liquefy to pay off loans back home. Instead of acquiring new rich new lands and fabulous wealth in the East, many noble families sold, pawned or mortgaged lands, castles, benefices, and jewels; most saw their finances damaged. Money lenders in Italian cities grew rich. The feudal barons were the basis of localism; power now tended to become more centralized and national. Of course when the kings crusaded, it cost them dearly and weakened their throne. [[Richard the Lionhearted]] of England sold off the income he was owed from Scotland, and tried to sell London itself but could not find a buyer. By contributing to the rise of the cities, the development of a money economy, and the strengthening of national monarchies, hastened, to some extent, feudalism's collapse.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fred A. Cazel, Jr. &amp;quot;Financing the Crusades,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix N. P. Zacour,  and H.W. Hazard, eds. ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe'' (1989), pp 116-49 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Church===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades at first helped, then hurt the church and the [[Papacy, history|papacy]]. In the early stages, the popes took the leadership of Europe in a great holy cause against the infidel world.  Germany, France and England in particular responded to the popes. However the popes lost that leadership to secular princes by the time of the Third Crusade; during the Fourth Crusade the crusaders rejected Innocent III's demands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades were a major contributing factor in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches. The Crusaders deposed the native Patriarchs and appointed Latin Patriarchs in their place. These appointments were ratified by the Pope. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the kingdom of Jerusalem, the commercial interests fostered an unexpected friendship with the Muslims, leading to an acceptance of oriental customs, and toleration of the rival religion. No such tolerance was visible in Western Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Culture===&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the West====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of cultural influence, 20th century historians have revised the traditionally positive picture of the Crusades, finding little evidence of significant impact.  19th century historians saw in the Crusades a major stimulus for the renewed interest in learning, art, literature, and architecture that took place across Western Europe, and some historians had even argued the Crusades were mainly responsible for the [[Renaissance]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been argued that the crusades stimulated broader vision and better understanding of the wider world for the countries who embarked on them. Men who had never been 30 miles beyond their village or manor saw firsthand new places, peoples and customs. One impact the Crusades did have on literary art was the immortalisation of the Crusading heroes in oft-recited poems.  The ''Estoire de la guerre sainte'' is in Old French couplets, lauding the exploits of Richard the Lion-Hearted in the Third Crusade. A free poetical spirit characterizes ''Le Chanson d'Antioche'' that describes the First Crusade. The ages-old tales of Arthur and Charlemagne were given a fresh crusading complexion during the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the East====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A significant long-term cultural impact on the Muslim world is the resultant resentment, fear and distrust of Christian Europe, evidence of which as survived into the 21st century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Philip Khurl Pitti, &amp;quot;The Impact of the Crusades on Moslem Lands,&amp;quot; in N. P. Zacour and H. W. Hazard, eds., [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSFIVE.I0015&amp;amp;isize=M ''The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East,'' (1985) pp. 33-58, online]; Car Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When The US president [[George W. Bush]] described in 2001 the newly defined [[War on terror]] as a &amp;quot;Crusade&amp;quot;, the Islamic world in particular was alarmed at what was widely considered to be ill-judged language.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2006, [[Osama Bin Laden]], speaking from hiding, described Western policy towards the Muslim world as a &amp;quot;Zionist-Crusader war against Islam&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Byzantine Empire===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades postponed the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine Empire until 1453, but the determination of Westerners to conquer and colonize the lands of Byzantium led to its downfall. Rather than curing its ills, they made its death inevitable. The plunder of Constantinople in 1204 and the Venetian monopoly of its trade were a fatal blow to the political and economic life of the empire. Even after its restoration in 1261, Constantinople never regained its former strength.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historiography and Memory==&lt;br /&gt;
===Legend and literature in the West===&lt;br /&gt;
Both legend and literature has surrounded the Crusades with an aura of romance, grandeur, chivalry and courage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Dana Carleton Munro, [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The myth is only remotely related to reality. The countless tales of the gallant knights of the Cross glitter in hyperbole. Many stories are true about the crusaders' feats of valor. However the crusaders occupied the Holy Land only temporarily.  In their major mission, the crusaders lost in the very long run. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical memory of the crusades has been sharply divided. The Catholic tradition in Europe looked upon the Crusades favorably, but the Protestant historians were more negative. [[Martin Luther]] once suggested that the Turks were God's instrument for punishing Christians. In recent decades a sense of western guilt is apparent, as in the 1995 BBC television series, presented by Terry Jones, which portrayed the crusades as a long, misguided war of intolerance, ignorance and barbarism against a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald E. Queller and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999), p. 1, Most historians have a negative view of the reliability of the BBC series.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) examines the use of the crusades as a national symbol from the 19th century to the 1910s in France, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Ethiopia, Britain, Russia, and Bulgaria. Though the Enlightenment and its secular ideological successors held the crusades as an example of medieval barbarity. Enlightenment thinkers like historian-philosophers [[Voltaire]] and [[David Hume]] denounced the crusades, as did the great historian of Byzantium [[Edward Gibbon]], who wrote: &lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and the most important effects were analogous to the cause…. The belief of the Catholics was corrupted by new legends…. The active spirit of the Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion…. The lives and labours of millions, which were buried in the East, would have been more profitably employed in the improvement of their native country.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edward Gibbon, ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,'' (1776), [https://books.google.com/books?id=Hy8OAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PT249&amp;amp;lpg=PT249&amp;amp;dq=%22principle+of+the+crusades+was+a+savage+fanaticism%22&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=PGcJRsXv2k&amp;amp;sig=gH4PAb31uRoQu2u54z7h_hzGp8U&amp;amp;hl=en ch 61 p. 1086]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In the 19th century, however, romantic writers like novelist Sir [[Walter Scott]] created heroic images of the crusaders. The romantics and conservative adherents of the European ancien régimes appropriated crusading imagery for their own 19th century political goals, downplaying religion to fit within a modern, secular context and presenting crusades as a counterpoint to liberal ideas of nationalism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) explores three primary themes: memory of the crusades as it relates to debates over the generation and use of national symbols; the crusader as a romantic hero; and the Muslim recollection of the crusades as a shameful blot on the past of Christian nations. The crusades appealed to many Europeans because they reflected a morally unambiguous time, sparked romanticized images of warfare in a time of imperialist expansion, and provided heroic templates for modern &amp;quot;crusading&amp;quot; imperialist heroes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adam Knobler, &amp;quot;Holy Wars, Empires, and the Portability of the Past: the Modern Uses of Medieval Crusades.&amp;quot; ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2006 48(2): 293-325. Issn: 0010-4175 Fulltext: [[Cambridge Journals]]; see also Elizabeth Siberry, ''The New Crusaders: Images of the Crusades in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries'' (2000)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Muslim world===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muslim historiography does not cover the crusades with the same intensity as the West. One reason could be that Turks were primarily responsible for the defeat of the crusaders and Arab historians (who have written much of modern Islamic history) may have underplayed this, due to the Turks role in establishing the Ottoman Empire - a period that suppressed Arab nationalism for seven centuries into the era of World War I.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives'' p. 5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great Muslim hero was a [[Kurdistan|Kurd]], Saladin (1138–93). Having defeated the crusaders in 1187, and become sovereign and founder of the Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt and Syria, Salah al-Din (Saladin) has been for a century the object of an intense glorification in the Arab world.  Farah Antun's play ''Sultan Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1914) illustrates how the historical figure of Saladin came to be presented as a prophet of Arab nationalism. Antun (1874-1922) was a Syrian Christian who presents Saladin as the champion of a just jihad against the Crusaders and as a faithful upholder of the virtues of wisdom, determination, and frankness, calling on the peoples of all Arab countries to unite against Western imperialists. The refusal of Antun's Saladin to become embroiled in quarrels within Europe had obvious echoes in World War I and caused the play to be censored by the British authorities in Egypt.  In Palestine, the glorification also took the form of pilgrimages to Nabi Musa and became an occasion to celebrate the memory of the great hero of Muslim history. A recent myth proclaims him the initiator of Palestinian pilgrimages. The figure of the past has become the modern hero of Arab nationalism, giving hope to a society prey to war and dispersion. At the same time, however, the pilgrimage ritual highlights the limits of the hero: constantly appealed to and put to the test, he has begun to show signs of fragility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emma Aubin-Boltanski, &amp;quot;Salah Al-din, un Heros a l'epreuve: Mythe et Pelerinage en Palestine,&amp;quot; [Saladin, a Hero under Scrutiny: Myth and Pilgrimage in Palestine]. ''Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales'' [[in French]] 2005 60(1): 91-107. Issn: 0395-2649&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Church Liturgy===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Linder (2001) examines 15th century Church liturgy designed to generate support for the war effort against the Turks and to legitimize its aims. Two types of Contra Turcos Masses were used: masses converted to this function through the addition of appropriate three core prayers and complete dedicated masses. The most popular example of the first type was the triple prayer set originally established by Clement V as a Holy Land crusade liturgy and subsequently mobilized against the Turks. The second type is represented by nine different mass formularies that were introduced after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Most surviving liturgies are of German or French provenance, indicating extensive use not only among the front-line populations but also in areas far removed from any threat. The liturgy displays an its intense crisis rhetoric. Its predominant stance of vulnerability and defensiveness entailed aggressive mobilization and the conceptualization of the Turk as the actual, specific manifestation of the generic infidel, the competing religious Other; and the remarkable continuity - in form and in content - that linked this liturgy with its parent liturgies (mainly those of the campaigns against the pagans and the Holy Land Crusades) further accentuated these traits. The communicative function and value of this liturgy is highlighted by the concentration of the direct, unmediated communicative elements in that part of the mass that was the most accessible to the laity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Amnon Linder, &amp;quot;The War Liturgy Against the Turks in the Late Middle Ages.&amp;quot; ''Historia: Journal of the Historical Society of Israel'' . 2001 (8): 73-105. Issn: 0334-4843; the text is in Hebrew.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dome of the Rock]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Al-Aqsa Mosque]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Famous Castles in the World]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Eastern Catholic Churches]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Basic further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Detailed Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
===Surveys===&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).&lt;br /&gt;
* Phillips, Jonathan, and Martin Hoch. ''The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Second-Crusade-Scope-Consequences/dp/0719057116/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205372474&amp;amp;sr=1-4 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* Queller, Donald E., and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999) [https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Crusade-Conquest-Constantinople-Middle/dp/0812217136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270938&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Runciman, Steven. ''A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusade and the Foundations of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.''; ''Volume II: The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East 1100-1187.'' and ''Volume III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades'' (1951–53), the classic history; very hostile toward the crusaders &lt;br /&gt;
*Setton, Kenneth ed., ''A History of the Crusades''. (1969-1989), the standard scholarly history in six volumes, published by the University of Wisconsin Press  [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=browse&amp;amp;scope=History.HistCrusades complete text online]. &lt;br /&gt;
: Includes: [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?id=History.CrusOne ''The first hundred years''] (2nd ed. 1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311''] (1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFour ''The art and architecture of the crusader states''] (1977); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFive ''The impact of the Crusades on the Near East''] (1985); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe''] (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Specialized studies===&lt;br /&gt;
* Abulafia, David. ''Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor'' (1988)&lt;br /&gt;
* Boas, Adrian J. ''Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades: Society, Landscape, and Art in the Holy City under Frankish Rule'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/107613849 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Crusades,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1908) vol 4. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1291),&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08361a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1910) vol 8. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bull, Marcus, and Norman Housley, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 1, Western Approaches.'' (2003) (323pp) &lt;br /&gt;
** Edbury, Peter, and Jonathan Phillips, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 2, Defining the Crusader Kingdom.'' (2003) 326pp; specialized articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Butler, R. Urban. &amp;quot;Urban II,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1911) online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Edgington, Susan B., and Sarah Lambert, eds. ''Gendering the Crusades.'' (2002) 232pp essays by scholars. &lt;br /&gt;
*  Folda, Jaroslav. ''Crusader Art in the Holy Land, From the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusader-Holy-Land-Third-Crusade/dp/0521835836/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205436596&amp;amp;sr=8-3 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* James, Douglas. &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''History Review'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53; online at [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Kagay, Donald J., and L. J. Andrew Villalon, eds. ''Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon: Medieval Warfare in Societies around the Mediterranean.'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/read/109303998 online edition] &lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. ''The Kingdom of the Crusaders'' (1936) [http://www.questia.com/read/3840921 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Peters, Edward. ''Christian Society and the Crusades, 1198-1229'' (1971) [http://www.questia.com/read/14405191 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Powell, James M. ''Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213-1221,'' (1986) [http://www.questia.com/read/3123539 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Richard, Jean. ''Saint Louis: Crusader King of France'' (1992)&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Smail, R. C. &amp;quot;Crusaders' Castles of the Twelfth Century&amp;quot;   ''Cambridge Historical Journal'' Vol. 10, No. 2. (1951), pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;133–149. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1474-6913%281951%2910%3A2%3C133%3ACCOTTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J in JSTOR]&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher.  ''England and the Crusades, 1095-1588.'' (1988). 492 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
===Islam and Byzantium===&lt;br /&gt;
* Florean, Dana. &amp;quot;East Meets West: Cultural Confrontation and Exchange after the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''Language &amp;amp; Intercultural Communication,'' 2007, Vol. 7 Issue 2, pp144–151 in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Gabrieli, Francesco. ''Arab Historians of the Crusades'' (2009)&lt;br /&gt;
* Harris, Jonathan. ''Byzantium and the Crusades.'' (2003). Pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;276pp &lt;br /&gt;
* Hillenbrand, Carole. ''The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Surveys/dp/0748606300/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294196&amp;amp;sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*  Lane-Poole, Stanley. ''Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1898) [https://books.google.com/books?id=sb4bAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=intitle:Saladin+intitle:and+intitle:the+intitle:Fall+intitle:of+intitle:the+intitle:Kingdom+intitle:of+intitle:Jerusalem&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;num=30&amp;amp;as_brr=0&amp;amp;ei=gm3bR9CgCYPQiQGb0P3VAQ full text online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Maalouf, Amin. ''Crusades Through Arab Eyes'' (1989) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Through-Arab-Eyes-Maalouf/dp/0805208984/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146248/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294049&amp;amp;sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Historiography===&lt;br /&gt;
*  Constable, Giles. &amp;quot;The Historiography of the Crusades&amp;quot;  in Angeliki E.  Laiou, ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001); major overview of scholarship [http://www.doaks.org/Crusades/CR01.pdf online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Laiou, Angeliki E. ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001) [http://www.doaks.org/CRcnts.html online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ed. ''The Crusades: The Essential Readings'' (2002) ISBN 0-631-23023-8 284pp, articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31. On medieval histories of the crusades. [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Primary sources===&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman, ed. ''Documents on the Later Crusades, 1274-1580'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* Krey, August C. ''The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants'' (1958). &lt;br /&gt;
* Shaw, M. R. B. ed.''Chronicles of the Crusades'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/read/58956484 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Villehardouin, Geoffrey, and Jean de Joinville. ''Chronicles of the Crusades'' ed. by Sir Frank Marzials (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-Crusades-Dover-Value-Editions/dp/0486454363/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270195&amp;amp;sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
:Villehardouin's ''Conquest of Constantinople'' is a standard reference work on the Fourth Crusade; it is the first work in medieval French prose. Joinville's life of St. Louis is a classic description of the life and times of King Louis IX; it is written in Old French and is perhaps the best biography written in the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Military History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Medieval History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Christian History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Crusades]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Crusades}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2157144</id>
		<title>The Crusades</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2157144"/>
		<updated>2025-09-08T15:27:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Christianity}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Middle Ages}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Crusader.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A returning Crusader]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''The Crusades''' (1095-1291) were a series of European Catholic campaigns into the Middle East, fought during the Middle Ages. They were the military responses made by Catholics, from western Europe to the Pope's pleas to re-capture the Holy Land from Islamic influence. After centuries of Islamic attacks, prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250908132840/https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades The Crusades] Encyclopedia Britannica &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prior Islamic expansion&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250801015722/https://www.onthewing.org/user/Islam%20-%20Conquests.pdf List of Islamic Expansion on the West Prior to First Crusade]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;O'Neill, John J. (2010) &amp;quot;[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1805&amp;amp;context=ccr The Crusades: A Response to Islamic Aggression],&amp;quot; Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 63: No. 63, Article 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The First Crusade was Western Europeans performing a counter offensive, thus the First Crusade was not a initiation of conflict, but was instead the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 28 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Riley-Smith. 2024. The Crusades: a History (4th edition). Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 1350028614. Page 21 &amp;quot;The cause for a crusade was particularly important because at least at first, these wars were fought primarily by volunteers. The first crusaders were such by virtue of the vows they had made; in canon law a vow had to be a voluntary act. When a pope proclaimed a crusade this could be no more than an appeal to men and women to join an expedition of their own free will. He might threaten them with hell-fire, but he could not force them to make vows, or punish them if they did not, and there were occasions when efforts at recruitment failed. A convincing case was therefore essential, even if it had to be made post hoc. Expeditions to the eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, or the Iberian Peninsula could be justified as responses to present Muslim aggression or as attempts to recover “Christian” territory that had been injuriously seized in the past.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250827143542/https://www.britannica.com/question/What-was-the-purpose-of-the-Crusades What was the purpose of the Crusades?] - Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250616161718/https://apholt.com/2017/06/06/the-first-crusade-as-a-defensive-war-a-response-to-prof-gabriele/ The First Crusade as a “Defensive War”: A Response to Prof. Gabriele - Andrew Holt (2017)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The '''First Crusade''' created new Latin states in the Holy Land. Subsequent crusades were less successful except when they attacked Byzantium.  Other medieval movements against heretics and infidels were also called crusades. The crusades ended with the Islamic recapture of all the Holy Land in 1291, when the last city controlled by crusaders, Acre, fell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades comprise a major chapter of [[Middle Ages|Medieval History]]. Extending over three centuries, they attracted every social class in western Europe. Kings and commoners, barons and bishops, knights and commoners&amp;amp;mdash;even teenagers&amp;amp;mdash;all participated in these expeditions to the eastern end of the Mediterranean. The motives of the crusaders were numerous: some sought riches; many sought adventure; most were moved by faith alone. Historians stress the central role of religious fervor, while mentioning as well the socio-economic factors crucial in enticing larger contingents. For example, crusaders often were fulfilling their feudal obligations. There were strong links between the papal reforms, the social necessity of violence and the exploitation of this inherent revivalistic imagination of the age of the Papacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas James, &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade,&amp;quot; ''History Review,'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades failed to achieve the permanent control of the Holy Land. However, their influence was wide and deep. Much of &lt;br /&gt;
the crusading fervor carried over to the successful fights against the Moors (Muslims) in Spain and the pagan Slavs in eastern Europe. Politically the crusades weakened the decrepit Byzantine Empire, but temporarily kept the Muslims away from it. The First Crusade strengthened the moral leadership of the &lt;br /&gt;
papacy in Europe, but the failures of the later crusades weakened both the crusading ideal and respect for the papacy&lt;br /&gt;
Contact with the East widened the scope of the Europeans, ended their isolation, and exposed them to an rich civilization. The economic effects of the crusades were modest, but they did reopen of the eastern Mediterranean to Western commerce, which itself had an effect on the rise of great cities such as Venice and the emergence of a money economy in the West.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusaders derived their name from the Latin word for &amp;quot;cross&amp;quot;—crux. A crusader went to the Holy Land with a cross of cloth sewn over his breast; when he returned, he had a similar cross for his back.   Originally called to repel the Islamic forces that controlled [[Jerusalem]], the crusades evolved into a form of political decree called by the Papacy for political, social or economic reasons. The campaigns of [[Teutonic knight]]s against [[pagan]] strongholds in [[Eastern Europe]] are also sometimes called crusades.  Lastly, military actions within Christendom against heretical and schismatic groups are sometimes called a crusade. Thus a crusade in most general terms was a directive of war issued by the Pope to all Rome-friendly nations against forces, whether Muslim, pagan or Eastern Orthodox, which were hostile to the Papacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. The fourth crusade resulted in a very damaged relationship between [[Orthodox Church|Greek]] and [[Roman Catholic|Latin]] Christendom.  Islamic expansion into remained a threat for centuries, with crusading orders establishing strongholds to protect Mediterranean islands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the crusades in southern [[Spain]] were militarily successful, eventually leading to the end of Islamic power in the region in 1492.  The Teutonic knights expanded Christian domains in Eastern Europe, and the [[Albigensian Crusade]], achieved its goal of destroying heretics in France.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, ''Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300–1475''. 6th ed. (McGraw-Hill 1998)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Origin of the Crusades ==&lt;br /&gt;
Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world after centuries of attacks and so Western Europeans performed a counter offensive with the First Crusade.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Thus, Westerners were not the initiators of conflict, but and instead the First Crusade was the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Holy Land had been part of the [[Roman Empire]], and thus the [[Byzantine Empire]], until the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries that forced the Byzantines out and saw the area gradually turn Islamic. Calm returned and Christians had generally been permitted to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land until 1071, when the [[Seljuk Turks]] assailed the Byzantines, defeating them at the [[Battle of Manzikert]], and conquered Jerusalem from the Egyptian Fatimids the same year.  They were not friendly to Christian pilgrims, in contrast to how the Fatimids had been, and soon pilgrims came under threat of robbery or even death as they were no longer welcome.  The Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius I]] asked for aid from the west both to the Popes and the Christian monarchs.  Nothing meaningful happened.  Alexius may have been hoping for money from the Pope for the hiring of mercenaries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Timeline - Prior to the First Crusade===&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades are traditionally taught in university courses as a stand-alone event that had no precedent.  There is some problem with this thought process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The first Crusade began in 1095:&lt;br /&gt;
** 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies. (The Battle of Fahl and the 634 Siege of Damascus)&lt;br /&gt;
** 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslims armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 443 years after Muslims first plundered Italy.&lt;br /&gt;
** 427 years after Muslims armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople.&lt;br /&gt;
** 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions from Christianity to Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20160322080651/http://christianheritagefellowship.com/the-crusades/ The Truth about the Crusades]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Papal call==&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to fight for the defense of the Christian East and the protection of pilgrims in a speech made at the [[Council of Clermont]] on November 27, 1095. Pope Urban specified the call to skilled fighters, not priests or monks, and specified that clergy were not to participate without consent of their superiors, reflecting a cool minded approach, not religious fervor to fight for Christian lands.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 39-41 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Urban demanded that all internal feuds within Christendom end, threatening [[excommunication]] for anyone who continued to bicker internally, and promising an indulgence (less time in purgatory) to anyone who died in the crusade.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This time Europe listened.  Those who were there erupted in spontaneous cries of &amp;quot;Deus le vult!&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;God wills it!&amp;quot;) - which would become the watchword of what we now know as the Crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Nothing like this had ever been done, and the Pope himself had no military power and had to count on those who were in positions of power to supply it.  While the monarchs of Europe did not get directly involved, it was a series of prominent nobles who answered the call, among the most famous being:  the Norman Bohemund of Taranto, former claimant to the Duchy of Apulia, his nephew Tancred, Count Raymond of Toulouse, [[Godfrey Of Bouillon|Duke Godfrey de Bouillon]] of Lorraine, Duke Hugh of Vermandois (brother of the King of France), Duke Robert of Normandy, and Count Robert of Flanders.  The spiritual leader who accompanied them was French Bishop Adhemar du Puy, who was appointed Papal legate.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All that was known at the start was that the forces to participate would meet together in [[Constantinople]], where Alexius had no idea what was being unleashed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The First Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[First Crusade]], properly speaking, was lead by Feudal lords, mostly of [[Franks|Frankish]] origin.  Many of the knights left home never expecting to return, knowing virtually nothing about the [[Holy Land]], and trusting in God for victory.  The army consisted of almost 20,000 men, including a mass of [[squire]]s and other servants necessary to support a mounted knight.  Arriving at Constantinople the force, which eventually reached almost 50,000 total men, was not what the Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius]] had expected.  He had hoped for a few thousand well trained mercenaries to help him retake his lands from the Turks, and had little in common with the goal of 'freeing the Holy Land'.  An uneasy tension ensued from 1096 to 1097 as the forces gathered, but through a combination of firmness and diplomacy, Alexius avoided serious complications. In return for his assurance of assistance, he obtained oaths of allegiance from the Crusader leaders, and their promise that they would help recapture [[Nicaea]] from the Turks and return to him any other former possessions which they conquered.  Alexius then transported them across the Bosporus - being careful not to allow any large number of Crusader forces inside the walls of his capital at any given time.  He also provided them with food and with an escort of Byzantine troops to guide them towards their objectives (and incidentally to prevent Crusader plundering).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy &amp;amp; Dupuy, 1979, Pg. 312-313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a hard march to the Holy Land, the army captured invested Nicaea in 1097.  By a combination of skillful fighting and skillful diplomacy, Alexius arrange for the surrender of the city to him after a successful Crusader-Byzantine assault on the outer walls.  The Crusaders were upset at Alexius' refusal to give them permission to sack the city.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusaders continued to the southeast in parallel columns, without any one commander in charge.  After fighting the inconclusive [[Battle of Dorylaeum]], the army split in half. Tancred and Baldwin, brother of Godfrey of Lorraine and future King of Jerusalem, went east took the Armenian fortress-city of [[Edessa]] - an action that destroyed the support of many local Armenian Christians for the Crusade, and weakened its internal bonds, as Baldwin and Tancred's men clashed over possession of the city, with Baldwin emerging triumphant. The main body of the army continued onward and besieged [[Antioch]].  The city was surrounded for 8 months from October 21, 1097 to June 3, 1098.  Two relieving armies were driven off in the [[Battles of Harenc]] in December and February.  Due to poor arrangements for supplies, the Crusading army was actually close to starvation, but was saved by the fortuitous arrival of English and Pisan flotillas which seized two nearby ports and brought provisions.  Bickering among the Crusader leaders, especially [[Bohemund]] and [[Raymond]] was rampant.  The initiative of Bohemund led to the capture of Antioch just 2 days before a relieving army of 75,000 strong under the atabeg of [[Mosul]], [[Kerboga]] would arrived, delayed itself after a fruitless three-week long attempt to dislodge Baldwin from Edessa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now it was the Crusaders turn to be trapped inside the city as Kerboga sieged Antioch from June 5, to June 28, 1098.  The Crusaders were cut off from supplies and again near starvation.  A Byzantine army was coming to take the city as agreed, but hearing that the Crusaders were doomed, turned back to Constantinople.  It was then the 'Holy Lance' was discovered; the weapon said to have pierced Jesus' side.  While few historians or theologians believe this miraculous discovery was valid, it energized the Crusader army at just the time they needed it.  The [[Battle of the Orontes]] was fought on June 28 where 15,000 Crusaders left Antioch to battle and drove off the entire Moslem army and broke the siege, helped in part by the decision of several of the local emirs serving under Kerbogha to abandon him during the battle, fearing that he coveted their territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to internal bickering, many of the Crusaders did not continue on to [[Jerusalem]].  The force that arrived in June 1099 was only about 12,000 strong, far fewer than the army of defenders.  They sieged the city from June 9 to July 18.  Realizing they didn't have enough men to keep out supplies and starve the defenders, they boldly attacked.  Overrunning the city, many of the inhabitants were massacred, including other Christians.  A relieving force of 50,000 strong arrived in August to fight the Crusaders, but were routed at the [[Battle of Ascalon]].  The military aspects of the First Crusade had ended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four feudal kingdoms were established, which would remain for nearly 100 years.  Several Military Orders, consisting of [[paladin]]s, were also set up within the next few years, focusing mainly around the protection of the welfare of pilgrims and the defense of Christendom within the framework of an organization that was both spiritual and martial in nature. The best known of these orders were the Knights of the Temple, or [[Templars]], and the Knights of the Hospital of St. John, or [[Hospitallers]]. The Hospitallers still exist today in the form of the Order of Malta and St. John's Ambulance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Second Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Second Crusade]] occurred in 1145 when [[Edessa]] was retaken by Islamic forces.  It was ultimately a failure, owing in part to the French king's insistence on betraying and attacking his only Muslim ally, [[Damascus]].  In 1187 the Muslims&lt;br /&gt;
captured Jerusalem under their leader [[Saladin]], which brought about a new call for a Crusade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Third Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Saladin2.jpg|thumb|left|270px]]The [[Third Crusade]] (1189–92) is famous for the battles between [[Richard I|Richard the Lionheart]] and [[Saladin]], highlighted by the deep respect the two enemies had for each other, and the sense of [[chivalry|chivalric]] honor of King Richard.  The crusade also involved the king of France (who returned home after an argument with Richard at Acre) and the Holy Roman Emperor (who drowned en route).  The crusade had the limited success of obtaining a truce between Richard and Saladin that promised to allow Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Fourth Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Fourth Crusade]], begun by [[Innocent III]] in 1202, intended to retake the Holy Land but was soon subverted by [[Venetian]]s who used the forces to sack the Christian city of [[Zara]]. Innocent excommunicated the Venetians and crusaders.  Eventually the crusaders arrived in [[Constantinople]], but due to strife which arose between them and the [[Byzantines]], rather than proceed to the Holy Land the crusaders instead sacked Constantinople and other parts of [[Asia Minor]] effectively establishing the Latin Empire of Constantinople in [[Greece]] and Asia Minor .  Both Zara and Constantinople were Christian cities, and the ultimate effect was a severely damaged relationship between Greek and Latin Christendom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was effectively the last crusade sponsored by the papacy; later crusades were sponsored by individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Crusades==&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the four main crusades there were several minor ones. &lt;br /&gt;
===The People's (Peasants') Crusade (1095-96)===&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the Pope issued his appeal in 1095 preachers like Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless fanned out across Western Europe, reaching [[Piety|pious]] common people in rural areas, including many peasants. They aroused such an enthusiasm among the peasants that neither the secular lords nor the local clergy could stop the people from marching east, filled with hopes for freedom from serfdom and the zest for adventure. Thousands of peasants set off with few supplies or weapons and no money, and no idea of the enormous distance to be traveled. They believed that God would provide the guidance for direction and the sustenance for life.  More prosperous farmers and burghers were also involved. Five uncoordinated bands trekked across the Balkan region toward Constantinople. The Byzantine Christians welcomed them reluctantly and even contemptuously, for the pilgrims robbed them and raided their farms and villages. The Byzantine army fought them in pitched battles; most peasants never reached Constantinople. The thousands who did arrive were militarily useless and unwelcome. The Emperor Alexius temporarily fed and housed them outside the city, then hurried them across the Bosporus into Asia Minor. There the peasants were all killed by the Turkish forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Steven Runciman, &amp;quot;The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch,&amp;quot;   in M. W. Baldwin, ed. ''The first hundred years'' (1969) pp. 281-85 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&amp;amp;entity=History.CrusOne.p0313&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]; &lt;br /&gt;
Frederic Duncalf, &amp;quot;The Peasants' Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 26, No. 3 (Apr., 1921), pp. 440-453 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(192104)26%3A3%3C440%3ATPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P in JSTOR]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Attacking Jews====&lt;br /&gt;
A smaller group of peasants led by Gottschalk took out their fervor on a more local target, the Jewish communities of Lotharingia.  Their actions were condemned by the Church and the local populace.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Age of Faith, Will Durant, 1950, Pg. 589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;RS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Riley-Smith, Jonathan.  ''The Crusades: a History.'' (2005)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A much larger threat against Jews took the form of a larger mob led by Count Emico of Leiningen, who was more organized and more brutal.  Already a man with a sullied reputation, he ignored the pleas of the Bishops in town after town to desist.  Apart from being hidden by the local populace when they heard Emico was coming, there was little the Jews could do.  Previously in Europe, local difficulties against Jewish communities would rise from time to time in various places, but would be isolated to that local area.  This started a phase not previously seen, a systematic effort to weed out and attack Jewish communities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Children's Crusade (1212)===&lt;br /&gt;
Even more [[pathetic]] than the peasant crusade of 1095-96 was a movement in France and Germany which attracted large numbers of peasant teenagers and young people (few were under age 15). They were convinced they could succeed where older and more sinful crusaders had failed: the miraculous power of their faith would triumph where the force of arms had not. Many parish priests and parents encouraged such religious fervor and urged them on. The Pope and bishops opposed the attempt but failed to stop it entirely. A band of several thousand youth and young men led by a German named Nicholas set out for Italy. About a third survived the march over the Alps and got as far as Genoa; another group came to Marseilles. The luckier ones eventually managed to get safely home, but many others were sold as lifetime slaves on the auction blocks of Marseilles slave dealers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dana C. Munro, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 19, No. 3 (Apr., 1914), pp. 516-524 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(191404)19%3A3%3C516%3ATCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C in JSTOR]; and Norman P. Zacour, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 325-342, esp. 330-37 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTWO.I0023&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221)===&lt;br /&gt;
Instigated by Pope Innocent III in 1215, this crusade was led in 1217 by John Brienne, king of Jerusalem, with the object of conquering Egypt. In 1219 the crusaders captured Damietta. The sultan of Egypt offered to exchange Jerusalem for Damietta but this was rejected. After an unsuccessful assault on Cairo in 1221, the defeated crusaders surrendered Damietta in return for the freedom to retreat.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomas C. Van Cleve, &amp;quot;The Fifth Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 377-428 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=377 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
===The Sixth Crusade (1228-1229)===&lt;br /&gt;
The sixth or &amp;quot; Diplomatic Crusade&amp;quot; was led by Emperor Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire.  He began in 1228, but fought no battles. Instead, by negotiation he obtained Jerusalem and a strip of territory from Acre to Jerusalem for the Christians. In 1225 he married Yolanda, the young heiress to the kingdom of Jerusalem; upon her death in 1228, Frederick crowned himself king of Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Seventh Crusade (1248-1250)===&lt;br /&gt;
Led by King Louis IX of France (reigned. 1226-1270) and directed against the Arabs of Egypt, this crusade was a complete failure. The crusaders were decisively defeated en route to Cairo and King Louis was captured; the Arabs demanded and received a huge ransom for the release of the hapless king.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition];  Peter Jackson, ''The Seventh Crusade, 1244-1254'' (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Crusade-12441254-Texts-Translation/dp/0754657221/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205399558&amp;amp;sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===The Eighth Crusade (1270)===&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring his advisers, King Louis IX again attacked the Arabs in Tunis in North Africa. He picked the hottest season of the year for campaigning and his army was devastated by disease. The king himself died, ending the last major attempt to free the Holy Land.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other Medieval Crusades===&lt;br /&gt;
At the time people used &amp;quot;crusade&amp;quot; to describe other religious wars waged against heretics, such as Hussites and Albigensian, as well as Moors in Spain and pagans in the Baltic region.&lt;br /&gt;
====The Albigensian Crusade (13th century)====&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Innocent III in 1209 called for a war against the Albigensians, a religious sect which had sprung up in southern France, centered near the cities of Albi and Toulouse in Provence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Essentially, the Albigensians believed in a non-Christian dualist doctrine: there was a coexistence, they affirmed, between good and evil, represented by such opposites as God and the Evil One, light and darkness, soul and body, afterlife and earthly life.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A bloody series of campaigns ended with Provence in ruins (1229) and the heretics defeated. In 1233 Pope Gregory IX placed the Dominicans in charge of investigating the remnants of Albigensianism with the legal power to name and condemn any surviving heretics. This marked the start of the [[Inquisition]].&lt;br /&gt;
====Teutonic Knights (1229-1525)====&lt;br /&gt;
A German religious and military order originally founded during the siege of Acre in the Third Crusade and modeled after the Knights Templars and Hospitalers, the Teutonic Knights moved to eastern Europe early in the 13th century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Moeller, &amp;quot;Teutonic Order,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14541b.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1912) vol 14 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There, under their grand master, Hermann von Salza, they became powerful and prominent. In 1229, responding to an appeal from the [[Poland, history|Duke of Poland]], they began a crusade against the pagan Slavs of Prussia. They became sovereigns over lands they conquered over the next century. In a series of campaigns, the Teutonic Knights gained control over the whole Baltic coast, founding numerous towns and fortresses and establishing Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edgar N. Johnson, &amp;quot;The German Crusade on the Baltic,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTHREE.I0028&amp;amp;isize=M H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 545-85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Crusades in Spain (711-1492)===&lt;br /&gt;
Muslims crossed from Africa into Spain early in the eighth century and in 711 at the battle of Río Barbate, they defeated the Visigoths and pressed forward to capture Toledo. By 718, the Moors (the name given North African Muslims by the Spaniards) had completed their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, except for small Christian remnants in the Pyrenees. They remained on for the next 674 years until driven out by Spanish and Portuguese Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The period of the Spanish Crusades began in the eleventh century when a religious revival was initiated by Cluniac monks in the small kingdoms in the north of Spain, which had recovered some of their lost territory. The revival expressed itself in a growing hatred for the infidel. Slowly yet steadily, at first sparked mainly by Burgundians and Normans from France, the Christians began to force the Moors out of northern and central Spain. Known as the [[Wars of the Reconquest]], these centuries-long conflicts intensified the Catholic sentiments of the people, developing an intense, even fanatical unity of religion and patriotism which was long characteristic of the Spaniards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the middle of the 15th century, the last bastion of Moorish power on the peninsula was the kingdom of Granada in southwestern Spain. When the marriage of Isabella, Queen of Castile, to Ferdinand, Prince of Aragon, in 1469 united Spain, they vigorously began their last campaign against the Moors.  In January 1492 the Spanish entered the city of Granada and Moorish power ended in Europe. The expulsion of the Moors from Spain may be considered the last of the many medieval crusades.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Julian Bishko, &amp;quot;The Spanish and Portuguese Reconquest, 1095-1492&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=396 H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 396-456&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Long-term Impact==&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, though Jerusalem was held for nearly a century and other strongholds in the Near East would remain in Christian possession much longer, the crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. Islamic expansion into Europe, while temporarily stalled, would renew and remain a threat for centuries with the disintegration of the [[Byzantine Empire]] and culminate with the campaigns of [[Suleiman the Magnificent]] in the sixteenth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the crusades achieved only temporary military success, they had a powerful impact on western Europe. The crusaders returned with a vastly widened knowledge of the world they lived in, and a willingness to explore that became a permanent part of the west European mindset. In religion, culture, and commerce, post-Crusades Europe was visibly affected by its prolonged encounter with another continent and another way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Commerce and economy===&lt;br /&gt;
The merchants of Venice and other Italian cities gained the most profit. They amassed considerable income in payment for the services they rendered the crusaders and were enriched by the commercial rights they obtained throughout the Near East. Genoa, Pisa, and Venice gained special monopolies throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Their merchants used these privileges to introduce into the Western world such oriental luxuries as silks, spices, and pearls, whose transportation and sale made the cities rich. The demand for these products encouraged explorers to seek out new and more direct routes to the East—most famously in the discovery and exploration of the Americas by Columbus and others starting in 1492. The crusades helped create a moneyed aristocracy and encouraged the growth of capitalism in the Italian cities. Silks and spices not only raised the standard of living of the rich, they stimulated the entire urban economy, although cities remained small. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The returning crusaders came back to Europe with new tastes in dress and diet, such as peaches and spinach. They gave up the custom of wearing a load of heavy armor at nearly all times and appeared in the flowing robes of silk or cotton which were the traditional habit of the Muslims.&lt;br /&gt;
===Weakens feudalism===&lt;br /&gt;
In rural areas, where the vast majority of Europeans lives, the crusades tended to weaken feudalism and strengthen central governments. Thousands of feudal aristocrats died young and many baronial families lost heavily or even went bankrupt because they borrowed money for the adventure and could not repay. Since credit markets were undeveloped and inefficient, the crusaders paid high premiums to borrow; many accepted donations from friends and family.  For a local baron to bring along 10 knights on a crusade cost some 3000 livres a year. There was some plunder along the way, but plunder was hard to liquefy to pay off loans back home. Instead of acquiring new rich new lands and fabulous wealth in the East, many noble families sold, pawned or mortgaged lands, castles, benefices, and jewels; most saw their finances damaged. Money lenders in Italian cities grew rich. The feudal barons were the basis of localism; power now tended to become more centralized and national. Of course when the kings crusaded, it cost them dearly and weakened their throne. [[Richard the Lionhearted]] of England sold off the income he was owed from Scotland, and tried to sell London itself but could not find a buyer. By contributing to the rise of the cities, the development of a money economy, and the strengthening of national monarchies, hastened, to some extent, feudalism's collapse.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fred A. Cazel, Jr. &amp;quot;Financing the Crusades,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix N. P. Zacour,  and H.W. Hazard, eds. ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe'' (1989), pp 116-49 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Church===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades at first helped, then hurt the church and the [[Papacy, history|papacy]]. In the early stages, the popes took the leadership of Europe in a great holy cause against the infidel world.  Germany, France and England in particular responded to the popes. However the popes lost that leadership to secular princes by the time of the Third Crusade; during the Fourth Crusade the crusaders rejected Innocent III's demands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades were a major contributing factor in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches. The Crusaders deposed the native Patriarchs and appointed Latin Patriarchs in their place. These appointments were ratified by the Pope. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the kingdom of Jerusalem, the commercial interests fostered an unexpected friendship with the Muslims, leading to an acceptance of oriental customs, and toleration of the rival religion. No such tolerance was visible in Western Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Culture===&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the West====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of cultural influence, 20th century historians have revised the traditionally positive picture of the Crusades, finding little evidence of significant impact.  19th century historians saw in the Crusades a major stimulus for the renewed interest in learning, art, literature, and architecture that took place across Western Europe, and some historians had even argued the Crusades were mainly responsible for the [[Renaissance]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been argued that the crusades stimulated broader vision and better understanding of the wider world for the countries who embarked on them. Men who had never been 30 miles beyond their village or manor saw firsthand new places, peoples and customs. One impact the Crusades did have on literary art was the immortalisation of the Crusading heroes in oft-recited poems.  The ''Estoire de la guerre sainte'' is in Old French couplets, lauding the exploits of Richard the Lion-Hearted in the Third Crusade. A free poetical spirit characterizes ''Le Chanson d'Antioche'' that describes the First Crusade. The ages-old tales of Arthur and Charlemagne were given a fresh crusading complexion during the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the East====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A significant long-term cultural impact on the Muslim world is the resultant resentment, fear and distrust of Christian Europe, evidence of which as survived into the 21st century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Philip Khurl Pitti, &amp;quot;The Impact of the Crusades on Moslem Lands,&amp;quot; in N. P. Zacour and H. W. Hazard, eds., [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSFIVE.I0015&amp;amp;isize=M ''The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East,'' (1985) pp. 33-58, online]; Car Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When The US president [[George W. Bush]] described in 2001 the newly defined [[War on terror]] as a &amp;quot;Crusade&amp;quot;, the Islamic world in particular was alarmed at what was widely considered to be ill-judged language.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2006, [[Osama Bin Laden]], speaking from hiding, described Western policy towards the Muslim world as a &amp;quot;Zionist-Crusader war against Islam&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Byzantine Empire===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades postponed the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine Empire until 1453, but the determination of Westerners to conquer and colonize the lands of Byzantium led to its downfall. Rather than curing its ills, they made its death inevitable. The plunder of Constantinople in 1204 and the Venetian monopoly of its trade were a fatal blow to the political and economic life of the empire. Even after its restoration in 1261, Constantinople never regained its former strength.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historiography and Memory==&lt;br /&gt;
===Legend and literature in the West===&lt;br /&gt;
Both legend and literature has surrounded the Crusades with an aura of romance, grandeur, chivalry and courage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Dana Carleton Munro, [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The myth is only remotely related to reality. The countless tales of the gallant knights of the Cross glitter in hyperbole. Many stories are true about the crusaders' feats of valor. However the crusaders occupied the Holy Land only temporarily.  In their major mission, the crusaders lost in the very long run. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical memory of the crusades has been sharply divided. The Catholic tradition in Europe looked upon the Crusades favorably, but the Protestant historians were more negative. [[Martin Luther]] once suggested that the Turks were God's instrument for punishing Christians. In recent decades a sense of western guilt is apparent, as in the 1995 BBC television series, presented by Terry Jones, which portrayed the crusades as a long, misguided war of intolerance, ignorance and barbarism against a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald E. Queller and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999), p. 1, Most historians have a negative view of the reliability of the BBC series.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) examines the use of the crusades as a national symbol from the 19th century to the 1910s in France, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Ethiopia, Britain, Russia, and Bulgaria. Though the Enlightenment and its secular ideological successors held the crusades as an example of medieval barbarity. Enlightenment thinkers like historian-philosophers [[Voltaire]] and [[David Hume]] denounced the crusades, as did the great historian of Byzantium [[Edward Gibbon]], who wrote: &lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and the most important effects were analogous to the cause…. The belief of the Catholics was corrupted by new legends…. The active spirit of the Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion…. The lives and labours of millions, which were buried in the East, would have been more profitably employed in the improvement of their native country.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edward Gibbon, ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,'' (1776), [https://books.google.com/books?id=Hy8OAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PT249&amp;amp;lpg=PT249&amp;amp;dq=%22principle+of+the+crusades+was+a+savage+fanaticism%22&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=PGcJRsXv2k&amp;amp;sig=gH4PAb31uRoQu2u54z7h_hzGp8U&amp;amp;hl=en ch 61 p. 1086]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In the 19th century, however, romantic writers like novelist Sir [[Walter Scott]] created heroic images of the crusaders. The romantics and conservative adherents of the European ancien régimes appropriated crusading imagery for their own 19th century political goals, downplaying religion to fit within a modern, secular context and presenting crusades as a counterpoint to liberal ideas of nationalism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) explores three primary themes: memory of the crusades as it relates to debates over the generation and use of national symbols; the crusader as a romantic hero; and the Muslim recollection of the crusades as a shameful blot on the past of Christian nations. The crusades appealed to many Europeans because they reflected a morally unambiguous time, sparked romanticized images of warfare in a time of imperialist expansion, and provided heroic templates for modern &amp;quot;crusading&amp;quot; imperialist heroes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adam Knobler, &amp;quot;Holy Wars, Empires, and the Portability of the Past: the Modern Uses of Medieval Crusades.&amp;quot; ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2006 48(2): 293-325. Issn: 0010-4175 Fulltext: [[Cambridge Journals]]; see also Elizabeth Siberry, ''The New Crusaders: Images of the Crusades in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries'' (2000)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Muslim world===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muslim historiography does not cover the crusades with the same intensity as the West. One modern reason could be that Turks were primarily responsible for the defeat of the crusaders, and Arab historians (who have written much of modern Islamic history) may have underplayed this, due to the Turks role in establishing the Ottoman Empire - a period that suppressed Arab nationalism for seven centuries into the era of World War I.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives'' p. 5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great Muslim hero was a [[Kurdistan|Kurd]], Saladin (1138–93). Having defeated the crusaders in 1187, and become sovereign and founder of the Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt and Syria, Salah al-Din (Saladin) has been for a century the object of an intense glorification in the Arab world.  Farah Antun's play ''Sultan Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1914) illustrates how the historical figure of Saladin came to be presented as a prophet of Arab nationalism. Antun (1874-1922) was a Syrian Christian who presents Saladin as the champion of a just jihad against the Crusaders and as a faithful upholder of the virtues of wisdom, determination, and frankness, calling on the peoples of all Arab countries to unite against Western imperialists. The refusal of Antun's Saladin to become embroiled in quarrels within Europe had obvious echoes in World War I and caused the play to be censored by the British authorities in Egypt.  In Palestine, the glorification also took the form of pilgrimages to Nabi Musa and became an occasion to celebrate the memory of the great hero of Muslim history. A recent myth proclaims him the initiator of Palestinian pilgrimages. The figure of the past has become the modern hero of Arab nationalism, giving hope to a society prey to war and dispersion. At the same time, however, the pilgrimage ritual highlights the limits of the hero: constantly appealed to and put to the test, he has begun to show signs of fragility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emma Aubin-Boltanski, &amp;quot;Salah Al-din, un Heros a l'epreuve: Mythe et Pelerinage en Palestine,&amp;quot; [Saladin, a Hero under Scrutiny: Myth and Pilgrimage in Palestine]. ''Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales'' [[in French]] 2005 60(1): 91-107. Issn: 0395-2649&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Church Liturgy===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Linder (2001) examines 15th century Church liturgy designed to generate support for the war effort against the Turks and to legitimize its aims. Two types of Contra Turcos Masses were used: masses converted to this function through the addition of appropriate three core prayers and complete dedicated masses. The most popular example of the first type was the triple prayer set originally established by Clement V as a Holy Land crusade liturgy and subsequently mobilized against the Turks. The second type is represented by nine different mass formularies that were introduced after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Most surviving liturgies are of German or French provenance, indicating extensive use not only among the front-line populations but also in areas far removed from any threat. The liturgy displays an its intense crisis rhetoric. Its predominant stance of vulnerability and defensiveness entailed aggressive mobilization and the conceptualization of the Turk as the actual, specific manifestation of the generic infidel, the competing religious Other; and the remarkable continuity - in form and in content - that linked this liturgy with its parent liturgies (mainly those of the campaigns against the pagans and the Holy Land Crusades) further accentuated these traits. The communicative function and value of this liturgy is highlighted by the concentration of the direct, unmediated communicative elements in that part of the mass that was the most accessible to the laity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Amnon Linder, &amp;quot;The War Liturgy Against the Turks in the Late Middle Ages.&amp;quot; ''Historia: Journal of the Historical Society of Israel'' . 2001 (8): 73-105. Issn: 0334-4843; the text is in Hebrew.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dome of the Rock]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Al-Aqsa Mosque]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Famous Castles in the World]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Eastern Catholic Churches]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Basic further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Detailed Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
===Surveys===&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).&lt;br /&gt;
* Phillips, Jonathan, and Martin Hoch. ''The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Second-Crusade-Scope-Consequences/dp/0719057116/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205372474&amp;amp;sr=1-4 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* Queller, Donald E., and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999) [https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Crusade-Conquest-Constantinople-Middle/dp/0812217136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270938&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Runciman, Steven. ''A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusade and the Foundations of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.''; ''Volume II: The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East 1100-1187.'' and ''Volume III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades'' (1951–53), the classic history; very hostile toward the crusaders &lt;br /&gt;
*Setton, Kenneth ed., ''A History of the Crusades''. (1969-1989), the standard scholarly history in six volumes, published by the University of Wisconsin Press  [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=browse&amp;amp;scope=History.HistCrusades complete text online]. &lt;br /&gt;
: Includes: [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?id=History.CrusOne ''The first hundred years''] (2nd ed. 1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311''] (1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFour ''The art and architecture of the crusader states''] (1977); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFive ''The impact of the Crusades on the Near East''] (1985); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe''] (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Specialized studies===&lt;br /&gt;
* Abulafia, David. ''Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor'' (1988)&lt;br /&gt;
* Boas, Adrian J. ''Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades: Society, Landscape, and Art in the Holy City under Frankish Rule'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/107613849 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Crusades,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1908) vol 4. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1291),&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08361a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1910) vol 8. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bull, Marcus, and Norman Housley, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 1, Western Approaches.'' (2003) (323pp) &lt;br /&gt;
** Edbury, Peter, and Jonathan Phillips, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 2, Defining the Crusader Kingdom.'' (2003) 326pp; specialized articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Butler, R. Urban. &amp;quot;Urban II,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1911) online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Edgington, Susan B., and Sarah Lambert, eds. ''Gendering the Crusades.'' (2002) 232pp essays by scholars. &lt;br /&gt;
*  Folda, Jaroslav. ''Crusader Art in the Holy Land, From the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusader-Holy-Land-Third-Crusade/dp/0521835836/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205436596&amp;amp;sr=8-3 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* James, Douglas. &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''History Review'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53; online at [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Kagay, Donald J., and L. J. Andrew Villalon, eds. ''Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon: Medieval Warfare in Societies around the Mediterranean.'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/read/109303998 online edition] &lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. ''The Kingdom of the Crusaders'' (1936) [http://www.questia.com/read/3840921 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Peters, Edward. ''Christian Society and the Crusades, 1198-1229'' (1971) [http://www.questia.com/read/14405191 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Powell, James M. ''Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213-1221,'' (1986) [http://www.questia.com/read/3123539 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Richard, Jean. ''Saint Louis: Crusader King of France'' (1992)&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Smail, R. C. &amp;quot;Crusaders' Castles of the Twelfth Century&amp;quot;   ''Cambridge Historical Journal'' Vol. 10, No. 2. (1951), pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;133–149. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1474-6913%281951%2910%3A2%3C133%3ACCOTTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J in JSTOR]&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher.  ''England and the Crusades, 1095-1588.'' (1988). 492 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
===Islam and Byzantium===&lt;br /&gt;
* Florean, Dana. &amp;quot;East Meets West: Cultural Confrontation and Exchange after the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''Language &amp;amp; Intercultural Communication,'' 2007, Vol. 7 Issue 2, pp144–151 in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Gabrieli, Francesco. ''Arab Historians of the Crusades'' (2009)&lt;br /&gt;
* Harris, Jonathan. ''Byzantium and the Crusades.'' (2003). Pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;276pp &lt;br /&gt;
* Hillenbrand, Carole. ''The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Surveys/dp/0748606300/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294196&amp;amp;sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*  Lane-Poole, Stanley. ''Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1898) [https://books.google.com/books?id=sb4bAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=intitle:Saladin+intitle:and+intitle:the+intitle:Fall+intitle:of+intitle:the+intitle:Kingdom+intitle:of+intitle:Jerusalem&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;num=30&amp;amp;as_brr=0&amp;amp;ei=gm3bR9CgCYPQiQGb0P3VAQ full text online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Maalouf, Amin. ''Crusades Through Arab Eyes'' (1989) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Through-Arab-Eyes-Maalouf/dp/0805208984/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146248/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294049&amp;amp;sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Historiography===&lt;br /&gt;
*  Constable, Giles. &amp;quot;The Historiography of the Crusades&amp;quot;  in Angeliki E.  Laiou, ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001); major overview of scholarship [http://www.doaks.org/Crusades/CR01.pdf online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Laiou, Angeliki E. ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001) [http://www.doaks.org/CRcnts.html online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ed. ''The Crusades: The Essential Readings'' (2002) ISBN 0-631-23023-8 284pp, articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31. On medieval histories of the crusades. [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Primary sources===&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman, ed. ''Documents on the Later Crusades, 1274-1580'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* Krey, August C. ''The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants'' (1958). &lt;br /&gt;
* Shaw, M. R. B. ed.''Chronicles of the Crusades'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/read/58956484 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Villehardouin, Geoffrey, and Jean de Joinville. ''Chronicles of the Crusades'' ed. by Sir Frank Marzials (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-Crusades-Dover-Value-Editions/dp/0486454363/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270195&amp;amp;sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
:Villehardouin's ''Conquest of Constantinople'' is a standard reference work on the Fourth Crusade; it is the first work in medieval French prose. Joinville's life of St. Louis is a classic description of the life and times of King Louis IX; it is written in Old French and is perhaps the best biography written in the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Military History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Medieval History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Christian History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Crusades]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Crusades}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2157125</id>
		<title>The Crusades</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2157125"/>
		<updated>2025-09-08T13:45:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Christianity}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Middle Ages}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Crusader.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A returning Crusader]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''The Crusades''' (1095-1291) were a series of European Catholic campaigns into the Middle East, fought during the Middle Ages. They were the military responses made by Catholics, from western Europe to the Pope's pleas to re-capture the Holy Land from Islamic influence. After centuries of Islamic attacks, prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250908132840/https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades The Crusades] Encyclopedia Britannica &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prior Islamic expansion&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250801015722/https://www.onthewing.org/user/Islam%20-%20Conquests.pdf List of Islamic Expansion on the West Prior to First Crusade]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;O'Neill, John J. (2010) &amp;quot;[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1805&amp;amp;context=ccr The Crusades: A Response to Islamic Aggression],&amp;quot; Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 63: No. 63, Article 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The First Crusade was Western Europeans performing a counter offensive, thus the First Crusade was not a initiation of conflict, but was instead the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 28 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Riley-Smith. 2024. The Crusades: a History (4th edition). Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 1350028614. Page 21 &amp;quot;The cause for a crusade was particularly important because at least at first, these wars were fought primarily by volunteers. The first crusaders were such by virtue of the vows they had made; in canon law a vow had to be a voluntary act. When a pope proclaimed a crusade this could be no more than an appeal to men and women to join an expedition of their own free will. He might threaten them with hell-fire, but he could not force them to make vows, or punish them if they did not, and there were occasions when efforts at recruitment failed. A convincing case was therefore essential, even if it had to be made post hoc. Expeditions to the eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, or the Iberian Peninsula could be justified as responses to present Muslim aggression or as attempts to recover “Christian” territory that had been injuriously seized in the past.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250827143542/https://www.britannica.com/question/What-was-the-purpose-of-the-Crusades What was the purpose of the Crusades?] - Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250616161718/https://apholt.com/2017/06/06/the-first-crusade-as-a-defensive-war-a-response-to-prof-gabriele/ The First Crusade as a “Defensive War”: A Response to Prof. Gabriele - Andrew Holt (2017)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The '''First Crusade''' created new Latin states in the Holy Land. Subsequent crusades were less successful except when they attacked Byzantium.  Other medieval movements against heretics and infidels were also called crusades. The crusades ended with the Islamic recapture of all the Holy Land in 1291, when the last city controlled by crusaders, Acre, fell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades comprise a major chapter of [[Middle Ages|Medieval History]]. Extending over three centuries, they attracted every social class in western Europe. Kings and commoners, barons and bishops, knights and commoners&amp;amp;mdash;even teenagers&amp;amp;mdash;all participated in these expeditions to the eastern end of the Mediterranean. The motives of the crusaders were numerous: some sought riches; many sought adventure; most were moved by faith alone. Historians stress the central role of religious fervor, while mentioning as well the socio-economic factors crucial in enticing larger contingents. For example, crusaders often were fulfilling their feudal obligations. There were strong links between the papal reforms, the social necessity of violence and the exploitation of this inherent revivalistic imagination of the age of the Papacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas James, &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade,&amp;quot; ''History Review,'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades failed to achieve the permanent control of the Holy Land. However, their influence was wide and deep. Much of &lt;br /&gt;
the crusading fervor carried over to the successful fights against the Moors (Muslims) in Spain and the pagan Slavs in eastern Europe. Politically the crusades weakened the decrepit Byzantine Empire, but temporarily kept the Muslims away from it. The First Crusade strengthened the moral leadership of the &lt;br /&gt;
papacy in Europe, but the failures of the later crusades weakened both the crusading ideal and respect for the papacy&lt;br /&gt;
Contact with the East widened the scope of the Europeans, ended their isolation, and exposed them to an rich civilization. The economic effects of the crusades were modest, but they did reopen of the eastern Mediterranean to Western commerce, which itself had an effect on the rise of great cities such as Venice and the emergence of a money economy in the West.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusaders derived their name from the Latin word for &amp;quot;cross&amp;quot;—crux. A crusader went to the Holy Land with a cross of cloth sewn over his breast; when he returned, he had a similar cross for his back.   Originally called to repel the Islamic forces that controlled [[Jerusalem]], the crusades evolved into a form of political decree called by the Papacy for political, social or economic reasons. The campaigns of [[Teutonic knight]]s against [[pagan]] strongholds in [[Eastern Europe]] are also sometimes called crusades.  Lastly, military actions within Christendom against heretical and schismatic groups are sometimes called a crusade. Thus a crusade in most general terms was a directive of war issued by the Pope to all Rome-friendly nations against forces, whether Muslim, pagan or Eastern Orthodox, which were hostile to the Papacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. The fourth crusade resulted in a very damaged relationship between [[Orthodox Church|Greek]] and [[Roman Catholic|Latin]] Christendom.  Islamic expansion into remained a threat for centuries, with crusading orders establishing strongholds to protect Mediterranean islands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the crusades in southern [[Spain]] were militarily successful, eventually leading to the end of Islamic power in the region in 1492.  The Teutonic knights expanded Christian domains in Eastern Europe, and the [[Albigensian Crusade]], achieved its goal of destroying heretics in France.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, ''Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300–1475''. 6th ed. (McGraw-Hill 1998)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Origin of the Crusades ==&lt;br /&gt;
Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world after centuries of attacks and so Western Europeans performed a counter offensive with the First Crusade.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Thus, Westerners were not the initiators of conflict, but and instead the First Crusade was the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Holy Land had been part of the [[Roman Empire]], and thus the [[Byzantine Empire]], until the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries that forced the Byzantines out and saw the area gradually turn Islamic. Calm returned and Christians had generally been permitted to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land until 1071, when the [[Seljuk Turks]] assailed the Byzantines, defeating them at the [[Battle of Manzikert]], and conquered Jerusalem from the Egyptian Fatimids the same year.  They were not friendly to Christian pilgrims, in contrast to how the Fatimids had been, and soon pilgrims came under threat of robbery or even death as they were no longer welcome.  The Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius I]] asked for aid from the west both to the Popes and the Christian monarchs.  Nothing meaningful happened.  Alexius may have been hoping for money from the Pope for the hiring of mercenaries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Timeline - Prior to the First Crusade===&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades are traditionally taught in university courses as a stand-alone event that had no precedent.  There is some problem with this thought process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The first Crusade began in 1095:&lt;br /&gt;
** 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies. (The Battle of Fahl and the 634 Siege of Damascus)&lt;br /&gt;
** 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslims armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 443 years after Muslims first plundered Italy.&lt;br /&gt;
** 427 years after Muslims armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople.&lt;br /&gt;
** 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions from Christianity to Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20160322080651/http://christianheritagefellowship.com/the-crusades/ The Truth about the Crusades]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Papal call==&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to fight for the defense of the Christian East and the protection of pilgrims in a speech made at the [[Council of Clermont]] on November 27, 1095. Pope Urban specified the call to skilled fighters, not priests or monks, and specified that clergy were not to participate without consent of their superiors, reflecting a cool minded approach, not religious fervor to fight for Christian lands.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 39-41 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Urban demanded that all internal feuds within Christendom end, threatening [[excommunication]] for anyone who continued to bicker internally, and promising an indulgence (less time in purgatory) to anyone who died in the crusade.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This time Europe listened.  Those who were there erupted in spontaneous cries of &amp;quot;Deus le vult!&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;God wills it!&amp;quot;) - which would become the watchword of what we now know as the Crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Nothing like this had ever been done, and the Pope himself had no military power and had to count on those who were in positions of power to supply it.  While the monarchs of Europe did not get directly involved, it was a series of prominent nobles who answered the call, among the most famous being:  the Norman Bohemund of Taranto, former claimant to the Duchy of Apulia, his nephew Tancred, Count Raymond of Toulouse, [[Godfrey Of Bouillon|Duke Godfrey de Bouillon]] of Lorraine, Duke Hugh of Vermandois (brother of the King of France), Duke Robert of Normandy, and Count Robert of Flanders.  The spiritual leader who accompanied them was French Bishop Adhemar du Puy, who was appointed Papal legate.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All that was known at the start was that the forces to participate would meet together in [[Constantinople]], where Alexius had no idea what was being unleashed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The First Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[First Crusade]], properly speaking, was lead by Feudal lords, mostly of [[Franks|Frankish]] origin.  Many of the knights left home never expecting to return, knowing virtually nothing about the [[Holy Land]], and trusting in God for victory.  The army consisted of almost 20,000 men, including a mass of [[squire]]s and other servants necessary to support a mounted knight.  Arriving at Constantinople the force, which eventually reached almost 50,000 total men, was not what the Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius]] had expected.  He had hoped for a few thousand well trained mercenaries to help him retake his lands from the Turks, and had little in common with the goal of 'freeing the Holy Land'.  An uneasy tension ensued from 1096 to 1097 as the forces gathered, but through a combination of firmness and diplomacy, Alexius avoided serious complications. In return for his assurance of assistance, he obtained oaths of allegiance from the Crusader leaders, and their promise that they would help recapture [[Nicaea]] from the Turks and return to him any other former possessions which they conquered.  Alexius then transported them across the Bosporus - being careful not to allow any large number of Crusader forces inside the walls of his capital at any given time.  He also provided them with food and with an escort of Byzantine troops to guide them towards their objectives (and incidentally to prevent Crusader plundering).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy &amp;amp; Dupuy, 1979, Pg. 312-313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a hard march to the Holy Land, the army captured invested Nicaea in 1097.  By a combination of skillful fighting and skillful diplomacy, Alexius arrange for the surrender of the city to him after a successful Crusader-Byzantine assault on the outer walls.  The Crusaders were upset at Alexius' refusal to give them permission to sack the city.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusaders continued to the southeast in parallel columns, without any one commander in charge.  After fighting the inconclusive [[Battle of Dorylaeum]], the army split in half. Tancred and Baldwin, brother of Godfrey of Lorraine and future King of Jerusalem, went east took the Armenian fortress-city of [[Edessa]] - an action that destroyed the support of many local Armenian Christians for the Crusade, and weakened its internal bonds, as Baldwin and Tancred's men clashed over possession of the city, with Baldwin emerging triumphant. The main body of the army continued onward and besieged [[Antioch]].  The city was surrounded for 8 months from October 21, 1097 to June 3, 1098.  Two relieving armies were driven off in the [[Battles of Harenc]] in December and February.  Due to poor arrangements for supplies, the Crusading army was actually close to starvation, but was saved by the fortuitous arrival of English and Pisan flotillas which seized two nearby ports and brought provisions.  Bickering among the Crusader leaders, especially [[Bohemund]] and [[Raymond]] was rampant.  The initiative of Bohemund led to the capture of Antioch just 2 days before a relieving army of 75,000 strong under the atabeg of [[Mosul]], [[Kerboga]] would arrived, delayed itself after a fruitless three-week long attempt to dislodge Baldwin from Edessa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now it was the Crusaders turn to be trapped inside the city as Kerboga sieged Antioch from June 5, to June 28, 1098.  The Crusaders were cut off from supplies and again near starvation.  A Byzantine army was coming to take the city as agreed, but hearing that the Crusaders were doomed, turned back to Constantinople.  It was then the 'Holy Lance' was discovered; the weapon said to have pierced Jesus' side.  While few historians or theologians believe this miraculous discovery was valid, it energized the Crusader army at just the time they needed it.  The [[Battle of the Orontes]] was fought on June 28 where 15,000 Crusaders left Antioch to battle and drove off the entire Moslem army and broke the siege, helped in part by the decision of several of the local emirs serving under Kerbogha to abandon him during the battle, fearing that he coveted their territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to internal bickering, many of the Crusaders did not continue on to [[Jerusalem]].  The force that arrived in June 1099 was only about 12,000 strong, far fewer than the army of defenders.  They sieged the city from June 9 to July 18.  Realizing they didn't have enough men to keep out supplies and starve the defenders, they boldly attacked.  Overrunning the city, many of the inhabitants were massacred, including other Christians.  A relieving force of 50,000 strong arrived in August to fight the Crusaders, but were routed at the [[Battle of Ascalon]].  The military aspects of the First Crusade had ended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four feudal kingdoms were established, which would remain for nearly 100 years.  Several Military Orders, consisting of [[paladin]]s, were also set up within the next few years, focusing mainly around the protection of the welfare of pilgrims and the defense of Christendom within the framework of an organization that was both spiritual and martial in nature. The best known of these orders were the Knights of the Temple, or [[Templars]], and the Knights of the Hospital of St. John, or [[Hospitallers]]. The Hospitallers still exist today in the form of the Order of Malta and St. John's Ambulance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Second Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Second Crusade]] occurred in 1145 when [[Edessa]] was retaken by Islamic forces.  It was ultimately a failure, owing in part to the French king's insistence on betraying and attacking his only Muslim ally, [[Damascus]].  In 1187 the Muslims&lt;br /&gt;
captured Jerusalem under their leader [[Saladin]], which brought about a new call for a Crusade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Third Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Saladin2.jpg|thumb|left|270px]]The [[Third Crusade]] (1189–92) is famous for the battles between [[Richard I|Richard the Lionheart]] and [[Saladin]], highlighted by the deep respect the two enemies had for each other, and the sense of [[chivalry|chivalric]] honor of King Richard.  The crusade also involved the king of France (who returned home after an argument with Richard at Acre) and the Holy Roman Emperor (who drowned en route).  The crusade had the limited success of obtaining a truce between Richard and Saladin that promised to allow Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Fourth Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Fourth Crusade]], begun by [[Innocent III]] in 1202, intended to retake the Holy Land but was soon subverted by [[Venetian]]s who used the forces to sack the Christian city of [[Zara]]. Innocent excommunicated the Venetians and crusaders.  Eventually the crusaders arrived in [[Constantinople]], but due to strife which arose between them and the [[Byzantines]], rather than proceed to the Holy Land the crusaders instead sacked Constantinople and other parts of [[Asia Minor]] effectively establishing the Latin Empire of Constantinople in [[Greece]] and Asia Minor .  Both Zara and Constantinople were Christian cities, and the ultimate effect was a severely damaged relationship between Greek and Latin Christendom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was effectively the last crusade sponsored by the papacy; later crusades were sponsored by individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Crusades==&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the four main crusades there were several minor ones. &lt;br /&gt;
===The People's (Peasants') Crusade (1095-96)===&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the Pope issued his appeal in 1095 preachers like Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless fanned out across Western Europe, reaching [[Piety|pious]] common people in rural areas, including many peasants. They aroused such an enthusiasm among the peasants that neither the secular lords nor the local clergy could stop the people from marching east, filled with hopes for freedom from serfdom and the zest for adventure. Thousands of peasants set off with few supplies or weapons and no money, and no idea of the enormous distance to be traveled. They believed that God would provide the guidance for direction and the sustenance for life.  More prosperous farmers and burghers were also involved. Five uncoordinated bands trekked across the Balkan region toward Constantinople. The Byzantine Christians welcomed them reluctantly and even contemptuously, for the pilgrims robbed them and raided their farms and villages. The Byzantine army fought them in pitched battles; most peasants never reached Constantinople. The thousands who did arrive were militarily useless and unwelcome. The Emperor Alexius temporarily fed and housed them outside the city, then hurried them across the Bosporus into Asia Minor. There the peasants were all killed by the Turkish forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Steven Runciman, &amp;quot;The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch,&amp;quot;   in M. W. Baldwin, ed. ''The first hundred years'' (1969) pp. 281-85 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&amp;amp;entity=History.CrusOne.p0313&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]; &lt;br /&gt;
Frederic Duncalf, &amp;quot;The Peasants' Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 26, No. 3 (Apr., 1921), pp. 440-453 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(192104)26%3A3%3C440%3ATPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P in JSTOR]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Attacking Jews====&lt;br /&gt;
A smaller group of peasants led by Gottschalk took out their fervor on a more local target, the Jewish communities of Lotharingia.  Their actions were condemned by the Church and the local populace.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Age of Faith, Will Durant, 1950, Pg. 589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;RS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Riley-Smith, Jonathan.  ''The Crusades: a History.'' (2005)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A much larger threat against Jews took the form of a larger mob led by Count Emico of Leiningen, who was more organized and more brutal.  Already a man with a sullied reputation, he ignored the pleas of the Bishops in town after town to desist.  Apart from being hidden by the local populace when they heard Emico was coming, there was little the Jews could do.  Previously in Europe, local difficulties against Jewish communities would rise from time to time in various places, but would be isolated to that local area.  This started a phase not previously seen, a systematic effort to weed out and attack Jewish communities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Children's Crusade (1212)===&lt;br /&gt;
Even more [[pathetic]] than the peasant crusade of 1095-96 was a movement in France and Germany which attracted large numbers of peasant teenagers and young people (few were under age 15). They were convinced they could succeed where older and more sinful crusaders had failed: the miraculous power of their faith would triumph where the force of arms had not. Many parish priests and parents encouraged such religious fervor and urged them on. The Pope and bishops opposed the attempt but failed to stop it entirely. A band of several thousand youth and young men led by a German named Nicholas set out for Italy. About a third survived the march over the Alps and got as far as Genoa; another group came to Marseilles. The luckier ones eventually managed to get safely home, but many others were sold as lifetime slaves on the auction blocks of Marseilles slave dealers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dana C. Munro, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 19, No. 3 (Apr., 1914), pp. 516-524 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(191404)19%3A3%3C516%3ATCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C in JSTOR]; and Norman P. Zacour, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 325-342, esp. 330-37 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTWO.I0023&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221)===&lt;br /&gt;
Instigated by Pope Innocent III in 1215, this crusade was led in 1217 by John Brienne, king of Jerusalem, with the object of conquering Egypt. In 1219 the crusaders captured Damietta. The sultan of Egypt offered to exchange Jerusalem for Damietta but this was rejected. After an unsuccessful assault on Cairo in 1221, the defeated crusaders surrendered Damietta in return for the freedom to retreat.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomas C. Van Cleve, &amp;quot;The Fifth Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 377-428 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=377 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
===The Sixth Crusade (1228-1229)===&lt;br /&gt;
The sixth or &amp;quot; Diplomatic Crusade&amp;quot; was led by Emperor Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire.  He began in 1228, but fought no battles. Instead, by negotiation he obtained Jerusalem and a strip of territory from Acre to Jerusalem for the Christians. In 1225 he married Yolanda, the young heiress to the kingdom of Jerusalem; upon her death in 1228, Frederick crowned himself king of Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Seventh Crusade (1248-1250)===&lt;br /&gt;
Led by King Louis IX of France (reigned. 1226-1270) and directed against the Arabs of Egypt, this crusade was a complete failure. The crusaders were decisively defeated en route to Cairo and King Louis was captured; the Arabs demanded and received a huge ransom for the release of the hapless king.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition];  Peter Jackson, ''The Seventh Crusade, 1244-1254'' (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Crusade-12441254-Texts-Translation/dp/0754657221/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205399558&amp;amp;sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===The Eighth Crusade (1270)===&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring his advisers, King Louis IX again attacked the Arabs in Tunis in North Africa. He picked the hottest season of the year for campaigning and his army was devastated by disease. The king himself died, ending the last major attempt to free the Holy Land.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other Medieval Crusades===&lt;br /&gt;
At the time people used &amp;quot;crusade&amp;quot; to describe other religious wars waged against heretics, such as Hussites and Albigensian, as well as Moors in Spain and pagans in the Baltic region.&lt;br /&gt;
====The Albigensian Crusade (13th century)====&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Innocent III in 1209 called for a war against the Albigensians, a religious sect which had sprung up in southern France, centered near the cities of Albi and Toulouse in Provence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Essentially, the Albigensians believed in a non-Christian dualist doctrine: there was a coexistence, they affirmed, between good and evil, represented by such opposites as God and the Evil One, light and darkness, soul and body, afterlife and earthly life.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A bloody series of campaigns ended with Provence in ruins (1229) and the heretics defeated. In 1233 Pope Gregory IX placed the Dominicans in charge of investigating the remnants of Albigensianism with the legal power to name and condemn any surviving heretics. This marked the start of the [[Inquisition]].&lt;br /&gt;
====Teutonic Knights (1229-1525)====&lt;br /&gt;
A German religious and military order originally founded during the siege of Acre in the Third Crusade and modeled after the Knights Templars and Hospitalers, the Teutonic Knights moved to eastern Europe early in the 13th century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Moeller, &amp;quot;Teutonic Order,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14541b.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1912) vol 14 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There, under their grand master, Hermann von Salza, they became powerful and prominent. In 1229, responding to an appeal from the [[Poland, history|Duke of Poland]], they began a crusade against the pagan Slavs of Prussia. They became sovereigns over lands they conquered over the next century. In a series of campaigns, the Teutonic Knights gained control over the whole Baltic coast, founding numerous towns and fortresses and establishing Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edgar N. Johnson, &amp;quot;The German Crusade on the Baltic,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTHREE.I0028&amp;amp;isize=M H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 545-85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Crusades in Spain (711-1492)===&lt;br /&gt;
Muslims crossed from Africa into Spain early in the eighth century and in 711 at the battle of Río Barbate, they defeated the Visigoths and pressed forward to capture Toledo. By 718, the Moors (the name given North African Muslims by the Spaniards) had completed their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, except for small Christian remnants in the Pyrenees. They remained on for the next 674 years until driven out by Spanish and Portuguese Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The period of the Spanish Crusades began in the eleventh century when a religious revival was initiated by Cluniac monks in the small kingdoms in the north of Spain, which had recovered some of their lost territory. The revival expressed itself in a growing hatred for the infidel. Slowly yet steadily, at first sparked mainly by Burgundians and Normans from France, the Christians began to force the Moors out of northern and central Spain. Known as the [[Wars of the Reconquest]], these centuries-long conflicts intensified the Catholic sentiments of the people, developing an intense, even fanatical unity of religion and patriotism which was long characteristic of the Spaniards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the middle of the 15th century, the last bastion of Moorish power on the peninsula was the kingdom of Granada in southwestern Spain. When the marriage of Isabella, Queen of Castile, to Ferdinand, Prince of Aragon, in 1469 united Spain, they vigorously began their last campaign against the Moors.  In January 1492 the Spanish entered the city of Granada and Moorish power ended in Europe. The expulsion of the Moors from Spain may be considered the last of the many medieval crusades.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Julian Bishko, &amp;quot;The Spanish and Portuguese Reconquest, 1095-1492&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=396 H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 396-456&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Long-term Impact==&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, though Jerusalem was held for nearly a century and other strongholds in the Near East would remain in Christian possession much longer, the crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. Islamic expansion into Europe, while temporarily stalled, would renew and remain a threat for centuries with the disintegration of the [[Byzantine Empire]] and culminate with the campaigns of [[Suleiman the Magnificent]] in the sixteenth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the crusades achieved only temporary military success, they had a powerful impact on western Europe. The crusaders returned with a vastly widened knowledge of the world they lived in, and a willingness to explore that became a permanent part of the west European mindset. In religion, culture, and commerce, post-Crusades Europe was visibly affected by its prolonged encounter with another continent and another way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Commerce and economy===&lt;br /&gt;
The merchants of Venice and other Italian cities gained the most profit. They amassed considerable income in payment for the services they rendered the crusaders and were enriched by the commercial rights they obtained throughout the Near East. Genoa, Pisa, and Venice gained special monopolies throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Their merchants used these privileges to introduce into the Western world such oriental luxuries as silks, spices, and pearls, whose transportation and sale made the cities rich. The demand for these products encouraged explorers to seek out new and more direct routes to the East—most famously in the discovery and exploration of the Americas by Columbus and others starting in 1492. The crusades helped create a moneyed aristocracy and encouraged the growth of capitalism in the Italian cities. Silks and spices not only raised the standard of living of the rich, they stimulated the entire urban economy, although cities remained small. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The returning crusaders came back to Europe with new tastes in dress and diet, such as peaches and spinach. They gave up the custom of wearing a load of heavy armor at nearly all times and appeared in the flowing robes of silk or cotton which were the traditional habit of the Muslims.&lt;br /&gt;
===Weakens feudalism===&lt;br /&gt;
In rural areas, where the vast majority of Europeans lives, the crusades tended to weaken feudalism and strengthen central governments. Thousands of feudal aristocrats died young and many baronial families lost heavily or even went bankrupt because they borrowed money for the adventure and could not repay. Since credit markets were undeveloped and inefficient, the crusaders paid high premiums to borrow; many accepted donations from friends and family.  For a local baron to bring along 10 knights on a crusade cost some 3000 livres a year. There was some plunder along the way, but plunder was hard to liquefy to pay off loans back home. Instead of acquiring new rich new lands and fabulous wealth in the East, many noble families sold, pawned or mortgaged lands, castles, benefices, and jewels; most saw their finances damaged. Money lenders in Italian cities grew rich. The feudal barons were the basis of localism; power now tended to become more centralized and national. Of course when the kings crusaded, it cost them dearly and weakened their throne. [[Richard the Lionhearted]] of England sold off the income he was owed from Scotland, and tried to sell London itself but could not find a buyer. By contributing to the rise of the cities, the development of a money economy, and the strengthening of national monarchies, hastened, to some extent, feudalism's collapse.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fred A. Cazel, Jr. &amp;quot;Financing the Crusades,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix N. P. Zacour,  and H.W. Hazard, eds. ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe'' (1989), pp 116-49 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Church===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades at first helped, then hurt the church and the [[Papacy, history|papacy]]. In the early stages, the popes took the leadership of Europe in a great holy cause against the infidel world.  Germany, France and England in particular responded to the popes. However the popes lost that leadership to secular princes by the time of the Third Crusade; during the Fourth Crusade the crusaders rejected Innocent III's demands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades were a major contributing factor in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches. The Crusaders deposed the native Patriarchs and appointed Latin Patriarchs in their place. These appointments were ratified by the Pope. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the kingdom of Jerusalem, the commercial interests fostered an unexpected friendship with the Muslims, leading to an acceptance of oriental customs, and toleration of the rival religion. No such tolerance was visible in Western Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Culture===&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the West====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of cultural influence, 20th century historians have revised the traditionally positive picture of the Crusades, finding little evidence of significant impact.  19th century historians saw in the Crusades a major stimulus for the renewed interest in learning, art, literature, and architecture that took place across Western Europe, and some historians had even argued the Crusades were mainly responsible for the [[Renaissance]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been argued that the crusades stimulated broader vision and better understanding of the wider world for the countries who embarked on them. Men who had never been 30 miles beyond their village or manor saw firsthand new places, peoples and customs. One impact the Crusades did have on literary art was the immortalisation of the Crusading heroes in oft-recited poems.  The ''Estoire de la guerre sainte'' is in Old French couplets, lauding the exploits of Richard the Lion-Hearted in the Third Crusade. A free poetical spirit characterizes ''Le Chanson d'Antioche'' that describes the First Crusade. The ages-old tales of Arthur and Charlemagne were given a fresh crusading complexion during the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the East====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A significant long-term cultural impact on the Muslim world is the resultant resentment, fear and distrust of Christian Europe, evidence of which as survived into the 21st century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Philip Khurl Pitti, &amp;quot;The Impact of the Crusades on Moslem Lands,&amp;quot; in N. P. Zacour and H. W. Hazard, eds., [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSFIVE.I0015&amp;amp;isize=M ''The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East,'' (1985) pp. 33-58, online]; Car Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When The US president [[George W. Bush]] described in 2001 the newly defined [[War on terror]] as a &amp;quot;Crusade&amp;quot;, the Islamic world in particular was alarmed at what was widely considered to be ill-judged language.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2006, [[Osama Bin Laden]], speaking from hiding, described Western policy towards the Muslim world as a &amp;quot;Zionist-Crusader war against Islam&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Byzantine Empire===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades postponed the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine Empire until 1453, but the determination of Westerners to conquer and colonize the lands of Byzantium led to its downfall. Rather than curing its ills, they made its death inevitable. The plunder of Constantinople in 1204 and the Venetian monopoly of its trade were a fatal blow to the political and economic life of the empire. Even after its restoration in 1261, Constantinople never regained its former strength.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historiography and Memory==&lt;br /&gt;
===Legend and literature in the West===&lt;br /&gt;
Legend and literature surrounded the Crusades with an aura of romance and grandeur, of chivalry and courage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Dana Carleton Munro, [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The myth is only remotely related to reality. The countless tales of the gallant knights of the Cross glitter in hyperbole. Many stories are true about the crusaders' feats of valor. However the crusaders occupied the Holy Land only temporarily.  In their major mission, the crusaders lost in the very long run. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical memory of the crusades has been sharply divided.  The Catholic tradition in Europe looked upon them favorably, but the Protestant historians were more negative. [[Martin Luther]] once suggested that the Turks were God's instrument for punishing Christians. In recent decades a sense of western guilt is apparent, as in the 1995 BBC television series, presented by Terry Jones, which portrayed the crusades as a long, misguided war of intolerance, ignorance and barbarism against a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald E. Queller and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999), p. 1, Most historians have a negative view of the reliability of the BBC series.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) examines the use of the crusades as a national symbol from the 19th century to the 1910s in France, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Ethiopia, Britain, Russia, and Bulgaria. Though the Enlightenment and its secular ideological successors held the crusades as an example of medieval barbarity. Enlightenment thinkers like historian-philosophers [[Voltaire]] and [[David Hume]] denounced the crusades, as did the great historian of Byzantium [[Edward Gibbon]], who wrote: &lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and the most important effects were analogous to the cause…. The belief of the Catholics was corrupted by new legends…. The active spirit of the Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion…. The lives and labours of millions, which were buried in the East, would have been more profitably employed in the improvement of their native country.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edward Gibbon, ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,'' (1776), [https://books.google.com/books?id=Hy8OAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PT249&amp;amp;lpg=PT249&amp;amp;dq=%22principle+of+the+crusades+was+a+savage+fanaticism%22&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=PGcJRsXv2k&amp;amp;sig=gH4PAb31uRoQu2u54z7h_hzGp8U&amp;amp;hl=en ch 61 p. 1086]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In the 19th century, however, romantic writers like novelist Sir [[Walter Scott]] created heroic images of the crusaders. The romantics and conservative adherents of the European ancien régimes appropriated crusading imagery for their own 19th century political goals, downplaying religion to fit within a modern, secular context and presenting crusades as a counterpoint to liberal ideas of nationalism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) explores three primary themes: memory of the crusades as it relates to debates over the generation and use of national symbols; the crusader as a romantic hero; and the Muslim recollection of the crusades as a shameful blot on the past of Christian nations. The crusades appealed to many Europeans because they reflected a morally unambiguous time, sparked romanticized images of warfare in a time of imperialist expansion, and provided heroic templates for modern &amp;quot;crusading&amp;quot; imperialist heroes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adam Knobler, &amp;quot;Holy Wars, Empires, and the Portability of the Past: the Modern Uses of Medieval Crusades.&amp;quot; ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2006 48(2): 293-325. Issn: 0010-4175 Fulltext: [[Cambridge Journals]]; see also Elizabeth Siberry, ''The New Crusaders: Images of the Crusades in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries'' (2000)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Muslim world===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muslim historiography does not cover the crusades with the same intensity as the West. One modern reason could be that Turks were primarily responsible for the defeat of the crusaders, and Arab historians (who have written much of modern Islamic history) may have underplayed this, due to the Turks role in establishing the Ottoman Empire - a period that suppressed Arab nationalism for seven centuries into the era of World War I.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives'' p. 5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great Muslim hero was a [[Kurdistan|Kurd]], Saladin (1138–93). Having defeated the crusaders in 1187, and become sovereign and founder of the Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt and Syria, Salah al-Din (Saladin) has been for a century the object of an intense glorification in the Arab world.  Farah Antun's play ''Sultan Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1914) illustrates how the historical figure of Saladin came to be presented as a prophet of Arab nationalism. Antun (1874-1922) was a Syrian Christian who presents Saladin as the champion of a just jihad against the Crusaders and as a faithful upholder of the virtues of wisdom, determination, and frankness, calling on the peoples of all Arab countries to unite against Western imperialists. The refusal of Antun's Saladin to become embroiled in quarrels within Europe had obvious echoes in World War I and caused the play to be censored by the British authorities in Egypt.  In Palestine, the glorification also took the form of pilgrimages to Nabi Musa and became an occasion to celebrate the memory of the great hero of Muslim history. A recent myth proclaims him the initiator of Palestinian pilgrimages. The figure of the past has become the modern hero of Arab nationalism, giving hope to a society prey to war and dispersion. At the same time, however, the pilgrimage ritual highlights the limits of the hero: constantly appealed to and put to the test, he has begun to show signs of fragility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emma Aubin-Boltanski, &amp;quot;Salah Al-din, un Heros a l'epreuve: Mythe et Pelerinage en Palestine,&amp;quot; [Saladin, a Hero under Scrutiny: Myth and Pilgrimage in Palestine]. ''Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales'' [[in French]] 2005 60(1): 91-107. Issn: 0395-2649&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Church Liturgy===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Linder (2001) examines 15th century Church liturgy designed to generate support for the war effort against the Turks and to legitimize its aims. Two types of Contra Turcos Masses were used: masses converted to this function through the addition of appropriate three core prayers and complete dedicated masses. The most popular example of the first type was the triple prayer set originally established by Clement V as a Holy Land crusade liturgy and subsequently mobilized against the Turks. The second type is represented by nine different mass formularies that were introduced after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Most surviving liturgies are of German or French provenance, indicating extensive use not only among the front-line populations but also in areas far removed from any threat. The liturgy displays an its intense crisis rhetoric. Its predominant stance of vulnerability and defensiveness entailed aggressive mobilization and the conceptualization of the Turk as the actual, specific manifestation of the generic infidel, the competing religious Other; and the remarkable continuity - in form and in content - that linked this liturgy with its parent liturgies (mainly those of the campaigns against the pagans and the Holy Land Crusades) further accentuated these traits. The communicative function and value of this liturgy is highlighted by the concentration of the direct, unmediated communicative elements in that part of the mass that was the most accessible to the laity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Amnon Linder, &amp;quot;The War Liturgy Against the Turks in the Late Middle Ages.&amp;quot; ''Historia: Journal of the Historical Society of Israel'' . 2001 (8): 73-105. Issn: 0334-4843; the text is in Hebrew.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dome of the Rock]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Al-Aqsa Mosque]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Famous Castles in the World]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Eastern Catholic Churches]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Basic further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Detailed Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
===Surveys===&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).&lt;br /&gt;
* Phillips, Jonathan, and Martin Hoch. ''The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Second-Crusade-Scope-Consequences/dp/0719057116/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205372474&amp;amp;sr=1-4 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* Queller, Donald E., and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999) [https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Crusade-Conquest-Constantinople-Middle/dp/0812217136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270938&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Runciman, Steven. ''A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusade and the Foundations of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.''; ''Volume II: The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East 1100-1187.'' and ''Volume III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades'' (1951–53), the classic history; very hostile toward the crusaders &lt;br /&gt;
*Setton, Kenneth ed., ''A History of the Crusades''. (1969-1989), the standard scholarly history in six volumes, published by the University of Wisconsin Press  [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=browse&amp;amp;scope=History.HistCrusades complete text online]. &lt;br /&gt;
: Includes: [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?id=History.CrusOne ''The first hundred years''] (2nd ed. 1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311''] (1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFour ''The art and architecture of the crusader states''] (1977); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFive ''The impact of the Crusades on the Near East''] (1985); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe''] (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Specialized studies===&lt;br /&gt;
* Abulafia, David. ''Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor'' (1988)&lt;br /&gt;
* Boas, Adrian J. ''Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades: Society, Landscape, and Art in the Holy City under Frankish Rule'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/107613849 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Crusades,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1908) vol 4. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1291),&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08361a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1910) vol 8. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bull, Marcus, and Norman Housley, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 1, Western Approaches.'' (2003) (323pp) &lt;br /&gt;
** Edbury, Peter, and Jonathan Phillips, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 2, Defining the Crusader Kingdom.'' (2003) 326pp; specialized articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Butler, R. Urban. &amp;quot;Urban II,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1911) online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Edgington, Susan B., and Sarah Lambert, eds. ''Gendering the Crusades.'' (2002) 232pp essays by scholars. &lt;br /&gt;
*  Folda, Jaroslav. ''Crusader Art in the Holy Land, From the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusader-Holy-Land-Third-Crusade/dp/0521835836/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205436596&amp;amp;sr=8-3 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* James, Douglas. &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''History Review'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53; online at [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Kagay, Donald J., and L. J. Andrew Villalon, eds. ''Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon: Medieval Warfare in Societies around the Mediterranean.'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/read/109303998 online edition] &lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. ''The Kingdom of the Crusaders'' (1936) [http://www.questia.com/read/3840921 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Peters, Edward. ''Christian Society and the Crusades, 1198-1229'' (1971) [http://www.questia.com/read/14405191 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Powell, James M. ''Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213-1221,'' (1986) [http://www.questia.com/read/3123539 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Richard, Jean. ''Saint Louis: Crusader King of France'' (1992)&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Smail, R. C. &amp;quot;Crusaders' Castles of the Twelfth Century&amp;quot;   ''Cambridge Historical Journal'' Vol. 10, No. 2. (1951), pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;133–149. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1474-6913%281951%2910%3A2%3C133%3ACCOTTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J in JSTOR]&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher.  ''England and the Crusades, 1095-1588.'' (1988). 492 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
===Islam and Byzantium===&lt;br /&gt;
* Florean, Dana. &amp;quot;East Meets West: Cultural Confrontation and Exchange after the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''Language &amp;amp; Intercultural Communication,'' 2007, Vol. 7 Issue 2, pp144–151 in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Gabrieli, Francesco. ''Arab Historians of the Crusades'' (2009)&lt;br /&gt;
* Harris, Jonathan. ''Byzantium and the Crusades.'' (2003). Pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;276pp &lt;br /&gt;
* Hillenbrand, Carole. ''The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Surveys/dp/0748606300/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294196&amp;amp;sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*  Lane-Poole, Stanley. ''Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1898) [https://books.google.com/books?id=sb4bAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=intitle:Saladin+intitle:and+intitle:the+intitle:Fall+intitle:of+intitle:the+intitle:Kingdom+intitle:of+intitle:Jerusalem&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;num=30&amp;amp;as_brr=0&amp;amp;ei=gm3bR9CgCYPQiQGb0P3VAQ full text online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Maalouf, Amin. ''Crusades Through Arab Eyes'' (1989) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Through-Arab-Eyes-Maalouf/dp/0805208984/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146248/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294049&amp;amp;sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Historiography===&lt;br /&gt;
*  Constable, Giles. &amp;quot;The Historiography of the Crusades&amp;quot;  in Angeliki E.  Laiou, ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001); major overview of scholarship [http://www.doaks.org/Crusades/CR01.pdf online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Laiou, Angeliki E. ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001) [http://www.doaks.org/CRcnts.html online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ed. ''The Crusades: The Essential Readings'' (2002) ISBN 0-631-23023-8 284pp, articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31. On medieval histories of the crusades. [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Primary sources===&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman, ed. ''Documents on the Later Crusades, 1274-1580'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* Krey, August C. ''The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants'' (1958). &lt;br /&gt;
* Shaw, M. R. B. ed.''Chronicles of the Crusades'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/read/58956484 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Villehardouin, Geoffrey, and Jean de Joinville. ''Chronicles of the Crusades'' ed. by Sir Frank Marzials (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-Crusades-Dover-Value-Editions/dp/0486454363/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270195&amp;amp;sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
:Villehardouin's ''Conquest of Constantinople'' is a standard reference work on the Fourth Crusade; it is the first work in medieval French prose. Joinville's life of St. Louis is a classic description of the life and times of King Louis IX; it is written in Old French and is perhaps the best biography written in the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Military History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Medieval History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Christian History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Crusades]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Crusades}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2157123</id>
		<title>The Crusades</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Crusades&amp;diff=2157123"/>
		<updated>2025-09-08T13:39:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Christianity}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Middle Ages}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Crusader.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A returning Crusader]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''The Crusades''' (1095-1291) were a series of European Catholic campaigns into the Middle East, fought during the Middle Ages. They were the military responses made by Catholics, from western Europe to the Pope's pleas to re-capture the Holy Land from Islamic influence. After centuries of Islamic attacks, prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250908132840/https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades The Crusades] Encyclopedia Britannica &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prior Islamic expansion&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250801015722/https://www.onthewing.org/user/Islam%20-%20Conquests.pdf List of Islamic Expansion on the West Prior to First Crusade]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;O'Neill, John J. (2010) &amp;quot;[https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1805&amp;amp;context=ccr The Crusades: A Response to Islamic Aggression],&amp;quot; Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 63: No. 63, Article 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The First Crusade was Western Europeans performing a counter offensive, thus the First Crusade was not a initiation of conflict, but was instead the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 28 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Jonathan Riley-Smith. 2024. The Crusades: a History (4th edition). Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 1350028614. Page 21 &amp;quot;The cause for a crusade was particularly important because at least at first, these wars were fought primarily by volunteers. The first crusaders were such by virtue of the vows they had made; in canon law a vow had to be a voluntary act. When a pope proclaimed a crusade this could be no more than an appeal to men and women to join an expedition of their own free will. He might threaten them with hell-fire, but he could not force them to make vows, or punish them if they did not, and there were occasions when efforts at recruitment failed. A convincing case was therefore essential, even if it had to be made post hoc. Expeditions to the eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, or the Iberian Peninsula could be justified as responses to present Muslim aggression or as attempts to recover “Christian” territory that had been injuriously seized in the past.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250827143542/https://www.britannica.com/question/What-was-the-purpose-of-the-Crusades What was the purpose of the Crusades?] - Encyclopedia Britannica&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20250616161718/https://apholt.com/2017/06/06/the-first-crusade-as-a-defensive-war-a-response-to-prof-gabriele/ The First Crusade as a “Defensive War”: A Response to Prof. Gabriele - Andrew Holt (2017)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The '''First Crusade''' created new Latin states in the Holy Land. Subsequent crusades were less successful except when they attacked Byzantium.  Other medieval movements against heretics and infidels were also called crusades. The crusades ended with the Islamic recapture of all the Holy Land in 1291, when the last city controlled by crusaders, Acre, fell.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades comprise a major chapter of [[Middle Ages|Medieval History]]. Extending over three centuries, they attracted every social class in western Europe. Kings and commoners, barons and bishops, knights and commoners&amp;amp;mdash;even teenagers&amp;amp;mdash;all participated in these expeditions to the eastern end of the Mediterranean. The motives of the crusaders were numerous: some sought riches; many sought adventure; most were moved by faith alone. Historians stress the central role of religious fervor, while mentioning as well the socio-economic factors crucial in enticing larger contingents. For example, crusaders often were fulfilling their feudal obligations. There were strong links between the papal reforms, the social necessity of violence and the exploitation of this inherent revivalistic imagination of the age of the Papacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Douglas James, &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade,&amp;quot; ''History Review,'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades failed to achieve the permanent control of the Holy Land. However, their influence was wide and deep. Much of &lt;br /&gt;
the crusading fervor carried over to the successful fights against the Moors (Muslims) in Spain and the pagan Slavs in eastern Europe. Politically the crusades weakened the decrepit Byzantine Empire, but temporarily kept the Muslims away from it. The First Crusade strengthened the moral leadership of the &lt;br /&gt;
papacy in Europe, but the failures of the later crusades weakened both the crusading ideal and respect for the papacy&lt;br /&gt;
Contact with the East widened the scope of the Europeans, ended their isolation, and exposed them to an rich civilization. The economic effects of the crusades were modest, but they did reopen of the eastern Mediterranean to Western commerce, which itself had an effect on the rise of great cities such as Venice and the emergence of a money economy in the West.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusaders derived their name from the Latin word for &amp;quot;cross&amp;quot;—crux. A crusader went to the Holy Land with a cross of cloth sewn over his breast; when he returned, he had a similar cross for his back.   Originally called to repel the Islamic forces that controlled [[Jerusalem]], the crusades evolved into a form of political decree called by the Papacy for political, social or economic reasons. The campaigns of [[Teutonic knight]]s against [[pagan]] strongholds in [[Eastern Europe]] are also sometimes called crusades.  Lastly, military actions within Christendom against heretical and schismatic groups are sometimes called a crusade. Thus a crusade in most general terms was a directive of war issued by the Pope to all Rome-friendly nations against forces, whether Muslim, pagan or Eastern Orthodox, which were hostile to the Papacy. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. The fourth crusade resulted in a very damaged relationship between [[Orthodox Church|Greek]] and [[Roman Catholic|Latin]] Christendom.  Islamic expansion into remained a threat for centuries, with crusading orders establishing strongholds to protect Mediterranean islands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, the crusades in southern [[Spain]] were militarily successful, eventually leading to the end of Islamic power in the region in 1492.  The Teutonic knights expanded Christian domains in Eastern Europe, and the [[Albigensian Crusade]], achieved its goal of destroying heretics in France.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, ''Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300–1475''. 6th ed. (McGraw-Hill 1998)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Origin of the Crusades ==&lt;br /&gt;
Current Crusade scholarship indicates that the Crusades began as both a response to Muslim aggression or attempts to recover territories that had been seized in the past.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JRS&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Brit&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Prior to the First Crusade in 1095, Muslims had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world after centuries of attacks and so Western Europeans performed a counter offensive with the First Crusade.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Thus, Westerners were not the initiators of conflict, but and instead the First Crusade was the latest phase of an ongoing conflict for territory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Holy Land had been part of the [[Roman Empire]], and thus the [[Byzantine Empire]], until the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries that forced the Byzantines out and saw the area gradually turn Islamic. Calm returned and Christians had generally been permitted to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land until 1071, when the [[Seljuk Turks]] assailed the Byzantines, defeating them at the [[Battle of Manzikert]], and conquered Jerusalem from the Egyptian Fatimids the same year.  They were not friendly to Christian pilgrims, in contrast to how the Fatimids had been, and soon pilgrims came under threat of robbery or even death as they were no longer welcome.  The Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius I]] asked for aid from the west both to the Popes and the Christian monarchs.  Nothing meaningful happened.  Alexius may have been hoping for money from the Pope for the hiring of mercenaries. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Timeline - Prior to the First Crusade===&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades are traditionally taught in university courses as a stand-alone event that had no precedent.  There is some problem with this thought process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The first Crusade began in 1095:&lt;br /&gt;
** 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies. (The Battle of Fahl and the 634 Siege of Damascus)&lt;br /&gt;
** 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslims armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 443 years after Muslims first plundered Italy.&lt;br /&gt;
** 427 years after Muslims armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople.&lt;br /&gt;
** 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies.&lt;br /&gt;
** 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions from Christianity to Muslim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ency&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20160322080651/http://christianheritagefellowship.com/the-crusades/ The Truth about the Crusades]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Papal call==&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to fight for the defense of the Christian East and the protection of pilgrims in a speech made at the [[Council of Clermont]] on November 27, 1095. Pope Urban specified the call to skilled fighters, not priests or monks, and specified that clergy were not to participate without consent of their superiors, reflecting a cool minded approach, not religious fervor to fight for Christian lands.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Andrea1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Andrew Holt and Alfred Andrea. 2015. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 9781624664038 Page 39-41 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Urban demanded that all internal feuds within Christendom end, threatening [[excommunication]] for anyone who continued to bicker internally, and promising an indulgence (less time in purgatory) to anyone who died in the crusade.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This time Europe listened.  Those who were there erupted in spontaneous cries of &amp;quot;Deus le vult!&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;God wills it!&amp;quot;) - which would become the watchword of what we now know as the Crusades.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Nothing like this had ever been done, and the Pope himself had no military power and had to count on those who were in positions of power to supply it.  While the monarchs of Europe did not get directly involved, it was a series of prominent nobles who answered the call, among the most famous being:  the Norman Bohemund of Taranto, former claimant to the Duchy of Apulia, his nephew Tancred, Count Raymond of Toulouse, [[Godfrey Of Bouillon|Duke Godfrey de Bouillon]] of Lorraine, Duke Hugh of Vermandois (brother of the King of France), Duke Robert of Normandy, and Count Robert of Flanders.  The spiritual leader who accompanied them was French Bishop Adhemar du Puy, who was appointed Papal legate.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All that was known at the start was that the forces to participate would meet together in [[Constantinople]], where Alexius had no idea what was being unleashed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The First Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[First Crusade]], properly speaking, was lead by Feudal lords, mostly of [[Franks|Frankish]] origin.  Many of the knights left home never expecting to return, knowing virtually nothing about the [[Holy Land]], and trusting in God for victory.  The army consisted of almost 20,000 men, including a mass of [[squire]]s and other servants necessary to support a mounted knight.  Arriving at Constantinople the force, which eventually reached almost 50,000 total men, was not what the Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius]] had expected.  He had hoped for a few thousand well trained mercenaries to help him retake his lands from the Turks, and had little in common with the goal of 'freeing the Holy Land'.  An uneasy tension ensued from 1096 to 1097 as the forces gathered, but through a combination of firmness and diplomacy, Alexius avoided serious complications. In return for his assurance of assistance, he obtained oaths of allegiance from the Crusader leaders, and their promise that they would help recapture [[Nicaea]] from the Turks and return to him any other former possessions which they conquered.  Alexius then transported them across the Bosporus - being careful not to allow any large number of Crusader forces inside the walls of his capital at any given time.  He also provided them with food and with an escort of Byzantine troops to guide them towards their objectives (and incidentally to prevent Crusader plundering).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy &amp;amp; Dupuy, 1979, Pg. 312-313&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a hard march to the Holy Land, the army captured invested Nicaea in 1097.  By a combination of skillful fighting and skillful diplomacy, Alexius arrange for the surrender of the city to him after a successful Crusader-Byzantine assault on the outer walls.  The Crusaders were upset at Alexius' refusal to give them permission to sack the city.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusaders continued to the southeast in parallel columns, without any one commander in charge.  After fighting the inconclusive [[Battle of Dorylaeum]], the army split in half. Tancred and Baldwin, brother of Godfrey of Lorraine and future King of Jerusalem, went east took the Armenian fortress-city of [[Edessa]] - an action that destroyed the support of many local Armenian Christians for the Crusade, and weakened its internal bonds, as Baldwin and Tancred's men clashed over possession of the city, with Baldwin emerging triumphant. The main body of the army continued onward and besieged [[Antioch]].  The city was surrounded for 8 months from October 21, 1097 to June 3, 1098.  Two relieving armies were driven off in the [[Battles of Harenc]] in December and February.  Due to poor arrangements for supplies, the Crusading army was actually close to starvation, but was saved by the fortuitous arrival of English and Pisan flotillas which seized two nearby ports and brought provisions.  Bickering among the Crusader leaders, especially [[Bohemund]] and [[Raymond]] was rampant.  The initiative of Bohemund led to the capture of Antioch just 2 days before a relieving army of 75,000 strong under the atabeg of [[Mosul]], [[Kerboga]] would arrived, delayed itself after a fruitless three-week long attempt to dislodge Baldwin from Edessa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now it was the Crusaders turn to be trapped inside the city as Kerboga sieged Antioch from June 5, to June 28, 1098.  The Crusaders were cut off from supplies and again near starvation.  A Byzantine army was coming to take the city as agreed, but hearing that the Crusaders were doomed, turned back to Constantinople.  It was then the 'Holy Lance' was discovered; the weapon said to have pierced Jesus' side.  While few historians or theologians believe this miraculous discovery was valid, it energized the Crusader army at just the time they needed it.  The [[Battle of the Orontes]] was fought on June 28 where 15,000 Crusaders left Antioch to battle and drove off the entire Moslem army and broke the siege, helped in part by the decision of several of the local emirs serving under Kerbogha to abandon him during the battle, fearing that he coveted their territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to internal bickering, many of the Crusaders did not continue on to [[Jerusalem]].  The force that arrived in June 1099 was only about 12,000 strong, far fewer than the army of defenders.  They sieged the city from June 9 to July 18.  Realizing they didn't have enough men to keep out supplies and starve the defenders, they boldly attacked.  Overrunning the city, many of the inhabitants were massacred, including other Christians.  A relieving force of 50,000 strong arrived in August to fight the Crusaders, but were routed at the [[Battle of Ascalon]].  The military aspects of the First Crusade had ended.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four feudal kingdoms were established, which would remain for nearly 100 years.  Several Military Orders, consisting of [[paladin]]s, were also set up within the next few years, focusing mainly around the protection of the welfare of pilgrims and the defense of Christendom within the framework of an organization that was both spiritual and martial in nature. The best known of these orders were the Knights of the Temple, or [[Templars]], and the Knights of the Hospital of St. John, or [[Hospitallers]]. The Hospitallers still exist today in the form of the Order of Malta and St. John's Ambulance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Second Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Second Crusade]] occurred in 1145 when [[Edessa]] was retaken by Islamic forces.  It was ultimately a failure, owing in part to the French king's insistence on betraying and attacking his only Muslim ally, [[Damascus]].  In 1187 the Muslims&lt;br /&gt;
captured Jerusalem under their leader [[Saladin]], which brought about a new call for a Crusade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Third Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Saladin2.jpg|thumb|left|270px]]The [[Third Crusade]] (1189–92) is famous for the battles between [[Richard I|Richard the Lionheart]] and [[Saladin]], highlighted by the deep respect the two enemies had for each other, and the sense of [[chivalry|chivalric]] honor of King Richard.  The crusade also involved the king of France (who returned home after an argument with Richard at Acre) and the Holy Roman Emperor (who drowned en route).  The crusade had the limited success of obtaining a truce between Richard and Saladin that promised to allow Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Fourth Crusade ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Fourth Crusade]], begun by [[Innocent III]] in 1202, intended to retake the Holy Land but was soon subverted by [[Venetian]]s who used the forces to sack the Christian city of [[Zara]]. Innocent excommunicated the Venetians and crusaders.  Eventually the crusaders arrived in [[Constantinople]], but due to strife which arose between them and the [[Byzantines]], rather than proceed to the Holy Land the crusaders instead sacked Constantinople and other parts of [[Asia Minor]] effectively establishing the Latin Empire of Constantinople in [[Greece]] and Asia Minor .  Both Zara and Constantinople were Christian cities, and the ultimate effect was a severely damaged relationship between Greek and Latin Christendom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was effectively the last crusade sponsored by the papacy; later crusades were sponsored by individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Minor Crusades==&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the four main crusades there were several minor ones. &lt;br /&gt;
===The People's (Peasants') Crusade (1095-96)===&lt;br /&gt;
As soon as the Pope issued his appeal in 1095 preachers like Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless fanned out across Western Europe, reaching [[Piety|pious]] common people in rural areas, including many peasants. They aroused such an enthusiasm among the peasants that neither the secular lords nor the local clergy could stop the people from marching east, filled with hopes for freedom from serfdom and the zest for adventure. Thousands of peasants set off with few supplies or weapons and no money, and no idea of the enormous distance to be traveled. They believed that God would provide the guidance for direction and the sustenance for life.  More prosperous farmers and burghers were also involved. Five uncoordinated bands trekked across the Balkan region toward Constantinople. The Byzantine Christians welcomed them reluctantly and even contemptuously, for the pilgrims robbed them and raided their farms and villages. The Byzantine army fought them in pitched battles; most peasants never reached Constantinople. The thousands who did arrive were militarily useless and unwelcome. The Emperor Alexius temporarily fed and housed them outside the city, then hurried them across the Bosporus into Asia Minor. There the peasants were all killed by the Turkish forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Steven Runciman, &amp;quot;The First Crusade: Constantinople to Antioch,&amp;quot;   in M. W. Baldwin, ed. ''The first hundred years'' (1969) pp. 281-85 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&amp;amp;entity=History.CrusOne.p0313&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]; &lt;br /&gt;
Frederic Duncalf, &amp;quot;The Peasants' Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 26, No. 3 (Apr., 1921), pp. 440-453 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(192104)26%3A3%3C440%3ATPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P in JSTOR]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Attacking Jews====&lt;br /&gt;
A smaller group of peasants led by Gottschalk took out their fervor on a more local target, the Jewish communities of Lotharingia.  Their actions were condemned by the Church and the local populace.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Age of Faith, Will Durant, 1950, Pg. 589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;RS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Riley-Smith, Jonathan.  ''The Crusades: a History.'' (2005)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A much larger threat against Jews took the form of a larger mob led by Count Emico of Leiningen, who was more organized and more brutal.  Already a man with a sullied reputation, he ignored the pleas of the Bishops in town after town to desist.  Apart from being hidden by the local populace when they heard Emico was coming, there was little the Jews could do.  Previously in Europe, local difficulties against Jewish communities would rise from time to time in various places, but would be isolated to that local area.  This started a phase not previously seen, a systematic effort to weed out and attack Jewish communities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Children's Crusade (1212)===&lt;br /&gt;
Even more [[pathetic]] than the peasant crusade of 1095-96 was a movement in France and Germany which attracted large numbers of peasant teenagers and young people (few were under age 15). They were convinced they could succeed where older and more sinful crusaders had failed: the miraculous power of their faith would triumph where the force of arms had not. Many parish priests and parents encouraged such religious fervor and urged them on. The Pope and bishops opposed the attempt but failed to stop it entirely. A band of several thousand youth and young men led by a German named Nicholas set out for Italy. About a third survived the march over the Alps and got as far as Genoa; another group came to Marseilles. The luckier ones eventually managed to get safely home, but many others were sold as lifetime slaves on the auction blocks of Marseilles slave dealers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dana C. Munro, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 19, No. 3 (Apr., 1914), pp. 516-524 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(191404)19%3A3%3C516%3ATCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C in JSTOR]; and Norman P. Zacour, &amp;quot;The Children's Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 325-342, esp. 330-37 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTWO.I0023&amp;amp;isize=M online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221)===&lt;br /&gt;
Instigated by Pope Innocent III in 1215, this crusade was led in 1217 by John Brienne, king of Jerusalem, with the object of conquering Egypt. In 1219 the crusaders captured Damietta. The sultan of Egypt offered to exchange Jerusalem for Damietta but this was rejected. After an unsuccessful assault on Cairo in 1221, the defeated crusaders surrendered Damietta in return for the freedom to retreat.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Thomas C. Van Cleve, &amp;quot;The Fifth Crusade,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff, and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 377-428 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=377 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
===The Sixth Crusade (1228-1229)===&lt;br /&gt;
The sixth or &amp;quot; Diplomatic Crusade&amp;quot; was led by Emperor Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire.  He began in 1228, but fought no battles. Instead, by negotiation he obtained Jerusalem and a strip of territory from Acre to Jerusalem for the Christians. In 1225 he married Yolanda, the young heiress to the kingdom of Jerusalem; upon her death in 1228, Frederick crowned himself king of Jerusalem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Seventh Crusade (1248-1250)===&lt;br /&gt;
Led by King Louis IX of France (reigned. 1226-1270) and directed against the Arabs of Egypt, this crusade was a complete failure. The crusaders were decisively defeated en route to Cairo and King Louis was captured; the Arabs demanded and received a huge ransom for the release of the hapless king.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition];  Peter Jackson, ''The Seventh Crusade, 1244-1254'' (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Seventh-Crusade-12441254-Texts-Translation/dp/0754657221/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205399558&amp;amp;sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===The Eighth Crusade (1270)===&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring his advisers, King Louis IX again attacked the Arabs in Tunis in North Africa. He picked the hottest season of the year for campaigning and his army was devastated by disease. The king himself died, ending the last major attempt to free the Holy Land.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Joseph R. Strayer, &amp;quot;The Crusades of Louis IX,&amp;quot; in R. L.  Wolff and H. W. Hazard, eds., ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311'' (1969) pp. 487-521 [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;submit=Go+to+page&amp;amp;page=487 online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Other Medieval Crusades===&lt;br /&gt;
At the time people used &amp;quot;crusade&amp;quot; to describe other religious wars waged against heretics, such as Hussites and Albigensian, as well as Moors in Spain and pagans in the Baltic region.&lt;br /&gt;
====The Albigensian Crusade (13th century)====&lt;br /&gt;
Pope Innocent III in 1209 called for a war against the Albigensians, a religious sect which had sprung up in southern France, centered near the cities of Albi and Toulouse in Provence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Essentially, the Albigensians believed in a non-Christian dualist doctrine: there was a coexistence, they affirmed, between good and evil, represented by such opposites as God and the Evil One, light and darkness, soul and body, afterlife and earthly life.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A bloody series of campaigns ended with Provence in ruins (1229) and the heretics defeated. In 1233 Pope Gregory IX placed the Dominicans in charge of investigating the remnants of Albigensianism with the legal power to name and condemn any surviving heretics. This marked the start of the [[Inquisition]].&lt;br /&gt;
====Teutonic Knights (1229-1525)====&lt;br /&gt;
A German religious and military order originally founded during the siege of Acre in the Third Crusade and modeled after the Knights Templars and Hospitalers, the Teutonic Knights moved to eastern Europe early in the 13th century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Moeller, &amp;quot;Teutonic Order,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14541b.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1912) vol 14 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; There, under their grand master, Hermann von Salza, they became powerful and prominent. In 1229, responding to an appeal from the [[Poland, history|Duke of Poland]], they began a crusade against the pagan Slavs of Prussia. They became sovereigns over lands they conquered over the next century. In a series of campaigns, the Teutonic Knights gained control over the whole Baltic coast, founding numerous towns and fortresses and establishing Christianity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edgar N. Johnson, &amp;quot;The German Crusade on the Baltic,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSTHREE.I0028&amp;amp;isize=M H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 545-85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Crusades in Spain (711-1492)===&lt;br /&gt;
Muslims crossed from Africa into Spain early in the eighth century and in 711 at the battle of Río Barbate, they defeated the Visigoths and pressed forward to capture Toledo. By 718, the Moors (the name given North African Muslims by the Spaniards) had completed their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, except for small Christian remnants in the Pyrenees. They remained on for the next 674 years until driven out by Spanish and Portuguese Christians.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The period of the Spanish Crusades began in the eleventh century when a religious revival was initiated by Cluniac monks in the small kingdoms in the north of Spain, which had recovered some of their lost territory. The revival expressed itself in a growing hatred for the infidel. Slowly yet steadily, at first sparked mainly by Burgundians and Normans from France, the Christians began to force the Moors out of northern and central Spain. Known as the [[Wars of the Reconquest]], these centuries-long conflicts intensified the Catholic sentiments of the people, developing an intense, even fanatical unity of religion and patriotism which was long characteristic of the Spaniards.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the middle of the 15th century, the last bastion of Moorish power on the peninsula was the kingdom of Granada in southwestern Spain. When the marriage of Isabella, Queen of Castile, to Ferdinand, Prince of Aragon, in 1469 united Spain, they vigorously began their last campaign against the Moors.  In January 1492 the Spanish entered the city of Granada and Moorish power ended in Europe. The expulsion of the Moors from Spain may be considered the last of the many medieval crusades.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Julian Bishko, &amp;quot;The Spanish and Portuguese Reconquest, 1095-1492&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree&amp;amp;isize=M&amp;amp;page=396 H. W. Hazard, ed. ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975) pp 396-456&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Long-term Impact==&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, though Jerusalem was held for nearly a century and other strongholds in the Near East would remain in Christian possession much longer, the crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. Islamic expansion into Europe, while temporarily stalled, would renew and remain a threat for centuries with the disintegration of the [[Byzantine Empire]] and culminate with the campaigns of [[Suleiman the Magnificent]] in the sixteenth century.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the crusades achieved only temporary military success, they had a powerful impact on western Europe. The crusaders returned with a vastly widened knowledge of the world they lived in, and a willingness to explore that became a permanent part of the west European mindset. In religion, culture, and commerce, post-Crusades Europe was visibly affected by its prolonged encounter with another continent and another way of life.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Commerce and economy===&lt;br /&gt;
The merchants of Venice and other Italian cities gained the most profit. They amassed considerable income in payment for the services they rendered the crusaders and were enriched by the commercial rights they obtained throughout the Near East. Genoa, Pisa, and Venice gained special monopolies throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Their merchants used these privileges to introduce into the Western world such oriental luxuries as silks, spices, and pearls, whose transportation and sale made the cities rich. The demand for these products encouraged explorers to seek out new and more direct routes to the East—most famously in the discovery and exploration of the Americas by Columbus and others starting in 1492. The crusades helped create a moneyed aristocracy and encouraged the growth of capitalism in the Italian cities. Silks and spices not only raised the standard of living of the rich, they stimulated the entire urban economy, although cities remained small. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The returning crusaders came back to Europe with new tastes in dress and diet, such as peaches and spinach. They gave up the custom of wearing a load of heavy armor at nearly all times and appeared in the flowing robes of silk or cotton which were the traditional habit of the Muslims.&lt;br /&gt;
===Weakens feudalism===&lt;br /&gt;
In rural areas, where the vast majority of Europeans lives, the crusades tended to weaken feudalism and strengthen central governments. Thousands of feudal aristocrats died young and many baronial families lost heavily or even went bankrupt because they borrowed money for the adventure and could not repay. Since credit markets were undeveloped and inefficient, the crusaders paid high premiums to borrow; many accepted donations from friends and family.  For a local baron to bring along 10 knights on a crusade cost some 3000 livres a year. There was some plunder along the way, but plunder was hard to liquefy to pay off loans back home. Instead of acquiring new rich new lands and fabulous wealth in the East, many noble families sold, pawned or mortgaged lands, castles, benefices, and jewels; most saw their finances damaged. Money lenders in Italian cities grew rich. The feudal barons were the basis of localism; power now tended to become more centralized and national. Of course when the kings crusaded, it cost them dearly and weakened their throne. [[Richard the Lionhearted]] of England sold off the income he was owed from Scotland, and tried to sell London itself but could not find a buyer. By contributing to the rise of the cities, the development of a money economy, and the strengthening of national monarchies, hastened, to some extent, feudalism's collapse.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Fred A. Cazel, Jr. &amp;quot;Financing the Crusades,&amp;quot; in [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix N. P. Zacour,  and H.W. Hazard, eds. ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe'' (1989), pp 116-49 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Church===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades at first helped, then hurt the church and the [[Papacy, history|papacy]]. In the early stages, the popes took the leadership of Europe in a great holy cause against the infidel world.  Germany, France and England in particular responded to the popes. However the popes lost that leadership to secular princes by the time of the Third Crusade; during the Fourth Crusade the crusaders rejected Innocent III's demands. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Crusades were a major contributing factor in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches. The Crusaders deposed the native Patriarchs and appointed Latin Patriarchs in their place. These appointments were ratified by the Pope. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the kingdom of Jerusalem, the commercial interests fostered an unexpected friendship with the Muslims, leading to an acceptance of oriental customs, and toleration of the rival religion. No such tolerance was visible in Western Europe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Culture===&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the West====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of cultural influence, 20th century historians have revised the traditionally positive picture of the Crusades, finding little evidence of significant impact.  19th century historians saw in the Crusades a major stimulus for the renewed interest in learning, art, literature, and architecture that took place across Western Europe, and some historians had even argued the Crusades were mainly responsible for the [[Renaissance]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It has been argued that the crusades stimulated broader vision and better understanding of the wider world for the countries who embarked on them. Men who had never been 30 miles beyond their village or manor saw firsthand new places, peoples and customs. One impact the Crusades did have on literary art was the immortalisation of the Crusading heroes in oft-recited poems.  The ''Estoire de la guerre sainte'' is in Old French couplets, lauding the exploits of Richard the Lion-Hearted in the Third Crusade. A free poetical spirit characterizes ''Le Chanson d'Antioche'' that describes the First Crusade. The ages-old tales of Arthur and Charlemagne were given a fresh crusading complexion during the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Impact on the East====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A significant long-term cultural impact on the Muslim world is the resultant resentment, fear and distrust of Christian Europe, evidence of which as survived into the 21st century.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Philip Khurl Pitti, &amp;quot;The Impact of the Crusades on Moslem Lands,&amp;quot; in N. P. Zacour and H. W. Hazard, eds., [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=article&amp;amp;did=HISTORY.CRUSFIVE.I0015&amp;amp;isize=M ''The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East,'' (1985) pp. 33-58, online]; Car Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When The US president [[George W. Bush]] described in 2001 the newly defined [[War on terror]] as a &amp;quot;Crusade&amp;quot;, the Islamic world in particular was alarmed at what was widely considered to be ill-judged language.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2006, [[Osama Bin Laden]], speaking from hiding, described Western policy towards the Muslim world as a &amp;quot;Zionist-Crusader war against Islam&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4938202.stm BBC Online - The Crusades: A history of conflict]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Byzantine Empire===&lt;br /&gt;
The crusades postponed the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine Empire until 1453, but the determination of Westerners to conquer and colonize the lands of Byzantium led to its downfall. Rather than curing its ills, they made its death inevitable. The plunder of Constantinople in 1204 and the Venetian monopoly of its trade were a fatal blow to the political and economic life of the empire. Even after its restoration in 1261, Constantinople never regained its former strength.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historiography and Memory==&lt;br /&gt;
===Legend and literature in the West===&lt;br /&gt;
Legend and literature surrounded the Crusades with an aura of romance and grandeur, of chivalry and courage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See Dana Carleton Munro, [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31 online]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The myth is only remotely related to reality. The countless tales of the gallant knights of the Cross glitter in hyperbole. Many stories are true about the crusaders' feats of valor. However the crusaders occupied the Holy Land only temporarily.  In their major mission, the crusaders lost in the very long run. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The historical memory of the crusades has been sharply divided.  The Catholic tradition in Europe looked upon them favorably, but the Protestant historians were more negative. [[Martin Luther]] once suggested that the Turks were God's instrument for punishing Christians. In recent decades a sense of western guilt is apparent, as in the 1995 BBC television series, presented by Terry Jones, which portrayed the crusades as a long, misguided war of intolerance, ignorance and barbarism against a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Donald E. Queller and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999), p. 1, Most historians have a negative view of the reliability of the BBC series.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) examines the use of the crusades as a national symbol from the 19th century to the 1910s in France, Spain, the Ottoman Empire, Ethiopia, Britain, Russia, and Bulgaria. Though the Enlightenment and its secular ideological successors held the crusades as an example of medieval barbarity. Enlightenment thinkers like historian-philosophers [[Voltaire]] and [[David Hume]] denounced the crusades, as did the great historian of Byzantium [[Edward Gibbon]], who wrote: &lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and the most important effects were analogous to the cause…. The belief of the Catholics was corrupted by new legends…. The active spirit of the Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion…. The lives and labours of millions, which were buried in the East, would have been more profitably employed in the improvement of their native country.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Edward Gibbon, ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,'' (1776), [https://books.google.com/books?id=Hy8OAAAAQAAJ&amp;amp;pg=PT249&amp;amp;lpg=PT249&amp;amp;dq=%22principle+of+the+crusades+was+a+savage+fanaticism%22&amp;amp;source=web&amp;amp;ots=PGcJRsXv2k&amp;amp;sig=gH4PAb31uRoQu2u54z7h_hzGp8U&amp;amp;hl=en ch 61 p. 1086]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In the 19th century, however, romantic writers like novelist Sir [[Walter Scott]] created heroic images of the crusaders. The romantics and conservative adherents of the European ancien régimes appropriated crusading imagery for their own 19th century political goals, downplaying religion to fit within a modern, secular context and presenting crusades as a counterpoint to liberal ideas of nationalism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Knobler (2006) explores three primary themes: memory of the crusades as it relates to debates over the generation and use of national symbols; the crusader as a romantic hero; and the Muslim recollection of the crusades as a shameful blot on the past of Christian nations. The crusades appealed to many Europeans because they reflected a morally unambiguous time, sparked romanticized images of warfare in a time of imperialist expansion, and provided heroic templates for modern &amp;quot;crusading&amp;quot; imperialist heroes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adam Knobler, &amp;quot;Holy Wars, Empires, and the Portability of the Past: the Modern Uses of Medieval Crusades.&amp;quot; ''Comparative Studies in Society and History'' 2006 48(2): 293-325. Issn: 0010-4175 Fulltext: [[Cambridge Journals]]; see also Elizabeth Siberry, ''The New Crusaders: Images of the Crusades in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries'' (2000)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Muslim world===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muslim historiography does not cover the crusades with the same intensity as the West. One modern reason could be that Turks were primarily responsible for the defeat of the crusaders, and Arab historians (who have written much of modern Islamic history) may have underplayed this, due to the Turks role in establishing the Ottoman Empire - a period that suppressed Arab nationalism for seven centuries into the era of World War I.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hillenbrand, ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives'' p. 5&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The great Muslim hero was a [[Kurdistan|Kurd]], Saladin (1138–93). Having defeated the crusaders in 1187, and become sovereign and founder of the Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt and Syria, Salah al-Din (Saladin) has been for a century the object of an intense glorification in the Arab world.  Farah Antun's play ''Sultan Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1914) illustrates how the historical figure of Saladin came to be presented as a prophet of Arab nationalism. Antun (1874-1922) was a Syrian Christian who presents Saladin as the champion of a just jihad against the Crusaders and as a faithful upholder of the virtues of wisdom, determination, and frankness, calling on the peoples of all Arab countries to unite against Western imperialists. The refusal of Antun's Saladin to become embroiled in quarrels within Europe had obvious echoes in World War I and caused the play to be censored by the British authorities in Egypt.  In Palestine, the glorification also took the form of pilgrimages to Nabi Musa and became an occasion to celebrate the memory of the great hero of Muslim history. A recent myth proclaims him the initiator of Palestinian pilgrimages. The figure of the past has become the modern hero of Arab nationalism, giving hope to a society prey to war and dispersion. At the same time, however, the pilgrimage ritual highlights the limits of the hero: constantly appealed to and put to the test, he has begun to show signs of fragility.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emma Aubin-Boltanski, &amp;quot;Salah Al-din, un Heros a l'epreuve: Mythe et Pelerinage en Palestine,&amp;quot; [Saladin, a Hero under Scrutiny: Myth and Pilgrimage in Palestine]. ''Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales'' [[in French]] 2005 60(1): 91-107. Issn: 0395-2649&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Church Liturgy===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Linder (2001) examines 15th century Church liturgy designed to generate support for the war effort against the Turks and to legitimize its aims. Two types of Contra Turcos Masses were used: masses converted to this function through the addition of appropriate three core prayers and complete dedicated masses. The most popular example of the first type was the triple prayer set originally established by Clement V as a Holy Land crusade liturgy and subsequently mobilized against the Turks. The second type is represented by nine different mass formularies that were introduced after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Most surviving liturgies are of German or French provenance, indicating extensive use not only among the front-line populations but also in areas far removed from any threat. The liturgy displays an its intense crisis rhetoric. Its predominant stance of vulnerability and defensiveness entailed aggressive mobilization and the conceptualization of the Turk as the actual, specific manifestation of the generic infidel, the competing religious Other; and the remarkable continuity - in form and in content - that linked this liturgy with its parent liturgies (mainly those of the campaigns against the pagans and the Holy Land Crusades) further accentuated these traits. The communicative function and value of this liturgy is highlighted by the concentration of the direct, unmediated communicative elements in that part of the mass that was the most accessible to the laity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Amnon Linder, &amp;quot;The War Liturgy Against the Turks in the Late Middle Ages.&amp;quot; ''Historia: Journal of the Historical Society of Israel'' . 2001 (8): 73-105. Issn: 0334-4843; the text is in Hebrew.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dome of the Rock]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Al-Aqsa Mosque]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Famous Castles in the World]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Eastern Catholic Churches]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Basic further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Detailed Bibliography==&lt;br /&gt;
===Surveys===&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrea, Alfred J. ''Encyclopedia of the Crusades''. (2003).&lt;br /&gt;
* Asbridge, Thomas. ''The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/First-Crusade-History-Conflict-Christianity/dp/0195189051/ref=pd_bbs_9/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-9 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/109099963 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
*Hillenbrand, Car. ''The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives''. (2000). [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Car-Hillenbrand/dp/1579582109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205278657&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Holt, P.M. ''The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman. ''The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/65567896 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ''The New Concise History of the Crusades''. (2005).&lt;br /&gt;
* Phillips, Jonathan, and Martin Hoch. ''The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences'' (2002) [https://www.amazon.com/Second-Crusade-Scope-Consequences/dp/0719057116/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205372474&amp;amp;sr=1-4 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* Queller, Donald E., and Thomas F. Madden. ''The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople'' (2nd ed. 1999) [https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Crusade-Conquest-Constantinople-Middle/dp/0812217136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270938&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: A History'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades''.  (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/72527140 online edition]; [https://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Illustrated-History-Crusades-Histories/dp/0192854283/ref=pd_bbs_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ed. ''The Atlas of the Crusades'' (1991)&lt;br /&gt;
* Runciman, Steven. ''A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusade and the Foundations of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.''; ''Volume II: The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East 1100-1187.'' and ''Volume III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades'' (1951–53), the classic history; very hostile toward the crusaders &lt;br /&gt;
*Setton, Kenneth ed., ''A History of the Crusades''. (1969-1989), the standard scholarly history in six volumes, published by the University of Wisconsin Press  [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=browse&amp;amp;scope=History.HistCrusades complete text online]. &lt;br /&gt;
: Includes: [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?id=History.CrusOne ''The first hundred years''] (2nd ed. 1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusTwo ''The later Crusades, 1189-1311''] (1969); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusThree ''The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries''] (1975); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFour ''The art and architecture of the crusader states''] (1977); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusFive ''The impact of the Crusades on the Near East''] (1985); [http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=header&amp;amp;id=History.CrusSix ''The impact of the Crusades on Europe''] (1989)&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher. ''God's War: A New History of the Crusades'' (2006) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Specialized studies===&lt;br /&gt;
* Abulafia, David. ''Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor'' (1988)&lt;br /&gt;
* Boas, Adrian J. ''Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades: Society, Landscape, and Art in the Holy City under Frankish Rule'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/read/107613849 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Crusades,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1908) vol 4. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bréhier, Louis. &amp;quot;Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1291),&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08361a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1910) vol 8. online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Bull, Marcus, and Norman Housley, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 1, Western Approaches.'' (2003) (323pp) &lt;br /&gt;
** Edbury, Peter, and Jonathan Phillips, eds. ''The Experience of Crusading Volume 2, Defining the Crusader Kingdom.'' (2003) 326pp; specialized articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Butler, R. Urban. &amp;quot;Urban II,&amp;quot; [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210a.htm ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1911) online] &lt;br /&gt;
* Edgington, Susan B., and Sarah Lambert, eds. ''Gendering the Crusades.'' (2002) 232pp essays by scholars. &lt;br /&gt;
*  Folda, Jaroslav. ''Crusader Art in the Holy Land, From the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre'' (2005) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusader-Holy-Land-Third-Crusade/dp/0521835836/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205436596&amp;amp;sr=8-3 excerpt and text search] &lt;br /&gt;
* France, John. ''Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* James, Douglas. &amp;quot;Christians and the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''History Review'' (Dec 2005), Issue 53; online at [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Kagay, Donald J., and L. J. Andrew Villalon, eds. ''Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon: Medieval Warfare in Societies around the Mediterranean.'' (2003) [http://www.questia.com/read/109303998 online edition] &lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. ''The Kingdom of the Crusaders'' (1936) [http://www.questia.com/read/3840921 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Peters, Edward. ''Christian Society and the Crusades, 1198-1229'' (1971) [http://www.questia.com/read/14405191 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Powell, James M. ''Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213-1221,'' (1986) [http://www.questia.com/read/3123539 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Richard, Jean. ''Saint Louis: Crusader King of France'' (1992)&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading''. (1986).&lt;br /&gt;
* Smail, R. C. &amp;quot;Crusaders' Castles of the Twelfth Century&amp;quot;   ''Cambridge Historical Journal'' Vol. 10, No. 2. (1951), pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;133–149. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1474-6913%281951%2910%3A2%3C133%3ACCOTTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J in JSTOR]&lt;br /&gt;
* Tyerman, Christopher.  ''England and the Crusades, 1095-1588.'' (1988). 492 pp.&lt;br /&gt;
===Islam and Byzantium===&lt;br /&gt;
* Florean, Dana. &amp;quot;East Meets West: Cultural Confrontation and Exchange after the First Crusade.&amp;quot; ''Language &amp;amp; Intercultural Communication,'' 2007, Vol. 7 Issue 2, pp144–151 in [[EBSCO]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Gabrieli, Francesco. ''Arab Historians of the Crusades'' (2009)&lt;br /&gt;
* Harris, Jonathan. ''Byzantium and the Crusades.'' (2003). Pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;276pp &lt;br /&gt;
* Hillenbrand, Carole. ''The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Islamic-Perspectives-Surveys/dp/0748606300/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294196&amp;amp;sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
*  Lane-Poole, Stanley. ''Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem'' (1898) [https://books.google.com/books?id=sb4bAAAAMAAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;amp;dq=intitle:Saladin+intitle:and+intitle:the+intitle:Fall+intitle:of+intitle:the+intitle:Kingdom+intitle:of+intitle:Jerusalem&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;num=30&amp;amp;as_brr=0&amp;amp;ei=gm3bR9CgCYPQiQGb0P3VAQ full text online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Maalouf, Amin. ''Crusades Through Arab Eyes'' (1989) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Through-Arab-Eyes-Maalouf/dp/0805208984/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1192595071&amp;amp;sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam'' (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Christianity-Bampton-Lectures-America/dp/0231146248/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1250294049&amp;amp;sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Historiography===&lt;br /&gt;
*  Constable, Giles. &amp;quot;The Historiography of the Crusades&amp;quot;  in Angeliki E.  Laiou, ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001); major overview of scholarship [http://www.doaks.org/Crusades/CR01.pdf online]&lt;br /&gt;
* Laiou, Angeliki E. ed. ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'' (2001) [http://www.doaks.org/CRcnts.html online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Madden, Thomas F. ed. ''The Crusades: The Essential Readings'' (2002) ISBN 0-631-23023-8 284pp, articles by scholars&lt;br /&gt;
* Munro, Dana Carleton. &amp;quot;War and History,' ''American Historical Review'' 32:2 (January 1927): 219–31. On medieval histories of the crusades. [http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_history/dcmunro.htm online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Primary sources===&lt;br /&gt;
* Housley, Norman, ed. ''Documents on the Later Crusades, 1274-1580'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* Krey, August C. ''The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants'' (1958). &lt;br /&gt;
* Shaw, M. R. B. ed.''Chronicles of the Crusades'' (1963) [http://www.questia.com/read/58956484 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Villehardouin, Geoffrey, and Jean de Joinville. ''Chronicles of the Crusades'' ed. by Sir Frank Marzials (2007) [https://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-Crusades-Dover-Value-Editions/dp/0486454363/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1205270195&amp;amp;sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
:Villehardouin's ''Conquest of Constantinople'' is a standard reference work on the Fourth Crusade; it is the first work in medieval French prose. Joinville's life of St. Louis is a classic description of the life and times of King Louis IX; it is written in Old French and is perhaps the best biography written in the Middle Ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====References====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Military History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Medieval History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Christian History]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Crusades]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Crusades}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microevolution&amp;diff=2156883</id>
		<title>Microevolution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microevolution&amp;diff=2156883"/>
		<updated>2025-09-07T16:40:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|300px|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species. The causes of a new species could be due to design, nature, or a combination of both.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Microevolution''', broadly defined, is the inevitable small-scale changes in [[allele]] frequencies in a population within the same species.  Under this broad definition, this change in overall allele frequencies occurs with every birth or death of a member of the species.  In other words, some generations of people might be taller than the last or shorter than the last based on the number of individuals who happen to have the &amp;quot;tall&amp;quot; gene. Microevolution does not involve changing from one [[kind]] to another, and it does not create new kinds.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|200px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See also: [https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Many evolutionists, although not all, claim that the distinction between microevolution and [[macroevolution]] is arbitrary because they indicate that microevolution leads to macroevolutionary changes.  In other words, as microevolutionary changes accumulate it leads to macroevolution. However, there have been prominent evolutionists who dispute this matter and argue that the mechanisms underlying microevolution cannot be [[Extrapolation|extrapolated]] to support the general theory of evolution (macroevolution).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Microevolution and natural selection are accepted to occur by all [[Creationism|Creationists]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The website Darwinism Refuted points out that finch beak microevolution, which [[Charles Darwin]] wrongly speculated leads to macroevolution, actually helps show that birds remain birds.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html Darwinism Refuted]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Specifically, the website Darwinism Refuted indicates:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|In the same way, the different finches that Darwin saw on the [[Galapagos Islands]] are another example of variation that is no evidence for &amp;quot;evolution.&amp;quot; Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed. Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of &amp;quot;variation&amp;quot;; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence for Darwinistic evolution, were forced to conclude that &amp;quot;the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth,&amp;quot; a fact which implied that no &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; that leads to the emergence of new traits ever takes place there.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html Darwinism Refuted]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Dr. Grady McMurtry on microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, the [[Creation science|creation scientist]] Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations do produce “microevolution,” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution in Creation Science ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst many [[Creation science|creation scientists]] agree with the concept of microevolution, but call it adaptation, they argue that there is a large difference between microevolution and [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/ Adaptation]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 24, 2017.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, as indicated above, most evolutionary scientists do not make any real distinction between the two,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0428doser.shtml AAAS press release]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and leading creationists argue that using the terms &amp;quot;microevolution&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;macroevolution&amp;quot; obscures the real distinction, that being between the unobserved information-generating mutations that evolution requires and information-destroying mutations that are observed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#micro_macro Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] (Creation Ministries International).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Intelligent design theorist on microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Intelligent design]] (ID) is the empirically testable&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes&amp;quot; source: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, &amp;quot;ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are &amp;quot;inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]&amp;quot; but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9151&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial,  and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design theorist on macroevoolution vs. microevolution:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/microevolution/ Microevolution versus Macroevolution: Two Mistakes] by Kirk Durston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution in Bacteria ==&lt;br /&gt;
Microevolution is the process by which bacteria may develop resistance to antibiotics.  We regularly use antibiotics to stop bacterial infections.  When a colony of bacteria is exposed to an antibiotic that matches the colony's gram type, the bacteria are likely to die if they do not have genes that produce molecules to inhibit the action of the antibiotic.  If the survivors reproduce, the colony will contain only bacteria that have inherited resistance genes.  A second application of the same antibiotic will not affect them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genes to resist various antibiotics are natural for bacteria to produce because the many species of bacteria war with each other for more space using these chemicals on each other.  In order to protect itself, a given species of bacteria would at least have genes for resistance to the particular antibiotic it produces.  Resistance genes can also be produced by random mutation, usually through mistakes in copying the DNA during cell division.  Furthermore, bacteria can pass genes for antibiotic resistance between strains and even between species through [[plasmids]] containing the gene for resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because antibiotics have been used so widely in medicine, there is increasing concern about developing strains of bacteria that can acquire multiple resistances to most of the antibiotics we use (such as [[MRSA]]).  High compliance with infection control measures and a prudent and more restrictive use of antibiotics are the key measures to prevent epidemics based on bacteria with multiresistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rapid Rates ==&lt;br /&gt;
If the world is as old as is commonly claimed, we should see animals today evolving at a rate consistent with this, over thousands and millions of years. That is why it is shocking for the scientific community that the accumulating evidence shows instead that microevolution occurs over decades, rather than thousands and millions of years. David Skelly of Yale University has observed that the evolutionary rates are far faster than those presumed by evolutionary theory: {{cquote|Ecology is being transformed by the recognition that ecological and evolutionary timescales are not easily differentiated.  A 1999 review of evolutionary rates by Andrew Hendry and Mike Kinnison (The pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53:1637-1653) provided the striking conclusion that rates of contemporary evolution are much faster than generally appreciated... Our work reveals that a number of traits including critical thermal maximum, embryonic development rate, and thermal preference behavior all show variation consistent with local adaptation that occurs on the scale of decades and tens of meters. These findings offer a startlingly different picture of interactions between organisms and their environment prompting us to rethink, in larger sense, how we should conceive of ecological assemblages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Skelly, David K. &amp;quot;[http://environment.yale.edu/skelly/RapidEvol.html Rapid Evolution].&amp;quot; ''Yale University''. School of Forestry &amp;amp; Environmental Studies.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Australia's 'Toxic Toad'====&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the most widely publicized cases of unexpected rapid microevolution, Australian Cane Toads defied predictions based on evolutionary theory by experts about how they would react after being introduced to Australia. Within decades they evolved longer legs and heat tolerance, running amok and causing havoc for the wildlife; and instituting a national catastrophe for the continent. {{cquote|The evolutionary processes spawned by the cane toad invasion have occurred in a span of just 70 years. This adds to evidence from the past two decades that populations can adapt quickly when selection pressure is strong. 'We're taught evolution occurs over these very, very long time frames. But in systems like these, it's incredibly fast,' Shine, the study co-author, said.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Roach, John (2006, February 15). &amp;quot;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0215_060215_cane_toads.html Toxic Toads Evolve Longer Legs, Study Says].&amp;quot; ''National Geographic''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} {{cquote|'All of a sudden in the last 10 years it changes,' said Skelly. 'They're moving into areas where the physical environment is not like anything in their native range.' That implies that the cane toads have evolved more tolerance for the hotter climates they are now encountering. This is on top of the discovery last year that the toads at the forefront of the invasion had evolved longer legs than those in the interior of their range. The ability of animals to evolve so quickly needs to be factored into invasions, or the dangers of invasive species will likely be underestimated, argue Skelly and his colleagues Mark Urban, Ben Phillips and Richard Shine in an article in the March 28 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society-B.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;O'Hanlon, Larry (2007, April 2). &amp;quot;[http://news.discovery.com/animals/toxic-cane-toads-evolve-quickly.html Toxic Toads Evolving Quickly].&amp;quot; ''DiscoveryNews''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
====Humans ====&lt;br /&gt;
According to the assumptions of evolutionary theory, if evolution always went at the rate that we see today, there should be 160 times more differences between humans and apes. So rather than assume 'the present is the key to the past', scientists then decided that evolutionary rates today have accelerated for some reason. {{cquote|If humans had always evolved at this rate, the difference between modern humans and chimps should be 160 times greater than it really is. 'We realized we must be in a transient [phase], that evolution hasn't been going this fast for long in our species,' Harpending said. 'And so we wondered why.'&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Roach, John (2007, December 11). &amp;quot;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html Human Evolution Speeding Up].&amp;quot; ''National Geographic''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} {{cquote|'I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and haven't changed,' explained Henry C. Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. 'The opposite seems to be true.'... If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago there should be 160 times more differences than the researchers found. That indicates that human evolution had been slower in the distant past, Harpending explained.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmid, Randolph E. (2007, December 10). &amp;quot;[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001235.html?nav=rss_nation Researchers: Human Evolution Speeding Up].&amp;quot; ''The Washington Post''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Italian Wall Lizards====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1971, scientists introduced 5 pairs of Italian Wall Lizards to a small island off the coast of Croatia. However, the Croatian War of Independence prevented the scientists from returning to the island for more than 30 years. When the war ended, tourism finally began again in 2004, allowing them to return. The researchers were unsure if the lizards would still be alive. Instead, they found the island swarming with lizards, which genetic testing showed to be descendants of their original 5. The new lizards had wiped out native lizard populations by evolving cecal valves, muscles between the large and small intestines, with which to digest native vegetation, an expanded gut structure, as well as a harder bite. {{cquote|Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows. In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say... Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said. It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said. 'That's unparalleled. What's most important is how fast this is,' he said.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johnson, Kimberly (2008, April 21). &amp;quot;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island].&amp;quot; ''National Geographic''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
====Plant microevolution====&lt;br /&gt;
Contrary to theoretical predictions based on evolutionary theory, genomes for the Angiosperm ''Silene'' (a flowering plant) evolved far more rapidly than was expected, as reported in the January 2012 issue of ''PLoS Biology''. Researchers are now trying to find an explanation for why such rapid microevolution is occurring, and a new model that will avoid such surprises in the future. {{cquote|Contrary to theoretical predictions, these genomes have experienced a massive proliferation of noncoding content... The evolution of mutation rate, genome size, and chromosome structure can therefore be extremely rapid and interrelated in ways not predicted by current evolutionary theories... We discuss the implications of the unprecedented mitochondrial genome diversity found within Silene and possible alternative explanations for the rapid genome evolution in this genus.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sloan, D.B., Alverson, A.J., Chuckalovcak, J.P., et. al. (2012, January). &amp;quot;[http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001241 Rapid Evolution of Enormous, Multichromosomal Genomes in Flowering Plant Mitochondria with Exceptionally High Mutation Rates].&amp;quot; In ''PLoS Biology''. Public Library of Science.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Rodent microevolution====&lt;br /&gt;
A 2009 study observed that rodents evolve at &amp;quot;unprecedented rates&amp;quot; given climate change and population growth, and that rapid evolutionary change in rodents has been occurring for over a century. The article also notes research on rapid Micrevolution has previously been &amp;quot;infrequently documented&amp;quot;, but that despite this, more and more evidence is cropping up for it. {{cquote|Our results indicate that over the last 100+ years, rapid morphological change in rodents has occurred quite frequently, and that these changes have taken place on the mainland as well as on islands. Our results also suggest that these changes may be driven, at least in part, by human population growth and climate change.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pergams ORW, Lawler JJ (2009, April 21). &amp;quot;[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006452 Recent and Widespread Rapid Morphological Change in Rodents].&amp;quot; PLoS ONE 4(7): e6452. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006452.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creationwiki.org/Microevolution Microevolution - CreationWiki]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Molecular Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Molecular Genetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Microbiology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2156659</id>
		<title>Evolution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2156659"/>
		<updated>2025-09-05T21:12:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://electricscotland.com/history/glasgow/anec305.htm The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Darwin  - As told in Glasgow]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). In biology, evolution is understood as a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time from adaptations of organisms to their environments. The study of evolution can be performed on different scales: ''microevolution'' reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time (e.g. mutations, interbreeding), ''macroevolution'' reflects large-scale changes at the species level which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. [[Natural selection]] is one commonly cited mechanism for driving evolution, but there are others such a genetic drift.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/ Evolution - Nature (Journal)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]].  See also: [[Theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is often linked to Charles Darwin and [[natural selection]]. However, naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]]. Wallace eventually came to believe that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's views challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and allow for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Before 1864, Wallace also believed that man was a result of natural selection, but by 1869, Wallace had changed his view since he felt that natural selection was insufficient to craft man's features like rationality, and postulated that higher intelligences may have been involved in man's evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Malcolm Jay Kottler. [https://www.newdualism.org/papers/M.Kottler/Kottler-Isis1974.pdf Alfred Russel Wallace, the Origin of Man, and Spiritualism]. Isis, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 144-192 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society&lt;br /&gt;
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229369.&amp;quot;In 1864 Wallace was firmly committed to the action of natural selection alone in the development of man. In 1869 he first expressed publicly his new point of view that natural selection was unable to explain the origin of man and that higher intelligences guiding man's development were required.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Microevolution]] and natural selection are accepted to occur by all creationists,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory or in the wild.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC&lt;br /&gt;
*Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current ongoing long term evolutionary experiments such as the experiment on E.coli bacteria which &amp;quot;exceed 63,000 generations, equivalent to over 1 million years of human evolution&amp;quot; have not shown speciation or novel functions in the organism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Hofwegen DJ, Hovde CJ, Minnich SA.2016.Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. J Bacteriol198:.https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00831-15&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the [[creation]] versus evolution controversy. The [[fossil]] record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were cataloged and identified in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: &amp;quot;In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.icr.org/article/280/ More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists Excerpted from the New Book by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 28, 2022, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?'' which indicated: &amp;quot;A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of [[natural selection]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?''] by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian,  June 28, 2022&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Teaching evolution &amp;amp; views of experts==   &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:View from Levering Plaza.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|''Johns Hopkins University Press'' reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2024, the assistant to [[Russia]]n Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, former [[Chechen]] Prime Minister Muslim Khuchiev called for a ban on the teaching of Darwinian theory in schools at a meeting of the All-Russian Parents' Committee. &amp;quot;Everyone knows that this is an erroneous theory, it goes against [[religion]]. This is the first step, I believe, in the [[spiritual]] degradation of children.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://meduza.io/news/2024/09/20/pomoschnik-mishustina-predlozhil-ubrat-teoriyu-darvina-iz-shkolnoy-programmy-ideyu-podderzhal-pravoslavnyy-oligarh-konstantin-malofeev Mishustin's assistant suggested removing Darwin's theory from the school curriculum. The idea was supported by the &amp;quot;Orthodox oligarch&amp;quot; Konstantin Malofeev], Meduza, 20 September 2024. meduza.io&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9851&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that &amp;quot;Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2010, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} [[Johns Hopkins University]] Press reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[China]] has the world's largest [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] and the rapid growth of biblical [[creationism]]/[[Evangelical Christianity|Evangelical Christianity]] in China may have a significant impact on the number of individuals in the world who believe in evolution and also on [[global atheism]] (see: [[China and biblical creationism]] and [[Asian atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of natural selection==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of natural selection was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'' (1859) and also by Alfred Russel Wallace in his paper ''On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'' (1858). Wallace's works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker decided on a joint publication at the Linnean Society of London in 1858 of Wallace's paper together with an extract from Darwin's 1844 essay and his letter to Asa Gray and summarized:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 3, Issue 9, August 1858, Pages 45–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2311239#page/127/mode/1up 1858 Online link to Summary by Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, and both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society. Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. Extract from an unpublished Work on Species, by C. DARWIN, Esq., consisting of a portion of a Chapter entitled, &amp;quot;On the Variation of Organic Beings in a state of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species.&amp;quot;..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
II. Abstract of a Letter from C. DARWIN, Esq., to Prof. ASA GRAY, Boston, US, dated Down, September 5th, 1857...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
III. On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type. By ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE.''}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: &amp;quot;...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin was a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]]/[[agnosticism|agnostic]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin) ].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html Charles Darwin - The Truth]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or &amp;quot;survival of the fittest&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major difference between Darwin and Wallace is that Wallace argued that nature exhibited design and purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's view of evolution allows for an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life, some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution was incorporated later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of evolution==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Belief in evolution and intuition ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In January of 2012, the  ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: &amp;quot;They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to [[evolutionary indoctrination]] and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization [[Creation Ministries International]] created a [[Question evolution! campaign]] which poses [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use Arguments evolutionists should not use] by Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/ 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid] by Answers in Genesis&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Theory of Evolution - Mutations and the Life Sciences in General ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote concerning the theory of evolution: &amp;quot;The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;NorthWest Creation Network, [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Concerning various [[theories of evolution]], most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of Life|life first came about on earth]] although [[Theory of evolution and little consensus|there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.&amp;quot; Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have &amp;quot;stabilized&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grassé  regards the &amp;quot;unceasing mutations&amp;quot; to be &amp;quot;merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html Life Sciences]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,[http://creation.com/Whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-Lawrence-S-Lerner Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3835 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 6, Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creation scientists provide sound reasons why [[homology|the homology argument is not a valid argument]]. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; to the point where it is defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of &amp;quot;Evolution&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as &amp;quot;The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet&amp;quot; but it is very poorly done.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and equivocation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Biological diversity - evolution contrasted with biblical creation science ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|When [[Richard Dawkins]] was a young man, he recognized [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the originally created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Prominent evolutionists have indicated that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary model ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic entropy ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:John C Sanford.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The [[genetic entropy]] theory by [[Cornell University]] Professor Dr. [[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] on eroding [[genome]]s of all living organisms due to [[mutations]] inherited from one generation to the next is declared to be one of the major challenges to [[evolutionary theory]]. The central part of Sanford’s argument is that mutations, represented by spelling mistakes in [[DNA]], are accumulating so quickly in some creatures (and particularly in people) that [[natural selection]] cannot stop the ''functional degradation'' of the genome, let alone drive an evolutionary process that could lead for example, from apes into people.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web&lt;br /&gt;
|title=Genetic entropy and simple organisms: If genetic entropy is true, why do bacteria still exist?&lt;br /&gt;
|author=Robert Carter&lt;br /&gt;
|publisher=Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
|url=http://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms&lt;br /&gt;
|accessdate=2012-10-29}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sanford's book ''Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'' explains why human [[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/john-sanford John Sanford - bio] at [[Creation Ministries International]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Evolutionist on genetic entropy ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the  ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'' in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'' (taken from the abstract): &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961 ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolution - Implications of Genetic Code and Processing of Biological Information ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp Information Theory Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[William Dembski]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=118 Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[code|codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Dr. Brown also asserts that the &amp;quot;information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|No matter how many &amp;quot;bits&amp;quot; of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it &amp;quot;information&amp;quot; if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In [[computer science]], we call it a &amp;quot;program.&amp;quot; Another name for [[computer software]] is an &amp;quot;[[algorithm]].&amp;quot; No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology &amp;amp; Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742 Notes and References: Codes, Programs, and Information]&lt;br /&gt;
* PubMed Central (PMC), [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Theory of evolution and little scientific consensus  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: &amp;quot;It happened.&amp;quot; Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], &amp;quot;Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&lt;br /&gt;
* Simon Conway Morris, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;amp;_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&amp;amp;_user=681891&amp;amp;_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&amp;amp;_rdoc=1&amp;amp;_fmt=&amp;amp;_orig=search&amp;amp;_sort=d&amp;amp;view=c&amp;amp;_acct=C000037419&amp;amp;_version=1&amp;amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;amp;_userid=681891&amp;amp;md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with [[molecule]]s or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/ Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends, There Is No Theory of Evolution, February 20, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species.&amp;quot; - [[Niles Eldredge]], &amp;quot;Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|Theory of Punctuated Equilibria]],&amp;quot; Simon &amp;amp; Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Through use and abuse of hidden [[postulate]]s, of bold, often ill-founded [[extrapolation]]s, a [[pseudoscience]] has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of [[biology]] and is leading astray many [[biochemistry|biochemists]] and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that [[theory|theoreticians]] put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their [[sectarianism]], purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
One of the regrettable consequences of Charles Darwin’s ''On the Origin of Species'' was the advent of the [[pseudoscience]] known as [[geopolitics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/geopolitics-ill-suited-for-challenges-of-today-endangers-global-economy-by-robert-skidelsky-2023-06 The Costly Return of Geopolitics], Robert Skidelsky, Jun 19, 2023. www.project-syndicate.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Conservative%27s_essays&amp;amp;oldid=2072209#International_politics_and_geopolitics User:Conservative's essays#International politics and geopolitics], August 16, 2024.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolutionary Theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎ ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|170px|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Haeckel]]. Noted evolutionist and [[Stephen Gould]], who held a [[agnostic|agnostic]] worldview&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and promoted the notion of [[Non-Overlapping Magisteria|non-overlapping magesteria]], wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again. ... Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationism.org/wakefield/haeckel.htm &amp;quot;Another Evolution Fraud Exposed&amp;quot;] - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the [[NY Times]]  refers to Ernst Haeckel as the &amp;quot;celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical [[Atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: &amp;quot;I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged [[fossils]] in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.halos.com/printer.htm?page=/book/ctm-07-e.htm Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; is &amp;quot;missing links&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin.jpg|alt=charles darwin's theory of evolution|right|thumb|205px|[[Charles Darwin]] wrote: &amp;quot;When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of &amp;quot;transitional forms.&amp;quot; Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? [[Geology]] assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because &amp;quot;only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Charles Darwin]], ''Origin of the Species'', [http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, &amp;quot;“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, &amp;quot;Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Edmund Leech, [http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241 Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and [[Geophysics]] at the University of Oklahoma wrote that &amp;quot;Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.&amp;quot; - David M. Raup, &amp;quot;Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,&amp;quot; ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late [[Harvard]] paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html References and Notes: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Paleoanthropology]] or [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Fossil Record quotes ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creationism|Creationists]] can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Christian Answers Network, [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html The Fossil Record - References]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html Notes and References: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.&amp;quot; - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html Early Man]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm Solly Zuckerman: Biography]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether&amp;quot;. Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes] and [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Additional fossil record quotes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Paleoanthropology ==&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see'': [[Paleoanthropology]] and [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nebraska Man.jpg|thumb|alt=human evolution|150px|right|[[Nebraska man]] was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Paleoanthropology]] is an interdisciplinary branch of [[anthropology]] that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and [[artifact]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058075/paleoanthropology Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at [[Yale]] University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at [[Harvard]] University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those Fossils Are A Problem]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book ''Origins'' in the journal ''American Scientist'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, &amp;quot;theory&amp;quot; - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates &amp;quot;data&amp;quot;. ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist and Harvard professor [[Richard Lewontin]] wrote in 1995 that &amp;quot;Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&amp;amp;article=153 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the September 2005 issue of [[National Geographic]], Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology &amp;quot;has again become a rather glorious mess.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=126&amp;amp;article=1555 ''The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[National Geographic]] (online edition), Joel Achenbach, [http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_who.html PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, &amp;quot;We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=823 &amp;quot;Human Evolution&amp;quot; An Update]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Answers in Genesis]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/127 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|300px|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species.]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations do produce “[[microevolution]],” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the evolutionary [[paradigm]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of their key resources on this matter are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Punctuated Equilibrium ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:StephenGould.jpg|left|thumbnail|170px|[[Stephen Jay Gould]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]] was developed and its chief proponents were [[Stephen Gould]], Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley.  According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium &amp;quot;asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented.  In 1930, Austin H. Clark,  an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called [[zoogenesis]] which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Prior to publishing his work entitled ''The New Evolution: Zoogenesis'', Clark wrote in a journal article published in the ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' that &amp;quot;so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation#endRef4&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1995, there was an essay in the ''New York Review of Books'' by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-Darwinists]], and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]] &lt;br /&gt;
Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible &amp;quot;just so stories&amp;quot; to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
A well-known example of a &amp;quot;just so story&amp;quot; is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled &amp;quot;Difficulties on Theory&amp;quot; in which he stated:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to [[materialism]]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.&amp;quot; - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:&lt;br /&gt;
*various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/5044&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/146/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[flagellum|bacterial flagellum]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[homing]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/wings-on-the-wind  Wings on the wind&lt;br /&gt;
How do migrating birds know exactly when, and where, to go?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the origin of flight in the animal kingdom&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* human [[brain]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-brain-brainier-than-believed-before&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-human-bodygods-masterpiece&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/mind-by-design-peter-line-interview&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[migration]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-magnificent-migrating-monarch&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[whale]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/whale-explodes-fossil-theory&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Venus flytrap]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/4340&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Bombardier beetle]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, biochemist [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.&amp;quot; - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statements of Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article:'' [[Intelligent design]] and [[Argument from beauty]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Autumn.jpg|201px|right|thumbnail|[[Autumn]] foliage is one of the many of examples of beauty in [[God]]'s [[creation]].  See also: [[Argument from beauty]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Phillip E. Johnson]] cites [[Francis Crick]] in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.&amp;quot; - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, &amp;quot;Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.&amp;quot; Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age.&amp;quot; - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin monkey cartoon.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== A significant portion of atheists see their lives and the world being the product of design ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?''],'' New York Times'', October 17, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed] by  David Catchpoole, [[Creation Ministries International]], Published: 16 July 2009&lt;br /&gt;
*Atheist [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] made the candid confession: &amp;quot;As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise.&amp;quot; Source: ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility'' By Dean Turner, page 109&lt;br /&gt;
*The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' declares: &amp;quot;In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away.'(Argyll 1885, 244)[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html Notes to Teleological Arguments for God's Existence]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Argument from beauty ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detractors of Evolution and the Scientific Journals ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer-reviewed journals that favor the creationist position).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3873/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unqualified to be a scientific theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; stated that Darwinism is &amp;quot;not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: &amp;quot;Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch &amp;amp; Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted&lt;br /&gt;
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that &amp;quot;there has never been a theory of evolution&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and the [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], argue for [[atheism]] and evolution with religious fervor (See also: [[Atheism and evolution]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions that make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion &amp;quot;Atheism: A religion&amp;quot;], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Please see: [http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]and [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] and [[Atheism is a religion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism is a religion and its legal implications as far as the teaching of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Paul gosselin.JPG|thumbnail|right|200px|The Canadian [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Paul Gosselin]] points out that evolution is a [[secular]] origins [[myth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm Myths of Origin and the Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution is a Religion and Not Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution is a religion]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michael Ruse]], the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the leading American science science journal ''Science'', Michael Ruse published an article in 2003 entitled ''Is Evolution a Secular Religion?''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Is Evolution a Secular Religion?] by Dr. [[Michael Ruse]], ''Science'',  March 7, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationist opponents of evolution commonly point out that evolution is a religion and not science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; *[http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution The religious nature of evolution] by Dr. [[Carl Wieland]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-religious Religious Nature of Evolution and its Attack on Christianity]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.icr.org/article/455/ Evolution is a religion - not science] by Dr. [[Henry Morris]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-as-religion Evolution as religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Evolution is a religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution as a secular origins myth ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is a secular origins myth of [[atheism|atheists]], [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and members of other [[liberal Christianity|theologically liberal]] religious sects (theologically [[liberal]] religious sects often dismiss out of hand various [[supernatural]] events in history due to their hostility towards [[God]] and the supernatural). See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[religion]] of [[evolutionism]] is contrary to  [[creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists - Question 15 deals with the fact that evolution is a religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Wolfram]] in his book ''A New Kind of Science'' has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, &amp;quot;increasingly been applied outside of biology.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Lysenkoism===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regard to atheistic communism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong]] caused famines and the death of millions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Medical Science===&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of [[medicine|medical science]]. According to Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]] the list of [[vestigial organs]] in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Astronomy===&lt;br /&gt;
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the &amp;quot;evolution of the universe&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MoIzN....Q....Z&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995deun.book.....S&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3836&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|““...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html Strange Planets] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html Star Births? Stellar Evolution?] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html Galaxies] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concerning the [[Milky Way]] galaxy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;. . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, &amp;quot;The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way,&amp;quot; American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/547/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe [[paradigm]] explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Origin of Life===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/the-origin-of-life-a-problem-for-evolution Origin of life - a problem for evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9057170/Oparin,%20Aleksandr&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of the evolutionary paradigm, but this is not the case  (see: [https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Young Earth Creationism]] and [[Geologic system]]'' and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sarfati, 1999, [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth Chapter 8, How old is the earth?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[William R. Corliss]] was a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Corliss cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young Earth Creationism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the earth and the universe]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief|Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lion6.jpg|thumb|210px|right|Until the 1970s the scientific consensus was wrong on how [[lion]]s killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Bible]] was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
A 1997 [[Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere], Kenneth Chang, ''ABCNews.com'', 1999.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As noted earlier, in 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Poll results regarding the number of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view.  Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.expelledthemovie.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx Scientists and belief]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. declared: &amp;quot;...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious ''British Medical Journal'' begun in 1828 chose the name ''Lancet'' to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote: &amp;quot;There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&amp;amp;cmd=Retrieve&amp;amp;dopt=AbstractPlus&amp;amp;list_uids=1932964&amp;amp;query_hl=6&amp;amp;itool=pubmed_docsum]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/ Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge  beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1718/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information see: [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and  [[Atheism, evolution and morality]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]''&lt;br /&gt;
‎&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to [[Social Darwinism]], [[Nazism]] and [[Communism]] and has also been a source of racism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/454/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n1p04.htm&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3031/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/55/&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Belief in evolution and sexual immorality ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] and [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue that highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of [[abortion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, according to [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the [[sexual revolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism  and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution and Nazism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The staunch evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] admitted the following: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, &amp;quot;Ontogeny and Phylogeny,&amp;quot; Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler]] wrote the following [[Evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] material in his work ''[[Mein Kampf]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/15/a-church-apology-to-darwin/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] also wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Josef Mengele]]'s evolutionary thinking was in accordance with [[Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]] theories that [[Adolph Hitler]] and a number of [[German]] academics found appealing.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/herero-genocide Herero Genecide]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the &amp;quot;unworthy life&amp;quot;  branch of evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link The Darwin–Hitler connection]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with [[Nazi]] death camps and the [[Holocaust]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mengele obtained an infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at [[Auschwitz]]-Birkenau.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding [[Nazism]] and the theory of evolution: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … [[Jew]]s, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is indeed [[history|historical]] precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal [[atheism|atheist]] [[Joseph Stalin]] was greatly influenced by the work of [[Charles Darwin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century [[Communism|Communists]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, &amp;quot;Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history.&amp;quot; Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and communism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Governments under the banner of [[atheism|atheistic]] [[communism]] have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr.  R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government).  Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and racism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary racism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Previously it was mentioned that evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of [[racism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Charles Darwin and [[Thomas Huxley]] contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th-century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work  ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, ''The Descent of Man'', Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo.jpg|thumb|[[Ota Benga]] in the Bronx Zoo]]&lt;br /&gt;
John C. Burnham wrote, in the journal ''Science'', the following in regards to the theory of evolution and racism:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The [[Africa]]n was inferior — he represented the missing link between [[ape]] and Teuton.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/55/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harvard University's [[Stephen Jay Gould]] stated, &amp;quot;Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Recent [[racism]] directed at [[Michelle Obama]] was the result of [[evolutionary racism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/obama-racism-row&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the ''Psychology Today'' website called ''The Scientific Fundamentalist''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.scribd.com/doc/55558908/Why-Are-Black-Women-Rated-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-But-Black-Men-Are-Rated-Better-Looking-Than-Other-Men&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kanazawa has a &amp;quot;Savanna principle&amp;quot; hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/38933&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and brutality in war ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historian Jacques Barzun observed how Darwinism caused the horrendous brutality of the wars leading up to [[WWI]]: &amp;quot;Since in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens — all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say science incarnate.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/making-a-monkey-out-of-darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Darwinism as one of the causes of the collapse of the British Empire]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Common behavior of online evolutionists ===&lt;br /&gt;
In February of 2010, the news organization ''The Telegraph'' reported that [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] was &amp;quot;embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7322177/Richard-Dawkins-in-bitter-web-censorship-row-with-fellow-atheists.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given that atheists often have poor social skills and are often contentious, it is not surprising the online dispute was bitter (See: [[Atheism and social/interpersonal intelligence|Atheism and social skills]] and [[Atheist factions]]). In addition, Richard Dawkins [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|has a reputation for being abrasive]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010, the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]] wrote: &amp;quot;Scienceblogger [http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys Chad Orzel described]  the commentators on [[PZ Myers]] ' Scienceblogs.com site [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]], and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as &amp;quot;screechy monkeys.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/pz-myers-and-pavlovs-monkeys&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, there is a widespread problem with [[Atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullying]] on [[YouTube]] toward [[Christian]] and [[creationism|creationist]] YouTube channels.  [[CreationWiki]] has developed a web page entitled [http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_YouTube_video Creationist YouTube video] designed to show creationists how to thwart atheist/evolutionist cyberbullies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Duane Gish]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''For additional information please see the article: [[Atheism and Debate]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Creation vs. evolution debates]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists tend to win the Creation-Evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the [[United States]] (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In August of 1979, [[Henry Morris|Dr. Henry Morris]] reported in an [[Institute for Creation Research]] letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”&lt;br /&gt;
Morris also said regarding the creation scientist [[Duane Gish]] (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC1200W1.htm Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Generally speaking, [[Atheism and Debate|leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists]] because creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: [[Creation vs. evolution debates]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/811/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|concerning his refusal creation scientists]].  Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetic]] website [[True Free Thinker]] which declared: &amp;quot;Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties...&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/speaking-assiduous-absconders%E2%80%A6yet-again-vox-day-challenges-pz-myers-debate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|thumb|right|170px|The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: &amp;quot;A comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to [[superstition]], tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also:   [[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]] and &lt;br /&gt;
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism]]'' and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, in the [[United States]], CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{cquote|The CBS News reported the following:&lt;br /&gt;
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are [[liberal]]s (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given that [[Professor values|liberalism is so prevalent in academia]], it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the aforementioned lack of evidence for the evolutionary position and the aforementioned counter evidential nature of the evolutionary paradigm, atheists and liberals persist in advocating the evolutionary paradigm.  The continued support of the atheist and liberal community for the evolutionary paradigm is not surprising given that the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...a comprehensive new study released by [[Baylor University]] yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in [[pseudoscience]] than evangelical Christians....&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book &amp;quot;The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,&amp;quot; skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolutionary belief, irreligion, extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Liberalism, Charles Darwin, and Denial of Creation ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:113320508 2b86fdb94a.jpg|thumb|201px|right|The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]]‎Many liberals when faced with the compelling data for creation science and against the evolutionary paradigm irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the atheist [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ &amp;quot;Understanding Evolution&amp;quot; website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''.  Dr. Scott wrote: &amp;quot;Even if all the data point to an [[Intelligent design|intelligent designer]], such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although he is not a [[creationism|creationist]], the atheist [[philosophy|philosopher]] John Gray admitted in 2008 in ''The Guardian'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into [[pseudoscience|pseudo-science]]. [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]]'s notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society The atheist delusion, John Gray, The Guardian, Friday 14 March 2008]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ben Stein Interview with the Evolutionist Richard Dawkins  ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]], [[Ben Stein]] demonstrated the folly of [[evolutionism]] in his interview with the prominent evolutionist and atheist [[Richard Dawkins]] ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube] ).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Discovery Institute]] provides a transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|BEN STEIN: &amp;quot;What do you think is the possibility that [[Intelligent design|Intelligent Design]] might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DAWKINS: &amp;quot;Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ho, ho! That is precisely what the [[Raëlism|Raelians]] say:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In &amp;quot;Message from the Designers&amp;quot;, Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins and Rael; &amp;quot;clear thinking&amp;quot; kindred spirits!&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/4589&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview, Richard Dawkins was also asked what the probability is of God's existence is and a rationale for that estimation. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins#Ben_Stein_Interview_with_the_Evolutionist_Richard_Dawkins_Demonstrated_the_Folly_of_Evolutionism Dawkins gave a very inept reply to Ben Stein concerning this issue.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped by a Creationist===&lt;br /&gt;
A video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stumped&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ Was Dawkins Stumped?] (Creation Ministries International) (The clip is viewable on this page).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[http://creation.com/content/view/5712/ showing Dawkins being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer].&lt;br /&gt;
A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages.&lt;br /&gt;
The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD ''From a Frog to Prince'', produced by [[Creation Ministries International]] about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a [[creationism|creationist]], and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://creation.com/images/feedback/2008/5712timeline_lge.jpg Interview Timeline]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Dawkins still hasn't provide any examples of genetic information being created by evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Methodological Naturalism Ideology In Evolutionary Thought ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned earlier, evolutionary thought (which employs [[methodological naturalism]]) has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well (for example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life'').&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Nobel Prize]] winning biologist [[Francis Crick]] described himself as an [[agnostic]] with &amp;quot;a strong inclination towards [[atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;In 1992, the science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' published an interview  which explored Sir [[Francis Crick]]'s belief in the hypothesis [[Directed panspermia|Directed Panspermia]] as a proposed hypthesis for the [[origin of life]] on [[earth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of a Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Directed panspermia posits concerning the question of [[origin of life]] on [[earth]] that &amp;quot;organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by [[Extraterrestrial life|intelligent beings on another planet]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;SD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Michael Behe]] wrote regarding the Scientific American interview the following: {{cquote|The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a [[Naturalism|naturalistic explanation]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.genesispark.com/essays/spontaneous/ Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article ''The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis'' by David P. Woetzel]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When commenting on the hypothesis of [[Directed Panspermia]] Creation Ministries International wrote that Francis &amp;quot;Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd [[pseudoscience]]&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Supppession of scientific inquiry concerning alternative theories of origins ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
see also: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There exists widespread suppression of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], ideas which offer alternative explanations of origins than do the various [[theories of evolution]] (for more information please see: [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please see:  [[Inflated  claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity]] [[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Recent uptick of Lamarckism school of evolutionary thought ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As can be seen below, there has been an uptick in [[macroevolution]]ary [[Lamarckism]] [[pseudoscience]] due to [[microevolution]]ary processes/changes that have been discovered in organisms related to Lamarckism: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/epigenetics-and-darwin Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/mutations-epigenetics-information Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information] by Creation Ministries International&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, due to intellectual inertia, the [[Schools and evolution|evolutionist indoctrination]] of students into [[Neo-Darwinism]] (also called the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]]) and people's natural tendency to resist change, the neo-darwinian school of evolutionary thought is still dominant within the evolutionary biology community (see also: [[Paradigm|Paradigm shift]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The weight of evidence still supports the biblical [[creation]] model (see also: [[Creation science]]). See also: [[Atheist indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Causes of evolutionary belief ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of articles have been written concerning the reasons why evolutionists commonly hold their evolutionary views:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-is-evolution-is-pushed-in-america.html Why is evolution pushed by dogmatic evolutionists?] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution Why do people believe in evolution?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/evolutionary-gut-feelings-belief-in.html Evolutionary gut feelings, &amp;quot;Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling&amp;quot;] (Cites study in ''Live Science'' article)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to belief in evolution] (cites Australian National University study)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. Evolution Videos ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Creation vs. evolution news ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution news]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Further Reading (including free on-line versions) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Top-Evidences-God-Creation-ebook/dp/B00E4DS2J0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1380144491&amp;amp;sr=8-1&amp;amp;keywords=jason+browning Top 15 Evidences for God and Creation] by Jason Browning&lt;br /&gt;
* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&amp;amp;products_id=2176&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 9780890511121&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582&lt;br /&gt;
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872 &lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7&lt;br /&gt;
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy'', Inquiry Press (Midland, MI), 1976. ISBN 978-0-918-112-02-6&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 0-8308-1324-1&lt;br /&gt;
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ISBN 080105852X&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Social effects of the theory of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Absolute-Cynical-Observations-Postmodern/dp/2980777447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1384179653&amp;amp;sr=8-3&amp;amp;keywords=flight+from+absolutes Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] by [[Paul Gosselin]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77k9QDQBi54 Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West. Volume II] - Paul Gosselin discusses his book (video)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other biblical creation-related publications ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation magazine]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism, naturalism and the origin of the universe]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and supernatural beliefs]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Christianity and Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution quotes]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution articles]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheists and genetic mutations]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Science evolves]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links and other links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com Creation Ministries International] - Over 7,000 articles on the creation vs. evolution issue&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation vs. evolution news]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Other resources:''' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/creation-answers Evidence and arguments against evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53 The Nine Great 'Proofs' for Evolution: and Why They Are All False!]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm Human evolutionary theory]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/theory-of-evolution.htm Theory of evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.windmillministries.org/theory-of-evolution Theory of evolution] by [[Windmill Ministries]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/ Intelligent Design vs. Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Social effects of Darwinism:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/eth_ev_pg.htm Problems with Ethics in an Evolutionary / Materialistic World-View]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Anti-Darwinism/creationist, French/English website:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Samizdat]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{creation vs. evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT: Evolution, theory of}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Life Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microevolution&amp;diff=2156658</id>
		<title>Microevolution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microevolution&amp;diff=2156658"/>
		<updated>2025-09-05T21:12:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|300px|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species. The causes of a new species could be due to design, nature, or a combination of both.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Microevolution''', broadly defined, is the inevitable small-scale changes in [[allele]] frequencies in a population within the same species.  Under this broad definition, this change in overall allele frequencies occurs with every birth or death of a member of the species.  In other words, some generations of people might be taller than the last or shorter than the last based on the number of individuals who happen to have the &amp;quot;tall&amp;quot; gene. Microevolution does not involve changing from one [[kind]] to another, and it does not create new kinds.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|200px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See also: [https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Many evolutionists, although not all, claim that the distinction between microevolution and [[macroevolution]] is arbitrary because they indicate that microevolution leads to macroevolutionary changes.  In other words, as microevolutionary changes accumulate it leads to macroevolution. However, there have been prominent evolutionists who dispute this matter and argue that the mechanisms underlying microevolution cannot be [[Extrapolation|extrapolated]] to support the general theory of evolution (macroevolution).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Microevolution]] and natural selection are accepted to occur by all [[Creationism|Creationists]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The website Darwinism Refuted points out that finch beak microevolution, which [[Charles Darwin]] wrongly speculated leads to macroevolution, actually helps show that birds remain birds.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html Darwinism Refuted]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Specifically, the website Darwinism Refuted indicates:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|In the same way, the different finches that Darwin saw on the [[Galapagos Islands]] are another example of variation that is no evidence for &amp;quot;evolution.&amp;quot; Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed. Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of &amp;quot;variation&amp;quot;; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence for Darwinistic evolution, were forced to conclude that &amp;quot;the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth,&amp;quot; a fact which implied that no &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; that leads to the emergence of new traits ever takes place there.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html Darwinism Refuted]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Dr. Grady McMurtry on microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, the [[Creation science|creation scientist]] Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations do produce “microevolution,” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution in Creation Science ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst many [[Creation science|creation scientists]] agree with the concept of microevolution, but call it adaptation, they argue that there is a large difference between microevolution and [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/ Adaptation]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 24, 2017.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, as indicated above, most evolutionary scientists do not make any real distinction between the two,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0428doser.shtml AAAS press release]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and leading creationists argue that using the terms &amp;quot;microevolution&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;macroevolution&amp;quot; obscures the real distinction, that being between the unobserved information-generating mutations that evolution requires and information-destroying mutations that are observed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#micro_macro Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] (Creation Ministries International).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Intelligent design theorist on microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Intelligent design]] (ID) is the empirically testable&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes&amp;quot; source: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, &amp;quot;ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are &amp;quot;inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]&amp;quot; but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9151&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial,  and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design theorist on macroevoolution vs. microevolution:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/microevolution/ Microevolution versus Macroevolution: Two Mistakes] by Kirk Durston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution in Bacteria ==&lt;br /&gt;
Microevolution is the process by which bacteria may develop resistance to antibiotics.  We regularly use antibiotics to stop bacterial infections.  When a colony of bacteria is exposed to an antibiotic that matches the colony's gram type, the bacteria are likely to die if they do not have genes that produce molecules to inhibit the action of the antibiotic.  If the survivors reproduce, the colony will contain only bacteria that have inherited resistance genes.  A second application of the same antibiotic will not affect them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genes to resist various antibiotics are natural for bacteria to produce because the many species of bacteria war with each other for more space using these chemicals on each other.  In order to protect itself, a given species of bacteria would at least have genes for resistance to the particular antibiotic it produces.  Resistance genes can also be produced by random mutation, usually through mistakes in copying the DNA during cell division.  Furthermore, bacteria can pass genes for antibiotic resistance between strains and even between species through [[plasmids]] containing the gene for resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because antibiotics have been used so widely in medicine, there is increasing concern about developing strains of bacteria that can acquire multiple resistances to most of the antibiotics we use (such as [[MRSA]]).  High compliance with infection control measures and a prudent and more restrictive use of antibiotics are the key measures to prevent epidemics based on bacteria with multiresistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rapid Rates ==&lt;br /&gt;
If the world is as old as is commonly claimed, we should see animals today evolving at a rate consistent with this, over thousands and millions of years. That is why it is shocking for the scientific community that the accumulating evidence shows instead that microevolution occurs over decades, rather than thousands and millions of years. David Skelly of Yale University has observed that the evolutionary rates are far faster than those presumed by evolutionary theory: {{cquote|Ecology is being transformed by the recognition that ecological and evolutionary timescales are not easily differentiated.  A 1999 review of evolutionary rates by Andrew Hendry and Mike Kinnison (The pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53:1637-1653) provided the striking conclusion that rates of contemporary evolution are much faster than generally appreciated... Our work reveals that a number of traits including critical thermal maximum, embryonic development rate, and thermal preference behavior all show variation consistent with local adaptation that occurs on the scale of decades and tens of meters. These findings offer a startlingly different picture of interactions between organisms and their environment prompting us to rethink, in larger sense, how we should conceive of ecological assemblages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Skelly, David K. &amp;quot;[http://environment.yale.edu/skelly/RapidEvol.html Rapid Evolution].&amp;quot; ''Yale University''. School of Forestry &amp;amp; Environmental Studies.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Australia's 'Toxic Toad'====&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the most widely publicized cases of unexpected rapid microevolution, Australian Cane Toads defied predictions based on evolutionary theory by experts about how they would react after being introduced to Australia. Within decades they evolved longer legs and heat tolerance, running amok and causing havoc for the wildlife; and instituting a national catastrophe for the continent. {{cquote|The evolutionary processes spawned by the cane toad invasion have occurred in a span of just 70 years. This adds to evidence from the past two decades that populations can adapt quickly when selection pressure is strong. 'We're taught evolution occurs over these very, very long time frames. But in systems like these, it's incredibly fast,' Shine, the study co-author, said.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Roach, John (2006, February 15). &amp;quot;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0215_060215_cane_toads.html Toxic Toads Evolve Longer Legs, Study Says].&amp;quot; ''National Geographic''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} {{cquote|'All of a sudden in the last 10 years it changes,' said Skelly. 'They're moving into areas where the physical environment is not like anything in their native range.' That implies that the cane toads have evolved more tolerance for the hotter climates they are now encountering. This is on top of the discovery last year that the toads at the forefront of the invasion had evolved longer legs than those in the interior of their range. The ability of animals to evolve so quickly needs to be factored into invasions, or the dangers of invasive species will likely be underestimated, argue Skelly and his colleagues Mark Urban, Ben Phillips and Richard Shine in an article in the March 28 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society-B.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;O'Hanlon, Larry (2007, April 2). &amp;quot;[http://news.discovery.com/animals/toxic-cane-toads-evolve-quickly.html Toxic Toads Evolving Quickly].&amp;quot; ''DiscoveryNews''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
====Humans ====&lt;br /&gt;
According to the assumptions of evolutionary theory, if evolution always went at the rate that we see today, there should be 160 times more differences between humans and apes. So rather than assume 'the present is the key to the past', scientists then decided that evolutionary rates today have accelerated for some reason. {{cquote|If humans had always evolved at this rate, the difference between modern humans and chimps should be 160 times greater than it really is. 'We realized we must be in a transient [phase], that evolution hasn't been going this fast for long in our species,' Harpending said. 'And so we wondered why.'&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Roach, John (2007, December 11). &amp;quot;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html Human Evolution Speeding Up].&amp;quot; ''National Geographic''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} {{cquote|'I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and haven't changed,' explained Henry C. Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. 'The opposite seems to be true.'... If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago there should be 160 times more differences than the researchers found. That indicates that human evolution had been slower in the distant past, Harpending explained.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmid, Randolph E. (2007, December 10). &amp;quot;[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001235.html?nav=rss_nation Researchers: Human Evolution Speeding Up].&amp;quot; ''The Washington Post''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Italian Wall Lizards====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1971, scientists introduced 5 pairs of Italian Wall Lizards to a small island off the coast of Croatia. However, the Croatian War of Independence prevented the scientists from returning to the island for more than 30 years. When the war ended, tourism finally began again in 2004, allowing them to return. The researchers were unsure if the lizards would still be alive. Instead, they found the island swarming with lizards, which genetic testing showed to be descendants of their original 5. The new lizards had wiped out native lizard populations by evolving cecal valves, muscles between the large and small intestines, with which to digest native vegetation, an expanded gut structure, as well as a harder bite. {{cquote|Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows. In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say... Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said. It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said. 'That's unparalleled. What's most important is how fast this is,' he said.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johnson, Kimberly (2008, April 21). &amp;quot;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island].&amp;quot; ''National Geographic''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
====Plant microevolution====&lt;br /&gt;
Contrary to theoretical predictions based on evolutionary theory, genomes for the Angiosperm ''Silene'' (a flowering plant) evolved far more rapidly than was expected, as reported in the January 2012 issue of ''PLoS Biology''. Researchers are now trying to find an explanation for why such rapid microevolution is occurring, and a new model that will avoid such surprises in the future. {{cquote|Contrary to theoretical predictions, these genomes have experienced a massive proliferation of noncoding content... The evolution of mutation rate, genome size, and chromosome structure can therefore be extremely rapid and interrelated in ways not predicted by current evolutionary theories... We discuss the implications of the unprecedented mitochondrial genome diversity found within Silene and possible alternative explanations for the rapid genome evolution in this genus.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sloan, D.B., Alverson, A.J., Chuckalovcak, J.P., et. al. (2012, January). &amp;quot;[http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001241 Rapid Evolution of Enormous, Multichromosomal Genomes in Flowering Plant Mitochondria with Exceptionally High Mutation Rates].&amp;quot; In ''PLoS Biology''. Public Library of Science.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Rodent microevolution====&lt;br /&gt;
A 2009 study observed that rodents evolve at &amp;quot;unprecedented rates&amp;quot; given climate change and population growth, and that rapid evolutionary change in rodents has been occurring for over a century. The article also notes research on rapid Micrevolution has previously been &amp;quot;infrequently documented&amp;quot;, but that despite this, more and more evidence is cropping up for it. {{cquote|Our results indicate that over the last 100+ years, rapid morphological change in rodents has occurred quite frequently, and that these changes have taken place on the mainland as well as on islands. Our results also suggest that these changes may be driven, at least in part, by human population growth and climate change.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pergams ORW, Lawler JJ (2009, April 21). &amp;quot;[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006452 Recent and Widespread Rapid Morphological Change in Rodents].&amp;quot; PLoS ONE 4(7): e6452. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006452.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creationwiki.org/Microevolution Microevolution - CreationWiki]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Molecular Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Molecular Genetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Microbiology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Macroevolution&amp;diff=2156657</id>
		<title>Macroevolution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Macroevolution&amp;diff=2156657"/>
		<updated>2025-09-05T21:07:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|300px|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species. The causes of a new species could be due to design, nature, or a combination of both.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Macroevolution''' is a distinction made by some evolutionists and all [[young earth creationism|biblical creationists]] that separates the change of certain characteristics of various kinds of animals (causing [[species|speciation]]), from the changes that [[natural selection]], [[mutation]]s, and genetic drift that allegedly, given enough time, lead to the creation of radically different, new [[Baraminology|kinds of organisms]] consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchCode=LCCN&amp;amp;searchArg=37033383&amp;amp;searchType=1&amp;amp;permalink=y&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.dictionary.com/browse/macroevolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, evolutionists have false alleged that [[bird]]s are the descendants of [[reptile]]s and that [[mankind]] descended from a common ancestor of [[ape]]s.  Macroevolution has never happened and the earth is approximately [[Young earth creationism|6,000 years old]] and not billions of years old. Some prominent modern biologists have made a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution (for example, see quotes of prominent evolutionists below). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116 Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,”] Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887, as quoted by Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term macroevolution is often hated by ill-informed, militant, internet evolutionists (especially evolutionist poseurs who knew that evolution is lie and an ill attempted escape from biblical authority) because they are unable to demonstrate that macroevolution occurred and they also unable to satisfactorily answer the reasonable objections/questions posed to them by biblical creationists and [[intelligent design]] theorists (for example, the 15 questions for evolutionists of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] initiated by [[Creation Ministries International]])&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/evolutionist-posers-naive-evolutionists.html Naive evolutionists, evolutionist poseurs and the headlights of the Question Evolution! Campaign]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Microevolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Theory of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Question evolution! campaign]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[95 Theses against Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Answers In Genesis]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microevolution&amp;diff=2156656</id>
		<title>Microevolution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microevolution&amp;diff=2156656"/>
		<updated>2025-09-05T21:04:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|300px|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species. The causes of a new species could be due to design, nature, or a combination of both.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Microevolution''', broadly defined, is the inevitable small-scale changes in [[allele]] frequencies in a population within the same species.  Under this broad definition, this change in overall allele frequencies occurs with every birth or death of a member of the species.  In other words, some generations of people might be taller than the last or shorter than the last based on the number of individuals who happen to have the &amp;quot;tall&amp;quot; gene. Microevolution does not involve changing from one [[kind]] to another, and it does not create new kinds.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|200px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See also: [https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Many evolutionists, although not all, claim that the distinction between microevolution and [[macroevolution]] is arbitrary because they indicate that microevolution leads to macroevolutionary changes.  In other words, as microevolutionary changes accumulate it leads to macroevolution. However, there have been prominent evolutionists who dispute this matter and argue that the mechanisms underlying microevolution cannot be [[Extrapolation|extrapolated]] to support the general theory of evolution (macroevolution).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Creationism|Creationists]] argue that microevolution/adaptation/variation within a [[Baraminology|kind of animal]] occurs, but macroevolution does not occur. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The website Darwinism Refuted points out that finch beak microevolution, which [[Charles Darwin]] wrongly speculated leads to macroevolution, actually helps show that birds remain birds.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html Darwinism Refuted]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Specifically, the website Darwinism Refuted indicates:&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|In the same way, the different finches that Darwin saw on the [[Galapagos Islands]] are another example of variation that is no evidence for &amp;quot;evolution.&amp;quot; Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin's theory presupposed. Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of &amp;quot;variation&amp;quot;; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence for Darwinistic evolution, were forced to conclude that &amp;quot;the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth,&amp;quot; a fact which implied that no &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; that leads to the emergence of new traits ever takes place there.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_02.html Darwinism Refuted]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Dr. Grady McMurtry on microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, the [[Creation science|creation scientist]] Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations do produce “microevolution,” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution in Creation Science ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst many [[Creation science|creation scientists]] agree with the concept of microevolution, but call it adaptation, they argue that there is a large difference between microevolution and [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/adaptation/ Adaptation]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 24, 2017.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  However, as indicated above, most evolutionary scientists do not make any real distinction between the two,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0428doser.shtml AAAS press release]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and leading creationists argue that using the terms &amp;quot;microevolution&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;macroevolution&amp;quot; obscures the real distinction, that being between the unobserved information-generating mutations that evolution requires and information-destroying mutations that are observed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#micro_macro Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] (Creation Ministries International).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Intelligent design theorist on microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Intelligent design]] (ID) is the empirically testable&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes&amp;quot; source: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, &amp;quot;ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are &amp;quot;inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]&amp;quot; but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9151&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial,  and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design theorist on macroevoolution vs. microevolution:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[https://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/microevolution/ Microevolution versus Macroevolution: Two Mistakes] by Kirk Durston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution in Bacteria ==&lt;br /&gt;
Microevolution is the process by which bacteria may develop resistance to antibiotics.  We regularly use antibiotics to stop bacterial infections.  When a colony of bacteria is exposed to an antibiotic that matches the colony's gram type, the bacteria are likely to die if they do not have genes that produce molecules to inhibit the action of the antibiotic.  If the survivors reproduce, the colony will contain only bacteria that have inherited resistance genes.  A second application of the same antibiotic will not affect them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Genes to resist various antibiotics are natural for bacteria to produce because the many species of bacteria war with each other for more space using these chemicals on each other.  In order to protect itself, a given species of bacteria would at least have genes for resistance to the particular antibiotic it produces.  Resistance genes can also be produced by random mutation, usually through mistakes in copying the DNA during cell division.  Furthermore, bacteria can pass genes for antibiotic resistance between strains and even between species through [[plasmids]] containing the gene for resistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because antibiotics have been used so widely in medicine, there is increasing concern about developing strains of bacteria that can acquire multiple resistances to most of the antibiotics we use (such as [[MRSA]]).  High compliance with infection control measures and a prudent and more restrictive use of antibiotics are the key measures to prevent epidemics based on bacteria with multiresistance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rapid Rates ==&lt;br /&gt;
If the world is as old as is commonly claimed, we should see animals today evolving at a rate consistent with this, over thousands and millions of years. That is why it is shocking for the scientific community that the accumulating evidence shows instead that microevolution occurs over decades, rather than thousands and millions of years. David Skelly of Yale University has observed that the evolutionary rates are far faster than those presumed by evolutionary theory: {{cquote|Ecology is being transformed by the recognition that ecological and evolutionary timescales are not easily differentiated.  A 1999 review of evolutionary rates by Andrew Hendry and Mike Kinnison (The pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53:1637-1653) provided the striking conclusion that rates of contemporary evolution are much faster than generally appreciated... Our work reveals that a number of traits including critical thermal maximum, embryonic development rate, and thermal preference behavior all show variation consistent with local adaptation that occurs on the scale of decades and tens of meters. These findings offer a startlingly different picture of interactions between organisms and their environment prompting us to rethink, in larger sense, how we should conceive of ecological assemblages.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Skelly, David K. &amp;quot;[http://environment.yale.edu/skelly/RapidEvol.html Rapid Evolution].&amp;quot; ''Yale University''. School of Forestry &amp;amp; Environmental Studies.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Australia's 'Toxic Toad'====&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the most widely publicized cases of unexpected rapid microevolution, Australian Cane Toads defied predictions based on evolutionary theory by experts about how they would react after being introduced to Australia. Within decades they evolved longer legs and heat tolerance, running amok and causing havoc for the wildlife; and instituting a national catastrophe for the continent. {{cquote|The evolutionary processes spawned by the cane toad invasion have occurred in a span of just 70 years. This adds to evidence from the past two decades that populations can adapt quickly when selection pressure is strong. 'We're taught evolution occurs over these very, very long time frames. But in systems like these, it's incredibly fast,' Shine, the study co-author, said.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Roach, John (2006, February 15). &amp;quot;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0215_060215_cane_toads.html Toxic Toads Evolve Longer Legs, Study Says].&amp;quot; ''National Geographic''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} {{cquote|'All of a sudden in the last 10 years it changes,' said Skelly. 'They're moving into areas where the physical environment is not like anything in their native range.' That implies that the cane toads have evolved more tolerance for the hotter climates they are now encountering. This is on top of the discovery last year that the toads at the forefront of the invasion had evolved longer legs than those in the interior of their range. The ability of animals to evolve so quickly needs to be factored into invasions, or the dangers of invasive species will likely be underestimated, argue Skelly and his colleagues Mark Urban, Ben Phillips and Richard Shine in an article in the March 28 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society-B.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;O'Hanlon, Larry (2007, April 2). &amp;quot;[http://news.discovery.com/animals/toxic-cane-toads-evolve-quickly.html Toxic Toads Evolving Quickly].&amp;quot; ''DiscoveryNews''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
====Humans ====&lt;br /&gt;
According to the assumptions of evolutionary theory, if evolution always went at the rate that we see today, there should be 160 times more differences between humans and apes. So rather than assume 'the present is the key to the past', scientists then decided that evolutionary rates today have accelerated for some reason. {{cquote|If humans had always evolved at this rate, the difference between modern humans and chimps should be 160 times greater than it really is. 'We realized we must be in a transient [phase], that evolution hasn't been going this fast for long in our species,' Harpending said. 'And so we wondered why.'&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Roach, John (2007, December 11). &amp;quot;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html Human Evolution Speeding Up].&amp;quot; ''National Geographic''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} {{cquote|'I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and haven't changed,' explained Henry C. Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. 'The opposite seems to be true.'... If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago there should be 160 times more differences than the researchers found. That indicates that human evolution had been slower in the distant past, Harpending explained.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmid, Randolph E. (2007, December 10). &amp;quot;[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001235.html?nav=rss_nation Researchers: Human Evolution Speeding Up].&amp;quot; ''The Washington Post''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Italian Wall Lizards====&lt;br /&gt;
In 1971, scientists introduced 5 pairs of Italian Wall Lizards to a small island off the coast of Croatia. However, the Croatian War of Independence prevented the scientists from returning to the island for more than 30 years. When the war ended, tourism finally began again in 2004, allowing them to return. The researchers were unsure if the lizards would still be alive. Instead, they found the island swarming with lizards, which genetic testing showed to be descendants of their original 5. The new lizards had wiped out native lizard populations by evolving cecal valves, muscles between the large and small intestines, with which to digest native vegetation, an expanded gut structure, as well as a harder bite. {{cquote|Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows. In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say... Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said. It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said. 'That's unparalleled. What's most important is how fast this is,' he said.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Johnson, Kimberly (2008, April 21). &amp;quot;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island].&amp;quot; ''National Geographic''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
====Plant microevolution====&lt;br /&gt;
Contrary to theoretical predictions based on evolutionary theory, genomes for the Angiosperm ''Silene'' (a flowering plant) evolved far more rapidly than was expected, as reported in the January 2012 issue of ''PLoS Biology''. Researchers are now trying to find an explanation for why such rapid microevolution is occurring, and a new model that will avoid such surprises in the future. {{cquote|Contrary to theoretical predictions, these genomes have experienced a massive proliferation of noncoding content... The evolution of mutation rate, genome size, and chromosome structure can therefore be extremely rapid and interrelated in ways not predicted by current evolutionary theories... We discuss the implications of the unprecedented mitochondrial genome diversity found within Silene and possible alternative explanations for the rapid genome evolution in this genus.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sloan, D.B., Alverson, A.J., Chuckalovcak, J.P., et. al. (2012, January). &amp;quot;[http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001241 Rapid Evolution of Enormous, Multichromosomal Genomes in Flowering Plant Mitochondria with Exceptionally High Mutation Rates].&amp;quot; In ''PLoS Biology''. Public Library of Science.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Rodent microevolution====&lt;br /&gt;
A 2009 study observed that rodents evolve at &amp;quot;unprecedented rates&amp;quot; given climate change and population growth, and that rapid evolutionary change in rodents has been occurring for over a century. The article also notes research on rapid Micrevolution has previously been &amp;quot;infrequently documented&amp;quot;, but that despite this, more and more evidence is cropping up for it. {{cquote|Our results indicate that over the last 100+ years, rapid morphological change in rodents has occurred quite frequently, and that these changes have taken place on the mainland as well as on islands. Our results also suggest that these changes may be driven, at least in part, by human population growth and climate change.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pergams ORW, Lawler JJ (2009, April 21). &amp;quot;[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006452 Recent and Widespread Rapid Morphological Change in Rodents].&amp;quot; PLoS ONE 4(7): e6452. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006452.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creationwiki.org/Microevolution Microevolution - CreationWiki]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Molecular Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Molecular Genetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Microbiology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Natural_selection&amp;diff=2156595</id>
		<title>Natural selection</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Natural_selection&amp;diff=2156595"/>
		<updated>2025-09-05T15:15:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://electricscotland.com/history/glasgow/anec305.htm The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Darwin  - As told in Glasgow]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of ''natural selection'' along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
The fundamental statement of '''natural selection''' is that heritable traits which are beneficial will tend to become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become more scarce. The traits are defined to be beneficial if they become more numerous in successive generations. This principle is general, and applies to any system of individuals which reproduce; it is most commonly applied to systems of living organisms. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is sometimes summarized by the slogan, ''survival of the fittest'', where the &amp;quot;fittest&amp;quot; are the organisms which leave the most offspring. This means that &amp;quot;fitness&amp;quot; is determined by the environment; for example, a penguin is very good at producing offspring when it lives in Antarctica, but wouldn't be so good if it lived in the Sahara. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Natural selection is often thought of as being synonymous with [[Theory of evolution|evolution]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, a draft [[New Zealand]] science curriculum confuses the two.  Lamb, Andrew, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5047/ Evaluating an evolutionary science curriculum], 14th April, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; although they are distinct concepts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Microevolution and natural selection are accepted to occur by all creationists,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but macroevolution and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist, was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]]. Wallace eventually came to believe that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  His works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His views challenge the Darwinist view of evolution and allow for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of natural selection==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of natural selection was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'' (1859) and also by Alfred Russel Wallace in his paper ''On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'' (1858). Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker decided on a joint publication at the Linnean Society of London in 1858 of Wallace's paper together with an extract from Darwin's 1844 essay and his letter to Asa Gray and summarized:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 3, Issue 9, August 1858, Pages 45–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2311239#page/127/mode/1up 1858 Online link to Summary by Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|MY DEAR SIR,—The accompanying papers, which we have the honour of communicating to the Linnean Society, and which all related to the same subject, viz. the Laws which affect the Production of Varieties, Races, and Species, contain the results of the investigations of two indefatigable naturalists, Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. Alfred Wallace.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, and both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society. Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:—&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. Extract from an unpublished Work on Species, by C. DARWIN, Esq., consisting of a portion of a Chapter entitled, &amp;quot;On the Variation of Organic Beings in a state of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
II. Abstract of a Letter from C. DARWIN, Esq., to Prof. ASA GRAY, Boston, US, dated Down, September 5th, 1857.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
III. On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type. By ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE.''}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: &amp;quot;...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin was a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]]/[[agnosticism|agnostic]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin) ].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html Charles Darwin - The Truth]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or &amp;quot;survival of the fittest&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major difference between Darwin and Wallace is that Wallace argued that nature exhibited design and purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's view of evolution allowed for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==General Requirements==&lt;br /&gt;
Natural selection will automatically take place in any system which follows a certain set of rules.  These rules are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#There must be a set of individuals.&lt;br /&gt;
#These individuals must exhibit variation.&lt;br /&gt;
#These individuals must reproduce somehow, exhibiting heritability for their variations.&lt;br /&gt;
#Rates of survival and reproduction among this population must vary.&lt;br /&gt;
#The rates of survival and reproduction are not random, but are rather tied to variations in particular traits: those individuals exhibiting traits more conducive to survival, reproduction, or both are more likely to pass on their traits to their offspring.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In any such system, individuals whose traits allow them to reproduce more effectively will soon come to dominate the population.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Natural selection has been called a tautology because it follows from its definition, and because it has no observable consequences by itself that anyone has ever tested against an alternate theory.&lt;br /&gt;
However, even if it is a tautology, this doesn't make it untrue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Variation and Randomness==&lt;br /&gt;
Natural selection becomes interesting when there is the possibility of random variation in the [[duplication]] of individuals—in other words, when an individual is copied, the copy may be slightly different from the original.  It is important to note that, as stated above, the ''mechanism'' for this variation is not explained or even taken into account by natural selection.  All that matters is that there is ''some'' process that produces variation.  In this case, some of the offspring of an individual will be better (where &amp;quot;better&amp;quot; is defined as &amp;quot;more likely to successfully reproduce&amp;quot;—one can think of it as scoring higher on an evaluation) and some will be worse.  The higher-scoring offspring will soon come to dominate the population, and over successive generations the average score will also rise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Role in Life Sciences==&lt;br /&gt;
Natural selection is a principle that was popularized by [[Charles Darwin]] and [[Alfred Russel Wallace]], who noted that organisms which were better adapted to their environment tended to survive longer and reproduce more than less well-adapted organisms. They used the term &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot; to mean that it occurred in nature, as opposed to selection performed by animal breeders or by a deity. The term &amp;quot;survival of the fittest&amp;quot; is often attributed to Darwin but was in fact coined by the philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Together with [[mutation]] (an altogether distinct phenomenon that should not be confused with natural selection), natural selection forms the basis of evolutionary theory.  As stated above, in any system where selection combines with random variation, successive generations will become better adapted to reproduce.  [[Evolution]] is the theory that this combination of genetic variation (which may be either mutation of the parent or, in most cases, sexual reproduction) and natural selection leads to [[speciation]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Natural selection has been used to explain many organism traits. For example, deer run fast because slower deer have been eaten by predators, and the faster deer are more likely to pass their traits to the next generation.  [[Selection pressure]] is seldom so one-sided; for example, the long tail of the [[peacock]] leaves it vulnerable to predators.  However, since peahens are far less likely to mate with short-tailed peacocks, a long tail is an overall advantage and thus is selected for.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==An Example==&lt;br /&gt;
Here is an example of how an engineer might use an algorithm that is analogous to the combination of mutation and natural selection in the evolution of organisms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An engineer starts with 10,000 different sets of plans for a hydroelectric dam.  His dam must complete two basic tasks: it must hold back a lake with minimal flooding of the surrounding area, and it must maximize power generation.  The intrinsic worth of a dam is determined by how well it completes these tasks; a dam which produces 100&amp;amp;nbsp;kW of electricity while only raising water levels 2 feet is superior to one which produces 10&amp;amp;nbsp;kW of electricity while raising water levels 5 feet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In our simplified example, let us assume that the design of a dam is based on just a few numerical parameters: height, width, thickness, concrete mixture, hydroelectric turbine size, curvature, etc.  After evaluating all the plans, the engineer picks the 100 best and discards the rest.  He then copies each of these plans 100 times.  When copying, the engineer randomly introduces minor differences: say he rolls a die each time he copies a design parameter; if he rolls a six, he then changes that parameter by 1%, flipping a coin to determine if he will increase or decrease the parameter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once he has finished copying, he will have 10,000 more plans, most of them very similar to the original 100 but with some small differences.  He then evaluates these 10,000 plans again, picks the best 100, and copies them again, introducing random &amp;quot;errors&amp;quot; in the same way.  After completing this process several thousand times, the engineer has 10,000 plans, all of which perform excellently.  He picks the best of them and thus has an excellent design, without ever doing any real &amp;quot;design&amp;quot; himself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that this engineer need not be conscious of the overall goal—he is just applying a simple algorithm over and over.  Indeed, the engineer need not be conscious of anything at all—his task could be performed automatically and without sentience or intelligence.  Note also that the final plan may be very different from any of the original plans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Local and Non-Local Improvement==&lt;br /&gt;
The above section illustrates how natural selection and random variation can combine to create improved individuals.  However, it is important to note that there is no long-term planning involved in natural selection.  This means that all changes must be locally beneficial in order to survive.  Essentially, no improvement can take place if a deterioration must take place first.  In order for a change to propagate to future &amp;quot;generations&amp;quot; of individuals, it must not be significantly harmful to ''any'' generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the language of the above example, let us say that one of the plans would be much improved if the curvature were increased by 10%, but would be worsened considerably if the curvature was 3 to 7% higher.  Since curvature can only change by 1% at a time, and a regime of &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot; curvature lies between the current regime and the regime of &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; curvature, the dam will never reach the &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; regime.  Thus, in order for a large change to take place over several generations, it must be beneficial (or at least not significantly harmful) at ''each'' generation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again returning to the peacock, it might be an overall advantage to have a very short tail or no tail at all, since predators would be easy to avoid.  However, since a ''slightly'' shorter tail gives little help in avoiding predators and also is much less attractive to females, short tails are unlikely to come about.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural selection and evolution==&lt;br /&gt;
Natural selection is often considered to be synonymous with [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], but the two ideas are distinct.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concepts similar to Natural Selection were described by a number of people before Darwin, and in particular by creationist [[Edward Blyth]], from 1835 to 1837.&lt;br /&gt;
Blyth described it as &amp;quot;a mechanism by which the sick, old and unfit were removed from a population; that is, as a preserving factor and for the maintenance of the status quo—the created kind&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grigg, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/493/ Darwin’s illegitimate brainchild], ''Creation'' 26(2):39–41, March 2004.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution uses the idea of Natural Selection to explain why some living things survive at the expense of other living things, but Natural Selection doesn't explain how the variations to select from came to be.&lt;br /&gt;
Variations can arise in at least two different ways.&lt;br /&gt;
* When male and female produce offspring, half the offspring's [[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] is derived from each parent.  Thus the offspring have a different selection of genetic [[information]] than either parent.&lt;br /&gt;
* Mutations can alter the genetic information.&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the variations produced by these mechanisms are better suited for given environments than other variations.&lt;br /&gt;
Natural Selection removes the variations that are unsuited or less suited to those environments, in favour of those more suited (&amp;quot;fitter&amp;quot;) to those environments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to evolution, mutations can give rise to new genetic information, thus the offspring can have new capabilities that were not coded in the DNA of their parents, and that Natural Selection will therefore select for these new capabilities if they constitute a survival advantage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists reject this claim (of mutations producing new genetic information), on the grounds that it has not been observed in science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the example above of plans for a dam, the engineer started off with plans that had been designed by someone, and although some of the measurements were altered, nothing new was introduced.&lt;br /&gt;
For example, if the original plans did not include a bypass tunnel, no amount of altering measurements on the plan would produce one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is analogous to what we observe in nature.&lt;br /&gt;
We see that variations only come to already-existing plans (DNA), and that changes to the plans produce nothing new.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Genetics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolution]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&amp;diff=2156594</id>
		<title>Intelligent design</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&amp;diff=2156594"/>
		<updated>2025-09-05T15:10:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;:''Not to be confused with [[creationism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent design''' '''(ID)''' is the empirically testable&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes&amp;quot; source: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, &amp;quot;ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are &amp;quot;inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]&amp;quot; but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9151&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is worldview diversity among proponents and intelligent design is a secular, or even non-religious, theory. Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist who co-discovered [[natural selection]] along with [[Charles Darwin]], eventually came to see that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution, and in particular wrote about the advancements of research on the cell in the chapter &amp;quot;Mystery of the Cell&amp;quot; along with observations on man as being designed with purpose.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Some intelligent design proponents such as Michael Behe carry on the ''intelligent evolution'' espoused by Alfred Russel Wallace.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Another prominent ID proponent is David Berlinski who is actually an agnostic atheist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://web.archive.org/web/20150312200118/https://www.discovery.org/a/4536/ Agnostic takes New Atheists to Task for Trying to Hijack Science Author David Berlinski's New Book The Devil's Delusion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David Berlinski. 2009. The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. Basic Books. ISBN, 0786751479&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Other atheist defenders have been Bradley Monton.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bradley Monton, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, 2009, Broadview Press, ISBN 9781551118635.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, design principles are compatible with biology since design is already used in biological fields (e.g. breeding, artificial selection, farming, synthetic biology, systems biology, etc).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Castle, S.D., Stock, M. &amp;amp; Gorochowski, T.E. Engineering is evolution: a perspective on design processes to engineer biology. Nature Communications 15, 3640 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48000-1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kevin A. Janes, Preethi L. Chandran, Roseanne M. Ford, Matthew J. Lazzara, Jason A. Papin, Shayn M. Peirce, Jeffrey J. Saucerman, Douglas A. Lauffenburger, An engineering design approach to systems biology, Integrative Biology, Volume 9, Issue 7, July 2017, Pages 574–583, https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ib00014f&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Intelligent design theory does have extensive peer-reviewed publications.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2024/05/Peer-Reviewed-and-Mainstream-Articles-Page-Update-May-2024_FinalPDF.pdf  LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED AND MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN 2024]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial,  and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]).  With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature.  That is, without necessarily &amp;quot;proving&amp;quot; actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such a [[design inference]] supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of ''intelligent'' design.  As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of [[evolution]] such as chemical and Darwinian evolution &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Darwinian Evolution: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. The theory postulates that evolutionary change is the result of material causes [i.e., unintelligent causes due to the interactions of matter, energy, and the forces of nature], driven primarily by random variation and natural selection.  The forces include gravity, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces that define the structure of atoms. With respect to explaining the cosmos, the laws of chemistry and physics such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics dictate that material causes operate in generally periodic or regular patterns at best, and in entropy-increasing randomness at worst. ''See'', &amp;quot;Thirty-eight Nobel Laureates, ''Nobel Laureates Initiative,'' (The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, September 9, 2005), stressing to Kansas State Board of Education: “[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the design exhibited in our universe is merely ''apparent'' design, i.e., ''unintelligent'' design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As used in this article, &amp;quot;materialism&amp;quot; is used synonymously with &amp;quot;naturalism&amp;quot;. Naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that material causes alone are adequate to account for all natural phenomena and that teleological (design) conceptions of nature are invalid.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ('''[[SETI]]'''). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, notes at [http://www.discovery.org/a/1671 A Note to Teachers Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins May 1, 1993], the problem with limiting explanations to only &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot; causes: &amp;quot;Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial.  All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to [[Subjectivism|subjective]] historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory.  They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its many strengths, many [[Young Earth Creationism|biblical creationists]], while acknowledging those strengths, criticize the Intelligent Design theory for refusing to specify the identity of the designer, refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture, and for accepting long ages and a theistic theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Whitcomb&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PurdomChapter13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Origins Science ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''[[Origins science]]''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation.  Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence.  Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design.  Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design.  Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inference is most reasonable.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Ernst Mayr]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 12.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a more detailed description of the method for investigating and explaining origins Mayr said: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.  ''Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.''  Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernst Mayr, ''Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought'', p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American) emphasis added.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mayr's statement does not define &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot;, but his point is valid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Evolution&amp;quot; is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is the lack of a precise definition.  If &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used to mean &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is uncontroversial.  However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is meant &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;, then Mayr is correct -- &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation.  As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The '''[[National Academy of Sciences]]''' (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; as science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning.  If &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used to mean &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is scientific and verifiable by experimentation.  However, if by &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is meant &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;, then &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes.  However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; would not be science).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, (1998), p. 55.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the NAS responds to the question, &amp;quot;How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not &amp;quot;off limits&amp;quot; for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the '''[[SETI]]''' project, forensics, and intelligent design are removed from the realm of science.  Such disciplines propose hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses is often only effective by proposing competing hypotheses and objectively analyzing the evidence to determine which hypothesis correlates best with the evidence. As '''Carol Cleland''' elaborates in her paper entitled ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'', in actual practice historical researchers tend to search for “positive evidence—a smoking gun.”  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11), pp. 987-990.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Ms. Cleland explores the necessary role of hypothesis testing for scientific disciplines not amenable to classical experimental testing. Hypothesis testing by formulating multiple competing hypotheses is essential in the context of historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, and biogenesis. According to Cleland, “A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the other.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11) p. 988.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Methods of Intelligent Design Detection ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Design inference]], [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Fire-investigator.jpg|150px|right|thumbnail|Design detection is used in a variety of [[science]]s including [[forensic]] science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes.  Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.  It is also used in archeology, anthropology, cryptanalysis, copyright infringement, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for function or purpose in genetic sequences.  It is key to the current debate over the origin of the cosmos and life.  Are these “effects” or patterns that arose long ago the product of an intelligent or material cause?   Are the effects designs, i.e., the result of intelligent manipulation, or just occurrences?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable.  Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell?  Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started?  To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Inferring design====&lt;br /&gt;
Design is often inferred intuitively. However, there are formal ways to establish a [[Design inference]]. For example, logical and/or mathematical assessment of both ''small probabilities'' and ''specifications'' on any phenomenon or event, and the resulting elimination of chance as a viable explanation for the phenomenon or event.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. Page 70&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Chance'' can occur as a side effect of design (e.g. car accidents occur even when cars, controls, and roads are designed). Chance can also be a an unguided natural phenomenon (e.g. earthquake, landslide, etc).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. Page 75-85&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In order to narrow down if something is designed or natural, specifications should be present. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Specifications'' &amp;quot;are patterns that identify events and that have short or simple descriptions. But descriptions can be represented in bits.&amp;quot; Also, &amp;quot;Design inferences engage in a balancing act between the complexity of events and the simplicity of descriptions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. pages 132-133&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term '''specified complexity''' is term used and endorsed by eminent scientists such as Francis Crick, Paul Davies, Leslie Orgel, and even Richard Dawkins, sometimes using the very term and at other times using &amp;quot;complexity&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;specification&amp;quot; in the same breath. The actual term &amp;quot;specified complexity&amp;quot; goes back to biologist Leslie Orgel in 1973 in connection to origin of life research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William Dembski and Winston Ewert. 2023. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2nd edition). Discovery Institute. ISBN 9781637120347. page 258-266&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====In biology====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Generegulatory_networkS_cerevisiae.png|250px|thumb|right|Example of a Gene Regulatory Network (GRN) in a single cell bacteria called ''S. cerevisiae'' where Transcription factors (large blue circles) and other genes (small green circles) have complex chemical interactions in the cell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ma S, Kemmeren P, Gresham D, Statnikov A (2014) De-Novo Learning of Genome-Scale Regulatory Networks in S. cerevisiae. PLOS ONE 9(9): e106479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106479&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cells display a highly specified and complex set of chemical interactions. For example, '''gene regulatory networks''' highlight complex chemical interactions that occur per second in each cell. Resembling chemical manufacturing and synthesis of biological matter. Gene regulatory networks are segments within DNA that govern the rate and products of genes, controlling essential processes such as transcription and translation to prevent the production of harmful or ineffective gene products and also display how segments of cellular activity is automatically controlled by information embedded in DNA.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/gene-regulatory-network Gene Regulatory Networks] Science Direct Journals  &amp;quot;Gene regulatory networks are segments within DNA that govern the rate and products of genes, controlling essential processes such as transcription and translation to prevent the production of harmful or ineffective gene products.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gene regulatory networks are visualizations of thousands of genes that are expressed and work in concert to ensure the cell's function, fitness, and survival whereby each gene is expressed at the proper time and in the proper amounts to ensure the appropriate function in each cell.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Macneil LT, Walhout AJ. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3083081/ Gene regulatory networks and the role of robustness and stochasticity in the control of gene expression]. Genome Res. 2011 May;21(5):645-57. doi: 10.1101/gr.097378.109.&amp;quot;In any given cell, thousands of genes are expressed and work in concert to ensure the cell's function, fitness, and survival. Each gene, in turn, must be expressed at the proper time and in the proper amounts to ensure the appropriate functional outcome. The regulation and expression of some genes are highly robust; their expression is controlled by invariable expression programs. For instance, developmental gene expression is extremely similar in a given cell type from one individual to another. The expression of other genes is more variable: Their levels are noisy and are different from cell to cell and from individual to individual. This can be highly beneficial in physiological responses to outside cues and stresses. Recent advances have enabled the analysis of differential gene expression at a systems level. Gene regulatory networks (GRNs) involving interactions between large numbers of genes and their regulators have been mapped onto graphic diagrams that are used to visualize the regulatory relationships.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading chemist Felix Franks&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Felix Franks. 2010. &amp;quot;2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?&amp;quot;. In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;To translate the dictionary definition into scientific terms, life processes, as we understand them, must encompass all of the following functions in sequence: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus &lt;br /&gt;
* To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time &lt;br /&gt;
* To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes ===&lt;br /&gt;
Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces.  These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics.  These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose.  In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist '''Douglas J. Futuyma''', they lack forward looking &amp;quot;foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;“Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. ......Darwin undid the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle, and put variation in its place. He helped to replace a static conception of the world with the vision of a world of ceaseless change. Above all, his theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot;  It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered &amp;quot;Why?&amp;quot; questions by citing purpose. Only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.  Thus questions like &amp;quot;Why do plants have flowers?&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Why are there apple trees?&amp;quot;? or plagues, or storms? were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, '''Evolutionary Biology''', Third Edition,(Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1998) p. 5, 8.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man.  The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they can't comprehend it. Unintelligent material causes are not merely blind watchmakers, they are mindless, purposeless, and meaningless. Lacking a mind, they lack the capacity to “make” anything.  Unintelligent material causes can adequately account for physical systems like the occurrence of rocks, rivers, wind and rain.  However, it is not clear how they account for time-dependent living systems or themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter.   An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till.  Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The starting and stopping of matter may also be produced by interactions due to the properties of atoms, electrons and molecules.  In a snowflake, the particular chemical properties of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms at a specific temperature and pressure, necessitate that they join together and stop in regular hexagonal lattices. Crystals of salt and other minerals “grow” through the stopping of atoms otherwise in motion until the source of new material is depleted or the conditions conducive to the growth change. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With this combination of law and chance, unintelligent material causes produce patterns both random and regular.  Sand dunes and snowflakes exhibit regular and periodic patterns driven by constant forces.  Random patterns also arise as systems are suddenly interrupted as in the case of an auto accident or a melting glacier that drops an unsorted load. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although material causes can move matter uniformly and also start it and stop it suddenly, physical systems generally move from states of order to states of disorder per the second law of thermodynamics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===The Capacity of Intelligent Causes===&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world.  Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers.  We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence.  The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders.  Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose.  Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future.  Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither.  Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose.  Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a bird's nest, a beaver's dam or an aqueduct.     &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces.   Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose.  The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful.  The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct.  But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole.  This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning.   Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose.  Minds tie events together to for a purpose.  Material causes do not.  When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling. &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, [[Thomas Aquinas]], noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end....... Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;St. Thomas Aquinas, '''The Summa Theologica''', (1265-1274).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus design detection begins with a search for purpose.  If a pattern exhibits an apparent purpose, the inquiry turns to whether the apparent purpose is just an illusion.  Perhaps the pattern can be adequately explained by unintelligent material causes alone.  If not, then logic suggests that mind may be the more adequate explanation for the pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Formal Design Detection Methodology===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Formal design detection is not often used.  Design detection methodology is not often employed because the human mind has an inherent capacity to distinguish between patterns arranged by a mind for a purpose and those that have not.  Scientists have found that minds engage in subconscious pattern matching, which is a means of intuitively distinguishing between designs and occurrences.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Formal analysis is employed when a dispute arises about the cause of a pattern.  Examples include investigations of deaths and peculiar fires that look for signs of murder or arson. Archaeologists debate over whether a rock is a rock or an artifact.   Astronomers analyze radio and light waves in search of messages from alien minds.  So far all of the tests of extraterrestrial radio waves for intelligence have been negative.  The cause of life and its diversity are major areas of dispute as much is at stake.  Religious and other world views depend on the best explanation for those events.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Formal Design Detection -- ''The Explanatory Filter''====&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|Dr. [[William Dembski]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science &amp;amp; Theology'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1194228951&amp;amp;sr=1-2&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1194229141&amp;amp;sr=1-7&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary.  One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the &amp;quot;[[explanatory filter]]&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski describes his three-part '''explanatory filter''' together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter.   The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law?  If not, can it be explained by chance.  If chance and necessity can't explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose?  If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can't be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Informal Design Detection Methodology===&lt;br /&gt;
====Intuition, Common Sense and Confirmation====&lt;br /&gt;
An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention.  We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect.  If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it.  Common sense reflects a judgment about the most prudent of a set of possible choices.  If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things.  The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archaeologists.  No one expects an archaeologist to provide a rigorous &amp;quot;proof&amp;quot; that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being.  The archaeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question.  As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say ''res ipsa loquitur'', or &amp;quot;the thing speaks for itself&amp;quot;.  There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems.  We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:WilliamPaley3.jpg|thumb|230px|left|William Paley]]&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by William Paley in his famous &amp;quot;watchmaker analogy&amp;quot;. William Paley (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book ''Natural Theology''.  Paley states his analogy: &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the &amp;quot;what&amp;quot; of design with the &amp;quot;who&amp;quot; in biological systems is the tactic of those philosophically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a &amp;quot;divine foot in the door&amp;quot; of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Anthropic principle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Phillip_johnson_arn.gif|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Phillip E. Johnson]], Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus]]&lt;br /&gt;
Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The term &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; is used in its &amp;quot;strong form&amp;quot; to describe those who hold and defend the position that all the variety of life is the result solely of naturalistic processes. Therefore, the term refers to those who rule out any intelligent causation for any aspect of life (if intelligence plays any role whatsoever, then whatever the theory, it is a form of intelligent design). While everyone is an &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; if &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is defined in its weak form as simply &amp;quot;change over time&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;micro-evolution&amp;quot; such as finch beak variation, not everyone is an &amp;quot;evolutionist&amp;quot; if &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; is used, as herein, to mean &amp;quot;unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems&amp;quot;.  Evolutionists who oppose Intelligent Design believe that unintelligent processes of physics and chemistry can explain the creation of every novel and beneficial feature of the various species, including wings, eyes, and brains. Darwinism is the leading naturalistic evolutionary theory, holding that all life forms descended as modified forms of previous life forms in an unguided, unintelligent process, i.e., Darwin's &amp;quot;descent with modification&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the '''''existence''''' of design in nature, but the '''''cause''''' of design in nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: '''''unintelligent''''' causes and '''''intelligent causes'''''. '''Unintelligent causes''' include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the &amp;quot;appearance&amp;quot; of design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design proponent [[Phillip E. Johnson]] illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Francis Crick.jpg|thumb|px130|left|[[Francis Crick]], co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent causes''' include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question is not, therefore, &amp;quot;is there evidence of design in nature?&amp;quot;  Rather, the scientific question is, &amp;quot;Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?&amp;quot;  Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism).  The question simply asks, &amp;quot;in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. '''Cosmological''' evidence for design is described at '''[[Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology]]''' section.  '''Biological''' evidence for intelligent design includes '''''general evidence''''' and '''''special evidence''''', and both are discussed at '''[[General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology]]'''.  For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the '''[[Evidence Filter]]'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Anthropic principle ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Anthropic principle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is a strong body of evidence for a Designer that comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creation.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life The universe is finely tuned for life] by Jonathan Sarfati&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anthropic principle states that the reason the constants of nature appear so finely tuned to life, is that if it were otherwise, life such as ourselves would not have developed. Hence we should not be surprised that the laws of physics are enable life such as ourselves to exist.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former [[Atheism|atheist]] Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] states, &amp;quot;commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creation.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|[[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only ''unintelligent'' causes can be considered.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Forensic sciences''':  [[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime.  For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Archeology''':  Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection.  Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Cryptanalysis''':  Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking.  Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Arson investigation''':  Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence''': The name says it all.  These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification.  No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Intelligent design theorists and life on other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent [[origin of life]] researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Why Abiogenesis is impossible&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Religious Implications of Origins Science ==&lt;br /&gt;
Any theory of origins unavoidably impacts religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;One should not make the mistake of equating &amp;quot;religion&amp;quot; with only traditional theistic religions like [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], or [[Islam]].  As used herein the term is used as defined in the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science: Religion: A broad range of theistic and non-theistic religions and religious belief systems.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As stated in Article II.C of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligentdesignnetwork.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact religion, ethics, morality, government and politics.  The implications of materialistic explanations (such as Darwinism) of origins support the central tenets of non-theistic religions,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Non-theistic religions are religions and belief systems that presuppose that no God intervenes in the natural world and that material causes, such as unguided evolutionary change, are adequate to explain natural phenomena.  Non-theistic religions include [[atheism]], [[Secular Humanism]], and [[Scientism]], as well as some forms of [[Buddhism]] and other eastern religions.  By way of example, the Humanist Manifesto I sets forth the first two &amp;quot;affirmations&amp;quot; of religious humanism as &amp;quot;FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created; and, SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.&amp;quot; Thus, Darwinism supports the central tenets of a religious belief.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while the implications of teleological&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Teleological: Exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature. ''See'', Merriam-Webster Online&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explanations (such as Intelligent Design) support the central tenets of theistic religions. Both theistic and non-theistic religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article II.C&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Atheism.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, it should not be surprising that most theists are sympathetic to intelligent design because the science of intelligent design supports the theology of theistic religions like [[Christianity]]. Likewise, it is not surprising that virtually all atheists are Darwinists because the science of Darwinism supports the theology of non-theistic religions such as religious humanism (having a theology of atheism). The simple fact is that worldviews and interpretations of evidence go hand in hand. If, for example, your world view prohibits explanations involving intelligent design, then you will reject intelligent design in spite of the evidence, not because of it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For this reason, as stated in Article III.A. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', if '''truth''' is the goal:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Institutions of science should ignore religious and ethical implications of competing historical hypotheses and strive for '''objectivity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Objective: Not influenced by personal bias or prejudice; based on facts.  An objective position is one that is Secular, Neutral, and Non-ideological.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in the conduct and teaching of origins science.  Institutional objectivity may be achieved by encouraging healthy competition among scientists holding differing scientific views regarding origins, consistent with the scientific method.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article III.A&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is because, as stated in Article II.B. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of '''abductive'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Abduction, or abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations.  See, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of historical hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ibid, Article II.B&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Objections to Intelligent Design==&lt;br /&gt;
===Creationist Objections to Intelligent Design===&lt;br /&gt;
Many Biblical creationists and other theists object to Intelligent Design as failing to identify the alleged designer and refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Whitcomb&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Whitcomb, John C., Ph.D. (2006). [https://www.icr.org/article/history-impact-book-the-genesis-flood/ The History and Impact of the Book, &amp;quot;The Genesis Flood&amp;quot;]. ''ICR.org'' (from ''Acts &amp;amp; Facts. 35 (5)''). Retrieved October 26, 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This objection is expressed well by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. of '''[[Answers in Genesis]]''' in an article entitled '''''Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter?'''''  Dr. Purdom sums up the major objection:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]], Dr. [[Carl Wieland]], notes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CMI IDM&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560 CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Referring to Intelligent Design as the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), Weiland pinpoints the specific objection as:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See the 2004 book by CMI speaker Gary Bates: Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. [footnote in original]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;CMI IDM&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the fair criticisms listed above, biblical creationists also criticize the intelligent design theory for continuing to accept long ages and the theory of evolution along with the existence of some designer.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PurdomChapter13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Purdom, Georgia, Dr. (May 6, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-design-movement-christian/ Chapter 13 - Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian?]. ''Answers in Genesis'' (from ''The New Answers Book 2''). Retrieved October 25, 2016.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Response to Creationist Objections====&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Wieland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves.  And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation &amp;quot;reflect on each other,&amp;quot; they would disagree that &amp;quot;the Creator and His creation cannot be separated.&amp;quot;  The &amp;quot;separation&amp;quot; is epistemological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot;, and just as an archaeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically.  Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature.  That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method.  But science can say little about who the designer is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled '''''Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn't Identify the Designer'''''.  Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
David DeWolf, John West and I also address this issue in our recent Montana Law Review article:&lt;br /&gt;
It is important to stress that the refusal of ID proponents to draw scientific conclusions about the nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical. ID is primarily a historical science, meaning it uses principles of uniformitarianism to study present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record in order to infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied. ID starts with observations from “uniform sensory experience” showing the effects of intelligence in the natural world. As Pandas explains, scientists have uniform sensory experience with intelligent causes (i.e. humans), thus making intelligence an appropriate explanatory cause within historical scientific fields. However, the “supernatural” cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=4306, citing David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” 68 Montana Law Review 7, 30 (Spring, 2007) (internal citations removed).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Further, it appears that Dr. Weiland's concern that &amp;quot;[a]cceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions&amp;quot; is unfounded.  Certainly some who are honestly convinced of true intelligent design might entertain &amp;quot;sci-fi notions,&amp;quot; but the evidence supports the opposite—i.e., those convinced of design are more likely to entertain thoughts of a supernatural God.  Like Aristotle of ancient Greece, those who reasonably and honestly are convinced of true design in nature are more likely to follow the pattern Dr. Pordum highlighted from Romans 1:18-20.  That is, the creation speaks to a supernatural, infinite, eternal creator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Take the example of former atheist Anthony Flew, as discussed by intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson, in an article entitled '''''Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects'''''.  First Johnson reiterates:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;discovery.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/3914&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, Johnson notes with respect to the practical effects of such an open philosophy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
One early sign of the way the world is headed came in December 2004, when there was much comment in newspapers and internet discussion groups about famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew had just announced that he had converted to philosophical theism (though not to Christianity or any other specific religion, at least as yet), on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which had convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe. Flew seems to have investigated the phenomenon of design in the natural world for reasons similar to my own. He wanted to decide for himself whether evidence and logic point in the direction of a creating intelligence, or whether God is nothing more than a subjective idea created by human imagination. Perhaps these questions about the reality of god are religious in nature, but they are important questions that deserve to be investigated dispassionately instead of being barred from consideration because powerful groups define “science” as committed a priori to naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although as yet Flew does not adhere to Christianity or any other creedal faith, he has taken a giant step in that direction. In an article in the London Independent for December 27, 2004, an Oxford University theologian wrote: “What kind of God could it [i.e. Flew’s designer] refer to? One who created the universe–elementary particles, strong and weak forces, atoms and molecules, yet, for example, has no relation to the emergence of a clever humanity? Or could it be a God who was intelligent enough to create galaxies, and amazingly intricate systems like DNA, yet not intelligent enough to communicate with humankind? Although Flew does not believe in revelation, and may not feel that the Book of Genesis provides a useful account of creation, he does not seem to have quite this kind of minimalist God in mind either. In fact when pressed as to whether his ‘First Cause’ embraced omniscience, Flew admits that a First Cause, if there is one, has clearly produced everything that is going on, and this implies creation ‘in the beginning.’”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;discovery.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists leave the identity of the designer open as a matter of scientific discipline. Even though everyone, including creationists must rely on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) to know specifics about the designer, everyone can know the fact of design based on general revelation (i.e., nature).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Methodological Naturalist Objections to Intelligent Design===&lt;br /&gt;
Many scientists object to intelligent design on the basis that intelligent design &amp;quot;is not science.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The validity of this objection depends on what is meant by the terms &amp;quot;intelligent design&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;science&amp;quot;.  If &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; is defined objectively (as in Websters dictionary: 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;) and &amp;quot;intelligent design&amp;quot; is defined as in this article, then intelligent design is clearly, without question &amp;quot;science&amp;quot;, and the objection of methodological naturalists is overcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;methodological naturalism&amp;quot; describes a form of science in which science is assumed to be necessarily practiced as if naturalism were itself true (see also [[scientific materialism]]).  Of course, &amp;quot;naturalism&amp;quot;, which is a philosophy that holds there is no immaterial substance in the universe, i.e., all is matter alone, is an assumption-based philosophy.  &amp;quot;Naturalism&amp;quot;, like &amp;quot;materialism&amp;quot; as a philosophy holds that there is no supernatural in the universe, no spirit, no soul, and, of course, no God.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Methodological naturalists are scientists that, while perhaps not themselves being full-fledged naturalists (although growing numbers are), insist that science be practiced as if naturalism were true.  If this method of practicing science is adhered to, then intelligent design cannot be science, because intelligent design posits the possibility of a ''supernatural'' designer.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One way to illustrate the objection is this:  Consider two definitions of science:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1.  Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2.  Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot;, which assumes there ''are'' natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as ''the'' definition for science.  However, the &amp;quot;natural causes alone&amp;quot; criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there ''is'' a natural cause for all natural phenomena.  If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth.  The insistence on only &amp;quot;natural causes&amp;quot; imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on '''''knowledge''''', but an '''''assumption'''''.  Therefore, methodological naturalists &amp;quot;define out&amp;quot; of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Response to Naturalist Objection====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simple response to methodological naturalism, which is the only principled basis for excluding intelligent design from science, is that methodological naturalism improperly and unnecessarily restricts the realm of science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By any objective definition of science, including dictionary definitions, intelligent design is science.  But the controversy begs a larger question.  Historically, the practice of science can be considered in two broad categories.  &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Francis_Bacon.jpg|thumbnail|150px|[[Francis Bacon]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
First there is the inductive method espoused by [[Francis Bacon]].  Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let &amp;quot;evidence lead the inquiry&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See, Cornelius G. Hunter, ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, (Brazos Press, 2007), p. 15.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process.  Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, there is the deductive method espoused by René Descartes.  Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See, Hunter, p. 17.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism,'' Descartes proposed a method of science in which &amp;quot;What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations.  Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; depends on what approach one takes to science.  If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science.  Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry.  Methodological naturalists place the &amp;quot;natural causes only&amp;quot; constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design theorists maintain that the &amp;quot;natural causes only&amp;quot; constraint might be correct for operational science, but for historical sciences in which one is attempting to reconstruct a historical narrative based on present-day evidence, such a constraint does not make sense. For one thing, intelligent design theorists maintain that there is a difference between inductive and/or deductive sciences (each of which can be used in experimental sciences), and the &amp;quot;historical sciences&amp;quot;. Intelligent design is scientific in both inductive and historical sciences (and deductive, without limiting biases), but can have its greatest value as a historical science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The broad categories of &amp;quot;experimental sciences&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;historical sciences&amp;quot; ask different kinds of questions and use different kinds of methods. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates. The historical sciences, on the other hand, ask different kinds of questions. Rather than trying to understand how the natural world operates, the historical sciences seek to understand how things came to be. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer develops this line of thought fully in an article entitled ''Science and the Laws of Nature''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The distinction between experimental and historical sciences is not an ID-inspired idea. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend the historical nature of evolution. In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'', the NAS responds to the question, &amp;quot;How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?&amp;quot;: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not &amp;quot;off limits&amp;quot; for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' (Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With respect to hypothesis testing, see, Carol Cleland, '''''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method''''', (''Geology'', November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11, 987-990). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact is that historical sciences operate by different methods, including different methods of testing, than do experimental sciences. Historical sciences attempt to construct a historical narrative to explain current observed phenomena. The only way to &amp;quot;test&amp;quot; historical narratives is by comparing with competing historical narratives to see which one more closely aligns with the observed phenomena. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent design, therefore, is not only science, but as a competing historical narrative, it is a valuable scientific challenge to the naturalistic historical narrative of Darwinism. Without it, Darwinism ceases being science, and becomes an unchallengeable dogma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History of Intelligent Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Aristotle.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Aristotle]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In many respects the history of intelligent design corresponds to the history of science in general; since the days of [[Aristotle]] most scientists have assumed design based on the clear evidence at hand.  Moreover, the history of the modern intelligent design movement must be seen in the context of the ages-old tension between materialistic science and non-materialistic science.  For a timeline directed specifically to the history of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy, see the '''IDEA Center's''' ''&amp;quot;Primer: History of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy&amp;quot;.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Plato and Aristotle both argued that nature is ''teleological'', a term that comes from the Greek ''telos'' meaning &amp;quot;directed by goal or purpose&amp;quot;.  In other words, the evidence of nature leads logically to the idea that behind the purely natural is some kind of rational, non-natural order, something Plato referred to as &amp;quot;Form&amp;quot; and which Aristotle referred to as &amp;quot;Idea&amp;quot;.  Both were led to their conclusions by the commonsense notion that if the world really did consist of chance configurations of atoms, then knowledge would be impossible. (See Nancy Pearcey, ''Total Truth'', Appendix 3, p.&amp;amp;nbsp;390.)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nancy R. Pearcey, ''Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity'' (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004)(https://www.amazon.com/Total-Truth-Liberating-Christianity-Captivity/dp/1581347464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1195005366&amp;amp;sr=1-1)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Pearcey.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Nancy Pearcey]]&lt;br /&gt;
Modern intelligent design theory is simply a response to the resurgence of dominant materialistic thought, primarily as expressed by institutions of science such as universities and various academies of science.  As '''Nancy Pearcey''' states: &amp;quot;By tracing the debate over Darwinism all the way back to [[Epicurus]] (a Greek materialist) we can place the theory in a much larger context.  Darwinism was not entirely new, invented out of whole cloth.&amp;quot;  Likewise, the modern intelligent design movement can be placed in a larger context as a challenge to modern materialistic thought as enforced in modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more indepth study of the history of intelligent design, see '''William Dembski's''' work entitled ''Intelligent Design''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In particular, Dembski's bibliography and comments are reproduced here:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bibliography&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beckwith, Francis J. Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. Lanham, Md., 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, 1996.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York, 1986.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dembski, William A. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md., 2002.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forrest, Barbara. “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream.” In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, edited by Robert T. Pennock, pp. 5–53, Cambridge, Mass., 2001. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Giberson, Karl W. and Donald A. Yerxa. Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, Md., 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hunter, Cornelius G. Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manson, Neil A., ed. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. London, 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. San Francisco, 1999. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rea, Michael C. World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism. Oxford, 2002. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Witham, Larry. By Design: Science and the Search for God. San Francisco, 2003. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Bibliographic Essay&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;[[Larry Witham]] provides the best overview of intelligent design, even-handedly treating its scientific, cultural, and religious dimensions. As a journalist, Witham has personally interviewed all the main players in the debate over intelligent design and allows them to tell their story. For intelligent design’s place in the science and religion dialogue, see Giberson and Yerxa.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;For histories of the intelligent design movement, see Woodward (a supporter) and Forrest (a critic).&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;See Behe and Dembski to overview intelligent design’s scientific research program. For a critique of that program, see Miller. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;For an impassioned defense of Darwinism against any form of teleology or design, see Dawkins. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Manson’s anthology situates intelligent design within broader discussions about teleology. Rea probes intelligent design’s metaphysical underpinnings. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Hunter provides an interesting analysis of how intelligent design and Darwinism play off the problem of evil. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Beckwith examines whether intelligent design is inherently religious and thus, on account of church-state separation, must be barred from public school science curricula.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Global intelligence design movement ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Global intelligent design movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Evolution News and Views'' reported concerning the intelligent design movement:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Along with the absurd stereotype that support for ID is limited to right-wing fundamentalist Christians … there’s also the Darwinist agitprop point that advocates of the theory are rare outside the United States. Hardly! An unacknowledged strength of the ID movement is its international character.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Asia is an up-and-coming ID hot spot, as ENV has reported. See here for Signature in the Cell and Explore Evolution [links omitted for Discoveroid books] in their recent and handsome Korean editions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Europe and Asia aside, how about Brazil? From South America’s most populous nation, accounting for half the continent’s total population, comes news of the First Brazilian Intelligent Design Congress, scheduled for November 14–16 this year at [details of the event].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/intelligent_des_20090211.html Intelligent Design's Secret Weapon: The World] by David Klinghoffer October 3, 2014 11:53 AM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Resources==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Quick Start ===&lt;br /&gt;
For a quick, concise overview of what intelligent design is all about, link to the following relatively short articles:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution'''''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://idnetohio.cinti.net/media/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Written by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert (of '''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''),&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; this article is a one-stop mini-compendium on what intelligent design is, what it claims, and why it's important.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''The Evolution Controversy: Understanding the Basic Issues in the Debate Between Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design'''''. By Jody F. Sjogren, Robert P. Lattimer, and Douglas D. Rudy, and presented by Science Excellence for all Ohioans (SEAO).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.sciohio.org/start.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Read and understand this and you will, as the title says, understand the basic issues.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''''Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.'''''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science - MainPage&amp;amp;id=2177&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By Stephen C. Meyer of the Center for Science &amp;amp; Culture,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;http://www.discovery.org/csc&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/csc/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; this article first appeared in the peer reviewed Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington, August 20, 2005. Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Web Based Resources===&lt;br /&gt;
====The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture====&lt;br /&gt;
'''The Center for Science and Culture'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;http://www.discovery.org/csc&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is a '''[[Discovery Institute]]''' program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to scientific research and scholarship, the Center's '''Evolution News and Views''' blog&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; presents analysis of that relevant news coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A related website, '''intelligentdesign.org'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesign.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; provides up-to-date information and learning resources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Access Research Network====&lt;br /&gt;
The '''[[Access Research Network]] (ARN)'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arn.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology and society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''ARN's''' articles and publications cover a host of issues which focus on such topics as intelligent design theory, genetic engineering, euthanasia, computer technology, environmental issues, creation/evolution, fetal tissue research and medical issues. ARN provides information needed to orient one's self in today's scientific and technological world in order to make informed decisions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Intelligent Design Network====&lt;br /&gt;
'''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science.  Objectivity results from the use of the [[scientific method]] without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Intelligent Design Network produced a Statement of Objectives &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligentdesignnetwork.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; regarding origins science. The Statement acknowledges that explanations of the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity are scientifically controversial. Further, due to its controversial nature, Origins Science  requires a scientific enterprise guided by '''scientific objectivity'' rather than a preconceived view of origins, whether Materialistic (e.g., Darwinism) or Teleological (e.g., creationism). For this reason, according to the Statement, government and public education institutions supporting Origins Science should strive for objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ideacenter.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested. The Center's primary focus is to help students form &amp;quot;IDEA Clubs&amp;quot; on university and high school campuses.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====ID the Future====&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligent Design's &amp;quot;Super Blog&amp;quot;, '''ID the Future'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.idthefuture.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; offers podcasts as part of its mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design (ID). IDTF provides listeners with the most current news and views on evolution and ID through brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from '''Discovery Institute''' senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Uncommon Descent====&lt;br /&gt;
The intelligent design weblog of [[William Dembski]], Denyse O'Leary, and friends, '''Uncommon Descent'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; holds that...&lt;br /&gt;
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution—an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Real Science Radio====&lt;br /&gt;
Denver-based Real Science Radio has interviewed a dozen scientists and scholars associated with Seattle's Discovery Institute including [[Michael Behe]], Paul Nelson, [[Stephen Meyer]], [[Richard Sternberg]], Ann Gauger, and Doug Axe, all listed on RSR's single Intelligent Design page.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://rsr.org/id/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Post-Darwinist====&lt;br /&gt;
Toronto-based '''Denyse O'Leary's''' blog,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; covering the intelligent design movement from a journalist/author's perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Books, Tapes, DVD's===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Discovery Institute====&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture''' &amp;quot;Essential Readings&amp;quot; list&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; includes links to books and articles by leading intelligent design proponents. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Access Research Network====&lt;br /&gt;
Books available from '''Access Research Network's'''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arn.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; book catalog&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;astore.amazon.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://astore.amazon.com/a0ed97-20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and videos/tapes (including DVD's)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;astore.amazon.com&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.arn.org/origins-101.html ARN Videos]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; include the latest information on the subject of intelligent design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Intelligent design movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and reason]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Living fossil]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ IntelligentDesign.org]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Intelligent Design| ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Science]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Philosophy]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Political Theory]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lazarus12</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2156593</id>
		<title>Evolution</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution&amp;diff=2156593"/>
		<updated>2025-09-05T15:07:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lazarus12: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://electricscotland.com/history/glasgow/anec305.htm The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Darwin  - As told in Glasgow]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]] &lt;br /&gt;
The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). In biology, evolution is understood as a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time from adaptations of organisms to their environments. The study of evolution can be performed on different scales: ''microevolution'' reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time (e.g. mutations, interbreeding), ''macroevolution'' reflects large-scale changes at the species level which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. [[Natural selection]] is one commonly cited mechanism for driving evolution, but there are others such a genetic drift.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/ Evolution - Nature (Journal)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]].  See also: [[Theistic evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wallace  that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is often linked to Charles Darwin and [[natural selection]]. However, naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]]. Wallace eventually came to believe that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: &amp;quot;The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species&amp;quot; (1855) and of course &amp;quot;On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type&amp;quot; (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see &amp;quot;Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man&amp;quot; (1869)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's views challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and allow for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Before 1864, Wallace also believed that man was a result of natural selection, but by 1869, Wallace had changed his view since he felt that natural selection was insufficient to craft man's features like rationality, and postulated that higher intelligences may have been involved in man's evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Malcolm Jay Kottler. [https://www.newdualism.org/papers/M.Kottler/Kottler-Isis1974.pdf Alfred Russel Wallace, the Origin of Man, and Spiritualism]. Isis, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 144-192 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society&lt;br /&gt;
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229369.&amp;quot;In 1864 Wallace was firmly committed to the action of natural selection alone in the development of man. In 1869 he first expressed publicly his new point of view that natural selection was unable to explain the origin of man and that higher intelligences guiding man's development were required.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Microevolution and natural selection are accepted to occur by all creationists,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;test&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but macroevolution and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory or in the wild.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Russell Grigg and Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4280 Intelligent Design—‘A War on Science’ says the BBC&lt;br /&gt;
*Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Current ongoing long term evolutionary experiments such as the experiment on E.coli bacteria which &amp;quot;exceed 63,000 generations, equivalent to over 1 million years of human evolution&amp;quot; have not shown speciation or novel functions in the organism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Van Hofwegen DJ, Hovde CJ, Minnich SA.2016.Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. J Bacteriol198:.https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00831-15&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fossil record is often used as evidence in the [[creation]] versus evolution controversy. The [[fossil]] record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were cataloged and identified in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: &amp;quot;In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, [http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0104D.pdf Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.icr.org/article/280/ More on Anti-Darwinian Scientists Excerpted from the New Book by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 28, 2022, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?'' which indicated: &amp;quot;A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of [[natural selection]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?''] by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian,  June 28, 2022&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Teaching evolution &amp;amp; views of experts==   &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:View from Levering Plaza.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|''Johns Hopkins University Press'' reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Picture above was taken at Johns Hopkins University&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2024, the assistant to [[Russia]]n Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, former [[Chechen]] Prime Minister Muslim Khuchiev called for a ban on the teaching of Darwinian theory in schools at a meeting of the All-Russian Parents' Committee. &amp;quot;Everyone knows that this is an erroneous theory, it goes against [[religion]]. This is the first step, I believe, in the [[spiritual]] degradation of children.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://meduza.io/news/2024/09/20/pomoschnik-mishustina-predlozhil-ubrat-teoriyu-darvina-iz-shkolnoy-programmy-ideyu-podderzhal-pravoslavnyy-oligarh-konstantin-malofeev Mishustin's assistant suggested removing Darwin's theory from the school curriculum. The idea was supported by the &amp;quot;Orthodox oligarch&amp;quot; Konstantin Malofeev], Meduza, 20 September 2024. meduza.io&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/9851&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that &amp;quot;Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In 2010, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that [[creationism]] or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} [[Johns Hopkins University]] Press reported in 2014: &amp;quot;Over the past forty years, [[creationism]] has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism spreading in Europe]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[China]] has the world's largest [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] and the rapid growth of biblical [[creationism]]/[[Evangelical Christianity|Evangelical Christianity]] in China may have a significant impact on the number of individuals in the world who believe in evolution and also on [[global atheism]] (see: [[China and biblical creationism]] and [[Asian atheism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of natural selection==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of natural selection was published by naturalist [[Darwin, Charles|Charles Darwin]] in his book ''[[The Origin of Species|On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life]]'' (1859) and also by Alfred Russel Wallace in his paper ''On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'' (1858). Wallace's works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wallacenat&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker decided on a joint publication at the Linnean Society of London in 1858 of Wallace's paper together with an extract from Darwin's 1844 essay and his letter to Asa Gray and summarized:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 3, Issue 9, August 1858, Pages 45–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2311239#page/127/mode/1up 1858 Online link to Summary by Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, and both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society. Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. Extract from an unpublished Work on Species, by C. DARWIN, Esq., consisting of a portion of a Chapter entitled, &amp;quot;On the Variation of Organic Beings in a state of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species.&amp;quot;..&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
II. Abstract of a Letter from C. DARWIN, Esq., to Prof. ASA GRAY, Boston, US, dated Down, September 5th, 1857...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
III. On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type. By ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE.''}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a letter to [[Asa Gray]], Darwin confided: &amp;quot;...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true [[science]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2109&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Prior to publishing the book, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin was a [[weak atheism|weak atheist]]/[[agnosticism|agnostic]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin) ].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877 Darwin's real message: have you missed it?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-darwinism-atheistic- Is Darwinism Atheistic? An Examination of the Beliefs and Practices of Charles Darwin]&lt;br /&gt;
* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276&lt;br /&gt;
* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/was-blyth-the-true-scientist-and-darwin-merely-a-plagiarist-and-charlatan/ Was Blyth the true scientist and Darwin merely a plagiarist and charlatan?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar0.html Charles Darwin - The Truth]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of ''[[natural selection]]'' or &amp;quot;survival of the fittest&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major difference between Darwin and Wallace is that Wallace argued that nature exhibited design and purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00wallialaThe World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wallace's view of evolution allows for an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;intelligent evolution&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life, some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Russell Grigg, [http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Darwin did not first propose in his book ''Origin of Species'' that man had descended from non-human ancestors. Darwin's theory of evolution was incorporated later in Darwin's book entitled ''[[Descent of Man]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept of evolution==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the history of the theory of evolution, although Darwin is well known when it comes to the early advocacy of the evolutionary position in the [[Western world]], evolutionary ideas were taught by the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] as early as the 7th century B.C.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/naturalism.asp Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea] First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of [[Theistic Evolution|theistic evolution]] in that it states [[God]] does not guide the posited process of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. Werner Gitt, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1749/ 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution] First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Belief in evolution and intuition ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In January of 2012, the  ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: &amp;quot;They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to [[evolutionary indoctrination]] and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization [[Creation Ministries International]] created a [[Question evolution! campaign]] which poses [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use Arguments evolutionists should not use] by Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
*[https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/ 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid] by Answers in Genesis&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See also: [[Causes of evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Theory of Evolution - Mutations and the Life Sciences in General ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote concerning the theory of evolution: &amp;quot;The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;NorthWest Creation Network, [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Concerning various [[theories of evolution]], most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of Life|life first came about on earth]] although [[Theory of evolution and little consensus|there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated: &amp;quot;Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.&amp;quot; Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms which produce the most mutants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have &amp;quot;stabilized&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Grassé  regards the &amp;quot;unceasing mutations&amp;quot; to be &amp;quot;merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Safarti3.jpg|alt=evolutionary theory opponent|thumb|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] believe that mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift would not cause macroevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Mutations: Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp Darwinism and the Deterioration of the Genome]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3831 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 2, Variation and Natural Selection Versus Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp Natural Selection Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, creation scientists assert that the life sciences as a whole support the creation model and do not support the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html Life Sciences]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,[http://creation.com/Whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-Lawrence-S-Lerner Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?]&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3835 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 6, Humans: Images of God or Advanced Apes?]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creation scientists provide sound reasons why [[homology|the homology argument is not a valid argument]]. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionist believe is the case.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the evolutionary position have diluted the meaning of the term &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; to the point where it is defined as or the definition includes change over time in the [[Genetics|gene]] pool of a population over time through such processes as [[mutation]], natural selection, and [[genetic drift]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/anderson/an_appb.htm Glossary Definitions of &amp;quot;Evolution&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl4.html#lgclprblmsflcsqvctn Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_meaningsofevolution.pdf The Meanings of Evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] declares concerning the diluted definition of the word &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot;:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and [[creation]] disproved. The PBS ''Evolution'' series and the ''[[Scientific American]]'' article are full of examples of this fallacy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Jonathan Sarfati]],Ph.D., F.M. [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3262/ ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The PBS [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ evolution website] bills itself as &amp;quot;The most comprehensive evolutionary science resource on the Internet&amp;quot; but it is very poorly done.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also: [[Atheism and equivocation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Biological diversity - evolution contrasted with biblical creation science ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|thumbnail|200px|right|When [[Richard Dawkins]] was a young man, he recognized [[Intelligent design|that the complexity of life indicates a designer]]. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In contrast, [[creationism|creationists]], starting from the [[Bible]], believe that [[God]] created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of [[information]]. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All ([[sexual reproduction|sexually reproducing]]) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two [[gene|genes]] at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be [[heterozygous]] at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms ([[allele|alleles]]) of this gene... So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the originally created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder [[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala]] pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden [[recessive allele|recessive alleles]] coming together. However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to [http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers information theory], as shown in [http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate chapter 9 on ‘Design’].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-9-is-the-design-explanation-legitimate&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Prominent evolutionists have indicated that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary model ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Don Batten of [[Creation Ministries International]] has pointed out that prominent evolutionists, such as [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, have indicated that a naturalistic postulation of the [[origin of life]] (often called [[abiogenesis]]), is part of the evolutionary model.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This poses a very serious problem for the evolutionary position as the evidence clearly points life being a [[Intelligent design|product of design]] and not through naturalistic processes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Genetic entropy ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:John C Sanford.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|[[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The [[genetic entropy]] theory by [[Cornell University]] Professor Dr. [[John C. Sanford|John Sanford]] on eroding [[genome]]s of all living organisms due to [[mutations]] inherited from one generation to the next is declared to be one of the major challenges to [[evolutionary theory]]. The central part of Sanford’s argument is that mutations, represented by spelling mistakes in [[DNA]], are accumulating so quickly in some creatures (and particularly in people) that [[natural selection]] cannot stop the ''functional degradation'' of the genome, let alone drive an evolutionary process that could lead for example, from apes into people.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web&lt;br /&gt;
|title=Genetic entropy and simple organisms: If genetic entropy is true, why do bacteria still exist?&lt;br /&gt;
|author=Robert Carter&lt;br /&gt;
|publisher=Creation Ministries International &lt;br /&gt;
|url=http://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms&lt;br /&gt;
|accessdate=2012-10-29}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sanford's book ''Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'' explains why human [[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/john-sanford John Sanford - bio] at [[Creation Ministries International]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Evolutionist on genetic entropy ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The evolutionist Michael Lynch wrote in the  ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'' in a December 3, 2009 article entitled: ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'' (taken from the abstract): &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961 ''Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolution - Implications of Genetic Code and Processing of Biological Information ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] published an article favoring [[intelligent design]] in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&amp;amp;id=1489&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Creation science]], [[Intelligent design]], and [[creationism]]''&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists and [[intelligent design]] advocates point out that the [[genetic code]] ([[Deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]] code), genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards the origins question and assert it is one of the many problems of the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html Codes, Programs, and Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp Information Theory Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[William Dembski]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=118 Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] states the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[code|codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Dr. Brown also asserts that the &amp;quot;information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;waltbrown-scientificcreation&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To support his view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|No matter how many &amp;quot;bits&amp;quot; of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it &amp;quot;information&amp;quot; if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In [[computer science]], we call it a &amp;quot;program.&amp;quot; Another name for [[computer software]] is an &amp;quot;[[algorithm]].&amp;quot; No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology &amp;amp; Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742 Notes and References: Codes, Programs, and Information]&lt;br /&gt;
* PubMed Central (PMC), [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information by David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the peer reviewed biology journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms and proposed an intelligent cause as the best explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]], [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2177 ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', 117(2):213-239. 2004, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Dr. [[Richard Sternberg]], [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair|came under intense scrutiny and persecution for the aforementioned article]] published by Dr. Meyer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Theory of evolution and little scientific consensus  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is little scientific consensus on how macroevolution is said to have happened and the claimed mechanisms of evolutionary change, as can be seen in the following quotes:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: &amp;quot;It happened.&amp;quot; Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], &amp;quot;Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&lt;br /&gt;
* Simon Conway Morris, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;amp;_udi=B6WSN-4195FC1-1&amp;amp;_user=681891&amp;amp;_coverDate=01%2F07%2F2000&amp;amp;_rdoc=1&amp;amp;_fmt=&amp;amp;_orig=search&amp;amp;_sort=d&amp;amp;view=c&amp;amp;_acct=C000037419&amp;amp;_version=1&amp;amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;amp;_userid=681891&amp;amp;md5=1806889a6d57f9282db2e4c04d32e8f7 Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,&amp;quot; Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with [[molecule]]s or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/ Uncommon Descent - The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends, There Is No Theory of Evolution, February 20, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species.&amp;quot; - [[Niles Eldredge]], &amp;quot;Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|Theory of Punctuated Equilibria]],&amp;quot; Simon &amp;amp; Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.14&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/mechns01.html Stephen E. Jones, Creation/Evolution Quotes: Mechanisms #1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Through use and abuse of hidden [[postulate]]s, of bold, often ill-founded [[extrapolation]]s, a [[pseudoscience]] has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of [[biology]] and is leading astray many [[biochemistry|biochemists]] and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.... &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that [[theory|theoreticians]] put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their [[sectarianism]], purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
One of the regrettable consequences of Charles Darwin’s ''On the Origin of Species'' was the advent of the [[pseudoscience]] known as [[geopolitics]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/geopolitics-ill-suited-for-challenges-of-today-endangers-global-economy-by-robert-skidelsky-2023-06 The Costly Return of Geopolitics], Robert Skidelsky, Jun 19, 2023. www.project-syndicate.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Conservative%27s_essays&amp;amp;oldid=2072209#International_politics_and_geopolitics User:Conservative's essays#International politics and geopolitics], August 16, 2024.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See:'' [[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolutionary Theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎ ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|170px|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also: [[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]'' and [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Theories of evolution]] and [[Evolution and just so stories]]&lt;br /&gt;
A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote the theory of evolution was the work of German scientist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Haeckel]]. Noted evolutionist and [[Stephen Gould]], who held a [[agnostic|agnostic]] worldview&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/20/a-review-of-the-dawkins-delusion-by-alister-mcgrath/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and promoted the notion of [[Non-Overlapping Magisteria|non-overlapping magesteria]], wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again. ... Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationism.org/wakefield/haeckel.htm &amp;quot;Another Evolution Fraud Exposed&amp;quot;] - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An irony of history is that the March 9, 1907 edition of the [[NY Times]]  refers to Ernst Haeckel as the &amp;quot;celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical [[Atheism]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: &amp;quot;I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;haeckel&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alluded to earlier, today there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged [[fossils]] in the world's museums.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.halos.com/printer.htm?page=/book/ctm-07-e.htm Creation's Tiny Mystery: Chapter 7: Creation Science—a Public Issue]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; If the evolutionary position was valid, then there should be &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these &amp;quot;transitional forms&amp;quot; is &amp;quot;missing links&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin.jpg|alt=charles darwin's theory of evolution|right|thumb|205px|[[Charles Darwin]] wrote: &amp;quot;When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ]] &lt;br /&gt;
Charles Darwin admitted that his theory required the existence of &amp;quot;transitional forms.&amp;quot; Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm THE DARWIN PAPERS, VOLUME 1, NUMBER V, FOSSILS: HISTORY WRITTEN IN STONE]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, Darwin wrote: &amp;quot;Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? [[Geology]] assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Darwin thought the lack of transitional links in his time was because &amp;quot;only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Charles Darwin]], ''Origin of the Species'', [http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/10.html Chapter X: ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As Charles Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, &amp;quot;“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html References and Notes: Distinct Types]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the [[Invertebrate|invertebrate]] fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html NATURAL DISCONTINUITIES AND THE FOSSIL RECORD]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3001 Fossils Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Distinguished anthropologist Sir Edmund R. Leach declared, &amp;quot;Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sir Edmund Leech, [http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=241 Addresing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science, 'Men, bishop and apes'. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19 and 20]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and [[Geophysics]] at the University of Oklahoma wrote that &amp;quot;Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and [[paleontology]] does not provide them…&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #13]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.&amp;quot; - David M. Raup, &amp;quot;Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,&amp;quot; ''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late [[Harvard]] paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center For Scientific Creationism, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html References and Notes: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and the fossil record]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Paleoanthropology]] or [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Fossil Record quotes ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creationism|Creationists]] can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Christian Answers Network, [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html The Fossil Record - References]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. [[Walt Brown]], [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes23.html Notes and References: Fossil Gaps]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.&amp;quot; - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html Early Man]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jzuckerman.htm Solly Zuckerman: Biography]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether&amp;quot;. Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6843/full/412131a0.html Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more fossil record quotes please see: [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Fossil record quotes] and [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Additional fossil record quotes]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Paleoanthropology ==&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see'': [[Paleoanthropology]] and [[Human evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Nebraska Man.jpg|thumb|alt=human evolution|150px|right|[[Nebraska man]] was made famous by Henry Osborn of the American Museum of Natural History. Nebraska man turned out to be nothing more than a single pig-like tooth.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Paleoanthropology]] is an interdisciplinary branch of [[anthropology]] that concerns itself with the origins of early humans and it examines and evaluates items such as fossils and [[artifact]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058075/paleoanthropology Encyclopedia Britannica (online): Paleoanthropology]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. David Pilbeam is a paleoanthropologist who received his Ph.D. at [[Yale]] University and Dr. Pilbeam is presently Professor of Social Sciences at [[Harvard]] University and Curator of Paleontology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In addition, Dr. Pilbeam served as an advisor for the Kenya government regarding the creation of an international institute for the study of human origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Answers in Genesis]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp Those Fossils Are A Problem]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote a review of Richard Leakey's book ''Origins'' in the journal ''American Scientist'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sean Pitman, M.D., [http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/quotes.html Thoughts on Evolution From Scientists and Other Intellectuals]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Pilbeam wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, &amp;quot;theory&amp;quot; - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates &amp;quot;data&amp;quot;. ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thoughtsonEvo&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionist and Harvard professor [[Richard Lewontin]] wrote in 1995 that &amp;quot;Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor....&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Eric Lyons, M.Min., [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&amp;amp;article=153 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the September 2005 issue of [[National Geographic]], Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology &amp;quot;has again become a rather glorious mess.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brad Harrub, Ph.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=126&amp;amp;article=1555 ''The “Glorious Mess” of Human Origins'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[National Geographic]] (online edition), Joel Achenbach, [http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_who.html PALEOANTHROPOLOGY, Out of Africa, Are we looking for bones in all the right places?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, &amp;quot;We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bonesrightplaces&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Concerning pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal ''Science'' the following regarding their highly speculative nature:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Frank Sherwin, M.A., [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=823 &amp;quot;Human Evolution&amp;quot; An Update]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bert Thompson, P.H.D. and Brad Harrub, P.H.D., [http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/dc-02-safull.pdf 15 Answers to John Rennie and ''Scientific American's'' Nonsense]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists concur with Dr. Pilbeam regarding the speculative nature of the field of paleoanthropology and assert there is no compelling evidence in the field of paleoanthropology for the various theories of human evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Creation Ministries International]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers - Answers in Genesis]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/127 ''Human Evolution and the “Record of the Rocks”'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Microevolution vs. macroevolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Microevolutionmacroevolution.PNG|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|300px|Microevolution involves changes to species within similar types of species. In contrast, macroevolution is accumulation of microevolutionary changes over long periods of time and may involve emergence of new species.]] &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Grady S. McMurtry.jpg|right|thumb|175px|Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
In 2011, Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]] declared: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It is a commonly held belief of evolutionists that small changes in genetic materials (mutations) will ultimately produce the presumed large changes necessary for one biological organism to change into a different kind of biological organism which is commonly called [[macroevolution]]. This belief is not valid. Scientifically, a mutation is a copying error of previously existing information contained in the DNA: a mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from its parents.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is acknowledged that the Laws of Genetics are conservative, they are not “creative.” Genetics only copies or rearranges the previously existing information and passes it on to the next generation. When copying information, you have only two choices; you can only copy it perfectly or imperfectly, you cannot copy something “more perfectly.” Mutations do not build one upon another beneficially. Mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing organs and structures. Mutations overwhelmingly lose information; they do not gain it; therefore, mutations cause changes which are contrary of evolutionary philosophy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a follow on, the addition of excess undirected energy will destroy the previously existing system. Indeed, you will never get an increase in the specifications on the DNA to create new organs without the input from a greater intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. The addition of the accidental duplication of previously existing information is detrimental to any organism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mutations do produce “[[microevolution]],” however, this term is far better understood as merely “lateral adaptation,” which is only variation within a kind, a mathematical shifting of gene frequency within a gene pool. The shifting of gene frequencies and a loss of information cannot produce macroevolution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. [[Roger Lewin]] commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=116&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1988, the prominent [[Harvard University]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote in his essay ''Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution''?:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Among all the claims made during the [[Modern evolutionary synthesis|evolutionary synthesis]], perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|right|[[Jonathan Sarfati]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics|Creation Ministries International on the second law of thermodynamics and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Creation Ministries International]] has a great wealth of information on why the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with the evolutionary [[paradigm]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of their key resources on this matter are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics] by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers Thermodynamics Questions and Answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-evolution Thermodynamics and evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers Some thermodynamics criticisms — and answers]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Punctuated Equilibrium ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Theories of evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:StephenGould.jpg|left|thumbnail|170px|[[Stephen Jay Gould]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
Because the fossil record is characterized by the abrupt appearance of species and stasis in the fossil record the theory of [[punctuated equilibrium]] was developed and its chief proponents were [[Stephen Gould]], Niles Eldridge, and Steven Stanley.  According to the American Museum of Natural History the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium &amp;quot;asserts that evolution occurs in dramatic spurts interspersed with long periods of stasis&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.amnh.org/science/divisions/paleo/bio.php?scientist=eldredge&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Because Stephen Gould was the leading proponent of the theory of punctuated equilibrium much of the criticism of the theory has been directed towards Gould.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The development of a new evolutionary school of thought occurring due to the fossil record not supporting the evolutionary position was not unprecedented.  In 1930, Austin H. Clark,  an American evolutionary zoologist who wrote 630 articles and books in six languages, came up with an evolutionary hypothesis called [[zoogenesis]] which postulated that each of the major types of life forms evolved separately and independently from all the others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Prior to publishing his work entitled ''The New Evolution: Zoogenesis'', Clark wrote in a journal article published in the ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' that &amp;quot;so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/zoogenesis-a-theory-of-desperation#endRef4&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1995, there was an essay in the ''New York Review of Books'' by the late John Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist who was considered the dean of British [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-Darwinists]], and Smith wrote the following regarding Gould's work in respect to the theory of evolution:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould’s] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/shermer_sjgould.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted journalist and author Robert Wright , wrote in 1996 that, “among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest—not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dynamics_of_Evolution.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring02/editor.shtml.htm  Yale Review of Book, Spring 2002 issue, Monograph: Punctuated Equilibrium]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &amp;quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]] &lt;br /&gt;
Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible &amp;quot;just so stories&amp;quot; to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-just-so-stories/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
A well-known example of a &amp;quot;just so story&amp;quot; is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled &amp;quot;Difficulties on Theory&amp;quot; in which he stated:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the prominent evolutionist and geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin admitted the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to [[materialism]]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.&amp;quot; - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Sarfati wrote regarding the theory of evolution the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The same logic applies to the [[dinosaur]]-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Opponents to the theory of evolution commonly point to the following in nature as being implausibly created through evolutionary processes:&lt;br /&gt;
*various [[Symbiosis|symbiotic relationships]] found in nature.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/5044&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/cooperat.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/146/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[flagellum|bacterial flagellum]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2331&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[homing]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/wings-on-the-wind  Wings on the wind&lt;br /&gt;
How do migrating birds know exactly when, and where, to go?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the origin of flight in the animal kingdom&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* human [[brain]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-brain-brainier-than-believed-before&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-human-bodygods-masterpiece&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/mind-by-design-peter-line-interview&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[migration]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-magnificent-migrating-monarch&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[whale]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/whale-explodes-fossil-theory&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Venus flytrap]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/4340&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Bombardier beetle]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*the [[Woodpecker|woodpecker]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, biochemist [[Michael Behe]] wrote the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.&amp;quot; - Michael J. Behe, [[Darwin’s Black Box]] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 186&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html#wp1033719&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statements of Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main article:'' [[Intelligent design]] and [[Argument from beauty]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Autumn.jpg|201px|right|thumbnail|[[Autumn]] foliage is one of the many of examples of beauty in [[God]]'s [[creation]].  See also: [[Argument from beauty]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Phillip E. Johnson]] cites [[Francis Crick]] in order to illustrate the fact that the biological world has the strong appearance of being designed:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner... Crick is also a fervent atheistic [[materialism|materialist]], who propounds the particle story. In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are.&amp;quot; - Evolution And Christian Faith by [[Phillip E. Johnson]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stephen C. Meyer offers the following statement regarding the design of the biological world:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;During the last forty years, [[molecular biology]] has revealed a complexity and intricacy of design that exceeds anything that was imaginable during the late-nineteenth century. We now know that organisms display any number of distinctive features of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer capability; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; regulatory and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex, mutually-interdependent networks of parts. Indeed, the complexity of the biomacromolecules discussed in this essay does not begin to exhaust the full complexity of living systems. As even the staunch materialist [[Richard Dawkins]] has allowed, &amp;quot;Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.&amp;quot; Yet the materialistic science we have inherited from the late-nineteenth century, with its exclusive conceptual reliance on matter and energy, could neither envision nor can it now account for the biology of the information age.&amp;quot; - The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism by [[Stephen C. Meyer]], Ph.D.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Darwin monkey cartoon.jpg|left|thumbnail|150px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states regarding a candid admission of Charles Darwin:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
=== A significant portion of atheists see their lives and the world being the product of design ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Research and historical data indicate that a significant portion of atheists/agnostics often see their lives and the world as being the product of purposeful design (see: [[Atheism and purpose]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/does-everything-happen-for-a-reason.html ''Does everything happen for a reason?''],'' New York Times'', October 17, 2014&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed] by  David Catchpoole, [[Creation Ministries International]], Published: 16 July 2009&lt;br /&gt;
*Atheist [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] made the candid confession: &amp;quot;As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise.&amp;quot; Source: ''Escape from God: The Use of Religion and Philosophy to Evade Responsibility'' By Dean Turner, page 109&lt;br /&gt;
*The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' declares: &amp;quot;In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death: In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilization of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature — I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away.'(Argyll 1885, 244)[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html Notes to Teleological Arguments for God's Existence]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Argument from beauty ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See: [[Argument from beauty]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Detractors of Evolution and the Scientific Journals ==&lt;br /&gt;
Advocates of the theory of evolution have often claimed that those who oppose the theory of evolution don't publish their opposition to the theory of evolution in the appropriate scientific literature (creationist scientists have peer-reviewed journals that favor the creationist position).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3873/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Recently, there has been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the theory of evolution.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&amp;amp;id=2640&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unqualified to be a scientific theory==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; stated that Darwinism is &amp;quot;not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: &amp;quot;Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch &amp;amp; Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted&lt;br /&gt;
by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that &amp;quot;there has never been a theory of evolution&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of the leaders of the atheist movement, such as the evolutionist and the [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], argue for [[atheism]] and evolution with religious fervor (See also: [[Atheism and evolution]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daniel Smartt has identified seven dimensions that make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smartt's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion &amp;quot;Atheism: A religion&amp;quot;], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/atheism Atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Please see: [http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion Atheism: A religion]and [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] and [[Atheism is a religion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Atheism is a religion and its legal implications as far as the teaching of evolution ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Atheism and evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Paul gosselin.JPG|thumbnail|right|200px|The Canadian [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Paul Gosselin]] points out that evolution is a [[secular]] origins [[myth]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm Myths of Origin and the Theory of Evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] ]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Atheism is a religion]] and [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] notions concerning origins are religious in nature and both have legal implications as far as evolution being taught in public schools.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism and deception]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution is a Religion and Not Science ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolution is a religion]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Michael Ruse]], the [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In the leading American science science journal ''Science'', Michael Ruse published an article in 2003 entitled ''Is Evolution a Secular Religion?''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full Is Evolution a Secular Religion?] by Dr. [[Michael Ruse]], ''Science'',  March 7, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationist opponents of evolution commonly point out that evolution is a religion and not science.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; *[http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution The religious nature of evolution] by Dr. [[Carl Wieland]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-religious Religious Nature of Evolution and its Attack on Christianity]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.icr.org/article/455/ Evolution is a religion - not science] by Dr. [[Henry Morris]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/evolution-as-religion Evolution as religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: [[Evolution is a religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution as a secular origins myth ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution is a secular origins myth of [[atheism|atheists]], [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and members of other [[liberal Christianity|theologically liberal]] religious sects (theologically [[liberal]] religious sects often dismiss out of hand various [[supernatural]] events in history due to their hostility towards [[God]] and the supernatural). See: [[Evolution as a secular origins myth]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[religion]] of [[evolutionism]] is contrary to  [[creationism]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists - Question 15 deals with the fact that evolution is a religion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lysenko.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]]]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[List of atheist and agnostic pseudosciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Stephen Wolfram]] in his book ''A New Kind of Science'' has stated that the Darwinian theory of evolution has, in recent years, &amp;quot;increasingly been applied outside of biology.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-14-text?firstview=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Lysenkoism===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary theory played a prominent role in regard to atheistic communism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Communists, in particular [[Stalinism]], favored a version of [[Lamarckism]] called [[Lysenkoism]] developed by the [[Atheism|atheist]] [[Trofim Denisovich Lysenko]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] and head of the Institute of Genetics of the [[Soviet Academy of Sciences]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bartelby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many [[genetics|geneticists]] were imprisoned and executed for their ''bourgeois science'', and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders [[Joseph Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong]] caused famines and the death of millions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bookrags.com/research/lysenkoism-wog/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Medical Science===&lt;br /&gt;
The theory of evolution has had a negative effect on the field of [[medicine|medical science]]. According to Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]] the list of [[vestigial organs]] in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Furthermore, Dr. Bergman states the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
‘… tonsillectomy is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Astronomy===&lt;br /&gt;
Young earth creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states that evolutionary thought has been applied to the field of astronomy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati's claim is supported by the fact that astronomers do refer to the &amp;quot;evolution of the universe&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975MoIzN....Q....Z&lt;br /&gt;
* http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995deun.book.....S&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sarfati asserts the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on astronomy and that arguments to support the proposed evolutionary time scales of billions of years via the field of astronomy are invalid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.creation.com/content/view/3836&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Creationists can cite examples of scientists stating that evolutionary ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|““...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html Strange Planets] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&amp;quot;Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.” - Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 91.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html Star Births? Stellar Evolution?] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|galaxies]], stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html Galaxies] - Creationscience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote concerning the [[Milky Way]] galaxy:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;. . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, &amp;quot;The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way,&amp;quot; American Scientist (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/article/547/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that cite the failings of current old universe [[paradigm]] explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes43&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes60&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;creationsciencenotes61&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Origin of Life===&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionary thought has had an influence on [[origin of life]] research as well. For example, a 2004 article in the ''International Journal of [[Astrobiology]]'' is titled ''On the applicability of Darwinian principles to [[chemical evolution]] that led to life''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&amp;amp;aid=240771&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also clear that early origin of life researcher Aleksandr Oparin who proposed materialist ideas regarding the origin of life was influenced by evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://creation.com/the-origin-of-life-a-problem-for-evolution Origin of life - a problem for evolution]&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9057170/Oparin,%20Aleksandr&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, the current [[origin of life|naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of the evolutionary paradigm, but this is not the case  (see: [https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See:'' [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience|Richard Dawkins and evolutionary quackery]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Age of the Earth and the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See main articles: [[Young Earth Creationism]] and [[Geologic system]]'' and [[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]&lt;br /&gt;
As far as the evolutionary timeline posited by the evolutionary community, the various theories of evolution claim that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that macroevolutionary processes occurred over this time period.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Sarfati, 1999, [http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth Chapter 8, How old is the earth?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-7-astronomy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[William R. Corliss]] was a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Corliss cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] hold the [[earth]] and universe is approximately 6,000 years old.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sarfati3837&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Young earth creationist scientists state the following is true: there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and universe; the old earth and universe [[paradigm]] has numerous [[anomaly|anomalies]] and uses invalid dating methods, and there are multiple citations in the secular science literature that corroborate the implausibility of the old earth and universe paradigm (for details see: [[Young Earth Creationism]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See also:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the earth and the universe]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief|Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]] and [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]] and [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Lion6.jpg|thumb|210px|right|Until the 1970s the scientific consensus was wrong on how [[lion]]s killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[Bible]] was correct regarding how lions killed their prey.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
A 1997 [[Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll indicated that 55% of [[United States]] scientists believed that humans developed over a period of millions of years from less developed forms of life and that [[God]] had no part in the process, 40% believed in [[Theistic evolution|theistic evolution]], and 5% of scientists believed that God created man fairly much in his current form at one time within the last 10,000 years.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html Views in U.S. Much Different Than Elsewhere], Kenneth Chang, ''ABCNews.com'', 1999.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As noted earlier, in 2007, &amp;quot;[[Discovery Institute]]'s Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discovery.org/a/2732&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Poll results regarding the number of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view.  Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.expelledthemovie.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx Scientists and belief]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. declared: &amp;quot;...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious ''British Medical Journal'' begun in 1828 chose the name ''Lancet'' to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote: &amp;quot;There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&amp;amp;cmd=Retrieve&amp;amp;dopt=AbstractPlus&amp;amp;list_uids=1932964&amp;amp;query_hl=6&amp;amp;itool=pubmed_docsum]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/ Scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BBritannicaCobra38.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Many creationists such as the creationists at [[Creation Ministries International]] assert that the Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge  beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge at Creationwiki]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1718/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, [[Christianity]] had a profound influence in regards to the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information see: [[Scientific consensus and evolutionary belief]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information please see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Atheism and Evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and  [[Atheism, evolution and morality]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]''&lt;br /&gt;
‎&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been significant and negative social ramifications of the adoption of the theory of evolution. The theory has been foundational to [[Social Darwinism]], [[Nazism]] and [[Communism]] and has also been a source of racism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/454/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v09n1p04.htm&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3031/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.creation.com/content/view/3054/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&lt;br /&gt;
* http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&lt;br /&gt;
* http://www.icr.org/article/55/&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Belief in evolution and sexual immorality ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] and [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In July of 2000, [[Creation Ministries International]] reported:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what Bible-believers have known all along—that the rising acceptance of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]’s theory is related to declining morality in the community.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay. The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue that highlighted the contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of [[abortion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In identifying the primary factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research report, Dr Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church attendance is the theory of evolution.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, according to [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosophy|philosopher]] David Stove the theory of evolution was influential in regards to the [[sexual revolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18094&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For more information, please see: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atheism  and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Evolution and Nazism ===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Irreligion/religion and war]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The staunch evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] admitted the following: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, &amp;quot;Ontogeny and Phylogeny,&amp;quot; Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler]] wrote the following [[Evolutionary racism|evolutionary racist]] material in his work ''[[Mein Kampf]]'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/09/15/a-church-apology-to-darwin/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] also wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&amp;amp;action=view&amp;amp;ID=268&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Robert E.D. Clark also wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Dr. [[Josef Mengele]]'s evolutionary thinking was in accordance with [[Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]] theories that [[Adolph Hitler]] and a number of [[German]] academics found appealing.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/herero-genocide Herero Genecide]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the &amp;quot;unworthy life&amp;quot;  branch of evolutionary thought.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link The Darwin–Hitler connection]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with [[Nazi]] death camps and the [[Holocaust]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Mengele obtained an infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at [[Auschwitz]]-Birkenau.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/joseph_mengele.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
B. Wilder-Smith wrote the following regarding [[Nazism]] and the theory of evolution: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … [[Jew]]s, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s Magazine: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is indeed [[history|historical]] precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The brutal [[atheism|atheist]] [[Joseph Stalin]] was greatly influenced by the work of [[Charles Darwin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas significantly influenced the thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth-century [[Communism|Communists]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/content/view/1804/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impactthe-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, &amp;quot;Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history.&amp;quot; Darwin's ideas also influenced the thinking of [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Darwinism and communism ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Governments under the banner of [[atheism|atheistic]] [[communism]] have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.fas.ha