Damn, who are the Creationist going to pay off that quarter of a mil to when the 3 million completed base pairs are in on that Neanderthal bone? Thats the nail in the coffin right there baby. It will move it out of the "theory" range most likely.

Well, actually Alan Guth has a theory on that called "Inflationary Theory" and he puts forth a truly compelling case.

However, the question is moot as far as I'm concerned.

When you ask, "How can anything come from nothing" you have to ask that same question of God.

You can't just way, "Oh well, God always existed". That's just a cop out that ignores the original question.

I don't know what's going on Feral.

I have no clue whether there is a spiritual essence to our existence or not.

I tend to believe there is.

None the less, it's not going to send me running to the biblical picture of God. I'm thoroughly convinced that the biblical picture of God is entirely the fabrication of ancient men. Men who thought the there were only two aspect to reality - Heaven and Earth.

We have come far from that mundane point of view. The universe is vast.

We could not possibly be responsible for bringing 'sin' into the world. That guilt trip is a total lie.

If there is any truth to spirituality it must be found in pantheism. The Biblical picture is simply too ignorant. The creator of this universe could not be like those stories proclaim. That God is far too human-like including all the frailties of anger, jealousy, and even lust to be worshiped and rule over his own creation.

That God wouldn't be any different from men! He has all the same traits!

look, dont start bull**** with me. i havent heard any input from you except witty one liners. no facts.

Now now boys. He just makes jokes. Hes mirror mirror. This is an interesting thread. Dont turn it into a lot of bickering and nonsense.

well I say take your time...check it out...then come back and give it to us....

Dont raise your eyebrows at me Mr....

humans have SOME of the traits of the divine...intelligence, reasoning, abstract thinking...compassion and love.

But we are lacking in many...mainly RIGHTEOUSNESS. RIGHTEOUSNESS cannot be attained by any human, save Jesus, who was all God in Human form

Another thing to keep in mind with this theory feral is it is not attempting to say that the diversion from chimp was the end all and the big climax of the show. This was happening thousands upon thousands of times, over and over with ALL forms of life and all assorted species. This constant breaking off and many animals diverged and died and went extinct just as it occurred with man. Yes we became the "head honchos" in the evolutionary sense and there were certain ways in which we adapted that caused this to happen. However the apes merely went in another direction. They evolved to a body structure that was better suited for their way of life. This is why they are substantially more muscular than we are as humans so they can climb and take refuge in the jungle canopy when needed. Everything happens for a reason. If a particular genetic trait is successful and serves to assist that species to continue and proliferate, than the likelihood is increased dramatically that the genetic profile will be passed on.

That's interesting.

If righteousness CANNOT be attained by any human, then it's clear that it's not the human who is at fault since they are unable to attain this on their own.

Clearly the creator in this story has cheated its creation out of the necessary attributes to allow them to become righteous on their own.

What a dirty trick that was.

I'm glad I wasn't a character in that fable.

I'm glad I wasn't a character in that fable.





grrrrrr

I always find it curious when someone says they dont like religion, yet posts in the religion threads.

awww i cant stay mad at you mirror. you got an awesome monkey in your pic. i always went to the zoo to see those littele monkeys. ive always wanted one.

as for me posting in the religion threads. idk i like argueing about evolution.

Those little spider monkeys are crazy things. They have hands and they grab your hair. That one is strange though. Ive never seen one with orange fur quite like that. He looks like trouble.

1. Complex organisms arose spontaneously from a primordial soup of chemicals that randomly came together in the beginning of what we now define as “life.”


I cant wrap my head around these Christian websites at all. They seem lack basic cognitive abilities as Abra noted. Just because a concept is outside of their realm of understanding, does not mean that everyone else is hopelessly immobilized in incomprehension. Go to school! Crack a text! Look it up!

I love when creationist ask how something can come from nothing.

I beg you to show me nothing . . . . . . We have never found nothing.

An absence of everything familiar to us has never been found.

In Vacumm, the very closest thing we can get to nothing . . . there is quit alot of something muahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahaha ha ha aha. . .


Sorry that was fun. We find that there is sooooooooooooo much energy in the vacuum that occasionally particles just pop out (E=MC^2) if you don't know what that equations really means, Ill try to explain it.


Energy = Mass X Speed of light Squared

What this means is that with enough energy you get mass. You can also look at the equation from this form.

M = E/c^2

Or Mass = Energy Divided by the Speed of light Squared.

The vacuum has sooo much energy that particle creation is hapening all the time . . . (dark energy, or what we think is the higgs field, or inflation field tamed down a bit)

SOOOO something is coming from seemingly nothing all the time lolololololololololol.

BUT, there is no nothing, so something is really coming from somthing.

If that something is god, then god is causing the fabric of spacetime to stretch and in time there will be no stars in our night sky because of it.


They wont create a science forum, or a philosophy forum and this is where my friends hang out lol.

Do any qualified scientists support the creation theory?
In: Creation


Answer: Yes.
Quite a few scientists support creation theory. This places them out of step with the mainstream scientists who believe in autobiogenesis, or a spontaneous origin of life, coupled with evolution. As Richard Dawkins put it "It is a monumental disagreement. One side or the other has got to be wrong, and not just slightly wrong but catastrophically, ignominiously, disastrously wrong."

Not all of the scientists who support creation theory are willing to admit it for fear of critcism - or worse. Some qualified contemporary scientists who support it are listed below.

Note: Much of the following list is taken from Creation Ministries International.



Contemporary Scientists who accept the Biblical account of creation

Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don, Batten, B.Sc.Agr. (Hons 1), Ph.D.,--Plant Physiology, Expert in environmental adaptation of tropical fruit
Dr. Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Robert W. Carter, PhD Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis, III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S. Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V., M.D. Damadian, Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Dudley Eirich, Ph.D. molecular biologist, industrial genetic research
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr. Dennis Flentge, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Dr. Wolfgang Kuhn, biologist and lecturer
Dr. Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr. Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Raúl E López, meteorologist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
Dr. Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. John McEwan, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry
Dr. Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Robert T. Mitchell, specialist in Internal Medicine and active speaker on creation
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical Engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Mathew Piercy, anaesthetist
Dr. Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology
Dr. Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics
Prof. Richard Porter--World authority on the human spine
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Ron Samec, Astronomy
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven, Palaeontologist
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Charles Taylor, MA., Ph.D., PGCE, LRAM, FIL., Cert. Theol., Linguist & Theologian
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.S. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, MD
Dr. Lara Wieland, MD
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith--Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Alexander Williams, Botanist
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and Archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
* Some of the people on this list are recently deceased.

Note that a great many of the above listed scientists are specialists in Biology, Molecular Biology, Microbiology, Bio-chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Genetics, Archaelogy and Palaeontology, or Reproductive Physiology.

Prior to the 20th Century, most scientists believed in Creation.

Today, there are numerous organizations of scientists who support creation theory: Answers in Genesis; Creation Research, Science Education Foundation; Institute for Creation Research; The Creation SuperLibrary and others. Some publish peer-reviewed journals, such as the Creation Research Society's CRS Journal and the Journal of Creation by Creation Ministries International.

I don't believe this report is true with respect to 'Biblical Creation'.

I think it's a very misleading report.

The reason I say this is because a LOT of scientists are open to the idea that there is a God (or supreme intelligence) beyond the creation of the universe. Yet at the same time they also accept evolution!

I have serious doubts that everyone the list you've posted actually denounces evolution. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of them do NOT denounce evolution.

Instead, what they are most likely saying is that they don't take the Bible literally! And they simply allow that God created Adam and Eve via evolution and FROM lower primates!

I would actually go along with that view. They Bible can indeed be viewed that abstractly to allow for 'biblical creation' and evoltuion to coexist.

However, I personally feel that this is truly a farce to do such a thing.

All these people are doing is giving the Bible more credence than it deserves.

They want to believe in a God so they look at everything extremely abstractly.

I have no clue why it is that intelligent human beings insist on supporting the Biblical myth.

It is clearly a myth. There can be no doubt about it.

Mankind invented the idea of appeasing the God's using blood sacrifices all over the world. It's an extremely common superstition! It was even common in the Greek Mythology.

Why would the creator of this universe just coincidentally happen to be appeased by blood sacrifices?

God can't forgive sins unless he sees blood flow?

As far as I'm concerened this is truly sick. Such a God would be truly demented. We'd put a human who lusts for blood sacarifices in a funny farm and throw away the key.

Why are we so anxious to give this attribute to God?

People are willing to bend over backwards to give the Bible credence when all the Bible says is that out creator lusts for blood, and we are miserable failures who are INCAPABLE of becoming righteous on our own.

That proves to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible was written by men. They wrote that in there because they wanted to instill in their audience that there is no other way to God except throught THEIR BIBLE!

No decent genuine benevolent God would create a species of creatures withholding from them the ability to become righteous on their own! And then demanding that they accept the blood sacrifice of his "only begotten son" for their salvation.

That is sicker than sick!

How could a human be responsible for not being righteous if it's IMPOSSIBLE for a human to become righteous on their own?

This would be a demented trap!

This would be a God who sets people up. A BLACKMAILER!

There is nothing righteous about a God that would pull such a dirty trick on the creatures he creates. Such a God would be a serious psychomaniac.

Why are people so anxious to support this totally sick and demented picture of a deceiving unjust manipulative creator?

The Biblical God would be a demon, not a divinely righteous loving God.

I'll never understand why people are so anxious to support Mediterranean mythology. It's no better than Greek Methology was.

Can anyone tell me why they are so anxious for God to be such a dismal failure?

And the Biblical God is indeed a failure!

At one point he lost his entire creation to evil, save for a few people in a floating zoo.

He lost! He lost to Satan! The Biblical God is a loser!

And according to the writings that claim to speak for Jesus, they claim that Jesus also said that very few souls will make it to heaven. That means that the Biblical God LOSES the vast majority of souls the he creates.

It's a LOSER God by the Bible's own proclamtion.

There's nothing divine or all-powerful about the Biblical God. It's a picture of a totally inept God.

Totally inept. A certified loser!

Why are people so anxious to worship a totally inept picture of God?

Support for evolution by religious bodies

Many creationists act as evangelists and their organizations are registered as tax-free religious organizations. Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is only associated with atheism.

However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, 12 of the plaintiffs opposing the teaching of creation science in the influential McLean v Arkansas court case were clergy representing Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, and Presbyterian groups.There are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools. In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, issued statements in support of evolution in 2006. The Clergy Letter Project is a signed statement by 11,111 (as of 22 December 2007) American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%). These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others. A figure closer to about 71% is presented by the analysis of Walter B. Murfin and David F. Beck.

Michael Shermer argued in Scientific American in October 2006 that evolution supports concepts like family values, avoiding lies, fidelity, moral codes and the rule of law. Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model.

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are compatible according to the Church. On the 12 August 1950, the Roman Catholic Church accepted that the ‘doctrine of evolution’ was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis saying “research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution”. In the same encyclical the Magisterium holds that a Catholic can believe in the creation account found in sacred scripture. However, the encyclical rejects what it described as some “fictitious tenets of evolution”. Following this announcement Catholic schools began teaching evolution.

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that “Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” This statement was published by the Vatican on July 2004 by the authority of Pope Benedict XVI who was actually the President of the Commission while he was a Cardinal.

The Magisterium has not yet made an authoritative statement on intelligent design, and has permitted arguments on both sides of the issue. In 2005, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna appeared to endorse intelligent design when he denounced philosophically materialist interpretations of evolution.

In the January 16–17 2006 edition of the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, University of Bologna evolutionary biology Professor Fiorenzo Facchini wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and stating that intelligent design was unscientific.Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, has also denounced intelligent design.

Evolution and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has stated in his magnum opus Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth that evolution did occur but only through God being the One who brings about it. It does not occur itself, according to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The Ahmadis do not believe in Adam as the first human on earth but merely as the first prophet to receive revelation by God on earth.

Support for evolution in medicine and industry

A common complaint of creationists is that evolution is of no value, has never been used for anything, and will never be of any use. According to many creationists, nothing would be lost by getting rid of evolution, and science and industry might even benefit.

In fact, evolution is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a daily basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalise observed data and prepare applications. In 2007 alone, there were more than 60,000 scientific articles that mentioned 'evolution' listed in Pubmed.Corporations such as pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products.

Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of corporations. In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry.Paul Hanle of the Biotechnology Institute warned that the US risks falling behind in the biotechnology race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching evolution. James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory.

The organization "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity" maintains a list of medical doctors and similar professionals who disagree that evolution can account for the diversity of life on earth. As of May 22, 2007, there were 224 Americans and 28 others from other countries that had signed a statement disputing "Darwinism".

Other support for evolution

There are also many educational organizations that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.

Repeatedly, creationists and intelligent design advocates have lost suits in US courts. Here is a list of important court cases in which creationists have suffered setbacks:

* 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas, United States Supreme Court
* 1981 Segraves v. State of California, Supreme Court of California
* 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, U.S. Federal Court
* 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard, United States Supreme Court
* 1990 Webster v. New Lenox School District, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
* 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
* 1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
* 2000 Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al., District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota
* 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, US Federal Court
* 2006 Hurst v. Newman US District Court Eastern District of California

Public support

Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory. In some countries, creationist beliefs (or a lack of support for evolutionary theory) are relatively widespread, even garnering a majority of public opinion. A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution was most widespread (at over 80% of the population) in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden.

United Kingdom

A 2006 UK poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different explanations for the origin of life: 22% chose (Young Earth) creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolution theory (with a divine role explicitly excluded) and the rest did not know. However, the poll lacked nuanced survey techniques and equivocated on origin definitions, forcing participants to choose between only these options (which notably excluded theistic evolution). Hence its results are not necessarily an accurate survey of the views of the UK public.


The US has one of the highest levels of public belief in biblical or other religious accounts of the origins of life on earth among industrialized countries.

According to a 2007 Gallup poll, about 43% of American believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in a 2006 Gallup poll.Only 14% believed that "humans being have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.

Edward Larson and Larry Witham in 1998 published the results of a survey of the members of the US National Academy of Science showing that 93% of the respondents did not believe in a personal God.


A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 70% of evangelical Christians felt that living organisms have not changed since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32% of mainline Protestants shared this opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll estimated that 63% of liberals and 37% of conservatives agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry.

Evolution, creationism and scientific literacy

A 1997 study found that fewer than 20% of Americans possessed basic scientific literacy[123] and a People for the American Way poll found that less than half (48%) of those polled chose the correct definition of evolution from a list.[118] In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is between 95–99% depending on the primate and comparison method.

Steve Sailer has pointed out that it is not clear how firmly public beliefs in creationism are held.Most creationist claims require a literal reading of Genesis and a belief in biblical inerrancy, while a 2006 study by the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion found only a minority of those polled believed in the literal truth in the Bible.


Trends

The level of assent that evolution garners has changed with time. The trends in acceptance of evolution can be estimated.

Early impact of Darwin's theory

The level of support for evolution in different communities has varied with time. Darwin's theory had convinced almost every naturalist within 20 years of its publication in 1858, and was making serious inroads with the public and the more liberal clergy. It had reached such extremes, that by 1880, one American religious weekly publication estimated that "perhaps a quarter, perhaps a half of the educated ministers in our leading Evangelical denominations" felt "that the story of the creation and fall of man, told in Genesis, is no more the record of actual occurrences than is the parable of the Prodigal Son."

By the late 1800s, many of the most conservative Christians accepted an ancient earth, and life on earth before Eden. Victorian Era Creationists were more akin to people who subscribe to theistic evolution today. Even fervent anti-evolutionist Scopes Trial prosecutor William Jennings Bryan interpreted the "days" of Genesis as ages of the earth, and acknowledged that biochemical evolution took place, drawing the line only at the story of Adam and Eve's creation. Prominent pre-World War II creationist Harry Rimmer allowed an Old Earth by slipping millions of years into putative gaps in the Genesis account, and claimed that the Noachian Flood was only a local phenomenon.

In the decades of the 1900s, George Macready Price and a tiny group of Seventh-day Adventist followers were the among the very few believers in a Young Earth and a worldwide flood, which Price championed in his "new catastrophism" theories. It was not until the publication of John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris’s book Genesis Flood in 1961 that Price's idea was revived. In the last few decades, many creationists have adopted Price's beliefs, becoming progressively more strict biblical literalists.

Recent public beliefs

Globe icon

This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.


In a 1991 Gallup poll, 47% of the US population, and 25% of college graduates agreed with the statement, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

Fourteen years later, in 2005, Gallup found that 53% of Americans expressed the belief that "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." About 2/3 (65.5%) of those surveyed thought that creationism was definitely or probably true. In 2005 a Newsweek poll discovered that 80 percent of the American public thought that "God created the universe." and the Pew Research Center reported that "nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools." Ronald Numbers commented on that with "Most surprising of all was the discovery that large numbers of high-school biology teachers — from 30% in Illinois and 38% in Ohio to a whopping 69% in Kentucky — supported the teaching of creationism."

The National Center for Science Education reports that from 1985 to 2005, the number of Americans unsure about evolution increased from 7% to 21%, while the number rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%.Jon Miller of Michigan State University has found in his polls that the number of Americans who accept evolution has declined from 45% to 40% from 1985 to 2005.

In light of these somewhat contradictory results, it is difficult to know for sure what is happening to public opinion on evolution in the US. It does not appear that either side is making unequivocal progress. It does appear that uncertainty about the issue is increasing, however.

Anecdotal evidence is that creationism is becoming more of an issue in the UK as well. One report in 2006 was that UK students are increasingly arriving ill-prepared to participate in medical studies or other advanced education.[129]

Recent scientific trends

The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that about 600 scientists signed their A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list, up from 100 in 2001. The actual statement of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relatively mild one that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of 'Darwinism' (and is in line with the falsifiability required of scientific theories) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution.[131] By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who agree that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," has 868 Steves as of March 18, 2008. People named Steve make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population.

The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987. The Science Resources Statistics Division of the National Science Foundation estimated that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.

Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists. Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999. As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists, overestimating the number of US scientists that do not accept evolution.[135] , according to the Discovery Institute, a known creationist lobby institution. Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, proportionately the figures indicates the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing, despite an increase in public support.