Creationism Resources
(and Intelligent Design, too)
M E N U
Creationism vs. Intelligent Design | Quotes | Books | Videos | The Web | What spawned this site?
Responses | Debate | PowerPoint | Imaged-Documents | Scripture
Creationism versus Intelligent Design
Many make the mistake of saying Intelligent Design is just cloaking Creationism in scientific language in order to allow preaching in the classroom. This is false. Creationism is specifically theological. Intelligent Design is not. Creationism espouses a Judeo-Christian worldview exclusively beginning with the accounts of Genesis where God created everything in 6 days. Intelligent Design simply says that the original cause of our being here is a supernatural intelligence. It does not say what or who that intelligence is or how long it took this supernatural intelligence to bring about the material world, specifically. The only absolute commonalty between Intelligent Design and Creationism is that a supernatural intelligence was behind the material world. There are plenty of those in the Intelligent Design world who do not hold to the Judeo-Christian worldview. Creationists, on the other hand, do hold exclusively to the Judeo-Christian worldview. A Creationist will appreciate much in the Intelligent Design paradigm, obviously, since it provides a sound alternative to Darwinism. One could be from any faith, or even be an agnostic, and comfortably espouse Intelligent Design. However, if one espouses Creationism, then that implies the individual espouses a Judeo-Christian worldview.
Quotes
"I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice that
I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn
Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these
people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from
society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than
mere unbelief."
-- Dinesh D'Souza (Source: OneNewsNow)
"If we are the pinnacle of an evolutionary process, why is a human infant so helpless, and for so long, compared to the newborn of other species?"
("Society's Dramatic Shift" Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?,
a magazine of The Good News at http://www.gnmagazine.org; CAUTION: This magazine has good creation resources, but is unorthodox in some of the theology it espouses.)
"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume [Origin of Species] on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."
-- Charles Darwin, British naturalist and author of Origin of Species which popularized evolution
"If humans are the result of evolution continually reinforcing the characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant? Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet, among humans, an infant is utterly helpless -- not for days but for up to several years after birth. A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival."
("Society's Dramatic Shift" Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?,
a magazine of The Good News at http://www.gnmagazine.org; CAUTION: This magazine has good creation resources, but is unorthodox in some of the theology it espouses.)
"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Into his tiniest creatures, God has placed extraordinary properties that turn them into agents of destruction of dead matter."
-- Louis Pasteur, French scientist, developer of the various vaccines and pasteurization
"If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life -- such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa -- are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?"
("Society's Dramatic Shift" Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe?,
a magazine of The Good News at http://www.gnmagazine.org; CAUTION: This magazine has good creation resources, but is unorthodox in some of the theology it espouses.)
"A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to Him."
-- Louis Pasteur
"Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator.
"It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.
"Atheists all over the world have . . . called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause.
"There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator . . . In the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestations of the Divine plan of the Creator."
-- Dr. Wernher von Braun, Father of the American Space Program
"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."
-- C.S. Lewis (Although not a creationist, Lewis still offers insightful quotes from an evangelical perspective related to atheism.)
"If their were no God, there would be no atheists."
-- G.K. Chesterton
What Size Is God?
Matthew 19:26
Nature is God's workshop. They sky is his resume. The universe is his calling card. You want to know who God is? See what he has done. You want to know his power? Take a look at his creation. Curious about his strength? Pay a visit to his home address: 1 Billion Starry Sky Avenue.
He is untainted by the atmosphere of sin, unbridled by the time line of history, unhindered by the weariness of the body.
What controls you doesn't control him. What troubles you doesn't trouble him. What fatigues you doesn't fatigue him. Is an eagle disturbed by traffic? No, he rises above it. Is the whale perturbed by a hurricane? Of course not, he plunges beneath it. Is the lion flustered by the mouse standing directly in his way? No, he steps over it.
How much more is God able to soar above, plunge beneath, and step over the troubles of the earth!
by Max Lucado
Books
Dr. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: Free Press, 1996
Dr. Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, Regnery Gateway, Washington, DC, 1991.
John F. Ashton, Editor, In Six Days (why 50 scientists believe Creationism).
John F. Ashton, Editor, On the Seventh Day: Forty scientists and academics explain why they believe in God.
Donald E. Chittick, The Puzzle of Ancient Man: Advanced Technology in Past Civilizations?
Dr. Ken Ham, Did Adam Have a Bellybutton?.
Harold Hill, From Goo to You by the Way of the Zoo.
Dr. Henry Morris, The Remarkable Record of Job.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
James Nickel, Mathematics: Is God Silent?. Click HERE to see a page I wrote inspired by this book.
Dennis R. Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation Volume 1
Dennis R. Petersen, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation Volume 2
William S. Pinkston, Jr., Biology for Christian Schools
Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., Refuting Evolution.
Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., with Mike Matthews, Refuting Evolution 2.
Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator.
Carl Wieland, Stones and Bones: Powerful Evidence Against Evolution.
Video and Audio
The Web
Ancient Fossil Roils Scientific Community
Alpha Omega Institute: Discover Creation
Awaken Generation: Evolution Cannot Explain Morality
Canada's Creation Information Portal
Creation Ministries International
Creation Resources at NavPress
Creation versus Evolution - Faith (The Veracity Project)
Creationism World View - from Back to the Bible
Dissent from Darwin - Scientists who are skeptical of Darwin's claims
EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed with Ben Stein
Faith Facts - Evolution or Creation
Institute for Creation Research
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Nature of Creation: Mission Imperative!
Resources at ChristianStudents.com
Search for the Truth Ministries
The South Bay Creation Science Association (Creation in the Crossfire)
URcall.org, a community of Christians sharing their ideas about the relationship between faith and science
Y-Origins Connection: Intelligent Design for Everyone
What spawned this site:
Arguing for Creationism -- full article by James A. Johnson: Word | PDF
Arguing for Creationism -- summary article by James A. Johnson submitted to the Daily News Record the evening of February 15, 2005: Word | PDF
Responses
A response from a Dr. Sarah Swank, Professor of Biology, Bridgewater College, mentioned that "theory" as defined in evolutionary theory meant a well-substantiated notion, a scientifically acceptable principle, i.e., a fact. She further urged me and others like me to avoid dogma and join the rest of those who have "moved on" from such a notion as creationism. Finally, she said that evolutionary processes do not happen by chance, but contain order.
First, the word theory is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as the following:
- the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
- abstract thought : SPECULATION
- the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
- a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
- a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
- a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Note words like belief, speculation, and assumed.
So, theory may or may not be fact. Her argument in no way makes evolution factual. Science has not always been correct. In evolution, Piltdown Man and Haekel's fetal drawings show fraud although they were called "science." Her argument is merely one of semantics.
Second, I am not just going to "move on" because some hold her perspective. That's no reason to buy into evolution.
Third, I did not note any dogma in my article. It was argued scientifically, supplying data that suggests Intelligent Design. A non-atheistic worldview is NOT dogma. Rather, she seems rather dogmatic about her evolutionary faith.
Finally, she said that evolution contains order from the population as applied to the environment. Where did this order originate? I can certainly point to the will and say that man hunted a species until extinction, but this does not get to the root of the question. Where did the order that lends itself to man's will come from? Left to itself, a "Big Bang" would hardly produce order! Show me a bomb that builds a house.
Debate
Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
Should Intelligent Design be allowed in public school?
I attended a debate on the Ides of March 2006 pondering whether Intelligent Design should be allowed in a public high school biology class. Here is a summary and commentary (commentary is highlighted):
Intelligent Design -- Allow Intelligent Design in the public high school biology class.
While Intelligent Design is not Creationism, it is a helpful line of thought and thus a good resource.
- Education needs to prepare well-rounded individuals who can critically think and evaluate ideas.
- Students need to be informed about Intelligent Design Theory so they can engage.
- Private reasons that acknowledge God can be comprehended and should be allowed for public discourse.
- Intelligent Design uses secular language.
- Intelligent Design is consistent with empirical data -- fossils, microevolution.
- Not allowing Intelligent Design would be like removing Dante from literature, cathedrals out of architecture, and the requiem mass out of music. These do not promote religion. Just because an idea could be deemed as having origins in the religious does not mean it is not a good idea or scientific.
- "Do not kill." Just because an idea has an overlap with a basis in religion or just because Biblical persons support it does not mean the idea is not applicable.
- Intelligent Design says there's a higher intelligence. It does not say who the intelligence is, or that we have to worship the higher intelligence, or even how we should go about the higher intelligence.
- One cannot deny irreducible complexity!
- You can test and look at nature to support it.
- The methods are falsifiable and therefore scientific.
- Courts did not rule that Intelligent Design is unconstitutional, but in Dover, ruled against the implementation of how Intelligent Design would be taught.
- Do not preclude discourse since such discourse in the past has overruled ideas such as the flat earth and the geocentric universe and thus has propelled science.
- This is a scientific discussion: The fact that someone could attempt to disprove irreducible complexity or Intelligent Design.
- It is a disservice to not allow the discourse.
- Evolution requires faith. Evolution is a religion, an ideology.
- Intelligent Design has no religious affiliation or indoctrination.
- There is no observable or repeatable proof in Evolutionary Theory.
- Intelligent Design does not advocate the prevention of teaching evolution.
- Adam Smith mentioned the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The majority believe in a designer.
- It is not acceptable to exclude "one side of the coin."
- By age 16, most students can distinguish certain values and issues.
Evolution - Do not allow Intelligent Design in the public high school biology class.
- Evidence is more important than ideology. Intelligent Design is not a science. It cannot be proven using observation, hypothesis, experiment, or conclusion.
- There are fossils of less developed organisms.
- Different species can reproduce.
- Faith has no place in science.
- Intelligent Design is an old religious argument.
- Theologians have spoken against Intelligent Design.
- Edwards v. Aguilard (1987): The Supreme Court ruled that Creationism cannot be taught in biology classes, that it's unconstitutional.
- The Discovery Institute, a think tank of Intelligent Design, is headed by Stephen Meyer and John West. They aren't scientists.
- Intelligent Design has no legitimate purpose to reinforce scientific knowledge. It advocates religion.
- High school students aren't up for debating their faith.
- Intelligent Design will historically go back to Creationism, which would have excessive entanglements of Church and State.
- Intelligent Design has nothing to contribute to science.
- What is best for the students?
- We haven't heard a plausible Intelligent Design implementation.
- It does need to be debated at a higher level first.
- "Science should never state something as fact."
- This debate happened already.
- There are plenty of debates within Evolution already to argue.
- Evolution is not debatable compared to Intelligent Design.
- High school biology class is not the appropriate forum for discourse.
- There is no time to teach evolution and Intelligent Design. Teaching intelligent design will waste teaching time and students will be ill-equipped.
- Don't question assumptions that would compromise education.
- Intelligent Design belongs in a philosophy class.
- Arguing about whether or not a theory is religious does not belong in a biology class.
Scripture
One evolutionist's attempt to claim "Ample Proof" for evolution