Editing Creation science (section)

==History==
{{main|History of creationism}}
Creation science began in the 1960s, as a [[Fundamentalist Christianity|fundamentalist Christian]] effort in the United States to prove [[Biblical inerrancy]] and nullify the scientific [[evidence for evolution]].<ref name="larson">[[#Larson 2004|Larson 2004, pp. 255–256]]</ref> It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide.<ref>{{harvnb|Numbers|2006|pp=399–431}}</ref> The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in [[creatio ex nihilo|creation ''ex nihilo'']] (Latin: out of nothing); the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 6,000–10,000 years; the belief that humans and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "[[Baraminology|baraminological]]" ''kinds''; and "[[flood geology]]" or the idea that [[fossil]]s found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic [[Flood myth|flood]] which completely covered the entire Earth.<ref name="edwards_aguillard">{{ussc|name=Edwards v. Aguillard|volume=482|page=578|pin=|year=1987}} Case cited by {{Harvnb|Numbers|2006|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA272 272]}} as "[o]ne of the most precise explications of creation science..."</ref> As a result, creationists also challenge the [[Geology|geologic]] and [[Astrophysics|astrophysical]] measurements of the [[Age of Earth|age of the Earth]] and the [[Age of the universe|universe]] along with their [[Big History|origins]], which creationists believe are irreconcilable with the account in the Book of Genesis.<ref name="larson" /> Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "[[Darwinism]]" or as "Darwinian evolution."

The creation science texts and curricula that first emerged in the 1960s focused upon concepts derived from a [[Biblical literalism|literal interpretation of the Bible]] and were overtly religious in nature, most notably proposing [[Genesis flood narrative|Noah's flood]] in the Biblical Genesis account as an explanation for the geological and [[Biostratigraphy|fossil record]]. These works attracted little notice beyond the schools and congregations of conservative fundamental and [[Evangelicalism|Evangelical]] Christians until the 1970s, when its followers [[Creation–evolution controversy|challenged the teaching of evolution]] in the [[State school#United States|public school]]s and other venues in the United States, bringing it to the attention of the public-at-large and the scientific community. Many school boards and lawmakers were persuaded to include the teaching of creation science alongside evolution in the science curriculum.<ref name="Numbers2002">[[#Numbers 2002|Numbers 2002]]</ref> Creation science texts and curricula used in churches and Christian schools were revised to eliminate their Biblical and [[theology|theological]] references, and less explicitly sectarian versions of creation science education were introduced in public schools in [[Louisiana]], [[Arkansas]], and other regions in the United States.<ref name="Numbers2002" />{{sfn|Toumey|1994|p=38|ps=}}

The 1982 ruling in ''[[McLean v. Arkansas]]'' found that creation science fails to meet the essential characteristics of science and that its chief intent is to advance a particular religious view.<ref name="larson2">[[#Larson 2003|Larson 2003]], p. 288</ref> The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 following the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] decision in ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]''.<ref name="larson" />{{page needed|date=February 2020}} The court affirmed that a statute requiring the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution is taught in Louisiana public schools was [[Constitutionality|unconstitutional]] because its sole true purpose was to [[Lemon v. Kurtzman#Lemon test|advance a particular religious belief]].<ref name="edwards_aguillard" />

In response to this ruling, drafts of the creation science school textbook ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'' were edited to change references of creation to [[intelligent design]] before its publication in 1989. The [[intelligent design movement]] promoted this version. Requiring intelligent design to be taught in public school science classes was found to be unconstitutional in the 2005 ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' federal court case.

=== Before 1960s ===
The teaching of evolution was gradually introduced into more and more public high school textbooks in the United States after 1900,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Skoog |first=Gerald |date=October 1979 |title=Topic of Evolution in Secondary School Biology Textbooks: 1900–1977 |journal=Science Education |volume= 63 |issue=5 |pages=621–640 |doi=10.1002/sce.3730630507 |issn=1098-237X |bibcode = 1979SciEd..63..621S }}</ref> but in the aftermath of the First World War the growth of fundamentalist Christianity gave rise to a creationist opposition to such teaching. Legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution was passed in certain regions, most notably Tennessee's [[Butler Act]] of 1925.<ref name="evc">[[#Scott 2005|Scott 2005]]</ref>

The Soviet Union's successful launch of ''[[Sputnik 1]]'' in 1957 sparked national concern that the science education in public schools was outdated. In 1958, the United States passed [[National Defense Education Act]] which introduced new education guidelines for science instruction. With federal grant funding, the [[Biological Sciences Curriculum Study]] (BSCS) drafted new standards for the public schools' science textbooks which included the teaching of evolution. Almost half the nation's high schools were using textbooks based on the guidelines of the BSCS soon after they were published in 1963.<ref>{{harvnb|Numbers|2006|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA265 265]}}</ref>

The Tennessee legislature did not repeal the Butler Act until 1967.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm |title=Tennessee Evolution Statutes |access-date=2014-09-18}} Chapter No. 27, House Bill No. 185 (1925) and Chapter No. 237, House Bill No. 46 (1967)</ref>

Creation science (dubbed "scientific creationism" at the time) emerged as an organized movement during the 1960s.<ref>{{cite journal | author-last = Montgomery | author-first = David R. | title = The evolution of creationism | journal = GSA Today | volume = 22 | number = 11 | pages = 4–9 | doi = 10.1130/GSATG158A.1 | date = November 2012 | url = https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm }}</ref> It was strongly influenced by the earlier work of armchair geologist George McCready Price who wrote works such as ''Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory'' (1906) and ''The New Geology'' (1923) to advance what he termed "new catastrophism" and dispute the current geological time frames and explanations of [[Geologic time scale|geologic history]]. Price was cited at the [[Scopes Trial]] of 1925, but his writings had no credence among geologists and other scientists.<ref>{{harvnb|Numbers|2006|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA88 88–119]}}</ref> Price's "new catastrophism" was also disputed by most other creationists until its revival with the 1961 publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications|The Genesis Flood]]'' by [[John C. Whitcomb]] and [[Henry M. Morris]], a work which quickly became an important text on the issue to fundamentalist Christians<ref name="larson" />{{page needed|date=February 2020}}<!--location 3236 kindle ed--> and expanded the field of creation science beyond critiques of geology into [[biology]] and cosmology as well. Soon after its publication, a movement was underway to have the subject taught in United States' public schools.{{citation needed|date=February 2020}}

===Court determinations===
{{primary sources|section|date=February 2020}}
The various state laws prohibiting teaching of evolution were overturned in 1968 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Epperson v. Arkansas]]'' such laws violated the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. This ruling inspired a new creationist movement to promote laws requiring that schools give balanced treatment to creation science when evolution is taught. The 1981 Arkansas Act 590 was one such law that carefully detailed the principles of creation science that were to receive equal time in public schools alongside evolutionary principles.<ref name=Act590text>{{cite book | author = Legislative Sponsors [Unknown] | year = 1998 | orig-year = 1981 | editor = Gilkey, Langdon | chapter = Appendix A: Arkansas Act 590 | title = Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock | series = Studies in religion and culture | location = Charlottesville, VA | publisher = University of Virginia Press [State of Arkansas] | isbn = 9780813918549 | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=mE6qOdICwN0C&q=%2273rd+General+Assembly%22+%22State+of+Arkansas%22&pg=PA260 | access-date = February 4, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Legislative Sponsors [Unknown] | date=Summer 1982 | title=Act 590 of 1981: General Acts, 73rd General Assembly, State of Arkansas|journal=[[Science, Technology, & Human Values]] | volume=7 | issue=40 | pages=11–13 | doi=10.1177/016224398200700304 | issn=0162-2439 | jstor=688783 | s2cid=220873392 }}</ref> The act defined creation science as follows:<ref name=Act590text/>{{sfn|Numbers|2006|p=272}}

"'Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
:#Sudden creation of the universe, and, in particular, life, from nothing;
:#The insufficiency of [[mutation]] and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
:#Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
:#Separate ancestry for man and [[ape]]s;
:#Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood; and
:#A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."

This legislation was examined in ''McLean v. Arkansas'', and the ruling handed down on January 5, 1982, concluded that creation-science as defined in the act "is simply not science".<ref name="scholar.google.com.au">{{cite court |litigants=McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed. |vol= 529 |court= United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |date= 1982 |url=https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=12064726535843283781&q=McLean+creation&hl=en&as_sdt=2006}}</ref> The judgement defined the following as essential characteristics of science:<ref name="scholar.google.com.au"/>
:#It is guided by natural law;
:#It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
:#It is testable against the empirical world;
:#Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and
:#It is falsifiable.

The court ruled that creation science failed to meet these essential characteristics and identified specific reasons. After examining the key concepts from creation science, the court found:<ref>{{cite web |title=McLean v. Arkansas {{!}} National Center for Science Education |url=https://ncse.ngo/mclean-v-arkansas#:~:text=In%201982%2C%20in%20McLean%20v,and%20%22evolution%2Dscience%22. |website=ncse.ngo |access-date=30 September 2022 |language=en}}</ref>
:#Sudden creation "from nothing" calls upon a supernatural intervention, not natural law, and is neither testable nor falsifiable
:#Objections in creation science that mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain common origins was an incomplete negative generalization
:#'Kinds' are not scientific classifications, and creation science's claims of an outer limit to the evolutionary change possible of species are not explained scientifically or by natural law
:#The separate ancestry of man and apes is an assertion rather than a scientific explanation, and did not derive from any scientific fact or theory
:#Catastrophism, including its identification of the worldwide flood, failed as a science
:#"Relatively recent inception" was the product of religious readings and had no scientific meaning, and was neither the product of, nor explainable by, natural law; nor is it tentative

The court further noted that no recognized [[scientific journal]] had published any article espousing the creation science theory as described in the Arkansas law, and stated that the testimony presented by defense attributing the absence to censorship was not credible.<ref name="McLean v. Arkansas">{{cite web |title=McLean v. Arkansas |website=Talk Origins |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html | access-date=10 October 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

In its ruling, the court wrote that for any theory to qualify as scientific, the theory must be tentative, and open to revision or abandonment as new facts come to light. It wrote that any methodology which begins with an immutable conclusion that cannot be revised or rejected, regardless of the evidence, is not a scientific theory. The court found that creation science does not culminate in conclusions formed from scientific inquiry, but instead begins with the conclusion, one taken from a literal wording of the Book of Genesis, and seeks only scientific evidence to support it.<ref name="McLean v. Arkansas"/>

The law in Arkansas adopted the same two-model approach as that put forward by the [[Institute for Creation Research]], one allowing only two possible explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. [[Scientific evidence]] that failed to support the theory of evolution was posed as necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism, but in its judgment the court ruled this approach to be no more than a "[[False dilemma|contrived dualism]] which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose."<ref name="McLean_vs_Arkansas">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html |title=McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education |last=Dorman |first=Clark |date=January 30, 1996 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |type=Transcription |access-date=2013-09-01}}</ref>

The judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact," and that it violated the First Amendment's [[Establishment Clause]].<ref name="McLean_vs_Arkansas" /> The decision was not appealed to a [[Federal judiciary of the United States|higher court]], but had a powerful influence on subsequent rulings.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper">{{cite web |url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |author-link=Barbara Forrest |date=May 2007 |website=Center for Inquiry |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=2007-09-08 |archive-date=2011-05-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> Louisiana's 1982 Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act, authored by [[Louisiana State Legislature|State Senator]] [[Bill Keith (Louisiana politician)|Bill P. Keith]], judged in the 1987 United States Supreme Court case ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'', and was handed a similar ruling. It found the law to require the balanced teaching of creation science with evolution had a particular religious purpose and was therefore unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard |vol=482 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=578 |court=U.S. |year=1987 |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578}}</ref>

===Intelligent design splits off===
In 1984, ''The Mystery of Life's Origin'' was first published. It was co-authored by [[chemist]] and creationist [[Charles Thaxton|Charles B. Thaxton]] with [[Walter Bradley (engineer)|Walter L. Bradley]] and Roger L. Olsen, the foreword written by [[Dean H. Kenyon]], and sponsored by the Christian-based [[Foundation for Thought and Ethics]] (FTE). The work presented scientific arguments against current theories of [[abiogenesis]] and offered a hypothesis of [[special creation]] instead. While the focus of creation science had until that time centered primarily on the criticism of the fossil evidence for evolution and validation of the [[creation myth]] of the Bible, this new work posed the question whether science reveals that even the simplest living systems were far too complex to have developed by natural, unguided processes.<ref>{{harvnb|Numbers|2006|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA178 178], [https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA218 218], [https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA373 373], [https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA383 383]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Thomas |first=John A. |date=July–August 1990 |title=The Foundation for Thought and Ethics |url=http://ncse.com/ncser/10/4/foundation-thought-ethics |journal=NCSE Reports |volume=10 |issue=4 |pages=18–19 |issn=1064-2358 |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref>

Kenyon later co-wrote with creationist [[Percival Davis]] a book intended as a "scientific brief for creationism"<ref>{{harvnb|Numbers|2006|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&pg=PA375 375]}}</ref> to use as a supplement to public high school biology textbooks. Thaxton was enlisted as the book's editor, and the book received publishing support from the FTE. Prior to its release, the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' barred the teaching of creation science and creationism in public school classrooms. The book, originally titled ''Biology and Creation'' but renamed ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'', was released in 1989 and became the first published work to promote the [[anti-evolutionist]] design argument under the name intelligent design. The contents of the book later became a focus of evidence in the federal court case, ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', when a group of parents filed suit to halt the teaching of intelligent design in [[Dover, Pennsylvania]], public schools. School board officials there had attempted to include ''Of Pandas and People'' in their biology classrooms and testimony given during the trial revealed the book was originally written as a creationist text but following the adverse decision in the Supreme Court it underwent simple cosmetic editing to remove the explicit allusions to "creation" or "creator," and replace them instead with references to "design" or "designer."{{sfn|Numbers|2006|pp=375–376, 392–393}}

By the mid-1990s, intelligent design had become a separate movement.{{sfn|Numbers|2006|pp=381–382}} The creation science movement is distinguished from the intelligent design movement, or [[neo-creationism]], because most advocates of creation science accept scripture as a literal and inerrant historical account, and their primary goal is to corroborate the scriptural account through the use of science. In contrast, as a matter of principle, neo-creationism eschews references to scripture altogether in its [[polemic]]s and stated goals (see [[Wedge strategy]]). By so doing, intelligent design proponents have attempted to succeed where creation science has failed in securing a place in public school science curricula. Carefully avoiding any reference to the identity of the [[intelligent designer]] as God in their public arguments, intelligent design proponents sought to reintroduce the creationist ideas into science classrooms while sidestepping the First Amendment's prohibition against religious infringement.<ref name="Johnson-Touchstone">{{cite journal |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |author-link=Phillip E. Johnson |date=July–August 1999 |title=The Wedge: Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science |url=http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-018-f |journal=[[Touchstone Magazine|Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity]] |volume=12 |issue=4 |issn=0897-327X |access-date=2014-09-18 |quote=...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact.}}</ref><ref name="debate_won">{{cite web |url=http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp |title=How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |website=Coral Ridge Ministries |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071107005414/http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp |location=Fort Lauderdale, FL |archive-date=2007-11-07 |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref> However, the intelligent design curriculum was struck down as a violation of the [[Establishment Clause]] in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', the judge in the case ruled "that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."<ref name="Kitzmiller_p31">{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |court=M.D. Pa. |date=December 20, 2005}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 31 of 139|Context, p. 31]].</ref>

Today, creation science as an organized movement is primarily centered within the United States.{{citation needed|date=February 2020}} Creation science organizations are also known in other countries, most notably [[Creation Ministries International]] which was founded (under the name Creation Science Foundation) in Australia.<ref>{{cite web |title=What we are - creation.com |url=https://creation.com/what-we-are |website=creation.com |access-date=4 October 2022 |language=en-gb}}</ref> Proponents are usually aligned with a Christian denomination, primarily with those characterized as evangelical, conservative, or fundamentalist.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, and Pentecostalism |url=https://pluralism.org/fundamentalism-evangelicalism-and-pentecostalism |access-date=2022-07-20 |website=pluralism.org |language=en}}</ref> While creationist movements also exist in [[Islam]] and [[Judaism]], these movements do not use the phrase ''creation science'' to describe their beliefs.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Islamic Scientific Creationism {{!}} National Center for Science Education |url=https://ncse.ngo/islamic-scientific-creationism |access-date=2022-07-20 |website=ncse.ngo |language=en}}</ref>