Creationism and Creation science

1920s: Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy – in an upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor, anti-evolutionary sentiment stopped U.S. public schools from teaching evolution, through state laws such as Tennessee’s 1925 Butler Act,[1][2] and by getting evolution removed from biology textbooks nationwide.[3]

1959 National Defense Education Act, responding to fears of backwardness raised by the 1957 Sputnik, promoted science and Biological Sciences Curriculum Study textbooks teaching evolution were used in almost half of high schools, though the prohibitions were still in place and a 1961 attempt to repeal the Butler Act failed.[4]

1961 publication of The Genesis Flood.[5]

1965 The term "scientific creationism" gained currency.[5]

1967 Michael Polanyi article argued that “machines are irreducible to physics and chemistry” and that “mechanistic structures of living beings appear to be likewise irreducible.” [6]

1968 Epperson v. Arkansas ruled against state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution, concluding that they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion.[7] States may not alter the curriculum to conform to the beliefs of particular religious sects:[2][4]

1975 Daniel v. Waters rules that a state law requiring biology textbooks discussing "origins or creation of man and his world" to give equal treatment to creation as per Genesis is unconstitutional, creationists change to Creation science omitting explicit biblical references.[4]

1977 Hendren v. Campbell rules that use of the 1970 Creation Research Society textbook Biology: A Search For Order In Complexity, though claimed to present a balanced view of evolution and Biblical Creation, promotes a specific sectarian religious view, and is unconstitutional in public schools. "We may note that with each new decision of the courts religious proponents have attempted to modify or tailor their approach to active lobbying in state legislatures and agencies. Softening positions and amending language, these groups have, time and again, forced the courts to reassert and redefine the prohibitions of the First Amendment. Despite new and continued attempts by such groups, however, the courts are bound to determine, if possible, the purpose of the approach."[8]


Creation science school textbooks and the Foundation for Thought and Ethics

1980 Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) formed by ordained minister Jon Buell as a "Christian think-tank", its first activity to be the editing of a book "showing the scientific evidence for creation.".[9]

1981 state of Arkansas passed a law, Act 590, mandating that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution, and defining creation science as positing the “creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing,” as well as explaining the earth’s geology “by occurrence of a worldwide flood.”[5] McLean v. Arkansas ruling issued on January 5, 1982, is that the Act was unconstitutional, the creationists' methods were not scientific but took the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempted to find scientific support for it.[5] The clear, specific definition of science used to rule that “creation science” is religion, not science, had a powerful influence on subsequent rulings.[2]

1982 Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction" Act (Creationism Act) forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in "creation science."[7] Thus two states had passed these "equal time" laws.[10]

late 1982 as work on The Mystery of Life’s Origin (see 1984) nears completion, start made on what will become Pandas.[6]

1983 Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon produce Creation Biology Textbook Supplements, an early draft of the work later retitled Of Pandas and People.[11] Charles Thaxton was the project chairman and academic editor.[12]


The ID movement begins

1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton and others, foreword by Kenyon, argues for ‘a profoundly informative intervention' by an intelligent cause, "the authors conclude that while design can be detected in biology, science cannot determine from this evidence whether the design was from a creator outside the cosmos."[6] Barbara Forrest describes this as the beginning of the ID movement.[12]

1984 Kenyon's affidavit for what becomes Edwards v. Aguillard gives Definitions "Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation.", "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts." Satements included "The creationist scientific conclusion is that empirical data currently in hand demand the inference that the first living organisms were created." and "The origin of printed texts, manufactured devices, and biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering knowhow (Wilder-Smith 1970). In each case the characteristic order of the system must be impressed on matter 'from the outside.'"[13] It claims creation and evolution the only scientific explanations of life - what Forrest calls "the dual model".[11]
This is later described by the DI's Witt as "There Kenyon described a science open to intelligent causes but one free of religious presuppositions or assertions about the identity of the designer. He described how he did origins science, how a science open to intelligent causes ought to be done." Witt claims that this is a different creation science from Young Earth Creationism (YEC).[6]

1985 District Court "Aguillard v. Treen" held that there can be no valid secular reason for prohibiting the teaching of evolution, a theory historically opposed by some religious denominations. The court further concluded that "the teaching of 'creation-science' and 'creationism,' as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching 'tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects." (citing Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)). The District Court therefore held that the Creationism Act violated the Establishment Clause either because it prohibited the teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of creation science with the purpose of advancing a particular religious doctrine. The court of Appeals affirmed.[7]
DI's Witt claims that "In Edwards, the Court found Louisiana’s act entailed the teaching of religion by virtue of a specific religious construction, comprised of particular teachings clearly paralleling the ‘Book of Genesis. Thus, it was a specific set of teachings or doctrines from a religious source that constituted religion." and so didn't apply to Kenyon's definition of the term “creation science”.[6]

1985 Michael Denton's book: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Prominent figures in ID credit his critical examination of Darwinism with their change of view (Behe, Johnson).

1986 FTE copyrighted draft entitled Biology and Creation by Kenyon & Davis. [11] (note Charles Thaxton academic editor, not clear from when)
Autumn 1986 FTE, under the name of "Austin Analytic Consulting", carried out survey of 300 high-school science teachers to show potential mainline publishers that a market existed for a supplementary textbook to "balance" evolution teaching in class.[14][9][15]

1987 FTE copyrighted draft entitled Biology and Origins by Kenyon & Davis.[11]

1987 FTE's founder Jon Buell sought a publisher for the book, telling a Boston firm "A new independent scientific poll (report enclosed) shows almost half of the nation's biology teachers include some creation in their view of biological origins. Many more who don't still believe it should be included in science curriculum.... The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals says that teachers are free to teach scientific information that happens to support creation if they wish. In ruling on the so-called Louisiana "Balanced Treatment Act" this Spring the U.S. Supreme Court may not affirm state-mandated teaching of creation, but they will almost certainly let stand the above academic freedom for teachers." "The enclosed projections showing revenues of Over 6.5 million in five years are based upon modest expectations for the market provided the U.S Supreme Court does not uphold the Louisiana "Balanced Act". If, by chance it should uphold it, then you can throw out these projections, the nationwide market would be explosive!" "the book will not be subject to the major criticism of creation, that the supernatural lies outside of science, because its central statement is that scientific evidence points to an intelligent cause, but that science is silent as to whether that intelligence is within or beyond the material universe. So the book is not appealing to the supernatural."[16]

. . .

Creation becomes intelligent design, “cdesign proponentsists”

1987 (according to a 2005 apologia by the DI's Witt) Thaxton's definition of "creation-science" had been overruled at Edwards by being equated to YEC, so he needed a new term and found it in a phrase he'd picked up from a NASA scientist – intelligent design. He thought "That’s just what I need, it’s a good engineering term….. it seemed to jibe... And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally." Soon the term intelligent design was incorporated into the language of the book.[6]

1987 In a new draft of Pandas, approximately 150 uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creationist", were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design,[19] with "creationists" being changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists".[20] Accordingly, in the definition "creation" was changed to "intelligent design", so that it now read "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." This wording was essentially unchanged when published in 1989 and in the 1993 2nd. edition.

. . .

Campaign to get intelligent design into schools

1989 Haughton and the FTE campaigned to get Pandas into schools across the U.S. – mobilizing local Christian conservative groups to push school boards and individual teachers to adopt the book and also to get themselves elected to school boards and local educational committees. They claimed that intelligent design was "accepted science, a view that is held by many highly qualified scientists".[15]

September 12, 1989, at the Alabama hearings on approved school textbooks. Pandas was on the list but not in the libraries for public viewing as required. An Eagle Forum chapter director praised Pandas as an exemplary scientific text presenting an alternative to modern evolutionary theory based on "intelligent design". With NCSE assistance, written criticism was sent to committee members and on October 2, a majority of the State Textbook Committee voted against Pandas, partly because of its thinly disguised religious underpinnings. This decision was subject to adoption by the State Board of Education in December.[29]

November 1989, Haughton advertised Pandas in the monthly of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and other journals, claiming it had been "prepared with academic integrity" and had been "Authored by mainstream, published science educators",[30] and promoted it at teachers’ association conventions.[31]

November 1989, Pandas was promoted by members of religiously-oriented citizen pressure groups like Concerned Women for America and Citizens for Excellence in Education. It was under consideration for state adoption in both Idaho and Alabama, and to be submitted in Texas and other states in the coming months. With grass-roots promotion it also had a good chance of showing up in local districts of non-adoption states.[31]

December 1989 a church campaign in Alabama gathered over 11,800 signatures on a petition to add Pandas to the list of approved school textbooks, after weeks of urging from a Christian radio station in Tuscaloosa.[32]

December 14, 1989, at the Alabama State Board of Education meeting to consider adoption of the textbook list, Haughton Publishing made an elaborate presentation. A Birmingham businessman presented petitions with over 11,800 signatures urging the board to adopt supplementary materials presenting "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution. The attorney for Haughton, Hare, charged that opponents had falsely painted Pandas as a creationist text, and said that "Intelligent Design" does not compel belief in the supernatural. The Board requested legal advice, and a January hearing was set up just to consider Pandas.[32]

January 8, 1990, Buell and Thaxton were amongst speakers for Pandas at the hearing, but the publisher Haughton tried to withdraw and end the hearing on procedural grounds. The meeting continued, but Haughton then threatened to sue the committee members if they rejected the book rather than accepting that it had been withdrawn, as rejection would injure future sales prospects. The committee passed a resolution recognizing its withdrawal.[32]
Active promotion by creationists of "Pandas for public school use continued throughout the 1990s, then after 2000 activity largely died down.[27][18]


Discovery Institute founded, Johnson's views

November 30, 1989, Johnson's "informal summary of my views" (from the book he was working on) stated "The important issue is not the relationship of science and creationism, but the relationship of science and materialist philosophy." He wanted school textbooks to acknowledge alleged problems with evolution. "More importantly, the universities should be opened up to genuine intellectual inquiry into the fundamental assumptions of Darwinism and scientific materialism. The possibility that Darwinism is false, and that no replacement theory is currently available..."[25]

1990 Haughton admitted sales of Pandas so far had been single-copy. Instead of attempts to get state textbook approval, the FTE was now directing efforts "outside the schools" to the grass-roots level, targeting local school boards, teacher's groups, and parents.[9]

May 1990 a FTE letter by Jon Buell announced a new sales campaign as they'd found it best to approach the local school system through the biology teacher. It included an 18-minute video with the endorsements of a number of scientists, educators, and an authority on First Amendment law, and a Suggested Plan of Action for volunteers suggesting: finding a sympathetic biology teacher (perhaps a fellow church member) who then convinces the curriculum committee and/or administration to approve use of Pandas without need for funding, then a local church purchases the books and donates them to the school.[33]

1990 Discovery Institute (DI) is founded by Bruce Chapman,[34] but lacks a defining issue.[35]

1990 Johnson's booklet Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism was published under the auspices of the FTE by Haughton Publishing. He claimed that science holds a metaphysical materialist viewpoint that rejects the possibility of a Creator, so cannot countenance evidence for supernatural intervention.[36]

October 1990 -Johnson's article "A Reply to My Critics" stated that "Victory in the creation-evolution dispute therefore belongs to the party with the cultural authority to establish the ground rules that govern the discourse. If creation is admitted as a serious possibility, Darwinism cannot win, and if it is excluded a priori Darwinism cannot lose." He cited the logic of what he called "the Natural Academy of Sciences", as accepted by the Supreme Court at Edwards, that "creation-science" is not science because it does not rely upon naturalistic explanations, but holds "that the creation of the universe, the earth, living things, and man was accomplished through supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding".[37]

1991 professor Phillip A. Bishop at the University of Alabama was told to stop proselytizing students in class and teaching "intelligent design theory" in an optional class. At Bishop v. Aronov he sued the college on free speech and academic freedom grounds, and won at District Court but the Appeals Court found that the university had a right to set the curriculum.[36]

. . .

Still need a theory, teach controversy

1999 strategies: argue that individual teachers have a constitutional right to present creationist material, and that "evidence against evolution" should be taught in the science classroom as a way to improve teaching and learning. Attempts to teach IC and introduce Pandas. Resources for teachers... abundantly available from both "creation science ministries" and conservative religious groups.[26]

1999 David DeWolf, Stephen Meyer and Mark DeForrest coauthored a 40-page booklet, Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, published by the FTE. It claims Edwards v. Aguillard mandated "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind" subject to a "clear secular intent of enhancing.. science instruction."[18]

1999 Skagit County's Burlington-Edison School District finds that for almost 10 years the high-school science teacher Roger DeHart had been omitting state-approved biology textbook teaching on evolution, and using Pandas.[35]

Aug. 17, 1999, Philip Kitcher, professor of the philosophy of science at Columbia University, in online debate in Slate magazine with Johnson, coins neo-creo: "Enter the neo-creos, scavenging the scientific literature, they take claims out of context and pretend that everything about evolution is controversial. . . . But it's all a big con."[24]

May 10, 2000, DI briefing of Congress, "Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design and its Implications for Public Policy and Education," also addressed the social, moral, and political consequences of Darwinism. Creation-evolution debate had primarily been active at the state and local level, a new effort to involve Congress, took place as the Senate entered its second week of debate on overhauling federal K-12 education programs. Nancy Pearcey "For Darwinists, religion must give way to a new science-based cosmic myth with the power to bind humans together in a new world order. She then asked what this means for morality and argued that people were right to be concerned that all the above would undercut morality."[63]

July 2000 Dean Kenyon and David DeWolf of CRSC: Kenyon states "Scientific creationism... is actually one of the intellectual antecedents of the Intelligent Design movement.[64]

June 2001 Rick Santorum introduces The Santorum Amendment to "Teach the Controversy" partially written by Johnson (and based on a law journal article written by DI activist David DeWolf) inviting , left out of bill but kept in conference report.[4]

December 2002 DI lobbying to get ID into Ohio science standards Ohio House Bill 481. Bills all failed, ID excluded by name in the approved standard but it included the phrase "critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory" used as excuse for the new "teach the controversy" strategy.[4][65]

Jan 2004 Dembski The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design ISBN 0830823751 page 22 "Theism, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, holds that God by wisdom created the world. The origin of the world and its subsequent ordering thus result from the designing activity of an intelligent agent, God.
Naturalism, on the other hand, allows no place for intelligent agency, except at the end of a blind, purposeless, material process."
2004 ©. FTE, draft for new version of Pandas, mentions 10th anniversary, authors listed as Michael J. Behe, Percival Davis, William A. Dembski, Dean H. Kenyon, Jonathan Wells. Contents list, preface, notes to teachers, notes to students, epilogue, but no main content.[28]

March 10, 2004, Ohio State Board of Education approved model lesson Critical Analysis of Evolution – Grade 10.[65][66]

2004 Paul Nelson interviewed by a magazine called Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity – "Easily, the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."[22]

2004 the school board of Grantsburg, Wisconsin, voted to have ID taught as an alternative to evolution. By late summer 2005 letters urging reversal had been organised by a department of University of Wisconsin–Madison and clergy nationwide, the Clergy Letter Project, resulting in the board largely reversing their decision.[10]


Kitzmiller

June 7, 2004, at Dover, Pennsylvania, the Dover Area School District School Board considered a new biology textbook. William Buckingham objected, wanting a textbook that gave a balanced view between creationism and evolution. He subsequently proposed Of Pandas and People, after acrimonious debate it was left off the list on August 2.[18]

October 4, 2004, Buckingham announced acceptance of 50 donated copies of Pandas. On October 18 the full School Board voted 6-3 to amend the district's curriculum to include intelligent design. Buckingham states a law firm has offered pro bono legal representation.[18]

December 12, 2004, Phillip Johnson stated in an interview "What the Dover board did is not what I'd recommend.... Just teach evolution with a recognition that it's controversial..."[18]

December 14, 2004, 11 parents, ACLU, Americans United and Pepper Hamilton LLP file lawsuit Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, lead plaintiff Tammy Kitzmiller, the mother of a ninth grader in the biology class. On December 20, the District voted for the Thomas More Law Center to represent it pro bono.[18][4]

May 2005 Kansas school board hearings led by John Calvert, director of the Kansas office of the Intelligent Design Network, boycotted by mainstream scientists as an "anti-science crusade."[67]

September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005, Kitzmiller trial before Judge John E. Jones III

November 2005 Kansas school board voted 6-4 for new science standards criticising evolution, redefining science, then turned out in elections.[67]

December 20, 2005, Kitzmiller decision; Judge Jones issued his findings of fact and decision as his 139 page MEMORANDUM OPINION.


After Kitzmiller

February 2006 Kansas school board voted 6-4 for new standards supporting evolution.[67]

February 2006 Ohio Governor Bob Taft requests legal review of the state's "teach the controversy" curriculum standards, Ohio State Board of Education members vote 11-4 to drop all of the "teach the controversy".[4]

Spring 2006 Johnson states in interview "I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."[46]

June 2007 Behe's new book and new theory The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, claims that variation for the building blocks of evolution are not due to random mutation in DNA, but instead produced by an intelligent designer. Reiterates argument for irreducible complexity, calculating improbability on 2 or more beneficial mutations happening simulataneously, rather than one by one as evolutionary theory requires.[68]

2007, A new biology textbook intended to replace Of Pandas and People, entitled Explore Evolution is published by Hill House Publishers. The book is authored by Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich and Paul A. Nelson, Jonathan Moneymaker and Ralph Seelke.[69][70][71]

2007 William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells rewrote "Of Pandas and People" as a college textbook, The Design of Life.[72][71] When asked in a December interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer, Dembski stated "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."[73]

April, 2008, the pro-intelligent design movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is debuted.