Talk:Evolution/Objectionstoevolution

There are several criticisms of evolution that appear in Creationism literature and discourse. Some of these objections to evolution are decades to over a century old. Most of these objections have been refuted by new evidence that has compiled since the publication of Darwin's theory in 1858, or better understandings and modifications of the "Theory of Evolution". Some of the objections are based on misunderstandings, or semantic confusions (either intentional or accidental).

Evolution is not science
The creationist claim that "evolution is not science" dates from at least as early as 1922. Creationist preacher William Bell Riley (1861-1947) stated that "The first and most important reason for its elimination is in the unquestioned fact that evolution is not a science; it is a hypothesis only, a speculation" In 1922, one fundamentalist editor chimed in "It is not 'science' that orthodox Christians oppose. No! no! a thousand times, No! They are opposed only to the theory of evolution, which has not yet been proved, and therefore is not to be called by the sacred name of science''

Evolution is just a theory not a fact
This objection is very common, but is really only based on a confusion about the scientific and common meanings of the words "theory" and "fact", and a lack of knowledge about the word "evolution". Scientists and laypeople take the words "theory" and "fact" to mean to different things. And to make things even more complicated, there are actually two different things that the word "evolution" is used for, both a physical observable process and a scientific theory developed to explain that process. The fact of evolution had been recognized prior to Darwin's description of the Theory of Evolution, which is the explanation of that fact.

Evolution is a religion, and creationism is a science
A common creationist claim is that evolution is actually a religion, and the study of creationism is actually a science. This is the opposite of the conventional meanings, and again a matter of misunderstanding. There are some substantial differences between religion and science. Religion and science (or specifically the study of Evolution) differ in a number of critical ways:


 * Religions explain the ultimate reality whereas Evolution focuses on the development of life on earth (and does not even attempt to explain the origins of Life).
 * Religions describe the role of human beings within the ultimate reality that it attempts to explain whereas Evolution describes human being's biological background and development within the environment called Earth.
 * Religions almost by definition must contain a belief in or reverence for a supernatural power or being whereas Evolution by definition relies upon natural processes.
 * Religions have a structure and paradigm that surrounds their beliefs which includes rituals (or sacraments). Although science as a whole has a social structure, such as journals, conferences, and discussions, they are not a requirement for participation.
 * Religions require members to participate in and follow a moral code. Evolution does require following a scientific method, but that does not have the good/evil definition found in morality.

Using these definitions of Religion and Science, Intelligent Design and Creationism are religious in nature, while Evolution is Science. In fact, a dispassionate US District Court has rejected the defining of Evolution as religion:


 * Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Why not let the supernatural into science?
It might be asked, why is there such resistance by scientists to include the supernatural in science? After all, as put by Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, "Science should be open to whatever cause ... can best explain the data". This might sound eminently reasonable and fair at first glance. However, as pointed out by the National Center for Science Education's Eugenie Scott, opening science to supernatural causes like a god would be a "science stopper."

Scott explains, "Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them" Scott also stated in a CNN interview, "In science, you never really say, you know, this is a mystery that we can't explain and, you know, stop there. In science, you always keep looking for that natural explanation, which is why most of us consider intelligent design to be not a very good science, because it's basically giving up and saying: We can't explain this; therefore, God did it."

The introduction of the supernatural into science would make it very difficult to do drug testing. How could the scientists know how to evaluate the outcome of a drug study? It is possible that the people were not cured by the drug, but by a miracle instead.

When naturalists abandoned supernatural explanations
The biological naturalists held on to supernatural causes longer than scientists did in many of the other scientists. However, Darwin was not in favor of specifying that a Deity was necessary for the Theory of Evolution. Professor Asa Gray (1810–1888) was a prominent promoter of Darwin's theory in the United States, and he claimed that Darwin had accepted “a supernatural beginning of life on earth.” However Darwin dismissed this claim in his book Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (1868), writing “however much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief” in supernaturally-guided evolution.

Asa Grey's review of Darwin's Origin of Species for the Atlantic Monthly in 1860 considered the question of why naturalists would want to depart from the Genesis account to explain the natural world:


 * "Sufficient answer may be found in the activity of the human intellect, 'the delirious yet divine desire to know,' stimulated as it has been by its own success in unveiling the laws and processes of inorganic Nature.... Surely the scientific mind of an age which contemplates the solar system as evolved from a common revolving fluid mass—which, through experimental research, has come to regard light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity, and mechanical power as varieties or derivative and convertible forms of one force, instead of independent species—which has brought the so-called elementary kinds of matter, such as the metals, into kindred groups, and pertinently raised the question, whether the members of each group may not be mere varieties of one species—and which speculates steadily in the direction of the ultimate unity of matter...—the mind of such an age cannot be expected to let the old belief about species pass unquestioned."

More succinctly, American astronomer Simon Newcomb (1835– 1909) described the reasons for preferring evolution over a biblical creation account as: “We are not to call in a supernatural cause to account for a result which could have been produced by the action of the known laws of nature.”

There are a lot of scientists that disagree with evolution
It is often claimed by creationists that a large number of scientists dispute the validity of the "Theory of Evolution" which suggests that there are issues within the scientific community about the validity of Evolution by scientists themselves. In addition, several creationist websites have stated that they have "substantial" or significant support for creationism by scientists.

Though the claims are related, they are disputed by these two facts:


 * Less than 0.1% of all earth and biological scientists worldwide support any form of creationism to describe the biological and geological world.
 * In the US, where Creationism is more prevalent, less than 0.15% of those same scientists express support for creationism.

Evolution is atheism
Another charge leveled at the "Theory of Evolution" by creationists is that belief in the theory of evolution is akin to atheism, and all those people who accept evolution as a reasonable theory are atheists. However, evolution does not either require or rule out the existence of a supernatural being. As Robert Pennock points out, evolution is no more atheistic than plumbing.

In addition, a wide range of religions have reconciled a belief in a supernatural being with evolution. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, "of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education." 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 poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God. Only 48% of the people polled could choose the correct definition of evolution from a list, however.

One poll reported in the Journal Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6) showed that among scientists, about 40 percent believe in both evolution and a diety (theistic evolution). This is similar to the results reported for surveys of the general public. Also about 40 percent of the scientists polled believe in a God that answers prayers and in immortality. While about 55% of scientists surveyed were atheists or agnostics, atheism is far from universal among scientists who support evolution, or among the general public that supports evolution. Very similar results were reported from a 1997 Gallup survey of the public and scientists.

The Big Bang Theory which is also often a target of creationists was created by Belgian Roman Catholic Priest Father Georges-Henri Lemaître. It was also celebrated by Pope Pius XII often as scientific proof of biblical creation, which is completely the opposite of the creationist claims.

The creationists who criticize evolution the most insist on biblical literalism and inerrancy. However, even among the most fervert American Christians, the 15% that are evangelical protestants, only 47.8% believe it is literally true, and 6.5% believe it is an ancient book full of history and legends. Only about 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants believe the bible is literally true, and only 9% of Jews believe the Torah is literally true. About 20% of Catholics and Protestants reported that the bible is a book of history and legends, and 52.6% of Jewish respondents felt the same about the Torah. These figures make it clear that a large fraction of Christians and Jews do not subscribe to the necessary beliefs to adopt creationist principles whole-heartedly.

Support for evolution leads to social ills
It is often claimed that many social ills like crime, teen pregnancies, homosexuality, abortion, immorality, wars, etc. are caused by a belief in evolution. Creationist Ken Ham likens evolution to a horde of termites, weakening societies foundation. Texas Republican Representative Tom Delay claimed that the Columbine school shootings were caused by the teaching of evolution. Rev. D. James Kennedy of The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ claims that Charles Darwin was responsible for Hitler. as does Discovery Institute fellow Richard Weikart  Kent Hovind of Creation Research Evangelism blames the Holocaust, World War I, the Vietnam War, World War II,  Stalin's war crimes, communism, racism, socialism and Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields on evolution, as well as the increase in crime, unwed mothers, and other ills. Hydraulic engineer Henry M. Morris claims that evolution was part of a pagan religion that emerged after the Tower of Babel, and were part of Plato's and Aristotle's philosophies, responsible for all wars, and everything from pornography to the breakup of the nuclear family.



The opposite appears to be true. There is a published study by Gregory Paul demonstrating that religious beliefs, including belief in creationism and disbelief in evolution, are positively correlated with social ills like crime. The Barna Group surveys find that Christians and nonChristians in the US have similar divorce rates, and the highest divorce rates in the US are among Baptists and Pentecostals, both sects which reject evolution and embrace creationism.

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.

Evolution has never been observed
A common claim of creationists is that evolution has never been observed. This is not correct. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory in fruit flies and bacteria, and in the field in tilipia. The records of evolution are recorded in the rocks, in millions of fossils that have been catalogued.

Even speciation has been observed.



However, it is not necessary in a science to be able to be able to do laboratory experiments. Many observational sciences, such as solar physics, astrophysics, geophysics, meteorology, volcanology and oceanography do not permit laboratory experimentation. However, the observation of field data, such as geomagnetic data created thousands or millions of years ago are used as scientific observations. These observations are explained by scientific theories, and produce predictions which the data can be compared with.

David E. Thomas gave a useful example at the Darwin, Design and Democracy V Conference September 24-25, 2004 at the University of New Mexico. Thomas pointed out that murders and other crimes cannot be repeated again in a laboratory. Crimes always happen in the past, and with evidence like fingerprints or hair samples unusable, criminal investigations would have to stop. Therefore criminals and even murders would have to be released, no matter what evidence we had.


 * ID trial expert witness video

Evolution defense links

 * Talk Origins Archive
 * Panda's Thumb
 * National Center for Science Education

comments

 * http://www.skeptictank.org/gosburn.htm

I have seen several quotes from experts of various sorts who claim that the creation-evolution controversy is not really a controversy between creationism and evolution, or between religion and science, but instead between those with moderate religious views and those with literalist religious views. Really a dispute WITHIN religion, and having nothing to do with science at all. This does have quite a bit of merit, in my mind. In the US in particular, the creationist position gets a lot of other issues shoved under its rubric: and so on and so forth. Things get very confused very quickly, and someone who is trying to argue for evolution soon is found in a terrible morass where evolution is blamed for all of the ills for society.
 * cosmology and abiogenesis and many other fields are defined as creationism
 * evolution is defined as atheism
 * evolution is defined as materialism
 * evolution is defined as humanism
 * evolution is defined as secularism
 * evolution is claimed to be responsible for
 * the breakdown of family
 * illiteracy
 * racism
 * Stalin
 * Hitler
 * the holocaust
 * Mao
 * communism
 * divorce
 * unwed mothers
 * teenage pregnancy
 * drug abuse
 * smoking
 * alcohol usage
 * riots
 * wars
 * handgun crime
 * reluctance to impose the death penalty
 * liberalism (a dirty word in the US)
 * welfare cheats
 * illegal immigration
 * adultery

-

Since this article is specifically titled creationism, there is another article on evolution, and yet another on the creation-evolution controversy, I intend to move all discussion of evolution to the controversy page, where it is more properly placed. Any objections? Trishm 06:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion has rapidly changed into one which involves far more topics it seems. Homestarmy 06:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure whether this is a good idea I'm afraid. Can we think about it for a day or two, and see what other editors think? NBeale 08:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's the idea. I should mention what got me on this tack. It's the line in the overview:
 * Creationists take the position that neither theory is verifiable in the scientific sense, and that the scientific evidence conforms more closely to the creation model of origins than it does to the evolutionary model. [9]

It just seems that it would be better placed elsewhere.

Trishm 12:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

However, leaving out the strong controversy might cause Undue weight. It'd have to be trimmed carefully.Adam Cuerden talk 23:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, please? I can see that it would be undue weight if evolution were discussed here. I feel the lines are an attack on evolution, in a forum where the balancing view is not appropriate. Trishm 01:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Which lines are we talking about, exactly? May well be misunderstanding you. Adam Cuerden talk 03:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in the second paragraph in the overview:


 * Creationists take the position that neither theory is verifiable in the scientific sense, and that the scientific evidence conforms more closely to the creation model of origins than it does to the evolutionary model. [9]

I have actually changed "creationists" to Gish, which is more specific, since the reference is a link to Gish's website, comparing the merits of creationsim and evolution. If I were to choose a single article to put this argument in, it would be the [creation-evolution controversy], not creationism.

My concern is actually a structural one. This article is about creationism, and should stick to the topic. After the definition and explanation, the impact of creationism is also appropriate to the article. i.e. the push to get it taught in schools, whether it should be taught at all, what class it should be taught in. The conflict arises from the attempt to classify creationism as science. Once we get into the discussion of the relative merits of creationism and evolution, we have crossed the boundary between the two topics. I think there should be a link to creation-evolution controversy, and the discussion should continue there, rather than be repeated as nauseum, with varying quality, across the myriad of articles touching on any of the topics involved. The duplication is unmanageable, and actually obscures the issues on both sides. Trishm 11:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In the effort to clarify the discussions in the article, I have been looking at the wikipedia guidelines. Quite apart from the structural issues, I also have concerns about whether the citation is appropriate under the the reliability sources guidelines. If it were a personal or organizational opinion, then of course the citation would be allowable. However, it is presenting itself as a scholarly science article, making makes controversial scientific assertions. The views however, are totally unsupported by the scholarly science community. Hence, it does not meet any of the criteria of reliability of sources when dealing with scholarly articles, which require that the claims made be supported by scholarly consensus in the appropriate field. Here is the reference:

Does anybody have anything that does meet the guidelines that would support the claim that evolution is not supported in a scientific sense? Trishm 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick search found this, but there's bound to be a better one: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i6f.htm rossnixon 07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This one is quite good http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm rossnixon 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a handy link: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean? ... dave souza, talk 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So, time to pick the best so far...

Thanks for those two links, Ross. I agree with you, that there is probably a more persuasive one than the first. There is little detail, and it reads like a straw man argument.

The samizdat article is much more persuasive, except that it blows itself out of contention in the conclusion:
 * "It is well-known that social Darwinism was the main basis for Hitler's notion of the superiority of the Aryan race which served to justify the massacre of six million Jews. Would we dare again place power in the hands of someone who really believes in the theory of evolution?"

It is hard to argue that nationalism, racism and pogroms started with Darwin, or even Hitler. As for anti-semitism, Christianity is not entirely blameless. . The line about where power can be placed can all too easily be turned against Christians, and hence I would be reluctant to use that source as an example of the Creationist view.

Dave, thanks for the link. It is a very nice piece on the criteria used to distinguish science from non-science, but quite heavy. Its central theme is that just as scientific theories change over time as new evidence crops up or new understandings emerge, so even the concept of what science is changes over time. In its conclusion, it endorses evolution as a science.

The best so far, then, on the Creationist side is this one:http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i6f.htm And this for the rebuttal:Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?

Here is my suggestion for dealing with creationists
A number of extended articles that address various creationist attacks be constructed, with themes such as


 * evolution is science, not religion, but creationism is not science
 * evolution is falsifiable, but creationism is not
 * evolution is both a theory and a fact
 * evolution is supported by the vast majority of scientists
 * evolution has been observed

and so on. These articles would be stuffed with references and links to relevant websites.

The evolution website include only a very small controversy/confusion/misconception/defense section with summary sentences of the main points, and links to the extended articles.

An overarching article, maybe like the controversy article be produced to organize and present the material, as well as provide links to the extended articles.

Other articles such as "hypocrisy of creationists" (or "biblical errancy") are possible, demonstrating that literal belief in biblical accounts would require a stationary earth, a flat earth, a square earth, problems with tree rings and coral rings and layers of benthic sediments and dynamo theory and the value of pi and knowledge of teleomeres and optical refraction and Doppler shifts and a huge amount of other similar things. Basically, if one accepts the bible as literally true in all aspects, one has to deal with several hundred thousand documented mistakes and inconsistencies and then a huge volume of disagreements with scientific predictions, like the sphericity of the earth. Of course, what is common is that even biblical inerrancy advocates only believe PARTS of the bible are inerrant, and reject or interpret the parts they disagree with in whatever way they choose. This is what I call the hypocrisy. Either the bible is a scientific text, or it is not. You cannot claim that evolution is wrong but then ignore all the other conflicts with science in the bible or sweep them under the carpet.--Filll 19:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

questions for creationists

 * http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/2006/09/dozen-questions-for-creationistsid.html

1. Why do males have nipples?

2. Why did the intelligent designer design the male uterus? (“the remnant of an undeveloped female reproductive organ that hangs off the prostate gland”)

3. Why do humans get goose bumps? (which are a physiological method by which to puff-up fur)

4. Why do some humans get wisdom teeth? (which don’t fit in our modern jaw structure and are meant for plant-eaters)

5. “Most modern humans have twelve sets of ribs, but 8 percent of us have a thirteenth set, just like chimpanzees and gorillas.” Why?

6. Why does the human genome contain junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, gene fragments, tandem repeats and pseudogenes?

7. Why do the geological strata indicate an evolutionary history to life? For example, why does no geological stratum simultaneously contain a trilobite and a fossil horse?

8. A bat’s wing has exactly the same set of bones as a whale’s flipper and a human arm. Why? Additionally, why does a bat’s wing not have such similarity to an insect’s wing or a bird’s wing?

9. How is “intelligent design” accomplished? For example, how did the designer design vertebrates? This question is essential because a theory without a process is useless. For example, the theory of evolution would be of no value if scientists had no mechanism by which evolution could occur. Natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution. What are the processes and/or mechanisms associated with design?

10. How much microevolution is allowed? Can species only evolve to subspecies? Or, does the intelligent designer get involved at the level of genus, from which species then can evolve naturally?

11. If you reject Young Earth Creationism, this question is for you: At what stages, specifically, did the intelligent designer intervene? Additionally, did the intelligent designer modify the DNA of an entire population, or only of a single creature, from which an entirely new population was born?

12. Who designed the intelligent designer? (no theology allowed; remember, intelligent design is science!)

What is a science?
Hello, Filll. I read with some interest the debate and discussion that you and Phil Rayment were having on his talk page regarding the nature of religion and whether science/scientific thinking is a religion by its nature. To preface this, I am certain that you have devoted a great deal of time to this line of thought, as evidenced by your discussion.
 * A professor that I was close to in college once observed to me during a Philosophy of Religion course that the world's religions were diverse in almost every possible way- comparing Confucianism to Islam, or Hinduism to Judaism, it was pretty apparent, on consideration. The intriguing thing that he worked it down to in front of the class, was that the only connecting factor he (or I) could think of was this: that all religions as we know them have in common the idea of salvation from the human condition. All major religions seem to share it, from primal religions in which the salvation was often from mythical spirits or natural events, to the christian idea of salvation in an afterlife, to the buddhist idea of salvation from the cycle of living and dying, all seem to have this theme (and perhaps only this theme) in common. Many share a moral system, but not all do. Many share belief in a god or gods, but not all do. Religions have many faces, few in common, but all do appear to have that one.
 * Now, as that ties in to your argument with PR, science notably does not share these similar things with religion. It does not offer a moral system, and it does not offer salvation from a condition. Scientific thinking is a philosophy, not a religion, and the distinction between the two is important to remember, particularly when arguing nomenclature and "what's what". Hope you found some of this helpful. --HassourZain 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Science of course has no salvation in it, and depending how it is used, it could offer salvation or damnation. It is just a tool an instrument, and as you say, a process. It is much different than a religion. Science is no more a religion than a garden hoe is a religion, or cleaning toilets, or criminal investigation or legal argument.


 * Science does not give proof of anything. If you want proof, go to logic or mathematics, not science.
 * Science does not give truth or look for truth. Science only looks for efficient explanations. That is, science seeks the more parsimonious explanations that produce predictions that agree with the observations, either from the field or the laboratory (empirical results).
 * Science is not about finding the facts, except for the measurements. The measurements are the facts, and even those have error bars.
 * Scientific theories are not true in the conventional sense of the word true. They are only provisionally accepted until something better comes along. And there are usually exceptions to any theory. They are only accepted because it would be perverse not to.

from ID report on catholic church
Physicist Stephen Barr responded to Hilbert's analysis in First Things, conceding much that he says. Barr argues however that,
 * http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2006/06/07/the_catholic_church_and_id_what_s_really


 * http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=273

Whatever one thinks of Darwinism as science, it is very hard to prove (I would say impossible) that as a mere theory of biology it conflicts with Catholic teaching. The great John Henry Newman had it right when he stated in 1868, "The theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill. Larger than the ideas of some, I would add, but not necessarily larger than those of St. Thomas.

Creationism and plumbing
Evolution has as much to do with atheism, or with religion, as plumbing does. Plumbing excludes God (at least our modern view of sanitation does anyway). Is it possible for a plumber to belong to your Church and your faith? Because in the past, plagues and sicknesses caused by bad sanitation were chalked up to punishments from God, not bad sanitation. So would you rather get rid of your toilet, throw your human waste in the street, and just pray to God instead to protect you from dysentry and other unpleasantries because that is the more "Christian" thing to do? That is what was done in the past. Then we took God out of plumbing. And now we have a system that works and keeps us healthy. Was that unChristian? Are we all atheists because we use toilets? Is it an affront to God to use a toilet?

Some Presbyterian thoughts..
Just shows what turns up with a bit of searching: American Scientist Online – Being Stalked by Intelligent Design recounts being pestered with "e-mails asking how I explained this or that... I answered him time and again—until I realized that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I  suggested." Sounds familiar, gives a neat summary of ID. More on topic, Johnson is an elder of First Presbyterian Church in Berkeley, but according to AiG the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) passed a resolution by a vote of 353-150 reaffirming its support of evolutionary theory in 2002. A 1998 panel survey found rather mixed results, with most supporting evolution but not believing in humans developing from earlier species of animals. More generally,Churches urged to challenge Intelligent Design -20/02/06 had ministers preaching that followers of Christ do not have to choose between biblical stories of creation and evolution at Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and community churches. Must tidy this up and add some to theistic evolution. A Christian argument against ID: A More Intelligent Design, "At the end of the day, 'intelligent design theory,' fails not because there is no Designer, but because the God implied by such theories is not intelligent enough." ... dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Science as religion


A popular accusation among creationists is that evolution is itself a religion based on secular humanism, scientific materialism, or philosophical naturalism. Creationists argue that there is an atheistic bias in the scientific community that systematically discriminates against their religious views. Creationists involved in the controversy often do not believe distinction can be made between science and religion, and hold that the modern philosophy of science is informed inappropriately by rejection of a deity. They do not accept a priori rejection of claims of supernatural events or miracles. Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "who describes himself as a person of faith," argues that science and religion are not mutually exclusive: "Science does not produce evidence against God. Science and religion ask different questions." The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, comes to a similar conclusion, albeit from a completely different perspective. In March 2006, he stated his discomfort about to teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

The Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion, teaching on creationism is also the same as Williams.

Creationists and their supporters use neologisms such as evolutionism and Darwinism to refer to the modern theory of evolution, and evolutionists and Darwinists to those who accept it, often pejoritively. In the context of the evolution/creation controversy, many evolution proponents object to such usage as inaccurate and misleading. In particular, the -ist/-ists/-ism suffixes evoke similarity to religious or philosophical rather than scientific ideas (e.g. creationist, fundamentalist, Calvinist, Communist). It is claimed that in the case of evolutionism the label implies that evolution is a belief system akin to religion, while in the case of Darwinism, the implication is that modern evolutionary theory is the static work of just one individual, Charles Darwin, as though he were not a scientist but rather the founder of a religious sect. However, these terms are also commonly used without pejorative intent by others, including scientists, historians, and commentators, e.g., scientist, evolutionist, Neo-Darwinism, etc.