Where did you get the idea that evolution predicts or describes “new creatures developing from nothing”? Seriously. Did you read this somewhere? Where? If someone said this, who said it?
First, as far as I know, evolution does not suggest that creatures are coming from nothing or will necessarily ever be coming from nothing right before our eyes. I think that the question itself betrays a lack of familiarity with the arguments for and evidence of evolution. It seems to me that you are doubting evolution precisely because you have never seriously looked into the topic. ... And reading Christian apologetics certainly does not count as seriously studying evolution. Happily, there is a great solution to this.
Before you do anything else related to this topic, ASAP go to YouTube and watch the entire “Made Easy” series posted by the user named Potholer54. Each video is only about 10 minutes in length. It is best to open each one in a separate tab and pause each until the entire thing has loaded. I think videos 4-9 (plus “Errata 2”) will be SO very helpful for you, and they are entertaining anyway and short. This is a good one on evolution: "The Theory of Evolution Made Easy" : http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4.
You would also like http://www.youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks, in particular the 3 videos of the “Creationist Junk Debunked” series, as well as “Carbon Dating Doesn't Work – Debunked.”
Popular Christian talk is full of myths, misinformation, and outright lies about evolution, and the videos above will at least prevent you from falling prey to certain misinformation or unawareness (such as appeared in this question).
Is evolution "just a theory"? Take a look at this brief video featuring Dr. Tim White's answer to that question.http://youtu.be/srC1au8ZiU4.
"Facts Of Evolution (Cassiopeia Project)," 2008 video, 51:24, Cassiopeia Project, created by Mudbrick Media Studios, 7070 Bruns Drive, Mobile, AL 36695, TEL: 251.776.6570: http://youtu.be/uEP7Z55Z6nM. "If you want to know what scientists know about evolution, then here it is. An enormous breadth of information assimilated, compressed, and congealed into an easily understood, visually irresistible presentation. 'Facts Of Evolution' has layer upon layer of evidence that makes common descent and macroevolution inescapable." The Cassiopeia Project website contains videos, transcripts, and more: http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/vid_courses3.php?Tape_Name=Evolution.
"Your Inner Fish." (2014 PBS documentary video) http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/watch/. VERY entertaining show, and well-done exploration of anatomy, human and ancestral. Cadaver dissections, embryos of humans and other animals, a little boy with a 6-finger hand, fossil hunting in Canada, genetics. It features Dr. Neil Shubin, his history, why and how he became interested in his work, and how he and his colleagues found the first fossil of the famous Tiktaalik, an evolutionary step between fish and amphibians (and all subsequent land animals including humans). Full of fascinating factoids and fun finds!
“29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, Version 2.87, Copyright © 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., [Last Update: June 19, 2007], http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/.
Panda’s Thumb. A science and evolution weblog that also handles creationist propaganda. It has extensive archives available for searching by topic. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/.
The TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. http://www.talkorigins.org/.
TalkDesign. A web site responding “to the "Intelligent Design" movement of creationism. It is dedicated to: 1. Assessing the claims of the Intelligent Design movement from the perspective of mainstream science, 2. Addressing the wider political, cultural, philosophical, moral, religious, and educational issues that have inspired the ID movement, 3. Providing an archive of materials that critically examine the scientific claims of the ID movement. - http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/.
AntiEvolution.org “provides concise and accurate information for those who wish to critically examine the antievolution movement.” - http://www.antievolution.org/cs/.
Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks, a site created and maintained by the National Center for Science Education. The site thoroughly examines the Ben Stein independent documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” (2008), which published lots of bogus and misleading ideas about science and evolution. http://www.expelledexposed.com/.
The “Our Origins Made Easy” YouTube series posted by the user Potholer54. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX8RpvQfjdupAKFWKjtMhTe
"Why Evolution Is True," by Jerry Coyne, AAI 2009; (57:11) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig
"Becoming Human," a 3-part NOVA special on human evolution, 2009,
Part 1: "First Steps: Six million years ago, what set our ancestors on the path from ape to human?" (51:20) Aired Nov 3, 2009, on PBS and on-line: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/becoming-human-part-1.html;
Part 2: "Birth of Humanity: New discoveries reveal how early humans hunted and formed families." Aired Nov 10, 2009, on PBS and on-line: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/becoming-human-part-2.html;
Part 3: "Last Human Standing: Many human species once shared the globe. Why do we alone remain?" Aired Nov 17, 2009, on PBS and on-line: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/becoming-human-part-3.html;
“Dawn of Humanity.” Created by NOVA and National Geographic Studios, for WGBH Boston. 2015. Aired September 16, 2015, and June 20, 2018, on PBS. (1:53) Deep in a South African cave, an astounding discovery reveals clues to what made us human. Full video available on the PBS website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/dawn-of-humanity.html. This is a chance to see and hear from the people who make important fossil discoveries, and it also gives an overview of the history of paleo-anthropology.
“Ancient DNA shows interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal,” by David Brown, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, May 7, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/06/AR2010050604423.html.
If one were to be very serious and have sufficient time, one might keep up with scientific journals themselves, but a person almost has to be a professional to do so. Usually news organizations provide information sufficient for a person to do further research on any particular subject.
ScienceDaily.com will allow you to subscribe for any new articles that come out on particular topics in science, including evolution. http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/evolution/ .
Here is a link to my personal collection of copies of articles on human evolution (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1DqxM7zjYo4MjNiYWNhYTktOTQ4Ny00MDNhLWE3MzItODE0MTQ5YzRmZjNi).
Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution is True. (Coyne is an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago.) Jan 22, 2009. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532.
Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Sept 22, 2009. http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/.
Prothero, Donald R. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. Dec 15, 2007. http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624.
Yes.
Various organisms have evolved even within the last few decades and continue to evolve. Evolution is most easily observable in species that reproduce quickly. One brief generally known example of recent evolution is the fact that bacteria develop genetic immunities to certain antibiotics.
Despite the fact that evolutionary biologists generally expect evolution to occur slow processes over quite long periods of time, there are enough organisms that reproduce much more quickly than humans, so that evolution as actually been witnessed and documented, even to the level of speciation, i.e. the development of new species, both naturally and in artificial lab experiments.
To put it in different words, evolution is a fact. What is a “theory” is that all life forms, every single one, must be explained the same way. It makes sense, the necessary processes themselves have been verified, and there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record and from genetics to support the theory. The only thing that cannot be done is to replicate all of world history and four billion plus years of evolution . . . in the laboratory.
You can do your own google search for “recent evolution” or “recent speciation” and start reading some of the articles that look interesting and are from scientific sources. Here are some of the most interesting and relevant links I have looked at:
“Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution,” 1995-1997, by Mark Isaak, [Last Update: October 1, 2003] – Includes a brief debunking of the creationist claim that "Evolution has never been observed," along with other misconceptions – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe.
"Observed Instances of Speciation," posted by David Bloomberg, abbreviating Joseph Boxhorn. A summary list with examples from 1905-1990. – http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/speci.htm. His source is this one:
“Observed Instances of Speciation,” by Joseph Boxhorn. Last Update: September 1, 1995. Includes MANY well-documented examples of actual observed speciation, i.e. the evolution of new species, as well as an explanation of what speciation is and how it is determined. If pressed for time, scroll down to section 5 and just start reading the summarized examples - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.
“Some More Observed Speciation Events,” by Chris Stassen, James Meritt, Anneliese Lilje, L. Drew Davis. 1992-1997. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.
"Detecting recent speciation events: the case of the finless porpoise (genus Neophocaena)," J Y Wang, T R Frasier, S C Yang and B N White. Heredity (2008) 101, 145–155; doi:10.1038/hdy.2008.40; published online 14 May 2008 at http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v101/n2/abs/hdy200840a.html .
"Rethinking classic examples of recent speciation in plants," by Gottlieb, L. D., New Phytologist, Volume 161, Number 1, November 2003 , pp. 1-12(12). Blackwell Publishing. Abstract Summary on-line at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/nph/2003/00000161/00000001/art00003.
"Recent speciation in the orchard oriole group: Divergence of Icterus spurius spurius and Icterus spurius fuertesi," by Baker JM; Lopez-Medrano E; Navarro-Siguenza AG; Rojas-Soto OR; Omland KE, in AUK 120 (3): 848-859, July 2003. Abstract on-line at http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/histcomp/coalesc/node/1422.html .
Here is a link to my personal collection of copies of articles on human evolution (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1DqxM7zjYo4MjNiYWNhYTktOTQ4Ny00MDNhLWE3MzItODE0MTQ5YzRmZjNi).
For a general introduction, as with just about any topic, a person can simply read the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution). You might also quickly view “Human Evolution: Intermediate Forms” at TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3). The shortest and easiest visual introduction I know of is a 10 minute video, part of the “Made Easy” series posted by a user named Potholer54 on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB).
When speaking of human evolution, “recent” can mean “within the last 10,000 years. Human evolution is a very fascinating topic. Here are some worthwhile resources:
Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending. The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution. (January 26, 2009) Basic Books. 304 pages. Ref: http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465002218. Here is the initial review at amazon.com:
Resistance to malaria. Blue eyes. Lactose tolerance. What do all of these traits have in common? Every one of them has emerged in the last 10,000 years.
Scientists have long believed that the “great leap forward” that occurred some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago in Europe marked end of significant biological evolution in humans. In this stunningly original account of our evolutionary history, top scholars Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending reject this conventional wisdom and reveal that the human species has undergone a storm of genetic change much more recently. Human evolution in fact accelerated after civilization arose, they contend, and these ongoing changes have played a pivotal role in human history. They argue that biology explains the expansion of the Indo-Europeans, the European conquest of the Americas, and European Jews' rise to intellectual prominence. In each of these cases, the key was recent genetic change: adult milk tolerance in the early Indo-Europeans that allowed for a new way of life, increased disease resistance among the Europeans settling America, and new versions of neurological genes among European Jews.
Ranging across subjects as diverse as human domestication, Neanderthal hybridization, and IQ tests, Cochran and Harpending's analysis demonstrates convincingly that human genetics have changed and can continue to change much more rapidly than scientists have previously believed. A provocative and fascinating new look at human evolution that turns conventional wisdom on its head, The 10,000 Year Explosion reveals the ongoing interplay between culture and biology in the making of the human race.
"Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds," by Scott Norris, National Geographic News, March 8, 2006 - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html .
"Very Recent Evolution: Up To 10 Percent Of Human Genome Has Changed," Scientific Blogging News, July 11th 2007 11:00 PM - http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/very_recent_evolution_up_to_10_percent_of_human_genome_has_changed .
"Human Genome Reveals Signs Of Recent Evolution," by Jennifer Barone. Discover Magazine. (Human Origins / Human Evolution: 43.) Published online January 4, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/human-genome-reveals-signs-of-recent-evolution.
"We are all mutants now," Steve Hsu, Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon, blog, Dec 11, 2008 – http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/12/we-are-all-mutants-now.html.
"Recent Evolution in Humans," Steve Hsu, Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon, blog, Dec 17, 2008 - http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/12/recent-natural-selection-in-humans.html.
"Cavemen: They're Just Like Us," by Jessica Ruvinsky, Discover Magazine, published online December 21, 2008. (Top 100 Stories of 2008 #8). “Neanderthals were a sophisticated bunch, according to new research.” - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/008.
"Selection Spurred Recent Evolution, Researchers Say," By Nicholas Wade, NYTimes, December 11, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11gene.html.
"Are Humans Evolving Faster? Findings Suggest We are Becoming More Different, Not Alike," University of Utah Press Release, Media Contacts, Dec. 10, 2007 - "Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up - and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought - indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different." - http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=120607-1.
*[primary source] : Williamson SH, Hubisz MJ, Clark AG, Payseur BA, Bustamante CD, et al. (2007). “Localizing Recent Adaptive Evolution in the Human Genome.” PLoS Genet 3(6): e90. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030090. Available on-line at http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030090.
"Did Early Humans First Arise in Asia, Not Africa?," Nicholas Bakalar, National Geographic News, December 27, 2005. - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1227_051227_asia_migration.html.
University of California - Berkeley. "Extinct human cousin gave Tibetans advantage at high elevation." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 July 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140702131738.htm>.
Here is a link to my personal collection of copies of articles on human evolution (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1DqxM7zjYo4MjNiYWNhYTktOTQ4Ny00MDNhLWE3MzItODE0MTQ5YzRmZjNi).
5.4. Articles on Science, Genetics, Evolution:
Here are some great articles on science, genetics, evolution, etc., truly worth spending some time with, in order to understand what is happening in the world today, where we have come from and where we are headed. These are so fun and fascinating:
"Transfer RNA - Evolution's Historian," Scientific Blogging News, March 7, 2008, 09:54 AM. - http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/transfer_rna_evolutions_historian.
"Is That a Dead Mouse You're Cloning?" by Jennifer Barone, Discover Magazine, published online January 12, 2009. -- “Researchers clone living pups from long-dead, frozen rodents.” -- http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/12-is-that-a-dead-mouse-you.re-cloning.
Top 100 Stories of 2008 #8: "Cavemen: They're Just Like Us," by Jessica Ruvinsky, Discover Magazine, published online December 21, 2008. "Neanderthals were a sophisticated bunch, according to new research." - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/008
Top 100 Stories of 2008: #9: "Your Genome, Now Available for a (Relative) Discount," by Kathleen McGowan, Discover Magazine, published online December 21, 2008. "The first cost around $1 million; now, it's more like $200,000." - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/009.
Top 100 Stories of 2008: #29: "A New Law Bans Genetic Discrimination: After over a decade, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act becomes law," by Karen Wright, Discover Magazine, published online December 17, 2008. - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/029.
Top 100 Stories of 2008: #41: "A Synthetic Genome Is Built From Scratch: The art of recreating an entire bacterial genome," by Jocelyn Rice, Discover Magazine, published online December 14, 2008. http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/041.
Top 100 Stories of 2008: #90: "The Platypus Genome Is a Mash-Up of Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals," by Jane Bosveld, Discover Magazine, published online December 7, 2008. - "One animal, three completely different ancestors." - http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/090.
"Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity," by Bob Holmes, New Scientist, issue 2818, 23 June 2011, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300. University of Minnesota, St. Paul: "In just a few weeks single-celled yeast have evolved into a multicellular organism, complete with division of labour between cells. This suggests that the evolutionary leap to multicellularity may be a surprisingly small hurdle."
Here is a link to my personal collection of copies of articles on human evolution (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1DqxM7zjYo4MjNiYWNhYTktOTQ4Ny00MDNhLWE3MzItODE0MTQ5YzRmZjNi).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No.
You tell me. Should we do away with health care?
If you pay close attention to the information and links I have been providing, you will quickly see that you can go ahead and either drop the “If evolution is true” part of the question.
Do you really wonder whether we should give up caring for the sick? Is this a sincere question?
I ask only because I think your heart would already know the answer were you actually faced with the question in real time, but misguided fundamentalists often vainly imagine a correlation between evolution and immorality. Such is far from the truth.
Watch this entertaining 10-minute video, “Atheists are immoral – debunked” - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5TvbM, which addresses this question among others, and tell me if you still have questions. Don’t skip it! I think it is informative, and it is more fun than reading 100,000 pages written by me. It specifically addresses the question you asked. Unfortunately, lots of people think the answer is “yes,” because they listen to misleading fundamentalist Christians and people like Ben Stein who spew misinformed anti-evolution propaganda.
Also, to be more precise, natural selection does not suggest that only “the strong” survive. It suggests that the “fittest” survive. The cooperation of many weaker organisms can overpower a single organism that is stronger if compared one-on-one. The ability to cooperate can itself often be a test of fitness.
Love and compassion, while not practiced without fail, are characteristic components of the human species (and other species) in general, regardless of religion or lack of religion, and have played an important role in helping us (and other species) to survive. Love and compassion are not concepts that are somehow contrary to evolution. They are themselves a result of evolution. The same goes for cooperation.
Also, the well-supported and currently-scientifically-unchallenged theory of macroevolution and the facts of microevolution are descriptive, not prescriptive. “Evolution” does not tell people how to behave, much less suggest that people ought to be mean or avoid helping the sick.
Note also how many Christian fundamentalist anti-evolutionists in the U.S. tend to vote Republican and oppose universal health care or government aid for impoverished people. Yet they are simultaneously foolish enough to think that knowledge of evolutionary biology necessarily leads people to be negligent of others, to refuse to care for the sick, to be nothing but bad. What do such people think when they favorably compare themselves to those “evil” evolution-believing Democrats who . . . surprise, surprise! . . . vote for universal health care, make environmental issues a top priority, and champion human rights!?
Some theists have claimed that knowledge of evolution leads to evil eugenics and the kind of behavior displayed by Hitler and the Nazis before and during World War II. This is an ignorant belief. Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled” is a good (yet horrid!) example of this kind of foolish propaganda. See this post for an explanation - http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics.
The same kinds of theists also tend to make other ignorant claims, like “Atheism leads to people like Hitler.” If you ever hear such, please set the person straight. Hitler was NOT an atheist. In fact, he claimed to act in accord with “God's will,” and most Nazis were Christian. Hitler publicly and repeatedly associated atheism with communists and Jews; he opposed and blamed all three groups. The anti-Semitism of the Nazis stemmed from a long tradition of anti-Semitism within Christianity.
Many Christian writers and preachers labeled the Jews "God killers" – such was merely Christian anti-Semitic propaganda. Look into the anti-Semitism of Martin Luther some time. Of course I am not suggesting that all Christians are anti-Semitic, but a strain of anti-Semitism has a very long history in Christianity, probably going back at least to the second century, if not the first. I do not have a source list handy, but lots of literature has been published on this topic. e.g. The Causes of Anti-Semitism: A Critique of the Bible, by Arthur Blech. (2006) http://www.amazon.com/Causes-Anti-semitism-Critique-Bible/dp/1591024463.
SS soldiers wore "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. This German phrase means “God with us” (see also Matthew 1:23). Here is a picture of one - http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php. Here are a couple of sources on Hitler and his beliefs:
Spurred on by others’ attempts, I now have my own unpolished collection of Hitler quotes on this topic, which I compiled from doing keyword searches of his book Mein Kampf and from his speeches, revealing his attitudes on religion and his use thereof; if you ever want it, just say so. To me, he sounds far more like the American religious right than anything else in current US politics when it comes to religion.
Concepts such as “the selfish gene” have also been misunderstood by ignorant fundamentalists who have not read Dawkins’ book and too often only know about Richard Dawkins from fundamentalist propaganda. Richard Dawkins does not advocate selfishness. Consider the following quote:
“It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is the capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or the other, nor to speculate over its possible memic evolution. The point I am making now is that, even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight – our capacity to simulate the future in imagination – could save us from the worst selfish excesses of the blind replicators. We have at least the mental equipment to foster our long-term selfish interests rather than merely our short-term selfish interests. We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a “conspiracy of doves”, and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.” (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, pp. 200-201, 1999 new-cover reprint of 1989 edition)
This is a man who hopes for altruism, hopes for humanity’s rise out of selfishness, and believes in human potential.
By the way, the book quoted here is a wonderful and very entertaining work, having earned a place on my all time favorites list, and I most highly recommend it.
For those who may have heard misrepresentations of Darwin, consider the following quote:
“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871. Vol. 1, Chapter 5, p. 162, available on-line at http://books.google.com/.)
Consider this one as well:
“Nevertheless the first foundation or origin of the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy; and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of the lower animals, through natural selection.” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871. Vol. II, p. 394, available on-line at http://books.google.com/.)
Darwin considered sympathy the “noblest part” of human nature. It should now be very clear, then, that Charles Darwin himself, as well as the more recent Richard Dawkins, would in no way advocate abandoning the sick or abandoning health care. I am confident that practically every scientist in the U.S.A. would agree.
5.9. Intelligent Design:
Intelligent Design: A Source Compilation
MJK
Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory, as has already been determined by both the US federal court system and by professional scientific organizations.
In 2005, the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design was to be presented as an alternative to evolutionary theory, with Of Pandas and People to be used as a reference book. The judge, John E. Jones III, who was a conservative church-going Republican appointed by G. W. Bush in 2002, ruled, in light of the evidence presented, that intelligent design is not a scientific theory as currently defined by the National Academy of Science, but is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting the establishment of religion. Anyone unfamiliar with this may take a look at some of these resources:
“Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial,” National Center for Science Education, October 17, 2008, http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover.
“Intelligent Design on Trial,” a 2-hour NOVA television special, aired Nov 13, 2007, available for free viewing on-line at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html.
The wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.
“Intelligent Design,” National Academy of Sciences page, http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html.
“Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences,” 2nd Edition, 1999, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024.
An on-line dialogue about Intelligent Design from 2008: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ylKVTHUU_MOs3ImdROKd1nR0v-NCYR6n9i-pxIwv6FI/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=CMz9pN8B .
The American Association for the advancement of Science, AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory, 2002, http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml.
Some additional sources on evolution are available here:
A list of resources on evolution at one of my own sites, on a page written in response to questions from a former high school class mate of mine and fellow church youth-group member: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/thebigquestions/5-evolution
A compilation of sources on evolution that I made for Darwin Day in 2008: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16xzeLBXDFh1moDyxR0wRrazOg9_eBzDPXR0nlfKHzuc/edit?hl=en_US.
A general scientific and historical time-line (https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/scientific-and-historical-time-line ) compared to the unhistorical Biblical time-line (https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/otchrono ).
Intelligent Design is but the latest version of creationism. The traditional Jewish and Christian notions of creationism come from the Bible, specifically Genesis, which was written in a relatively primitive and superstitious age and is not a scientific, historical, or reliable source of information on history: https://sites.google.com/site/investigatingchristianity/home/otchrono.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I expect it will take you some time to work through these essays and the links. I hope you will have found this helpful. Please let me know if you find any errors, as I intend to post this for the use of any others who may ask similar questions.