Scientific creationism

@book{morris1974scientific6,
    author = "Morris, H. M",
    title = "Scientific Creationism [1st ed.]",
    year = "1974",
    publisher = "San Diego, California, Creation-Life Publishers, Public School Edition, 217 pp.; General Edition, 277 pp. p.; Second Edition, Revised 1985",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Morris, H. M., 1974, Scientific Creationism [1st ed.]: San Diego, California, Creation-Life Publishers, Public School Edition, 217 pp.; General Edition, 277 pp. p.; Second Edition, Revised 1985.}"
}

@misc{cloud1977scientific1,
    author = "Cloud, P. E",
    title = {Scientific creaetionism"--A new inquisition brewing?},
    year = "1977",
    howpublished = "The Humanist, v. 37, no. 1, p. 6-16",
    note = {talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Cloud, P. E., 1977, "Scientific creaetionism"--A new inquisition brewing?: The Humanist, v. 37, no. 1, p. 6-16.}}
}

@book{dolphin1983a2,
    author = "Dolphin, W. D",
    title = "A Brief Critical Analysis of Scientific Creationism, in Wilson, D. B., ed., Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Modern Perspectives on the Creation/Evolution Controversy",
    year = "1983",
    publisher = "Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University Press, p. 19-36",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Dolphin, W. D., 1983, A Brief Critical Analysis of Scientific Creationism, in Wilson, D. B., ed., Did the Devil Make Darwin Do It? Modern Perspectives on the Creation/Evolution Controversy: Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University Press, p. 19-36.}"
}

@misc{geisler1983a3,
    author = "Geisler, N. L",
    title = "A scientific basis for creation",
    year = "1983",
    howpublished = "the principle of uniformity: Creation/Evolution, v. 4, p. 1-6",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Geisler, N. L., 1983, A scientific basis for creation: the principle of uniformity: Creation/Evolution, v. 4, p. 1-6.}"
}

@book{hardin1984scientific4,
    author = "Hardin, G",
    title = {Scientific Creationism"--marketing deception as truth, in Montagu, A., ed., Science and Creationism},
    year = "1984",
    publisher = "New York, Oxford University Press, p. 159-166",
    note = {talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Hardin, G., 1984, "Scientific Creationism"--marketing deception as truth, in Montagu, A., ed., Science and Creationism: New York, Oxford University Press, p. 159-166.}}
}

@incollection{miller1984scientific5,
    author = "Miller, K. R",
    editor = "Montagu, A.",
    title = "Scientific Creationism versus Evolution: The Mislabeled Debate",
    year = "1984",
    booktitle = "Science and Creationism",
    publisher = "New York, Oxford University Press, p. 18-63",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Miller, K. R., 1984, Scientific Creationism versus Evolution: The Mislabeled Debate, in Montagu, A., ed., Science and Creationism: New York, Oxford University Press, p. 18-63.}"
}

Despite denials by proponents of intelligent design (ID) that ID is creationism, critical analysis by scientists and scholars, as well as statements by the proponents of ID themselves, has established beyond any doubt ID's true identity as neo-creationism. Despite de-emphasizing elements of earlier creationism such as belief in a young earth and "flood geology," ID bears marks of its descent from "creation science" and is defined by its leading proponents in overtly religious, and specifically Christian, terms. These facts enabled the plaintiffs in the first ID legal case, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005), to win a decisive victory over the Dover, PA, school board, which had required that a pro-ID statement be read to biology students at Dover High School. Kitzmiller was also a defeat for ID proponents at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). Yet, although the CSC continues efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution even in the wake of this defeat, their tactics are increasingly stale and transparent. Their current strategy, disguising pro-ID policy proposals with code language to avoid using the term "intelligent design," is yet another tactic used by earlier creationists after consistent legal defeats. Moreover, the ID movement's continued execution of their agenda has enabled ID critics to compile an ever-lengthening list of further congruencies between ID and creation science. Such powerful evidence of ID's identity as neo-creationism, combined with modest but promising demographic changes in the United States, suggest that increased public support for teaching evolution is possible through effective outreach to the relevant demographic groups. Scientists must take advantage of this opportunity to cultivate such support and to counteract ID by engaging in pro-science activism, making use of the many resources available to support their efforts.

@article{doi101093icbicn032,
    author = "Forrest, Barbara",
    title = "Still creationism after all these years: understanding and counteracting intelligent design.",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "Integrative and comparative biology",
    abstract = {Despite denials by proponents of intelligent design (ID) that ID is creationism, critical analysis by scientists and scholars, as well as statements by the proponents of ID themselves, has established beyond any doubt ID's true identity as neo-creationism. Despite de-emphasizing elements of earlier creationism such as belief in a young earth and "flood geology," ID bears marks of its descent from "creation science" and is defined by its leading proponents in overtly religious, and specifically Christian, terms. These facts enabled the plaintiffs in the first ID legal case, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005), to win a decisive victory over the Dover, PA, school board, which had required that a pro-ID statement be read to biology students at Dover High School. Kitzmiller was also a defeat for ID proponents at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). Yet, although the CSC continues efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution even in the wake of this defeat, their tactics are increasingly stale and transparent. Their current strategy, disguising pro-ID policy proposals with code language to avoid using the term "intelligent design," is yet another tactic used by earlier creationists after consistent legal defeats. Moreover, the ID movement's continued execution of their agenda has enabled ID critics to compile an ever-lengthening list of further congruencies between ID and creation science. Such powerful evidence of ID's identity as neo-creationism, combined with modest but promising demographic changes in the United States, suggest that increased public support for teaching evolution is possible through effective outreach to the relevant demographic groups. Scientists must take advantage of this opportunity to cultivate such support and to counteract ID by engaging in pro-science activism, making use of the many resources available to support their efforts.},
    url = "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21669783/",
    doi = "10.1093/icb/icn032",
    pmid = "21669783"
}

Senter's strategy of arguing against creationism using their own methodology focused on demonstrating a morphological continuum between birds and nonavian dinosaurs using classical multidimensional scaling (CMDS), a method used by some creationists to assign species to assist in the detection of phylogenetic 'discontinuities.' Because creationists do not typically use CMDS in the manner Senter used it, his results were re-examined using 'distance correlation,' a method used to assign species to 'created kinds.' Distance correlation using Senter's set of taxa and characters supports his conclusion of morphological continuity, but other sets of taxa with more characters do not. These results lessen the potential impact that Senter's strategy might have on creationism; however, it is possible that future fossil discoveries will provide stronger support for morphological continuity between dinosaurs and birds.

@article{doi101111j14209101201002208x,
    author = "Wood, T C",
    title = "Using creation science to demonstrate evolution? Senter's strategy revisited.",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Journal of evolutionary biology",
    abstract = "Senter's strategy of arguing against creationism using their own methodology focused on demonstrating a morphological continuum between birds and nonavian dinosaurs using classical multidimensional scaling (CMDS), a method used by some creationists to assign species to assist in the detection of phylogenetic 'discontinuities.' Because creationists do not typically use CMDS in the manner Senter used it, his results were re-examined using 'distance correlation,' a method used to assign species to 'created kinds.' Distance correlation using Senter's set of taxa and characters supports his conclusion of morphological continuity, but other sets of taxa with more characters do not. These results lessen the potential impact that Senter's strategy might have on creationism; however, it is possible that future fossil discoveries will provide stronger support for morphological continuity between dinosaurs and birds.",
    url = "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21401768/",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02208.x",
    pmid = "21401768"
}

This article compares forms of visual argumentation in the scientific study of evolution and Young-Earth Creationism, arguing that secular forms of scientific representation have affected the way creationists visually construct their own. In order to affirm their view of the origin of the universe, creationists borrow from, mimic, and ultimately emulate the techniques, or at least the appearance, of scientific method and reasoning. The use of the word “emulation” is very deliberate since their aim is to match and surpass a rival scientific paradigm – evolution. The sermon preached by the design of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, is not content simply to look like science, but aims to do science that is affirmed by the Scriptures.

@article{carneiro2017emulating,
    author = "Carneiro, Larissa",
    title = "Emulating Science: The Rhetorical Figures of Creationism",
    year = "2017",
    publisher = "Schüren",
    abstract = "This article compares forms of visual argumentation in the scientific study of evolution and Young-Earth Creationism, arguing that secular forms of scientific representation have affected the way creationists visually construct their own. In order to affirm their view of the origin of the universe, creationists borrow from, mimic, and ultimately emulate the techniques, or at least the appearance, of scientific method and reasoning. The use of the word “emulation” is very deliberate since their aim is to match and surpass a rival scientific paradigm – evolution. The sermon preached by the design of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, is not content simply to look like science, but aims to do science that is affirmed by the Scriptures.",
    url = "https://mediarep.org/handle/doc/20649",
    doi = "10.25969/mediarep/19461"
}

This article develops a critical–propositional analysis of contemporary bibliography on the major religions, the concepts of God and creationism, scientific atheism, and their relations to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, placing this broad field in confrontation with the Theory of Objectivity (TO). Rather than reducing the debate to the classical opposition between religion and science, the paper argues that the contemporary discussion is structurally plural, involving creationism, intelligent design, naturalistic atheism, theistic evolution, cognitive science of religion, and competing ontological interpretations of the universe. Against this background, the article examines the Theory of Objectivity as a modal–ontological framework that repositions the debate at a deeper level. Its central claim is that the decisive philosophical issue is not simply whether God is compatible with Darwinian evolution, but whether any theory of creation, nature, intelligence, and knowledge can satisfy the minimal logical conditions of intelligibility, differentiation, composition, boundary, observability, and transcendence. The paper also incorporates contemporary atheist bibliography and argues that scientific atheism is particularly effective against conceptions of God as an intramundane competing cause, yet less decisive against an ontological framework in which transcendence is understood as a condition of possibility of the universe or, in a more refined TO-centered formulation, as knowledge or information produced in atomic relations and equivalent to atomic radiations. A major contribution of the article is its articulation of the debate with the cosmological Eras of the Theory of Objectivity — the Antagonistic Era, the Era of Logical Tracks, the Era of Logical Currents of Tertiary Plasma, the Centrifugal Era, and the Era of Units of Intelligence. In this perspective, intelligence is interpreted not as a marginal by-product of matter, but as the observational culmination of the cosmos: the phase in which the universe becomes reflexively observable, memorial, and capable of producing and preserving informational transcendence. The article concludes that the Theory of Objectivity should be read neither as literalist creationism nor as a rejection of evolution, but as a modal discipline that redistributes creation, atheism, science, and evolution according to distinct ontological and phenomenic levels. Authors’ note: This article benefited from the analytical support of ChatGPT in bibliographic organization, comparative structuring, and critical–propositional systematization. Keywords Theory of Objectivity; religion and science; atheism; God; creationism; evolution; Darwin; modal ontology; cosmology; intelligence; transcendence; cognitive science of religion; philosophy of religion; philosophy of science; metaphysics

@misc{cabannas2026the,
    author = "Cabannas, Vidamor and Silva, Denivaldo",
    title = "THE MODAL DISCIPLINE OF CREATION, GOD, ATHEISM, AND EVOLUTION: a confrontation between contemporary bibliography on religions and the Theory of Objectivity",
    year = "2026",
    publisher = "Zenodo",
    abstract = "This article develops a critical–propositional analysis of contemporary bibliography on the major religions, the concepts of God and creationism, scientific atheism, and their relations to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, placing this broad field in confrontation with the Theory of Objectivity (TO). Rather than reducing the debate to the classical opposition between religion and science, the paper argues that the contemporary discussion is structurally plural, involving creationism, intelligent design, naturalistic atheism, theistic evolution, cognitive science of religion, and competing ontological interpretations of the universe. Against this background, the article examines the Theory of Objectivity as a modal–ontological framework that repositions the debate at a deeper level. Its central claim is that the decisive philosophical issue is not simply whether God is compatible with Darwinian evolution, but whether any theory of creation, nature, intelligence, and knowledge can satisfy the minimal logical conditions of intelligibility, differentiation, composition, boundary, observability, and transcendence. The paper also incorporates contemporary atheist bibliography and argues that scientific atheism is particularly effective against conceptions of God as an intramundane competing cause, yet less decisive against an ontological framework in which transcendence is understood as a condition of possibility of the universe or, in a more refined TO-centered formulation, as knowledge or information produced in atomic relations and equivalent to atomic radiations. A major contribution of the article is its articulation of the debate with the cosmological Eras of the Theory of Objectivity — the Antagonistic Era, the Era of Logical Tracks, the Era of Logical Currents of Tertiary Plasma, the Centrifugal Era, and the Era of Units of Intelligence. In this perspective, intelligence is interpreted not as a marginal by-product of matter, but as the observational culmination of the cosmos: the phase in which the universe becomes reflexively observable, memorial, and capable of producing and preserving informational transcendence. The article concludes that the Theory of Objectivity should be read neither as literalist creationism nor as a rejection of evolution, but as a modal discipline that redistributes creation, atheism, science, and evolution according to distinct ontological and phenomenic levels. Authors’ note: This article benefited from the analytical support of ChatGPT in bibliographic organization, comparative structuring, and critical–propositional systematization. Keywords Theory of Objectivity; religion and science; atheism; God; creationism; evolution; Darwin; modal ontology; cosmology; intelligence; transcendence; cognitive science of religion; philosophy of religion; philosophy of science; metaphysics",
    url = "https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.19101996",
    doi = "10.5281/zenodo.19101996"
}