essay on evolution and creation

• Book Review
• Open access
• Published: 18 March 2010

Thirteen Essays on Evolution and Creationism in Modern Debates

Stephen C. Barton and David Wilkinson (eds): Reading Genesis after Darwin. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. pp. xiv + 254. S/b $24.95

• Kim Paffenroth 1  

Evolution: Education and Outreach volume  3 ,  pages 297–299 ( 2010 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

This anthology consists of 13 essays written by professors trained in biblical studies or theology, writing on the interpretation of Genesis (by which they almost exclusively mean the first chapter of Genesis) since Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). After a brief Introduction by the editors, the book is then divided into three parts: “Engaging again with the Scriptures,” “Understanding the History,” and “Exploring the Contemporary Relevance.” It includes an index of modern authors and a subject index. References of works cited are included in the notes for each chapter, though a bibliography at the end would’ve been a welcome addition.

Section 1, “Engaging again with the Scriptures,” includes four essays. In “How Should One Read the Early Chapters of Genesis?” Walter Moberly discusses the implications of taking Genesis as “a literary phenomenon.” His conclusion is probably unremarkable to anyone trained in modern, liberal biblical criticism, and it will recur in similar terms in several of the other essays: Moberly challenges us to see in Genesis biblical ideas such as “wonder and delight of the world, creaturely contingency, creaturely responsibility, the gift of relationship between creature and Creator, and the difficulty that humans have in genuinely trusting God as a wise Creator and living accordingly”. I think he is quite correct that this view maintains the text’s meaning and relevance, without insisting on a literal reading of it.

Francis Watson takes the history of controversy much further back, in his essay, “Genesis before Darwin: Why Scripture Needed Liberating from Science.” He traces what he calls the “annexation” of the Bible by astronomy and geology in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries: harmonization of the biblical account with scientific findings (e.g. the “days as eons” solution) was done to the detriment or obfuscation of both. Darwin put forth his theory with no reference to Genesis, and according to Watson, this shows a more fruitful and beneficial relationship between Genesis and science—separation or liberation from one another.

In “The Six Days of Creation according to the Greek Fathers,” Andrew Louth discusses the interpretation of Genesis by Theophilos of Antioch and Basil. Louth’s conclusions echo Moberly’s, in that he counsels some of the same attitudes toward creation, showing how ancient theologians regarded the created world with “wonder” and “humility” and were convinced of its “interconnectedness”.

In “The Hermeneutics of Reading Genesis after Darwin,” Richard S. Briggs examines the comparison of Genesis with other ancient Near Eastern texts (a method of biblical study that was coming into vogue contemporaneously with Darwin), concluding that the process and implications of such “triangulating” are similar, whether one is comparing Genesis to the Enuma Elish or to Darwin.

Section 2, “Understanding the History,” includes three essays. It starts with John Rogerson’s “What Difference Did Darwin Make?: The Interpretation of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century,” which examines some biblical commentaries published shortly before and shortly after Darwin’s work, to see what effect (if any) it had on their interpretation of the Genesis text. The examination does a good job of showing there was no unanimity among interpreters as to the meaning of Genesis, and a range of interpretations were advocated, both before and after Darwin. Perhaps even more interestingly, even within the group that rejected his theory, interpretations of Genesis often differed.

John Headley Brooke, in “Genesis and the Scientists: Dissonance among the Harmonizers,” returns to some of the scientific controversies already examined in Watson’s essay, concluding similarly that Darwin’s theory may be more amenable to Christianity than attempts at harmonizing Genesis with current scientific theories, since Darwin “purged it [Christianity] of a semi-deistic position”. This is an important distinction for those who would “defend” the Bible, who too often seem to be defending a deistic position that God created the universe and let it go on its own subsequently, rather than defending the idea of a God who wishes to be in communion with humans (the more narrowly biblical concept of God, in either Jewish or Christian interpretation). He also speaks in terms similar to Moberly and Louth, counseling a “nonliteral reading of the text”, and focusing on the text’s primary relevance to “our human existential condition”. David Brown concludes the section with a discussion of some paintings in his essay, “Science and Religion in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Landscape Art.” The most familiar of these to readers is probably Dali’s “The Sacrament of the Last Supper.”

Section 3, “Exploring the Contemporary Relevance,” includes six essays. David Wilkinson’s “Reading Genesis 1-3 in the Light of Modern Science” gives perhaps the fullest summary of the interpretive issues, compared to the other essays in this collection. He puts Darwin in the context of other, sometimes more fundamental and intractable controversies with the Bible; he briefly describes the creationist alternative (pp. 132-135); he traces the various attempts at harmonization, with their pros and cons; and he lays out possible points where Genesis may still speak to the human condition and understanding. Echoing previous essays in the volume, his conclusion is that a primarily literary approach is needed to understand or appreciate the text, and this will yield an interpretation that does not address cosmogonic or biological data, but rather our “unique conscious intimacy with God”.

In “All God’s Creatures: Reading Genesis on Human and Nonhuman Animals,” David Clough argues that in light of evolution (and other observations of animal consciousness and rationality), Christians should abandon anthropocentric readings of Genesis (what he calls “human-separatist” readings throughout). Jeff Astley argues in “Evolution and Evil: The Difference Darwinism Makes in Theology and Spirituality” that evolution exacerbates the problems of theodicy by making suffering (and large amounts of it) intrinsic to creation.

In “’Male and Female He Created Them’ (Genesis 1:27): Interpreting Gender after Darwin,” Stephen C. Barton examines constructions of gender in the classical world, in the Bible, and in subsequent biblical interpretation, contrasting these with modern and postmodern analyses. Ellen F. Davis looks at how organisms fit into their environment in her essay, “Propriety and Trespass: The Drama of Eating,” drawing some conclusions for our current environmental situation and its (un)sustainability. Finally, Mathew Guest’s essay, “The Plausibility of Creationism: A Sociological Comment,” examines the current popularity of creationism in the USA (and to a much lesser degree in the UK), suggesting some sociological forces that may contribute to its acceptance, despite its logical or factual shortcomings.

Although I was excited when I first began reading this volume, this wore off in the course of study. I would single out three essays for praise. Moberly’s is a very helpful look at how believers could still maintain the importance and sacredness of the biblical text, without interpreting it literally. Rogerson’s is a wonderful and suggestive illustration of how Christian belief and interpretation are never monolithic, and never a matter of “good guys” versus “bad guys.” Wilkinson’s is a thorough and accessible discussion of the issues at stake. But overall, I was struck by how little the book deals with Darwin: it could be entitled “Reading Genesis in the Modern World” with little loss of focus. Several of the essays make only the barest nod toward Darwin before moving on to some topic only tangential to his work. The suggestions for the future interpretation of Genesis (literary criticism, a reading that encourages a sense of wonder and humility, the acknowledgment of human incompleteness and contingency, etc.), while sober and encouraging, are repeated by several contributors without much expansion or specificity (Moberly, Louth, Brooke, Wilkinson); such heuristic suggestions are also commonplace in biblical studies, so I found little new here that couldn’t be found in many introductory classes or texts on Genesis.

Several essays were much more deficient, in my estimation. Briggs’s idea that comparing Genesis to other, contemporaneous myths, and comparing it to a scientific treatise written 2,500 years later, are somehow similar comparisons, and the two interpretive acts can shed light on one another, struck me as odd, if not misleading. It overlooks the more fundamental difference in genre: comparing Genesis to other myths (contemporary with it or not) is probably more helpful to understanding it, than comparing it to scientific writings (from whatever time period, though especially a work that eschews teleological questions, and therefore has a completely different outlook than Genesis). Brown’s essay has little to do with the topic of this collection and barely mentions Darwin or Genesis: its observations would make a fine beginning to a chat about “art and spirituality,” but it has no place here. Clough’s essay doesn’t deal with “stewardship,” which many interpreters today would see as the crucial way to understand the biblical teaching on how humans differ from, and yet are immersed in, the created order. Neither Clough’s nor Barton’s essay deals with the differences between Genesis 1 and 2, again a crucial interpretive issue for understanding the text’s ambiguities (and discrepancies) on anthropocentrism and gender.

I say all this from the perspective of a biblical scholar of a decidedly liberal Protestant bent, for whom these issues are well-worn. Perhaps if I try to step outside of this context (and many of the essays in this collection properly remind us of how much context determines meaning), I might better see where some of these essays could fit into a useful discussion. I’d say that for someone who thinks (as many of my atheist and agnostic friends do) that all Christians are creationists, that all Christians immediately opposed Darwin’s ideas and continue to do so today, or that there is only one way to interpret Genesis—for a reader with such impressions, the better written, more thorough of these essays would prove enlightening, and might promote a dialogue that goes beyond secularists versus Biblicists, those who would discard the text versus those who cling to a literal interpretation of it. Such a dialogue might even become a mutual search for truth, conducted with real exchange, understanding, and respect.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Iona College, 715 North Ave., New Rochelle, NY, 10801, USA

Kim Paffenroth

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Paffenroth .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Paffenroth, K. Thirteen Essays on Evolution and Creationism in Modern Debates. Evo Edu Outreach 3 , 297–299 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0215-3

Download citation

Published : 18 March 2010

Issue Date : June 2010

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0215-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Evolution: Education and Outreach

ISSN: 1936-6434

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Reasons to submit
• About BioScience
• Journals Career Network
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Potentially Offensive Content
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• < Previous

Evolution and Creationism in Science: 1880–2000

Charles A. Bleckmann (e-mail [email protected] ) is a biologist, specializing in bioremediation, in the Department of Systems and Engineering Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, 2950 Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433. The views expressed in this document are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the US government

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Charles A. Bleckmann, Evolution and Creationism in Science: 1880–2000, BioScience , Volume 56, Issue 2, February 2006, Pages 151–158, https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0151:EACIS]2.0.CO;2

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The journal Science has documented the evolutionist–creationist controversy since it began publication in 1880. The annual number of references suggests the intensity of the public debate. Peaks occurred in response to the Scopes trial (1925) and trials in California (1979–1981), Arkansas (1981), and Louisiana (1982–1987). Although evolutionists won the last three outright, and public opinion largely supported science in the Scopes trial, dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court in the most recent case seem to have given impetus to new creationist activity—the intelligent design movement. Arguments have changed only slightly in the last century and a quarter. Fundamentalist opposition to teaching evolution remains strong. Scientists have consistently suggested better education as the solution to the dispute; however, to date, evidence does not support that position. Differences between science and fundamentalism appear irreconcilable, and no obvious end to the acrimonious debate is in sight.

Science has reported creationist opposition to Darwin's theory since its first publication in 1880. With a consistent, decidedly pro-evolution editorial perspective, Science noted creationist activity when attempts were made to sway public opinion. From the early days of publication through William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes trial, and continuing today, more than 250 articles—often from the news and comments sections of the journal—directly addressed the public and scientific debate on Darwin's theory, and the adamant fundamentalist religious opposition. Papers, essays, book reviews, and news reports from Science, and its sister publication The Scientific Monthly (1915–1957), demonstrate that creationist and evolutionist positions have changed little over time. Scientific developments continue to solidify the evolutionist position, but creationists remain unmoved.

Evolutionary theory has been discussed, perhaps more than any other scientific concept, throughout the publication runs of Science and The Scientific Monthly. Eminent scientists and philosophers defined the debate, writing with clarity and grace, representing the best in scientific reporting and commentary. Selections from these two journals reflect the creationist–evolutionist controversy in the United States. Occasionally, creationist letters were published, more as comic relief than as serious opposition to evolution. Nevertheless, creationist activity was viewed as a threat to good science; considerable space was allocated to its coverage. Only articles dealing directly with the controversy are cited in this review; technical papers describing details of the development of evolutionary theory were disregarded. Figure 1 shows the annual distribution of references.

Published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Science is the most widely distributed general science journal, with a weekly circulation of approximately 150,000. The journal was founded in July 1880 by a group that included Thomas Edison. The AAAS affiliation began in 1900, in part to provide a publication outlet for association activities. The journal attracts a wide readership within the scientific community, publishing both technical scientific advances—with details often accessible only to practitioners in the field—and precise commentary on important broader scientific and political issues. Archives of Science and The Scientific Monthly are available for online searches through JSTOR.

This abbreviated review of the creationist–evolutionist debate shows that, in spite of scientific developments, communications between the scientific community and the public are no better, and perhaps even worse, than at the turn of the previous century. Scientists have consistently suggested better education to resolve the controversy.

Early days of the controversy: 1880–1920

The second issue of Science, July 1880, included a report of T. H. Huxley's lecture to the Royal Institute, “The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species ,” on the 21st anniversary of Darwin's publication ( Anonymous 1880 , Huxley 1880 ). Near the end of his lecture, Huxley stated, “Evolution is no longer a speculation, but a statement of historical fact.” Others would disagree—and have now for well over a century.

It is possible to believe strongly in the theory of evolution and accept every scientific fact that has ever been demonstrated, and yet receive no shock to a belief in a Divine Providence, while the accumulation of scientific facts in our opinion all tend to confirm such belief, and to demonstrate scientifically that an intelligent Creator has designed and pre-arranged the order of both matter and mind…. Lastly, we say emphatically, that there is no real conflict between Science and Religion at this present day. ( Michels 1882 , p. 2)

An overview of Alfred Russel Wallace's lectures on protective coloration was the first largely technical presentation of evolutionary theory to appear in Science ( Wallace 1886 ). Wallace noted that species were recognized before Darwin, and that several others had questioned the fixity of species. Darwin was the first to propose a mechanism for change. Wallace briefly summarized the Darwinian theory, consisting of three principles and an inference. The principles are that (1) the high rate of multiplication makes it impossible to sustain all offspring and creates a struggle within and between populations, (2) significant variation occurs within a species, and (3) variation is heritable. The inference drawn from these principles is that the most fit organisms, and their offspring, survive to reproduce. Wallace exempted the human mind from the process and suggested that man's “soul springs from a higher source” ( Wallace 1886 ).

Judging by centuries of experience, as attested by unimpeachable historical records, it is safe enough for an intelligent man, even if he knows nothing about the facts, to promptly accept as truth any generalization of science which the Church declares to be false, and, conversely, to repudiate with equal promptness, as false, any interpretation of the behavior of the universe which the Church adjudges to be true. ( Morse 1887 , p. 75)

Addressing the American Society of Zoologists, W. C. Curtis discussed scientific progress and the utility of scientific discoveries ( Curtis 1918 ). Beyond material progress, scientific theory provided an important perspective, changing the human view of nature from a thing of caprice to a system ruled by order. Curtis described the development of the theory of evolution and said, without reservation, that “evolution has won its fight.” The authority of science, he said, had replaced that of “book or pope.”

Showdown in the courts: 1921–1960

Antievolution bills were introduced in at least 15 states after 1920. The prominent role of William Jennings Bryan in many of the efforts, and the frustrations he aroused in scientists and intellectuals, were reflected in contemporary accounts.

A controversy erupted when William Bateson, the English zoologist and geneticist, speaking to the AAAS meeting in Toronto, described how evolution had driven scientific thought and influenced his early study of Balanoglossus 40 years earlier. According to Bateson, embryology had given way to genetics as the field most likely to define evolutionary processes; although questions of process remained, they did not change the acceptance of evolution among scientists. Enemies of science, obscurantists, used the disputes within the community of biologists to say science had no answers to the origin of species ( Bateson 1922 ).

Creationists used selections from Bateson's address as evidence of the falsity of evolutionary theory and its rejection by men of science. Morning-after headlines in the Toronto Globe read, “Bateson Holds That Former Beliefs Must Be Abandoned—Theory of Darwin Still Remains Unproved and Missing Link Between Monkey and Man Has Not Yet Been Discovered by Science.” Henry Fairfield Osborn responded by describing the difficulties of presenting science, particularly controversial science, to the public ( Osborn 1922 ). Huxley had told Osborn that for popular addresses, he would carefully write out the entire presentation to ensure that, in the heat of the moment, he would not say anything that could not be supported. Osborn believed that Bateson had presented his opinions of the state of evolutionary questions, and that some in the audience could not properly evaluate those opinions.

Bryan, quoted in the New York Times, contended that every effort to discover the origin of species had failed; all lines of investigation ended in disappointment ( Anonymous 1922 ). In accepting evolution, he argued, scientists were falling back on faith; and faith in the creation of man by a separate act of God was a more rational position. Bryan objected to Darwinism, he said, not only because it was groundless but also because it was harmful, since it undermined faith in the Bible. Further, Christians did not object to freedom of speech; biblical truth could stand on its own. The Bible had been excluded from the classroom because the teaching of religion was prohibited in schools paid for by taxes. Why then should the enemies of religion be allowed to teach irreligion in the public schools? Christians who wished to teach doctrine funded their own schools. Why shouldn't the atheists be forced to do the same? Bryan concluded, “As religion is the only basis of morals, it is time for Christians to protect religion from its most insidious enemy” ( Anonymous 1922 , p. 243).

T. V. Smith, of the Philosophy Department of the University of Chicago, cutioned that the attention Bryan was receiving pointed to the large and widening gap between science and the public ( Smith 1923 ). Research relied on public funding and approval; science would suffer without public support. Bryan was supported by a large, but perhaps declining, portion of the population, whose concerns he clearly reflected and understood. Smith's assessment of Bryan was harsh: “Bryan's aversion to change is motivated in…reluctance to endure the pain of thinking” ( Smith 1923 , p. 509). According to Bryan, science books changed constantly; only the word of God revealed in the Bible did not change. Smith ended with a charge to science to do a better job in education of the average man. Science could not meet its goals without popular support. Only through communication with the public, on the part of science, could that support be expected to develop ( Smith 1923 ).

In a lengthy article in The Scientific Monthly entitled “Why I Teach Evolution,” Dartmouth professor William Patten countered arguments that teaching evolution produces disastrous moral and religious effects ( Patten 1924 ). According to Patten, evolution provides a logical, unifying concept for all natural phenomena, accepted by virtually all who study nature. Teaching of evolution brings a living God into “fields of human thought and experience from which the teachings of ‘high-brow’ philosophy and ‘low-brow’ religion are excluding Him with extraordinary thoroughness and rapidity.” Finally, “ methods of evolution exemplify the successful usage of the highest ethical and moral principles” [italics in the original]. The essence of evolution, Patten argued, is an infinite, democratic, and creative process. Studying evolution provides an appreciation for the significance of existence and should strengthen religious feelings. Students looking for meaning had experienced this as a result of their studies and described it to Patten. Scientists, he claimed, had brought the current state of affairs upon themselves by failing to communicate the true nature of evolution to the public. Patten vividly described the effects of evolutionary thought: “With a little insistent pressure the point of this subsoil plow will eventually penetrate the cold gumbo of the freshman's mind deep enough to break up its hardened crusts of prejudice and prepare a naturally fertile soil for further cultivation” (pp. 637–638).

Patten suggested that the biblical statement that “every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire” could be taken as an example of the process of natural selection. To Patten, the study of the whole of evolution helped minimize antagonism between religious and scientific viewpoints.

Edwin L. Rice's address to the AAAS meeting in December 1924, “Darwin and Bryan—a Study in Method,” was reprinted in full in Science ( Rice 1925 ). As a scientist, teacher, and Christian, Rice was disturbed by Bryan's campaign to restrict or remove the teaching of evolution at both high school and college levels. Rice rejected Bryan's allegation that acceptance of evolution precluded an acceptance of religion. He argued that the loss to science of a few students who chose religion, when confronted with Bryan's alternative, was of little consequence; however, the loss to religion of students who chose science was a much greater and unnecessary loss. Movements that split religion rather than sought harmony were unworthy.

With this perspective, Rice compared the methods used by Bryan and Darwin. Bryan's exceptional skill as an orator, and his moral earnestness, gave him significant potential influence on public opinion. According to Bryan, a hypothesis equals a guess; therefore, Darwin's theory was “mere guessing.” Bryan had repeated the phrase often enough that it had taken on meaning beyond its merits. Bryan rejected any form of evolution applied to man, and, since evolution for other organisms rested on similar evidence, he also rejected general evolution. Darwin had presented several categories of evidence supporting evolution; Bryan offhandedly ignored or rejected them all. Bryan cited the statement from Genesis that “reproduction is according to kind” as evidence that change was impossible. Likewise, Bryan was impervious to evidence from geology. His literal interpretation of the Bible, and his perception of its text as infallible, precluded any consideration of alternate explanations ( Rice 1925 ).

Darwin went to great lengths to find evidence opposed to his theory and did not ignore weaknesses in his ideas, an approach that made acceptance of his ideas so rapid among scientists. Bryan, in both his writing and his public speaking, simply rejected the possibility of evolution without considering the evidence. Bryan professed belief in biblical in-errancy, yet refused to consider inconsistencies, even in the two biblical accounts of creation in Genesis ( Rice 1925 ).

He criticized Darwin for using limiting words or phrases such as “apparently,”“probably,” or “we may well suppose,” saying, “The eminent scientist is guessing.” Bryan missed the point that scientific theories and writing are by nature provisional, subject to revision with the accumulation of further evidence. Bryan believed that evolution had driven Darwin from religion. Rice suggested that the storm of criticism that formal religion heaped on the release of Origin of Species could easily have turned Darwin away ( Rice 1925 ).

Rice ended with the suggestion that the controversy over evolution was not strictly the fault of theologians. Materialistic scientists were also contributing to the controversy, seeing an opportunity to criticize religion. Rice considered two benefits of the controversy: first, evolution was being discussed in public more intelligently than ever before, and second, prominent men of science were coming forth and professing their religious belief ( Rice 1925 ).

Science covered the Scopes trial (10–21 July 1925), publishing Henry Fairfield Osborn's prepared testimony in support of John Scopes ( Osborn 1925 ). Scopes studied geology at the University of Kentucky under Arthur M. Miller, who had received his doctorate under Osborn at Columbia. Letters of support for Scopes came from Miller and Osborn; from Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son; and from H. H. Lane, zoology department head at the University of Kansas. All of these letters were reprinted in Science ( Osborn 1925 ).

After the trial, in September 1925, The Scientific Monthly published a series of statements prepared for Scopes's defense. In the first, “The Truth of Evolution,” Maynard Metcalf, of Johns Hopkins, stated that teaching biology without evolution was impossible and could be considered malpractice ( Metcalf 1925 ).

“The Fact, the Course and the Causes of Organic Evolution” reviewed correspondence with William Bateson, whose 1921 address (described above) had been used by Bryan to suggest that there was scientific opposition to evolution ( Curtis 1925 ). Bateson reviewed his own presentation and found “nothing which can be construed as expressing doubt as to the main fact of Evolution.” He went on to say, “The campaign against the teaching of evolution is a terrible example of the way in which truth can be perverted by the ignorant” ( Curtis 1925 , p. 296). Curtis described work prior to Darwin that helped set the stage for the rapid acceptance of evolution by the scientific community. The concept of evolution was accepted immediately; however, the mechanisms, including natural selection, were still being discussed. Evidence for human evolution also continued to accumulate, demonstrating kinship with other animals. Curtis closed with a quote from a letter from President Woodrow Wilson:“I do believe in Organic Evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.”

In a speech in New York City, the presiding judge at the Scopes trial, John T. Raulston, urged the prohibition of the teaching of evolution in schools to prevent the corruption of society and the downfall of civilization ( Anonymous 1925 ). His duty, he said, had been to combat evolution to “uphold the integrity of the Bible.” Raulston was raised with daily Bible instruction; he believed that supporters of evolution robbed themselves of any hope of resurrection. If science was not consistent with Christ's religion, he concluded, the choice was obvious. Evolution was an incentive to larceny and murder. If people lost faith in Genesis, they were likely to lose faith in the rest of the Bible. Raulston argued that there was no justification for accusing Tennesseans of being yokels or ignoramuses, but that if learning would cause loss of faith, they would be better left in a state of ignorance.

The address of the retiring vice president of the AAAS zoology section, and self-proclaimed evolutionist and Christian, Edwin Linton, was reprinted in two parts ( Linton 1926a , 1926b ). Unlike dogmatic religionists, Linton argued, scientists do not suggest that their views are infallible, but rather that they are the best explanation available, to be changed if new evidence is presented. Modernist theologians show no hostility toward the theory of evolution; only the fundamentalists have objections. Linton described a wave of antiscience sentiment sweeping the country. Scientific developments were influencing pure food laws and regulations affecting quack medicines and “practicers of magic,” whose proponents did not welcome the changes. Linton characterized the leading opponents of science as antisocial eccentrics, citing as an example the antivaccinationists, who opposed smallpox vaccinations. In the face of clear evidence of a reduction in the illness, they remained unconvinced because they were in-convincible. A recent attempt to measure how the teaching of evolution damaged religious beliefs showed 66 respondents reporting that their faith was strengthened, 20 reporting no effect, and 2 reporting a weakening of faith. Linton closed by quoting the biblical Philip's suggested method of scientific inquiry to Nathanael: “Come and see” ( Linton 1926b , p. 201).

In late 1926, the American Association of University Professors agreed to develop more efficient means of cooperation in opposing the spread of antievolution legislation ( Anonymous 1927a ). An antievolution bill had been defeated in Louisiana, and a new one was pending in Arkansas. One week later, the decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court was announced. A three-to-one vote upheld the antievolution law ( Anonymous 1927b ). The specific Scopes decision was sent back to the court for retrial on a technicality. The trial judge had assessed a fine of $100, although Tennessee law specifically stated that a jury must assess judgments over $50. The dissenting Supreme Court judge argued that the statute was invalid “for uncertainty of meaning,” not because he disagreed with its intent.

Not all biologists accepted evolution. A letter to the journal Ecology was reprinted in Science ( Moore 1929 ). Barrington Moore, the first editor of Ecology and a past president of the Ecological Society of America, discontinued his subscription because papers on evolution had been published in Ecology. He said, “I have no use for evolution and do not see how any intelligent person can have.” Moore, a founder of scientific forestry in the United States, is now honored by the Society of American Foresters with a research award named after him.

A posthumous publication from W. M. Davis, Harvard emeritus professor of physical geography, called science and religion the greatest products of the human mind ( Davis 1934 ). Davis recognized that his definition would cause dissent, since many believed in the supernatural origin of modern religion. However, many of these same people could easily accept the human origin of primitive religions. When theology and science conflicted, theologians generally formed the attack. However, without exception, reconciliation of religious and scientific beliefs resulted from a modification of the theological perspective, not from a change in science. Acceptance of evolution was an example of the process. Davis credited theologians with a desire to improve the human condition, a direct goal of few professors. He called for cooperation between the priesthood and “professorhood” to better understand and to solve problems of human behavior.

Nearly two decades later, an article by K. F. Mather (1952) addressed the problem of antiscientific thinking. Although critics of science and scientific methods had been around for centuries, Mather argued, the conflict between evolution and religion in the 19th century gave rise to an antiscience attitude among much of the population that continued into the 1950s ( Mather 1952 ). Mechanistic and materialistic methods of science appeared to reduce the status of man and could be blamed for a lapse in moral principles and ethical standards. Mather saw the solution as more, not less, science. The potential for nuclear war and the dangers of overpopulation were issues that engendered antiscience attitudes. Scientists needed the courage to publicly counter the antiscience arguments, although to do so could result in branding as anti-American by some of the active an-tiscience organizations. Like Smith (1923) and other scientists before him, Mather argued that education was essential for life in a free society.

In “Avenues of Service,” Bernard E. Schaar (1953) described some of the professional duties and responsibilities of chemists. Schaar quoted a 1925 editorial from the Chemical Bulletin in which wider distribution of knowledge was seen as a counter to an illiberal spirit including censorship, the Eighteenth Amendment, the Ku Klux Klan, and the antievolution movement ( Schaar 1953 ). Schaar took encouragement from the waning of dispute between science and religion over evolution. He considered the controversy “largely abated” and saw progress on other social fronts as well. Science transcended international borders, and in nations that allowed science to progress, there was also social progress. Schaar concluded that scientists and engineers have a responsibility to share knowledge and to educate the public.

A review by C. I. Reed of Ray Ginger's Six Days or Forever? Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes suggested that, from the per-spective of a third of a century, everyone involved with the trial behaved badly ( Reed 1958 ). The spectacle was a made-up affair that reflected the feelings of the time. Many states enacted restrictive laws, and in Tennessee, several legislators voted for the antievolution law, expecting a veto from the governor; however, the governor refused. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was looking for a test case, and Scopes's guilt was assured. The effect on those teaching biology was chilling. Reed urged scientists to read the book as a reminder not to let antievolutionism creep back into the classroom. Promising potential scientists had avoided a career in science because of the atmosphere created by the trial.

New legal challenges and the birth of intelligent design: 1961–2000

Science and The Scientific Monthly merged operations in 1958. Editorial policy changes produced more news articles and comments. Evolution and creation remained important issues. In the next four decades, 120 references to the controversy appeared, addressing three major legal challenges to the teaching of evolution, and the introduction of the concept of intelligent design.

Rather than attempting to prevent teaching of evolution, creationists started to demand equal time. At least 11 states had laws proposed with variations on that theme. Creationists urged the adoption of texts that included creationist materials, and requested that, if evolution was presented, creationism be given equal time ( Wade 1972 ). The dispute began 10 years earlier when two housewives, concerned that their children would be confused by the evolutionary perspective at school and the biblical teaching at home, began a movement to have the California State Board of Education change the textbooks. The Creation Research Society, with members who included scientists with doubts about evolution, got involved, and a private citizen offered new science guidelines that included creationism as an alternative to the science guidelines used by the board. The board accepted the revisions, over the objection of scientific advisors. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) supported the new guidelines.

The first high school text written by a practicing biologist was by Alfred C. Kinsey, of Indiana University, in 1926 ( Grabiner and Miller 1974 ). The first edition had explicit definitions of evolution and Darwin; later editions removed or reduced such references. In the early 1930s, several texts included descriptions of evolution, but most of them included little direct coverage of evolutionary theory. Russian scientific advances of the late 1950s prompted a new look at teaching science. The development of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study texts, with explicit descriptions of evolution and its implications, brought the issue before the public. Significant resistance to teaching evolution remained, and Grabiner and Miller (1974) blamed the community of professional scientists for failing to pay attention to what was happening to high school science.

The California creationist suit was expected to be a replay of the Scopes trial, but the focus was drastically narrowed by the creationist lawyers ( Broad 1981a ). California Board of Education guidance to school boards was found to be unclear and did not communicate the “undogmatic” intent of the guidelines. The creationists felt this was enough of a victory and stopped the case.

Louisiana passed a law requiring creation science be presented when Darwin's theory was described ( Broad 1981b ). Governor David C. Treen signed the bill, saying he had some reservations but felt that academic freedom could not be harmed by inclusion, only by exclusion, of different points of view. Governor Treen reported getting letters from both sides of the issue from the biology department of his own university, Tulane. Arkansas passed a new law in March, with little discussion. Louisiana's bill had been vigorously debated by scientists, creationists, and the press. The ACLU brought suit in Arkansas and was considering a similar suit in Louisiana. In California, evolution was attacked as a religion; in Louisiana, creationism was considered science ( Broad 1981b ). In each case, the creationists' effort was to put creation and evolution on the same footing.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) met separately to develop responses to the two state bills prohibiting the teaching of evolution without teaching creationism ( Lewin 1981a ). The NAS group agreed to put together a booklet explaining evolution in layman's terms. The NABT agreed on a booklet specifically responding to creationists' arguments. Both groups recognized that they were facing a political, not a scientific problem. Eugenie Scott, then of the University of Kentucky, described a local effort to change the policy of a school board near Lexington. Both the creationists and the evolutionists used a localaction approach to convince the school board. The evolutionists won by a vote of three to two. Such local actions would be required to counteract the creationist activities ( Lewin 1981a ).

The ACLU, supported by both the NAS and AAAS, charged that the Arkansas law violated the separation of church and state ( Lewin 1981b ). First, creationism was not science, but religion. Second, academic freedom was infringed by the law. Finally, the statute was unconstitutionally vague, not giving fair notice of what could and could not be taught. The ACLU filed a federal suit because of constitutional issues and the belief that a state judge would be likely to feel strong local pressure because of the emotions surrounding passage of the bill. The law was to be defended by the state attorney general, Steve Clark, who declined the offer of help from the ICR's lawyer Wendell Bird ( Lewin 1981b ).

In contrast to the Scopes trial, the nine-day event was formal and low-key ( Lewin 1982a ). Along with the ACLU, plaintiffs included bishops, preachers, and ministers—religious people who saw the act as threatening rather than enhancing religion. As the trial progressed, Attorney General Clark was criticized by the law's supporters, including television evangelist Pat Robertson, who accused Clark of collusion with the ACLU. Later, Jerry Falwell and the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund of Arkansas joined the criticism.

The ACLU brought several top scientists to present its case, including the evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala; Brent Dalrymple from the US Geological Survey; Harold Morowitz, a biophysicist; and the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. Each testified that evolutionary theory was scientific and that creation science was not. Local schoolteachers, brought in to describe efforts to draw up a creation science unit for instruction, testified that they could find no science to put in the unit.

The defense called six science witnesses. Their credibility was damaged when one declared UFOs to be agents of Satan and another discussed other satanic and demonic issues. A physicist associated with Oak Ridge National Laboratory ended testimony with “4 hours of excruciating detail” about an anomalous result in radiometric dating that Dalrymple described as “a tiny mystery” ( Lewin 1982a ).

A meeting of the AAAS featured all-day sessions on evolution, with much discussion of the creationist–evolutionist controversy ( Walsh 1982 ). A resolution was passed against “forced teaching of creationist beliefs in public school science education” ( Borras 1982 ). Judge William Overton's ruling, decisively against the creationists, had just been announced ( Lewin 1982b ); the AAAS executive officer, William D. Carey, issued a statement on behalf of the association welcoming the ruling. Judge Overton found that the law violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The law failed the three legal tests defined in the 1971 US Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman: It was closely identified with the fundamentalist viewpoint, its prime motivation was promotion of Christianity, and the sponsor of the bill was motivated by religious concerns.

During the trial, the defense argued that the act should be judged on content, not on the motives of its supporters ( Lewin 1982a ). The judge found that the act failed under this test also; the act was intended to advance a particular religion. Creation science did not meet the criteria to be considered science—it offered no power of explanation. Finally, the act would require the state to become involved in religious decisions in setting curriculum, clearly prohibited by the First Amendment.

A paper from The Yale Law Review by the creationist lawyer Wendell Bird, presented as evidence that evolution could be considered religion, was rejected. Judge Overton called it “a student note.” The defense claimed that the public school curriculum should reflect what the public wanted to be taught. Overton said that the First Amendment was not based on public opinion or majority vote. In an unprecedented response, Science published the entire text of Judge Overton's ruling, 10 journal pages ( Overton 1982 ).

The ACLU challenged the creationist law in Louisiana ( Lewin 1982a ). The many suits and motions filed made the process more complicated than in the Arkansas case, but the ACLU hoped for a summary judgment without a trial. After a complex series of legal actions, the case reached the US Supreme Court ( Norman 1986 ). In the one-hour hearing on 10 December 1986, Bird, the attorney for Louisiana, claimed that the law expanded students' academic freedom to hear additional evidence of origins, and that although some supporters were religious, that was not a primary purpose of the law. Jay Topkis, of the ACLU, said that the legislative history of the law demonstrated its religious motivation ( Lewin 1987 ).

The Supreme Court, by a vote of seven to two, ruled that the law promoted religion and was therefore unconstitutional ( Norman 1987 ). Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, contending that the case had not received a full hearing and should be sent back to the appeals court. The decision was expected to put an end to the six-year legal battle.

Creationists began new projects to take their case to state legislatures in several states, including Ohio, Tennessee, and Georgia ( Schmidt 1996 ). Rather than asking for the teaching of the Genesis account, they asked for time to present the “scientific evidence against evolution.” The basis for the change in strategy was the dissent of Justice Scalia in the Louisiana case, Edwards v. Aguillard. Scalia had written that the fundamentalists were entitled to have evidence against evolution presented in their schools. Creationists developed new terminology including “abrupt appearance” and “intelligent design” to describe their positions. Scalia apparently believed there was serious debate within the scientific community concerning evolution. Francisco Ayala, of the University of California, Irvine, said that scientists were doing a “miserable job” in schools and in educating the public. Ayala and others planned to update the NAS booklet Science and Creationism ( http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/index.html ). Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), cautioned individual scientists against debating creationists, and others who had tried to do so agreed ( Schmidt 1996 ).

Pope John Paul II issued a statement supporting evolution ( Holden 1996 ). As early as 1950, the Vatican had considered evolution a “serious hypothesis.” Catholic scientists welcomed the pope's announcement, although for some time, Catholic schools had taught that evolutionary theory need not conflict with church dogma. The church's position allowed human origin from living material, but the spiritual soul was seen as created by God.

Both the NAS and AAAS began projects promoting communications between science and religion ( Easterbrook 1997 ). In a poll by Edward Larson of the University of Georgia, about 40 percent of working physicists and biologists claimed to have strong spiritual beliefs. Ayala, the leader of the AAAS project, said it was important to dispel the common perspective that science faculty would attempt to destroy students' religious beliefs. Many confrontations between science and spirituality could be traced to creationism, which had been rejected by many of the mainstream religions. Alan Dressler, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution in Pasadena, said that the antiscience mood in the country was the result of a perception that science had become inhuman and venerated meaninglessness. This report prompted more than 70 letters to the editor ( Fletcher et al. 1997 ). Of the small number published, responses ranged from complete support of a dialogue between science and religion to dismay that the topic was even covered.

The Kansas Board of Education voted to eliminate references to evolution, hints at the great age of the earth, and some cosmological theories from statewide science teaching standards in August 1999. The governor called it an “embarrassing solution to a problem that did not exist,” and college and university presidents warned that it would set back science teaching in the state ( Holden 1999b ). The creationists behind the move attempted to limit science to falsifiability—disproving one thing (evolution) proves the other (creation).

The Kansas move brought immediate response in the form of an editorial whose authors found two troubling aspects of the situation ( Hanson and Bloom 1999 ). Creationists were changing tactics—rather than attempting to teach creationism as science, they were undermining acceptance of evolution and cosmology. Moreover, no political leaders were challenging the creationists' move, reflecting the public's ignorance of science and scientific methods. The authors suggested that the Kansas decision reflected “the tip of an iceberg of ignorance that is growing, not melting.” Constance Holden, a staff reporter for Science, characterized the creationist win as the “breakdown of the year” ( Holden 1999a ).

Hanson and Bloom's editorial prompted letters to the editor supporting their position ( Moore et al. 1999 ). One letter noted that Vice President Gore had said localities should be free to teach creationism. Rather than simply making a ploy to avoid offending voters, he may have had no understanding of the issue. A second letter noted that several Kansas politicians had voiced opposition to the destruction of science standards. Finally, a teacher at a Christian university described the Kansas Board of Education's approach as unfortunate. Ignoring science did not further the cause of religion. This was followed by another letter some months later, quoting another presidential candidate, Bill Bradley, who supported a solid scientific education that clearly included evolution ( West 2000 ). Steve Forbes and Gary Bauer had supported creationism. Elizabeth Dole, John McCain, and George W. Bush thought teaching creationism was acceptable.

NCSE's Scott, a physical anthropologist, summarized creationist and antievolutionist activity across the nation ( Scott 2000 ). A 1996 survey of people who were listed in American Men and Women of Science showed that only 5 percent of the scientists agreed with a statement that humans were created in their present form 10,000 years ago, whereas in a 1997 survey of the American public, 47 percent agreed with such a statement. Similar questions about evolution showed that an overwhelming majority of US scientists accepted evolution, while less than half of the US general public did—among the lowest rates of acceptance for evolution in the developed countries ( Scott 2000 ).

Conclusions

Science' s coverage of the creationist–evolutionist controversy over a 120-year period shows recurring themes. Scientists often believed that religious opposition to evolution was declining, only to find a resurgence. Critics of evolution have failed, or refused, to understand either the basic facts or the intellectual underpinnings of evolution. Scientists have consistently called for better education of the public as the solution; however, there is little evidence that education, as it has been practiced, has helped. (A reviewer of this manuscript suggested that there is little evidence that education has actually been tried.) Literalist, fundamentalist religious leaders have initiated attacks on science; however, reconciliations of religion and science have resulted in the modification of theology, not science.

Although it was not written by a scientist, there is no more cogent summary of the controversy over evolution, and the emptiness of the creationist position, than Judge William Overton's decision in the 1981 Arkansas trial McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. Perhaps scientists need to do a better job in recruiting the powerful aid of the humanities community in their struggle to inform the public. No obvious resolution of the controversy is in sight.

Acknowledgements

Several colleagues, Mark Goltz, Larry Burggraf, Ellen England, Ralph Beeman, Dennis Strouble, Henry Potoczny, Alan Heminger, and two anonymous reviewers made helpful comments on various versions of this manuscript.

References cited

Anonymous . 1880 . Natural selection . Science . 1 : 287

Anonymous . 1922 . Quotations: William Jennings Bryan on evolution . Science . 55 : 242 - 243 .

Anonymous . 1925 . Evolution, the court and the church . Scientific Monthly . 21 : 669 - 670 .

Anonymous . 1927a . Anti-evolution legislation and the American Association of University Professors . Science . 65 : 31

Anonymous . 1927b . The Tennessee anti-evolution law . Science . 65 : 57

Bateson W . 1922 . Evolutionary faith and modern doubts . Science . 55 : 55 - 61 .

Google Scholar

Borras C . 1982 . AAAS Council meeting. 1982 . Science . 215 : 1069 - 1072 .

Broad WJ . 1981a . Creationists limit scope of evolution case . Science . 211 : 1331 - 1332 .

Broad WJ . 1981b . Louisiana puts God into biology lessons . Science . 213 : 628 - 629 .

Curtis WC . 1918 . The value and service of zoological science: Spiritual values . Science . 47 : 571 - 579 .

Curtis WC . 1925 . The fact, the course and the causes of organic evolution . Scientific Monthly . 21 : 295 - 302 .

Davis WM . 1934 . The faith of reverent science . Scientific Monthly . 38 : 395 - 421 .

Easterbrook G . 1997 . Science and God: A warming trend? . Science . 277 : 890 - 893 .

Fletcher JC . 1997 . Science and religion . Science . 277 : 1589 - 1591 .

Grabiner JV Miller PD . 1974 . Effects of the Scopes trial . Science . 185 : 832 - 837 .

Hanson RB Bloom FE . 1999 . Fending off furtive strategists . Science . 285 : 1847

Holden C . 1996 . The Vatican's position evolves . Science . 274 : 717

Holden C . 1999a . Kansas dumps Darwin, raises alarm across the United States . Science . 285 : 1186 - 1187 .

Holden C . 1999b . Creationists win in Kansas . Science . 286 : 2242

Huxley TH . 1880 . The coming of age of the Origin of Species . Science . 1 : 15 - 20 .

Lewin R . 1981a . A response to creationism evolves . Science . 214 : 635 - 638 .

Lewin R . 1981b . Creationism goes on trial in Arkansas . Science . 214 : 1101 - 1104 .

Lewin R . 1982a . Creationism on the defensive in Arkansas . Science . 215 : 33 - 34 .

Lewin R . 1982b . Judge's ruling hits hard at creationism . Science . 215 : 381 - 384 .

Lewin R . 1987 . Creationism case argued before Supreme Court . Science . 235 : 22 - 23 .

Linton E . 1926a . The scientific method and authority . Science . 63 : 171 - 178 .

Linton E . 1926b . The scientific method and authority, II . Science . 63 : 195 - 201 .

Mather KF . 1952 . The problem of antiscientific trends today . Science . 115 : 533 - 537 .

Metcalf MM . 1925 . The truth of evolution . Scientific Monthly . 21 : 291 - 295 .

Michels J . 1882 . Column by Professor George S. Morris . Science . 3 : 1 - 2 .

Moore B . 1929 . Anti-evolution in New England . Science . 69 : 301

Moore JW Whitehead F Brosnan-Watters G . 1999 . Science and scripture . Science . 286 : 681

Morse EW . 1887 . What American zoologists have done for evolution . Science . 10 : 73 - 76 .

Norman C . 1986 . Creationism case goes to Supreme Court . Science . 232 : 928

Norman C . 1987 . Supreme Court strikes down “creation science” law as promotion of religion . Science . 236 : 1620

Osborn HF . 1922 . William Bateson on Darwinism . Science . 55 : 194 - 197 .

Osborn HF . 1925 . Evolution and education in the Tennessee trial . Science . 62 : 43 - 45 .

Overton WR . 1982 . Creationism in schools: The decision in McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education . Science . 215 : 934 - 943 .

Patten W . 1924 . Why I teach evolution . Scientific Monthly . 19 : 635 - 647 .

Reed CI . 1958 . Review: Six Days or Forever? Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes . Science . 128 : 768

Rice EL . 1925 . Darwin and Bryan—a study in method . Science . 61 : 243 - 250 .

Schaar BE . 1953 . Avenues of service . Science . 117 : 643 - 647 .

Schmidt K . 1996 . Creationists evolve new strategy . Science . 273 : 420 - 422 .

Scott EC . 2000 . Not (just) in Kansas anymore . Science . 288 : 813 - 815 .

Smith TV . 1923 . Bases of Bryanism . Scientific Monthly . 16 : 505 - 513 .

Wade N . 1972 . Creationists and evolutionists: Confrontation in California . Science . 178 : 724 - 729 .

Wallace AR . 1886 . Dr. Wallace on the development theory . Science . 8 : 560 - 563 .

Walsh J . 1982 . At AAAS meeting, a closing of ranks . Science . 215 : 380 - 381 .

West RM . 2000 . A quote from the other Bill . Science . 287 : 233

Numbers of references in Science and The Scientific Monthly to the creationist–evolutionist controversy, shown by year. Peaks in 1925 and 1981 through 1987 reflect the Scopes trial and trials in California, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Since 1996, the intelligent design movement has attracted attention

Author notes

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1525-3244
• Copyright © 2024 American Institute of Biological Sciences
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Creationism and Evolutionism: A Theological, Scientific and Philosophical Discourse

2014, Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal

Related Papers

Evangelical Quarterly

Randall James Price

Katarzyna Molek-Kozakowska

Grzegorz Bugajak

Heated debates stemming from the confrontation of scientific knowledge with the biblical picture of the creation of man, which had followed the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution, became far less prominent in the second half of the 20th century. This was due to two factors: first, the theory of evolution was partly accepted in theological circles and at the same time biologists showed a growing awareness of the limited epistemological scope of the competence of the natural sciences. This lesson from the history, however, seems to have been forgotten by many who now and again return to controversies which more often than not are caused by ideological quarrels over religion, with true scholarship being too easily lost from sight. The paper reminds some of the history of the controversy in question and suggests that at least some of the current problems regarding evolution˗and˗creation controversy may have already found their solutions. In part 1, “The Theory of Evolution and the Creation of the Human” it deals with the general issue of human origins. In part 2, “Monogenism and Original Sin” it explores the notion of the ‘first human’ as it is employed in biology and in theology, and shows its completely different meaning in these two realms of knowledge which helps to resolve the recurrent controversy over monogenism.

Larry V Brown, DMin

Denis Lamoureux

Evolutionary creation offers a conservative Christian approach to evolution. It explores biblical faith and evolutionary science through a Two Divine Books model and proposes a complementary relationship between Scripture and science. The Book of God’s Words discloses the spiritual character of the world, while the Book of God’s Works reveals the divine creative process. This view of origins recognizes that the Bible features an ancient conceptualization of nature, and consequently rejects concordism (or scientific concordism). It understands bibli-cal revelation in the light of the Incarnation and suggests that Scripture was ac-commodated for an ancient Near Eastern mindset. Evolutionary creation holds a traditional notion of natural revelation. The reflection of intelligent design extends to the process of evolution, rejecting the God-of-the-gaps creative method, and declaring the faithfulness of the Creator’s evolutionary mechanisms. Evolutionary creation claims that the Father, ...

“Critical Reflections on Evolutionism as a Scientific or Pseudo-Scientific Theory and as an Atheist Ideology”

Josef M SEIFERT

Tangaza University College

Robert Wafula

This essay is an attempt to understand the scientific evidence that organic evolution is a fact as pointed out by Pope John Paul II in his recent statement in (1996). It is an opportunity for me to see how religious thought about creation and evolution is presently conceived; given the past traditional understanding that species were created and fixed once and for all in God’s creative activity, which presupposed that evolution could not take place. In the past organic evolution had made very little impression upon many areas of human knowledge, and more so in theology. But presently there is attention of many theologians from different religious faiths that has increased considerably on the question of the origins of the universe and its dynamism to the future. The fact of organic evolution is apparently becoming clearer with the evidence varying from one discipline of knowledge to the other. The organic evolution embraces a principle of novelty at work, which integrates its past into the present, and is directed to the future. Following this awareness, then, there is a profound link and unity between creation as a reality and evolution as a reality, that both are open to the future dimensions of beings. And this is the link and unity I focus on in this essay. In chapter one therefore, I start by defining the essential terms ‘Creation’ and ‘Creationism’ that will carry us throughout in this work, as we look how creation is envisioned from the Christian theological context. In doing this, I focus first of all on the Old Testament, to see what the biblical narratives on creation say, particularly (Gen 1-2). Then, what follows is the way creation was perceived in the Old Testament Prophetic and Wisdom literature. I conclude this chapter by looking at the Christian understanding of creation particularly in the New Testament, which has handed over a strong biblical traditional inheritance to the present Christian theological vision of creation. My aim in this chapter is not to criticise or interpret anything, but to see how this notion of creation emerged in the general Christian context. In chapter two, my attention goes on the scientific understanding about creation. I start by defining the essential scientific terms of ‘Evolutionism’ and ‘Scientific Creationism’. I then look at the notion of microevolution and macroevolution in which scientific evolutionists argue that evolution takes place or occurs along these lines of change. From that we see how evolution that is quite evidenced in these dimensions of microevolution and macroevolution is becoming part and parcel in the religious/theological circles and faiths. My focus here is on how believers and those who happen to be both believers and scientists, approach this idea of creation as God’s exclusive activity. Because, presently, creation is quite inseparable with the way God’s creative activity is perceived as continuous in evolution. And this brings us to the way the integrity of God’s creation ought to be, as human beings understand it presently, both from religious and scientific points of view. In the last chapter, I look at how human beings, presently, understand themselves as the summit of God’s creation, which is basically from the Christian perspective. This leads us to the contrasting message that is powerfully coming from ecological theology with the argument against human dominance and control in the entire creation of God as experienced in the modern world. That is, the issue of ‘Anthropic Principle’ that finds its support more clearly in the first account of creation narrative (Gen 1:28-30). This entire theological perception is summed up by the general theological outlook of how we can perceive God from both religious/theological and scientific points of view without unnecessary antagonistic relations. Because, our God as a God of mutual relations in the Trinity is our very God in an evolving universe. Finally, I give a short summary and some concluding remarks. This is followed by a bibliographical reference indicating my sources of research on this essay.

Ultimate Reality and Meaning

Louis Groarke

Evolution: Education and Outreach

Avelina Espinosa

Here we address three misconceptions stated by Rice et al. in their observations of our article Paz-y-Miño and Espinosa (Evo Edu Outreach 2:655–675, 2009), published in this journal. The five authors titled their note “The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life.” First, we argue that it is fallacious to believe that because the formulation of the theory of evolution, as conceived in the 1800s, did not include an explanation for the origin of life, nor of the universe, the concept of evolution would not allow us to hypothesize the possible beginnings of life and its connections to the cosmos. Not only Stanley Miller’s experiments of 1953 led scientists to envision a continuum from the inorganic world to the origin and diversification of life, but also Darwin’s own writings of 1871. Second, to dismiss the notion of Rice et al. that evolution does not provide explanations concerning the universe or the cosmos, we identify compelling scientific discussions on the topics: Zaikowski et al. (Evo Edu Outreach 1:65–73, 2008), Krauss (Evo Edu Outreach 3:193–197, 2010), Peretó et al. (Orig Life Evol Biosph 39:395–406, 2009) and Follmann and Brownson (Naturwissenschaften 96:1265–1292, 2009). Third, although we acknowledge that the term Darwinism may not be inclusive of all new discoveries in evolution, and also that creationists and Intelligent Designers hijack the term to portray evolution as ideology, we demonstrate that there is no statistical evidence suggesting that the word Darwinism interferes with public acceptance of evolution, nor does the inclusion of the origin of life or the universe within the concept of evolution. We examine the epistemological and empirical distinction between the theory of evolution and the concept of evolution and conclude that, although the distinction is important, it should not compromise scientific logic.

Ryan Adrian M . Aguinaldo

This paper aims at reconciling the Theory of Evolution with the Genesis' accounts of Creation. Although less scientific and technical terms are articulated; the researcher centers however on providing some latest biblical findings and conclusions using the modern literary criticism employed by contemporary biblical scholars. Genesis accounts of creation are products of its own time with its own world view. As the scientific findings have disproven some biblical worldviews, the research however maintains that science and religion belong to different realm and need not contradict each other. This paper is far from denying the theory of Evolution but rather affirming that such a theory does not contradict our belief in God on the ground that evolution is not about creation. This paper, as an attempt on reconciling the theory of evolution and Genesis' accounts of creation, does not in any way represent the official teachings of the Catholic Church.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Paul Thagard

Religious Studies

Philip Devine

William T S Thackara

James C . Ungureanu, Ph.D.

Neil Messer

Peter Ottuh

Herb Spencer

Bill Cobern

Eloise Choice

Dialectical Anthropology

Joel Whitebook

Harun Yahya Books

Koers - Bulletin for Christian Scholarship

Patrick Hartin

Lijo Devadhas

Science Education

Kefyn Catley

Metascience

Stefaan Blancke

The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

Bradford J Fellmeth

Studia Philosophiae Christianae

Wojciech Grygiel

Joseph Bracken

Gabriel Trueba

Brian Baigrie

Nicholas J Matzke

Stromata: The Graduate Journal of Calvin Theological Seminary

Thiago M Silva

Cary Schantzer

Wynand Vladimir De Beer

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Support Our Work

The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

• Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism: Primer

Human Origins Initiative, Broader Social Impacts Committee

Co-chairs: dr. connie bertka and dr. jim miller, introduction: the broader social impacts committee.

The David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) invites the public to explore the depths of our understanding of what it means to be human in relation to the most reliable scientific research.  The answers to the question, “What Does It Mean To Be Human?” draw on a variety of sources: scientific understandings of the biological origins and development of Homo sapiens , studies of social and cultural evolution, and global and personal insights from contemporary experience. It is in recognition of these broad factors that public engagement materials, events, and contributions to the Human Origins web site are being developed by the Broader Social Impacts Committee (BSIC) to support the exhibition in the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins.

Organized by the Museum’s Human Origins Initiative, the BSIC is a group of scholars and practitioners from a wide range of religious and philosophical perspectives, many of whom also have experience in the academic field of science and religion.  This committee helps inform the Smithsonian about the range of cultural perspectives the public brings to the exhibit, considers ways the museum can encourage the public’s engagement with the science the exhibit presents, and helps equip museum staff and volunteers to participate in a respectful conversation where science intersects with cultural and religious interests. The committee recognizes the unique opportunity the subject of human origins offers for the exploration of challenging cultural topics, which in turn can inspire greater public interest in, and understanding of, science.

Thus, it is with input from the committee that the co-chairs have prepared this primer.  It provides a brief introduction to issues that arise at the crossroads of science and religion, particularly in relation to the scientific accounts of evolution and human origins that are presented in the exhibit. The primer is organized around two broad topics:  science and religion and evolution and creationism. A question and answer format is used to highlight common concerns for each of these topics. Cultural divides in the United States over the acceptance of evolution and scientific understandings of human origins make this interchange relevant. They also offer an opportunity to inspire a positive relationship between science and religion.

Science and Religion

Visitors to the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins bring with them many assumptions about science, about religion, and about their relationship.  These assumptions may impact, positively or negatively, their willingness and ability to engage the scientific presentation of human origins. The questions below are offered as a guide to begin thinking about science and religion in the context of the possible interactions of religious worldviews with a scientific account of human evolution and origins.

1.  What is science?

Science is a way to understand nature by developing explanations for the structures, processes and history of nature that can be tested by observations in laboratories or in the field.  Sometimes such observations are direct, like measuring the chemical composition of a rock.  Other times these observations are indirect, like determining the presence of an exoplanet through the wobble of its host star.  An explanation of some aspect of nature that has been well supported by such observations is a theory.  Well-substantiated theories are the foundations of human understanding of nature.  The pursuit of such understanding is science.

2.  What is religion?

Religion, or more appropriately religions, are cultural phenomena comprised of social institutions, traditions of practice, literatures, sacred texts and stories, and sacred places that identify and convey an understanding of ultimate meaning.  Religions are very diverse.  While it is common for religions to identify the ultimate with a deity (like the western monotheisms – Judaism, Christianity, Islam) or deities, not all do. There are non-theistic religions, like Buddhism.

3. What is the difference between science and religion?

Although science does not provide proofs, it does provide explanations. Science depends on deliberate, explicit and formal testing (in the natural world) of explanations for the way the world is, for the processes that led to its present state, and for its possible future. When scientists see that a proposed explanation has been well confirmed by repeated observations, it serves the scientific community as a reliable theory. A theory in science is the highest form of scientific explanation, not just a “mere opinion.” Strong theories, ones that have been well confirmed by evidence from nature, are an essential goal of science. Well-supported theories guide future efforts to solve other questions about the natural world.

Religions may draw upon scientific explanations of the world, in part, as a reliable way of knowing what the world is like, about which they seek to discern its ultimate meaning.  However, “testing” of religious understandings of the world is incidental, implicit and informal in the course of the life of the religious community in the world.  Religious understanding draws from both subjective insight and traditional authority.  Therefore, some people view religion as based on nothing more than personal opinion or “blind faith,” and so, as immune to rational thought.  However, this is an erroneous judgment.  Virtually all of the historic religions include traditions of rational reflection.

4.  How are science and religion similar?

Science and religion both have historical traditions that exhibit development over time.  Each has places for individual insight and communal discernment.  Analytic and synthetic reasoning can be found exhibited in both.  Science and religion have been and continue to be formative elements shaping an increasingly global human society.  Both science and religion have served to jeopardize and contribute to the common human good.

5.  How can science and religion be related?  

Typical assumptions about this relationship fall into one of three forms: conflict, separation or interaction.

A conflict approach assumes that science and religion are competitors for cultural authority. Either science sets the standard for truth to which religion must adhere or be dismissed, or religion sets the standard to which science must conform.  For example, some atheists adopt this approach and argue that science reduces religion to a merely natural phenomenon. Conversely, some religious adherents, while claiming to accept science, will identify specific points at which mainstream scientific findings must be distorted or abandoned for the sake of religious convictions. Such an adversarial approach tends to rule out any constructive engagement between science and religion.

Individuals who prefer a separation approach hold that science and religion use different languages, ask different questions and have different objects of interest (e.g., nature for science and God for religion). By highlighting the differences between science and religion, conflict is avoided. While this approach allows a person to explore what science has learned about human origins without fear of conflict with religious beliefs, it also encourages that the science be left, so to speak, at the museum threshold so that it has no impact on other non-scientific explorations of what it means to be human.  A consequence of separation is that the science of human origins can be viewed as irrelevant to what might be the deepest of human concerns.

It should be noted that it is true that science is practiced without reference to religion.  God may be an ultimate explanation, but God is not a scientific explanation.  This approach to science is called methodological naturalism.  However, this method of isolating religious interests from scientific research is not an example of the separation approach.  Historically, this bracketing out of religious questions in the practice of scientific inquiry was promoted by religious thinkers in the 18th and 19th centuries as the most fruitful way to discover penultimate rather than ultimate explanations of the structures and processes of nature.

A third possibility for the relationship between science and religion, one of interaction , at minimum holds that dialogue between science and religion can be valuable, more that science and religion can constructively benefit from engagement, and at maximum envisions a convergence of scientific and religious perspectives. Generally, this view encourages an effort to explore the significance of scientific understanding for religious understanding and vice versa.  With this approach science remains relevant beyond the museum for many people who might otherwise ignore scientific findings.

Evolution and Creationism

The National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution has a responsibility due to its charter to provide the public with an opportunity to explore for themselves the most recent scientific understandings of the natural world, including human origins. However the question, “What does it mean to be human?” is generally recognized as one that does not belong solely to the realm of science. People are well aware that insights from the humanities, including the arts, literature and religious traditions, have much to say on this topic as well. For some people an evolutionary account of human origins may be greeted with skepticism because it challenges their particular religious commitments. In contrast, other people find their religious perspectives are deepened and enriched by an evolutionary understanding of human origins. Although the questions below recognize this range of perspectives, many of the questions reflect expectations that are especially characteristic of people from those religious communities that are skeptical about the science of evolution. Ironically, people in these latter communities often value science and seek scientific support for their particular religious commitments.

1. Do “creationists” necessarily oppose an evolutionary understanding of the history of nature and the origins of species and humanity?

No. In principle all members of the three western monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are “creationists” in that they believe the order of nature exists because a reality beyond nature, commonly called “God”, is the ultimate cause of all existence.  In this sense of the word, many creationists accept an evolutionary understanding of natural history.  However, at least four types of creationism can be identified, and each has a distinctive view of the evolutionary sciences and human origins.

“Young-Earth” creationists hold that the sacred text provides an inerrant account of how the universe, all life and humankind came into existence; namely, in six 24-hour days, some 6-10,000 years ago.  Human beings were created through a direct act of divine intervention in the order of nature.

“Old-Earth” creationists hold that the sacred text is an infallible account of why the universe, all life and humankind came into existence, but accepts that the “days” of creation are metaphorical and could represent very long periods of time.  While many aspects of nature may be the consequence of direct acts of divine creation, at very least they hold that the very beginning of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of humankind are the consequence of distinct acts of divine intervention in the order of nature.

Theistic evolutionists also hold that the sacred text provides an infallible account of why the universe, all life and humankind came into existence.  However, they also hold that for the most part, the diversity of nature from stars to planets to living organisms, including the human body, is a consequence of the divine using processes of evolution to create indirectly. Still, for many who hold this position, the very beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of what is distinctive about humankind are the consequence of direct acts of divine intervention in the order of nature.

Evolutionary theists hold that the sacred text, while giving witness to the ultimate divine source of all of nature, in no way specifies the means of creation.  Further, they hold that the witness of creation itself is that the divine creates only indirectly through evolutionary processes without any intervention in the order of nature.

2. What will be the exhibition’s message to the majority (in some polls 53%) of Americans who do not accept evolution?

The exhibition’s main message is the same for all visitors; namely, that the scientific study of human origins is an exciting and fruitful area of research that has provided us with a deeper understanding of both our connection to all of life on Earth and the uniqueness of our species, Homo sapiens .  It is intended that those Americans who do not accept evolution will experience in this exhibition an open invitation to engage the science presented, explore the supporting materials, and participate in conversation with staff and volunteers without fear of ridicule or antagonism. Though the viewpoints of those who do not accept the scientific explanation of human origins are not affirmed in the exhibition, the personal importance of their perspectives is appreciated. What the exhibition intends to create is an environment for an enriching and respectful dialogue on human origins that currently can be found in no other venue.

3. Scientific theories change in the light of new discoveries.  Why should we believe what science has to say today about human origins when it may change tomorrow?

The perception that scientists completely change their mind with each new discovery is mistaken.  Although this has occurred occasionally in the history of science, it is relatively rare.  Unfortunately, media coverage of advances in scientific research often sensationalize the “revolutionary” nature of new discoveries and are also likely to focus on the most controversial interpretations of new findings.  What is frequently missed is the broad consensus among scientists in a field, like that of human origins research, which provides the basis for seeking new discoveries.  For example, it is broadly agreed that the various characteristics that distinguish our species did not emerge all at once. Walking on two legs emerged before making stone tools, and both of these occurred well before the biggest increase in human brain size. All of these came before the origin of art and symbolic communication. Farming and the rise of civilizations occurred much later still. There is broad scientific agreement even in the light of the most recent fossil discoveries that these changes that define our species took place over a period of about 6 million years. Each visitor to the exhibition has the opportunity to explore both the latest findings of laboratory and field research as well as consider how the scientific community is using these to give a more complete account of human origins.  Each visitor is also invited to consider how this account might inform their deepest religious understanding of what it means to be human.

4. What is Intelligent Design and does the exhibit address it?

Advocates of Intelligent Design (ID) hold that there are features of the natural world for which there are no natural explanations and that these features can be shown analytically to be the result of a designing agent.  Although ID advocates seldom specify who the designer is, the logic of their argument requires that the designer be beyond nature, or supernatural.  However, advocates for ID have not been able to show that their claims are genuinely scientific.  While the scientific community welcomes new theoretical proposals, these must lead to active research programs that deepen our understanding of nature and that can find confirmation in either laboratory or field observations.   Thus far, ID advocates have been unable to do either.

As an institution of informal public education, the exhibit cannot advocate a religious position.  As a matter of public record, a US Federal Court has ruled that ID is not science but instead is a religious viewpoint (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005).  For all of these reasons it is inappropriate for ID to be included in a scientific presentation on human origins.

5. Still, some people believe that there is a scientific debate about evolution, and that advocates of ID represent one side of this debate.  They wonder, “Why isn’t the Smithsonian presenting that side?” They see it as an issue of fairness and expect that ID should be presented equally.

As noted above, the scientific community does not recognize ID as a scientific position.  Therefore, it is not one side of a scientific debate. At the same time, the exhibition does provide the visitor with genuine examples of how the evidence for human evolution is interpreted differently by different researchers, for example, in the construction of frameworks for understanding how prehistoric species are related to one another.  Here different interpretations of the evolutionary data are presented. While there is lively debate about such alternatives and data is actively sought to discriminate between them, there is no scientific debate about the basic validity of the theory of evolution as the best scientific explanation for the expansion and diversification of life on Earth, including human life.

6.  Does the exhibition identify the gaps in the scientific understanding of the origin of humans, gaps that can suggest that God played a role?

It is just such “gaps” in our understanding that fuel the scientific enterprise.  It is the unresolved questions about nature that mark the fertile areas for new research, propelling the sciences forward -- including those related to human origin studies. Science, as a particular way of knowing, restricts itself to offering natural explanations for the natural world. When scientists find a gap in their understanding of nature, as scientists they cannot say, “Here is where God acts in some miraculous manner.”  Instead, scientists seek to look deeper into nature to discover there the answers that fill the gaps.

It is worth noting that many religious persons take exception to a “God of the gaps” viewpoint, to the idea that the action of God in creation is limited to those areas where there are gaps in human understanding. Supporting materials being developed for the exhibition by the BSIC will help visitors discover resources from various religious traditions that explore religious views on the relation of God and nature.

7.  How do people incorporate evolution into their religious worldview?

Religious traditions vary in their response to evolution. For example, Asian religious worldviews do not assume an all-powerful creator God and often see the world religiously as interconnected and dynamic.  They tend, therefore, to engage scientific accounts of evolution with little difficulty. However, for Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions, the affirmation of a creator God in relation to the world has a central place. As noted in the discussion of various forms of “creationism” above, many individuals in these monotheistic traditions accept, generally, that God created the material world mostly by means of evolutionary processes.  At the same time, some of these persons are committed to the view that there are a few specific acts of divine creative intervention: namely, at the very beginning of the universe, at the origin of life, and at the origin of humankind. However, as previously noted, others in the monotheistic traditions hold that God creates entirely by means of evolutionary processes without any intervention, even in the case of humans.

At least for theistic evolutionists and evolutionary theists the scientific exhibition on evolution and human origins stimulates the questions, “Where is God in the process?” and “What does it mean to be created in God’s image?”  To the extent that such questions provoke a constructive engagement of scientific and religious ideas, they are an expression of an interaction approach to science and religion.  There are many though, who adopt a separation approach to science and religion. For these individuals there is no need to raise religious questions in light of the science of human origins.

• Climate Effects on Human Evolution
• Survival of the Adaptable
• Human Evolution Timeline Interactive
• 2011 Olorgesailie Dispatches
• 2004 Olorgesailie Dispatches
• 1999 Olorgesailie Dispatches
• Olorgesailie Drilling Project
• Kanam, Kenya
• Kanjera, Kenya
• Ol Pejeta, Kenya
• Olorgesailie, Kenya
• Evolution of Human Innovation
• Adventures in the Rift Valley: Interactive
• 'Hobbits' on Flores, Indonesia
• Earliest Humans in China
• Bose, China
• Anthropocene: The Age of Humans
• Fossil Forensics: Interactive
• What's Hot in Human Origins?
• Instructions
• Carnivore Dentition
• Ungulate Dentition
• Primate Behavior
• Footprints from Koobi Fora, Kenya
• Laetoli Footprint Trails
• Footprints from Engare Sero, Tanzania
• Hammerstone from Majuangou, China
• Handaxe and Tektites from Bose, China
• Handaxe from Europe
• Handaxe from India
• Oldowan Tools from Lokalalei, Kenya
• Olduvai Chopper
• Stone Tools from Majuangou, China
• Middle Stone Age Tools
• Burin from Laugerie Haute & Basse, Dordogne, France
• La Madeleine, Dordogne, France
• Butchered Animal Bones from Gona, Ethiopia
• Katanda Bone Harpoon Point
• Oldest Wooden Spear
• Punctured Horse Shoulder Blade
• Stone Sickle Blades
• Projectile Point
• Oldest Pottery
• Pottery Fragment
• Fire-Altered Stone Tools
• Terra Amata Shelter
• Qafzeh: Oldest Intentional Burial
• Assyrian Cylinder Seal
• Blombos Ocher Plaque
• Ishango Bone
• Bone and Ivory Needles
• Carved Ivory Running Lion
• Female torso in ivory
• Ivory Horse Figurine
• Ivory Horse Sculpture
• Lady of Brassempouy
• Lion-Man Figurine
• Willendorf Venus
• Ancient Shell Beads
• Carved Bone Disc
• Cro-Magnon Shell Bead Necklace
• Oldest Known Shell Beads
• Ancient Flute
• Ancient Pigments
• Apollo 11 Plaque
• Carved antler baton with horses
• Geometric incised bone rectangle
• Tata Plaque
• Mystery Skull Interactive
• Shanidar 3 - Neanderthal Skeleton
• One Species, Living Worldwide
• Human Skin Color Variation
• Ancient DNA and Neanderthals
• Human Family Tree
• Swartkrans, South Africa
• Shanidar, Iraq
• Walking Upright
• Tools & Food
• Social Life
• Language & Symbols
• Humans Change the World
• Introduction to Human Evolution
• Nuts and bolts classification: Arbitrary or not? (Grades 6-8)
• The Origins and Evolution of Human Bipedality (Grades 9-12)
• Comparison of Human and Chimp Chromosomes (Grades 9-12)
• Hominid Cranial Comparison: The "Skulls" Lab (Grades 9-12)
• Investigating Common Descent: Formulating Explanations and Models (Grades 9-12)
• Fossil and Migration Patterns in Early Hominids (Grades 9-12)
• For College Students
• Why do we get goose bumps?
• Chickens, chimpanzees, and you - what do they have in common?
• Grandparents are unique to humans
• How strong are we?
• Humans are handy!
• Humans: the running ape
• Our big hungry brain!
• Our eyes say it!
• The early human tool kit
• The short-haired human!
• The “Nutcracker”
• What can lice tell us about human evolution?
• What does gut got to do with it?
• Why do paleoanthropologists love Lucy?
• Why do we have wisdom teeth?
• Human Origins Glossary
• Teaching Evolution through Human Examples
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Recommended Books
• Exhibit Floorplan Interactive
• Print Floorplan PDF
• Reconstructions of Early Humans
• Chesterfield County Public Library
• Orange County Library
• Andover Public Library
• Ephrata Public Library
• Oelwein Public Library
• Cedar City Public Library
• Milpitas Library
• Spokane County Library
• Cottage Grove Public Library
• Pueblo City-County Library
• Springfield-Greene County Library
• Peoria Public Library
• Orion Township Public Library
• Skokie Public Library
• Wyckoff Free Public Library
• Tompkins County Public Library
• Otis Library
• Fletcher Free Library
• Bangor Public Library
• Human Origins Do it Yourself Exhibit
• Exhibit Field Trip Guide
• Acknowledgments
• Human Origins Program Team
• Connie Bertka
• Betty Holley
• Nancy Howell
• Lee Meadows
• Jamie L. Jensen
• David Orenstein
• Michael Tenneson
• Leonisa Ardizzone
• David Haberman
• Fred Edwords (Emeritus)
• Elliot Dorff (Emeritus)
• Francisca Cho (Emeritus)
• Peter F. Ryan (Emeritus)
• Mustansir Mir (Emeritus)
• Randy Isaac (Emeritus)
• Mary Evelyn Tucker (Emeritus)
• Wentzel van Huyssteen (Emeritus)
• Joe Watkins (Emeritus)
• Tom Weinandy (Emeritus)
• Members Thoughts on Science, Religion & Human Origins (video)
• The Evolution of Religious Belief: Seeking Deep Evolutionary Roots
• Laboring for Science, Laboring for Souls:  Obstacles and Approaches to Teaching and Learning Evolution in the Southeastern United States
• Public Event : Religious Audiences and the Topic of Evolution: Lessons from the Classroom (video)
• Evolution and the Anthropocene: Science, Religion, and the Human Future
• Imagining the Human Future: Ethics for the Anthropocene
• Human Evolution and Religion: Questions and Conversations from the Hall of Human Origins
• I Came from Where? Approaching the Science of Human Origins from Religious Perspectives
• Religious Perspectives on the Science of Human Origins
• Submit Your Response to "What Does It Mean To Be Human?"
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Submit Question
• "Shaping Humanity: How Science, Art, and Imagination Help Us Understand Our Origins" (book by John Gurche)
• What Does It Mean To Be Human? (book by Richard Potts and Chris Sloan)
• Bronze Statues
• Reconstructed Faces

Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction

By eugenie c. scott, second edition now available.

"Perhaps someday schools in the United States will catch up to those in other developed countries and treat evolution as a normal scientific subject. Before that happens, though, people need to understand evolution, and also understand the creationism and evolution controversy. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction is a step toward this goal." —Niles Eldredge, from the foreword

Paperback, University of California Press, 2009 * ISBN 978-0520261877 * $22.95 Hardcover, Greenwood Press, 2008 * ISBN 978-0313344275 * $49.95   Buy the second edition from Amazon.com in paperback or in hardback .  All royalties benefit NCSE. Download Chapter 1 free!

Reviews of the Second Edition:

Edward J. Larson, The International Society for Science and Religion Library Project :

... an invaluable resource for those seeking to understand the American controversy over creationism and evolution from the perspective of an eloquent and knowledgeable partisan ... offers an insightful overview of the American controversy over teaching evolution along with a representative sampling of short excerpts from both creationists and evolutionists. By reading it, teachers, parents, students and the public can be better prepared to answer creationist claims and defend the teaching of evolution.

Greg Laden in Greg Laden's Blog :

The original version of this book was excellent, but this updated version is essential ... The discussion of the creationist arguments and how to deal with them is especially important, as it is written from the perspective of a very experienced individual, and in the most useful possible way for a teacher or school administrator.  The revised edition take[s] into account recent adjustments to the Intelligent Design strategy. Also, there are always new challenges, court decisions, and other legally relevant outcomes all across the country, and this new volume covers several things that have happened since the first edition.  Just as important are the resources outlined in the book are updated and expanded. If you are a school administrator, teacher, or parent with a child in a public school you need this book as a basic reference.

Claudia Fetters, National Science Teachers Association :

An excellent summary of a very controversial topic in biology today. This book is a fair, balanced, and comprehensive look at the issue of evolution vs. creationism in this country and is highly recommended for teachers and pre-service biology teachers.

Kendrick Frazier, Skeptical Inquirer :

A welcome second edition with seventy new pages of material, including a new foreword by the judge in the landmark Dover case, of what is probably the best single readable reference source about the longstanding evolution and creationism controversy. Cosmology, astronomy, and geology get a useful chapter here, and there is a new chapter on issues involving the media and public opinion — pertinent since this is in large part a controversy involving public perception and manipulation of opinion.

Lawrence S. Lerner, Forum on Physics and Society :

Evolution vs. Creationism is a superb introductory guide through the tangle, whether the reader wishes simply to get a clear basic picture of what is going on and what one might expect in the future, or plans to dig further into the subject. Author Scott writes with crystal clarity and punctilious fairness. She never gets bogged down in excessive detail and yet never sacrifices accuracy to brevity. She is the long-time Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, the national clearinghouse for teaching good science (and especially evolution). Hence she has, and skillfully conveys, a bird's-eye view of the world of creationism.

John Crothers, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society :

This is the first book that I have read that explained how it could have come about that, in the twentieth century, it was possible for a generation of poorly-educated people to seriously disadvantage their children and grandchildren by intentionally depriving them of access to the best available information.

Reviews of the First Edition:

Judith Shulevitz in The New York Times Book Review :

Scott could be said to be the one really doing God's work as she patiently rebuts people who make most other scientists spit gaskets like short-circuiting robots. Her book is both a straightforward history of the debate and an anthology of essays written by partisans on each side. Its main virtue is to explain the scientific method, which many invoke but few describe vividly. Scott also manages to lay out the astronomical, chemical, geological and biological bases of evolutionary theory in unusually plain English.  Anyone who wants to defend evolution at his next church picnic should arm himself with this book.

Kefyn M. Catley in Science Education (2006, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 764-766):

Let me say at the outset that this is quite an extraordinary book, and one I predict is destined to become a classic. Eugenie Scott brings to bear her encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the conflict, passion for the subject, and deep understanding of the legal framework tempered by her long involvement as Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. This work provides a well-balanced synthesis of the complexities of science, religion, jurisprudence, and education as they pertain to understanding the continuing dichotomy between evolution and creationism. Perhaps its greatest strength, however, is that all this information is so expertly brought together under one cover. ... This book provides a great service to the science community. There is much here for readers at all levels, from high school students and their teachers to university students and their professors, and yes, even for creationists. I recommended the book highly as a text or supplemental book for nature of science, science and society, or high school science methods courses.

[N]otable for its coverage of the history of the creationist movement and its presentation of the past and current legal issues surrounding the controversy. With creationists continuing to mount court challenges to the teaching of evolution, the currency of this work is crucial for libraries trying to keep up with developments. ... Many libraries may not own creationist books or journals, so this new title is an excellent way to provide access to that literature while keeping it in a scientific, scholarly context. ... Highly recommended. Lower- and upper-level undergraduates; general readers.

The book was later named a 2005 Outstanding Academic Title by Choice.  David Sepkoski in Journal of the History of Biology (2006, vol. 39, pp. 607-635):

In her textbook Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction , Eugenie Scott sets out to provide, in a single, concise volume, an introduction to the basics of evolutionary theory, a summary of creationist critiques and straightforward refutations of those claims, and a survey of primary literature from both camps. Few people are as qualified to address evolution pedagogy as Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, and the result is a tidy, cogent book that will undoubtedly find its way into many classrooms. ... While there is never any doubt about Scott's viewpoints, she wisely allows readers to work through the issues themselves, making for a much less polemical treatment than many of the other efforts here reviewed.

Midwest Book Review :

Evolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. Scott (Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education and former president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists) is an ideal introduction to the concepts of evolution and creationism. Methodical, adhering to the highest standards of academic research, and superbly organized in its presentation, Evolution vs. Creationism is organized into three major sections: Science, Evolution, Religion, and Creationism; A History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy; and Selections from the Literature. Evolution vs. Creationism is informed and informative reading for both students and non-specialist general readers. Strongly recommended for both school and community library collections, Evolution vs. Creationism is significantly enhanced with ten pages of "References for Further Study" as well as a Name Index and a Subject Index.

Henry M. Morris in the Institute for Creation Research's Back to Genesis :

I believe that she has conscientiously tried to be objective in discussing this inflammatory subject in her book. ... The book is well written and creationists can read it with interest and appreciation, even though its arguments for evolution are—to us, at least—speculative and even defensive.

Nikki L. Rogers in Science Books & Films :

... a multifaceted contribution ... Scott speaks directly to the reader in an energetic, engaging manner ... Scott's textbook provides a veritable feast of factoids, including the evolution song "Amphioxus" (p. 32), that can add depth and interest to classroom lectures. ... Evolution vs. Creationism is an insightful must-have for students and teachers from high school and beyond and a "should-read" for interested laypersons.

The book was given two stars—indicating "highly recommended"—and classified as suitable for Young Adults, College, Teaching Professional, and General Audience.  Thomas Brown in NSTA Recommends :

Evolution vs. Creationism would be an excellent resource for any science teacher, especially those who teach biology or the nature of science. It is written by Eugenie Scott, one of the most noted and eloquent voices for evolution education today, with a foreward by Niles Eldredge. Teachers who engage in this scholarly book will come away with a deep and valuable understanding of the scientific and social implications of the creationist movement. ... The author hopes to provide "one-stop shopping ... a foundation in the ideas that shaped the controversy." The book accomplishes this and more.

Chip Green in E-STREAMS:

The author, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has done an outstanding job presenting background to the tension between evolution and creationism. In addition to carefully explaining science and evolution to her reader, she has also accomplished a long-needed task of describing the full range of "creationists" such that the reader can see and understand the history, politics, and range of views in this complex cluster of beliefs. ... Highly recommended for any library whose readers range from the general public to teachers or experts in the field of evolution. Understanding the sides in an ever-lasting political battle is crucial, and this book helps that understanding.

John Cole in Voice of Reason (the newsletter of Americans for Religious Liberty):

... a one-stop resource for the newcomer and the veteran alike ... As an introduction to a huge problem facing science and religion, this book is very valuable and should be on the shelf of teachers, clergy, students—and politicians.

Richard K. Stucky in Museums & Social Issues :

... thorough and provocative ... an excellent sourcebook on the fallacies behind intelligent design and creationism's attempt to pose as a science.

John W. Burgeson in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith :

At last—a book that both Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, and Niles Eldredge, a prominent scientist, can agree upon! Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, is an articulate and engaging author. She has written a book suitable for a wide audience: high school and college students, teachers, and nonspecialized general readers. The book is comprehensive, treating scientific evidences for evolution, religious views, and a history of the so-called "evolution-creation" controversy.

Dennis Cheek in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith :

... This well-conceived and written text provides a comprehensive survey of contemporary evolution and the varied positions within creationism writ large. ... Regardless of one's personal perspective, this book is a valuable contribution to the literature in evolution and creationism. Virtually any reader will find something of interest within its pages. It will surely raise the dander of some and bring delight to others—a quality possessed by many a good book.

Chris Doran in Theology and Science :

Overall, this book is a much-needed addition to the field for three very important reasons. First, the book appropriately surveys all of the pertinent issues in this controversy thus making it an excellent book to use in an undergraduate religion class environment. Second, Scott portrays the creationist position more fairly and adequately than many others writing in this area do. Finally, the book includes a concluding section that gives the reader a valuable list of references to use for further exploration of each topic covered in the controversy.

Francisco J. Ayala in History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences :

Several excellent books have been published in recent years about creationism, particularly intelligent design, and the presumed conflict between evolution and religious beliefs. Evolution vs. Creationism is one of the best.

Susan Spath is a former Director of Public Information at NCSE.

Creationism vs. Evolution

Creationism or Intelligent Design is the belief that life and the universe were created by a supernatural being (an "intelligent designer"), an omnipotent, benevolent God. Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the Earth. The theory of evolution purports that life on earth evolved from one universal common ancestor about 3.8 billion years ago. It is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word , which means it is supported by evidence and accepted as fact by the scientific community. The intelligent design hypothesis is not supported by evidence. Since 1929, the term “creationism” in the US has been associated with Christian fundamentalism, and specifically with a disbelief in evolution and a belief in a young earth .

Comparison chart

The Points of View

Evolutionary theory holds that living organisms that do not adapt to their environment fail to survive. Genetic variations are introduced in species through random DNA mutation. These mutations manifest themselves in different phenotypes , or physical characteristics, in living organisms. Organisms whose characteristics are better suited for the surrounding environment survive and reproduce, passing on their mutated DNA to subsequent generations. This is often called "survival of the fittest", and it is not a random process. As the surviving organisms reproduce, and this process repeats over several generations, the species evolves.

There are many flavors of the creationist worldview. Young Earth Creationism and Gap Creationism believe that humanity was created by God, but while Young Earth Creationism claims the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and was reshaped by the flood, Gap Creationism claims the world is the scientifically accepted age. Progressive creationism believes humanity was directly created by God, based on primate anatomy , while intelligent design and theistic evolution include a variety of beliefs based on the idea that divine intervention led to something that may appear like evolution.

Types of evolution

Divergent evolution occurs when one species separates into two species, for example if they become separated geographically and have to adapt to different environments to survive. Parallel evolution, on the other hand, occurs when two or more species develop similar traits, such as growing wings, to survive the same environment. Finally, convergent evolution occurs when two or more species develop similar traits in different environments.

The Evidence

Evolution relies on evidence from fossil records, similarities between life forms, the geographic distribution of species, and recorded changes in species. Since the 1920s, for example, hundreds of fossils have been found of creatures in the intermediate stages between monkeys, apes, and humans , and fossil records in general suggest that multi-celled organisms only appeared after single-celled ones, and that complex animals were preceded by simpler ones. Geographic evidence includes the fact that, before humans arrived in Australia 60-40,000 years ago, the country had more than 100 species of kangaroo , koalas and marsupials, but no placental land mammals like dogs, cats , bears and horses. Islands like Hawaii and New Zealand also lacked these mammals, and had plant, insect and bird species not found elsewhere on Earth.

Creationism is typically based on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible . Supporters of Intelligent Design argue that either God created the conditions for evolution or point to patterns occuring in nature as evidence that the universe is not random but created by an intelligent being.

Here is a video of a debate between evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and cardinal George Pell , a Catholic priest. They discuss evolution, creation, Adam and Eve and the first humans, as well as the existence of God. A question specifically about evolution is at around 28:40.

A basic tenet of science is the scientific method , which states that

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

This mans that scientific hypotheses must be testable. Critics of intelligent design argue that the creationist hypothesis is not testable i.e., the existence of God cannot be proved . Although science cannot test issues of faith, scientific studies have disproved many elements of Creationism, including the age of the Earth , its geological history , and the relationships of living organisms. Anthropology , geology and planetary science reveal that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, disputing Creationist claims that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. Creationism has also been criticized by several religious organizations , as they maintain that the Christian faith does not conflict with the science of evolution.

Many Creationists argue that evolution is a “theory” and not fact and so should be taught as such. However, this is based on a misunderstanding of the scientific use of “theory,” which does not mean “possibility,” as it does in common usage, but “a scientifically acceptable general principle to explain phenomena.” Creationists also claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded, and accuse of evolution of also being a religion , not a science. Creationism also criticizes the idea of “common descent” – the theory that creatures with similarities in their genes must have evolved from a common ancestor -- by arguing that such similarities suggest that the creatures shared a common designer, aka God .

Contemporary beliefs

According to a Gallup poll, 46% of US citizens believed in creationism in 2012, including 52% of those with only a high-school education or less and 25% of those with post graduate education. 25% of those who do not attend church believe in creationism, while 67% of those who attend church weekly believe. Outside of the US, most contemporary Christian leaders believe that Genesis is allegorical and support evolution.

Notable supporters of Evolution

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is a notable and vociferous critic of creationism.

The Catholic church 's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creation, stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict. Moreover, the Church teaches that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose-driven natural process, guided by God. Catholics regard the creation descriptions in the Bible as parables written to provide moral instruction rather than as literal history, and therefore see no conflict between these accounts and the Theory of Evolution. The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. The Church's stance is that any such gradual appearance must have been guided in some way by God, but the Church has thus far declined to define in what way that may be. [1]

Notable supporters of Creationism

Many Protestant, and particularly Evangelical, churches, on the other hand, reject Evolution in favor of a literal, rather than figurative, interpretation of the book of Genesis. However, it is typically not specified which version of the creation account is being considered divinely inspired and hence "literally true". This is problematic since there are two such accounts in the Bible (Gen1:1 - Gen2:3 vs. Gen2:4 - Gen50:26) , and they contradict each other in numerous ways. For instance, order in which Adam vs. the Beasts were created differs [2] [3] between the two accounts.

• The Evidence of Evolution
• Wikipedia:Creationism
• Wikipedia:Evolution
• Wikipedia:Creation-evolution controversy

Related Comparisons

Share this comparison via:

If you read this far, you should follow us:

"Creationism vs Evolution." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 26 Aug 2024. < >

Comments: Creationism vs Evolution

Anonymous comments (4).

April 12, 2013, 7:40pm Intelligent Design is not testable. Any conceivable evidence that could be gathered for a theory other than Intelligent Design could be claimed to be evidence for Intelligent Design as well, by just claiming that "for reasons unknown to us, the designer chose to design it that way". Likewise, any evidence against Intelligent Design could likewise be dismissed with a similar claim. There is no experiment that could be created, even in principle, that could prove definitively that Intelligent Design is false, since an intelligent designer might have anticipated the experiment and manipulated the results to pass the test. Therefore, Intelligent Design fails the "falsifiability" criteria which are required for a scientific hypothesis or theory. Furthermore, proponents of Intelligent Design have tended to focus their arguments on attacking Evolutionary Theory rather than on demonstrating via experiment the truth of their own claims, essentially relying on the "false dualism" argument that if Evolution were false (which has not been demonstrated), then Intelligent Design must therefore be true, and ignoring the possibility that other theories could exist as well. — 67.✗.✗.30

November 28, 2013, 6:56pm When you actually take the time to study the 2 it becomes obvious to any rational thinking person comes to the clear conclusion that Evolution by Natural Selection is a factual factor of life here on Earth regardless of the existence or non-existence of any supernatural being. But still I feel like this comparison has been slightly unfair in that it doesn't take into account that there is a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Personally I find both of them a bit fictitious since they both operate under the assumption that a designer is required for any piece of the puzzle but at least ID takes reality into consideration even if those who employ it clearly don't have a full understanding of just how much mankind knows about these things in the modern day. Everything in the known universe thus far has been quantifiable and reducible, even the eye which creationists have constantly claimed cannot possibly be. Anyone who's spent a considerable amount of time watching both sides will also notice that much of the time those on the religious side of things tend to argue about things like the Big Bang when at some point in the conversation it becomes clear they don't even know what the Big Bang actually was. In the end it comes down to faith vs fact. There's enough faith to go around today and facts can't be refuted by anything other than contrary facts, which faith cannot provide if it refuses to enter the realm of tangible reality. If any actual evidence was found proving any deity's existence then science will be the first to jump on the band-wagon because science is the search for truth. We're still waiting. — 68.✗.✗.119

March 20, 2013, 6:37pm "Intelligent" design is not testable. That's because it is a fantasy. Fact. — 62.✗.✗.133

March 17, 2013, 5:30pm Who wrote this nonsense? Intelligent design is very different from creationism, with the only similarity being that they both posit at least some involvement of a creator (thought ID makes no assumptions about its identity or characteristics other than intelligence) in life and/or the universe. That's where the similarity starts and ends. Beyond that, intelligent design is an evidence-based, testable scientific theory. Anything but a "biblical version of truth". I suggest some honest reading up on ID, and keeping this article to actual Creationism. Additionally, the author's understanding of testability and how both evolution and ID hold up to the notion seems shaky at best. Suggested homework in this regard: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm — 198.✗.✗.50

• Agnostic vs Atheist
• Theory vs Hypothesis
• Ape vs Monkey
• Nature vs Nurture
• Heaven vs Hell
• Anthropology vs Sociology
• Behaviourism vs Constructivism

Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise.

Stay connected

© All rights reserved.

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academy of Sciences (US). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences: Second Edition. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1999.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences: Second Edition.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life

The term "evolution" usually refers to the biological evolution of living things. But the processes by which planets, stars, galaxies, and the universe form and change over time are also types of "evolution." In all of these cases there is change over time, although the processes involved are quite different.

In the late 1920s the American astronomer Edwin Hubble made a very interesting and important discovery. Hubble made observations that he interpreted as showing that distant stars and galaxies are receding from Earth in every direction. Moreover, the velocities of recession increase in proportion with distance, a discovery that has been confirmed by numerous and repeated measurements since Hubble's time. The implication of these findings is that the universe is expanding.

Hubble's hypothesis of an expanding universe leads to certain deductions. One is that the universe was more condensed at a previous time. From this deduction came the suggestion that all the currently observed matter and energy in the universe were initially condensed in a very small and infinitely hot mass. A huge explosion, known as the Big Bang, then sent matter and energy expanding in all directions.

This Big Bang hypothesis led to more testable deductions. One such deduction was that the temperature in deep space today should be several degrees above absolute zero. Observations showed this deduction to be correct. In fact, the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer (COBE) satellite launched in 1991 confirmed that the background radiation field has exactly the spectrum predicted by a Big Bang origin for the universe.

As the universe expanded, according to current scientific understanding, matter collected into clouds that began to condense and rotate, forming the forerunners of galaxies. Within galaxies, including our own Milky Way galaxy, changes in pressure caused gas and dust to form distinct clouds. In some of these clouds, where there was sufficient mass and the right forces, gravitational attraction caused the cloud to collapse. If the mass of material in the cloud was sufficiently compressed, nuclear reactions began and a star was born.

Some proportion of stars, including our sun, formed in the middle of a flattened spinning disk of material. In the case of our sun, the gas and dust within this disk collided and aggregated into small grains, and the grains formed into larger bodies called planetesimals ("very small planets"), some of which reached diameters of several hundred kilometers. In successive stages these planetesimals coalesced into the nine planets and their numerous satellites. The rocky planets, including Earth, were near the sun, and the gaseous planets were in more distant orbits.

The ages of the universe, our galaxy, the solar system, and Earth can be estimated using modem scientific methods. The age of the universe can be derived from the observed relationship between the velocities of and the distances separating the galaxies. The velocities of distant galaxies can be measured very accurately, but the measurement of distances is more uncertain. Over the past few decades, measurements of the Hubble expansion have led to estimated ages for the universe of between 7 billion and 20 billion years, with the most recent and best measurements within the range of 10 billion to 15 billion years.

A disk of dust and gas, appearing as a dark band in this Hubble Space Telescope photograph, bisects a glowing nebula around a very young star in the constellation Taurus. Similar disks can be seen around other nearby stars and are thought to provide the (more...)

The age of the Milky Way galaxy has been calculated in two ways. One involves studying the observed stages of evolution of different-sized stars in globular clusters. Globular clusters occur in a faint halo surrounding the center of the Galaxy, with each cluster containing from a hundred thousand to a million stars. The very low amounts of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium in these stars indicate that they must have formed early in the history of the Galaxy, before large amounts of heavy elements were created inside the initial generations of stars and later distributed into the interstellar medium through supernova explosions (the Big Bang itself created primarily hydrogen and helium atoms). Estimates of the ages of the stars in globular clusters fall within the range of 11 billion to 16 billion years.

A second method for estimating the age of our galaxy is based on the present abundances of several long-lived radioactive elements in the solar system. Their abundances are set by their rates of production and distribution through exploding supernovas. According to these calculations, the age of our galaxy is between 9 billion and 16 billion years. Thus, both ways of estimating the age of the Milky Way galaxy agree with each other, and they also are consistent with the independently derived estimate for the age of the universe.

Radioactive elements occurring naturally in rocks and minerals also provide a means of estimating the age of the solar system and Earth. Several of these elements decay with half lives between 700 million and more than 100 billion years (the half life of an element is the time it takes for half of the element to decay radioactively into another element). Using these time-keepers, it is calculated that meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids, formed between 4.53 billion and 4.58 billion years ago (asteroids are small "planetoids" that revolve around the sun and are remnants of the solar nebula that gave rise to the sun and planets). The same radioactive time-keepers applied to the three oldest lunar samples returned to Earth by the Apollo astronauts yield ages between 4.4 billion and 4.5 billion years, providing minimum estimates for the time since the formation of the moon.

The oldest known rocks on Earth occur in northwestern Canada (3.96 billion years), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in other parts of the world. In Western Australia, zircon crystals encased within younger rocks have ages as old as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials so far found on Earth.

The best estimates of Earth's age are obtained by calculating the time required for development of the observed lead isotopes in Earth's oldest lead ores. These estimates yield 4.54 billion years as the age of Earth and of meteorites, and hence of the solar system.

The origins of life cannot be dated as precisely, but there is evidence that bacteria-like organisms lived on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, and they may have existed even earlier, when the first solid crust formed, almost 4 billion years ago. These early organisms must have been simpler than the organisms living today. Furthermore, before the earliest organisms there must have been structures that one would not call "alive" but that are now components of living things. Today, all living organisms store and transmit hereditary information using two kinds of molecules: DNA and RNA. Each of these molecules is in turn composed of four kinds of subunits known as nucleotides. The sequences of nucleotides in particular lengths of DNA or RNA, known as genes, direct the construction of molecules known as proteins, which in turn catalyze biochemical reactions, provide structural components for organisms, and perform many of the other functions on which life depends. Proteins consist of chains of subunits known as amino acids. The sequence of nucleotides in DNA and RNA therefore determines the sequence of amino acids in proteins; this is a central mechanism in all of biology.

Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA. Some of these molecules also have been detected in meteorites from outer space and in interstellar space by astronomers using radio-telescopes. Scientists have concluded that the "building blocks of life" could have been available early in Earth's history.

An important new research avenue has opened with the discovery that certain molecules made of RNA, called ribozymes, can act as catalysts in modem cells. It previously had been thought that only proteins could serve as the catalysts required to carry out specific biochemical functions. Thus, in the early prebiotic world, RNA molecules could have been "autocatalytic"—that is, they could have replicated themselves well before there were any protein catalysts (called enzymes).

Laboratory experiments demonstrate that replicating autocatalytic RNA molecules undergo spontaneous changes and that the variants of RNA molecules with the greatest autocatalytic activity come to prevail in their environments. Some scientists favor the hypothesis that there was an early "RNA world," and they are testing models that lead from RNA to the synthesis of simple DNA and protein molecules. These assemblages of molecules eventually could have become packaged within membranes, thus making up "protocells"—early versions of very simple cells.

For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells.

Will we ever be able to identify the path of chemical evolution that succeeded in initiating life on Earth? Scientists are designing experiments and speculating about how early Earth could have provided a hospitable site for the segregation of molecules in units that might have been the first living systems. The recent speculation includes the possibility that the first living cells might have arisen on Mars, seeding Earth via the many meteorites that are known to travel from Mars to our planet.

Of course, even if a living cell were to be made in the laboratory, it would not prove that nature followed the same pathway billions of years ago. But it is the job of science to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena. The study of the origin of life is a very active research area in which important progress is being made, although the consensus among scientists is that none of the current hypotheses has thus far been confirmed. The history of science shows that seemingly intractable problems like this one may become amenable to solution later, as a result of advances in theory, instrumentation, or the discovery of new facts.

Creationist Views of the Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life

Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed "theistic evolution," is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.

The advocates of "creation science" hold a variety of viewpoints. Some claim that Earth and the universe are relatively young, perhaps only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. These individuals often believe that the present physical form of Earth can be explained by "catastrophism," including a worldwide flood, and that all living things (including humans) were created miraculously, essentially in the forms we now find them.

Other advocates of creation science are willing to accept that Earth, the planets, and the stars may have existed for millions of years. But they argue that the various types of organisms, and especially humans, could only have come about with supernatural intervention, because they show "intelligent design."

In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."

There are no valid scientific data or calculations to substantiate the belief that Earth was created just a few thousand years ago. This document has summarized the vast amount of evidence for the great age of the universe, our galaxy, the solar system, and Earth from astronomy, astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology, geochemistry, and geophysics. Independent scientific methods consistently give an age for Earth and the solar system of about 5 billion years, and an age for our galaxy and the universe that is two to three times greater. These conclusions make the origin of the universe as a whole intelligible, lend coherence to many different branches of science, and form the core conclusions of a remarkable body of knowledge about the origins and behavior of the physical world.

Nor is there any evidence that the entire geological record, with its orderly succession of fossils, is the product of a single universal flood that occurred a few thousand years ago, lasted a little longer than a year, and covered the highest mountains to a depth of several meters. On the contrary, intertidal and terrestrial deposits demonstrate that at no recorded time in the past has the entire planet been under water. Moreover, a universal flood of sufficient magnitude to form the sedimentary rocks seen today, which together are many kilometers thick, would require a volume of water far greater than has ever existed on and in Earth, at least since the formation of the first known solid crust about 4 billion years ago. The belief that Earth's sediments, with their fossils, were deposited in an orderly sequence in a year's time defies all geological observations and physical principles concerning sedimentation rates and possible quantities of suspended solid matter.

Geologists have constructed a detailed history of sediment deposition that links particular bodies of rock in the crust of Earth to particular environments and processes. If petroleum geologists could find more oil and gas by interpreting the record of sedimentary rocks as having resulted from a single flood, they would certainly favor the idea of such a flood, but they do not. Instead, these practical workers agree with academic geologists about the nature of depositional environments and geological time. Petroleum geologists have been pioneers in the recognition of fossil deposits that were formed over millions of years in such environments as meandering rivers, deltas, sandy barrier beaches, and coral reefs.

The example of petroleum geology demonstrates one of the great strengths of science. By using knowledge of the natural world to predict the consequences of our actions, science makes it possible to solve problems and create opportunities using technology. The detailed knowledge required to sustain our civilization could only have been derived through scientific investigation.

The arguments of creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.

• Cite this Page National Academy of Sciences (US). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences: Second Edition. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1999. The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life.
• PDF version of this title (638K)

Recent Activity

• The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life - Science and Creationism The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life - Science and Creationism

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• Our Program Divisions
• Our Three Academies
• Government Affairs
• Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
• Our Study Process
• Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
• Project Comments and Information
• Read Our Expert Reports and Published Proceedings
• Explore PNAS, the Flagship Scientific Journal of NAS
• Access Transportation Research Board Publications
• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Economic Recovery
• Fellowships and Grants
• Publications by Division
• Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
• Division on Earth and Life Studies
• Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
• Gulf Research Program
• Health and Medicine Division
• Policy and Global Affairs Division
• Transportation Research Board
• National Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Engineering
• National Academy of Medicine
• Publications by Topic
• Agriculture
• Behavioral and Social Sciences
• Biography and Autobiography
• Biology and Life Sciences
• Computers and Information Technology
• Conflict and Security Issues
• Earth Sciences
• Energy and Energy Conservation
• Engineering and Technology
• Environment and Environmental Studies
• Food and Nutrition
• Health and Medicine
• Industry and Labor
• Math, Chemistry, and Physics
• Policy for Science and Technology
• Space and Aeronautics
• Surveys and Statistics
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Searchable Collections
• New Releases

VIEW LARGER COVER

Science, Evolution, and Creationism

How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.

In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution, and evaluate the alternative perspectives offered by advocates of various kinds of creationism, including "intelligent design." The book explores the many fascinating inquiries being pursued that put the science of evolution to work in preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and fostering industrial innovations. The book also presents the scientific and legal reasons for not teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes.

Mindful of school board battles and recent court decisions, Science, Evolution, and Creationism shows that science and religion should be viewed as different ways of understanding the world rather than as frameworks that are in conflict with each other and that the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. For educators, students, teachers, community leaders, legislators, policy makers, and parents who seek to understand the basis of evolutionary science, this publication will be an essential resource.

RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

• Press Release
• Science, Evolution, and Creationism: Brochure

Audio/Podcast

• ↓ Scroll Down for More Resources
• Biology and Life Sciences — Biology
• Education — Math and Science Education
• Biology and Life Sciences — Evolution

Suggested Citation

National Academy of Sciences. 2008. Science, Evolution, and Creationism . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11876. Import this citation to: Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager

Publication Info

• Paperback:  978-0-309-10586-6
• Ebook:  978-0-309-13193-3

What is skim?

The Chapter Skim search tool presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter. You may select key terms to highlight them within pages of each chapter.

• Science, Evolution, and Creationism: Brochure Read Description: Summary of the full report.

Related Information

Download Audio Book

• Introduction
• Chapter 4 and FAQS

Copyright Information

The National Academies Press (NAP) has partnered with Copyright Clearance Center's Marketplace service to offer you a variety of options for reusing NAP content. Through Marketplace, you may request permission to reprint NAP content in another publication, course pack, secure website, or other media. Marketplace allows you to instantly obtain permission, pay related fees, and print a license directly from the NAP website. The complete terms and conditions of your reuse license can be found in the license agreement that will be made available to you during the online order process. To request permission through Marketplace you are required to create an account by filling out a simple online form. The following list describes license reuses offered by the NAP through Marketplace:

• Republish text, tables, figures, or images in print
• Post on a secure Intranet/Extranet website
• Use in a PowerPoint Presentation
• Distribute via CD-ROM

Click here to obtain permission for the above reuses. If you have questions or comments concerning the Marketplace service, please contact:

Marketplace Support International +1.978.646.2600 US Toll Free +1.855.239.3415 E-mail: [email protected] marketplace.copyright.com

To request permission to distribute a PDF, please contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected] .

What is a prepublication?

An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book. We publish prepublications to facilitate timely access to the committee's findings.

What happens when I pre-order?

The final version of this book has not been published yet. You can pre-order a copy of the book and we will send it to you when it becomes available. We will not charge you for the book until it ships. Pricing for a pre-ordered book is estimated and subject to change. All backorders will be released at the final established price. As a courtesy, if the price increases by more than $3.00 we will notify you. If the price decreases, we will simply charge the lower price. Applicable discounts will be extended.

Downloading and Using eBooks from NAP

What is an ebook.

An ebook is one of two file formats that are intended to be used with e-reader devices and apps such as Amazon Kindle or Apple iBooks.

Why is an eBook better than a PDF?

A PDF is a digital representation of the print book, so while it can be loaded into most e-reader programs, it doesn't allow for resizable text or advanced, interactive functionality. The eBook is optimized for e-reader devices and apps, which means that it offers a much better digital reading experience than a PDF, including resizable text and interactive features (when available).

Where do I get eBook files?

eBook files are now available for a large number of reports on the NAP.edu website. If an eBook is available, you'll see the option to purchase it on the book page.

View more FAQ's about Ebooks

Types of Publications

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Overview: The Conflict Between Religion and Evolution

Updated February 3, 2014

Almost 150 years after Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection , Americans are still fighting over evolution. If anything, the controversy has grown in both size and intensity. In the last decade, debates over how evolution should be taught in schools have been heard in school boards, town councils and legislatures in more than half the states.

Throughout much of the 20th century, opponents of evolution (many of them theologically conservative Christians) either tried to eliminate the teaching of Darwin’s theory from public school science curricula or urged science instructors also to teach a version of the creation story found in the biblical book of Genesis. The famous 1925 Scopes “monkey” trial, for instance, involved a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the state’s schools. (See The Social and Legal Dimensions of the Evolution Debate in the U.S. )

But beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions that imposed severe restrictions on those state governments that opposed the teaching of evolution. As a result of these rulings, school boards, legislatures and government bodies are now barred from prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Teaching creation science, either along with evolutionary theory or in place of it, is also banned.

These debates are just as prevalent in the court of public opinion as they are in the courtroom. A spring 2013 Pew Research Center survey finds that six-in-ten Americans say humans and other living things evolved over time, including 32% who say that life evolved through natural processes like natural selection and 24% who say a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today. A third of Americans (33%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

Most of the nation’s scientists contend that evolution is a well-established scientific theory that convincingly explains the origins and development of life on earth. Moreover, they say, a scientific theory is not a hunch or a guess but is instead an established explanation for a natural phenomenon, like gravity, that has repeatedly been tested through observation and experimentation. Indeed, most scientists argue that, for all practical purposes, evolution through natural selection is a fact. (See Darwin and His Theory of Evolution .) These scientists and others dismiss creation science as religion, not science, and describe intelligent design as little more than creationism dressed up in scientific jargon.

So if evolution is as established as the theory of gravity, why are people still arguing about it a century and a half after it was first proposed? (See Evolution: A Timeline .) The answer lies, in part, in the possible theological implications of evolutionary thinking. For many, the Darwinian view of life – a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change – goes beyond contradicting the biblical creation story and conflicts with the Judeo-Christian concept of an active and loving God who cares for his creation. (See Religious Groups’ Views on Evolution .) In addition, some evolution opponents argue that Darwin’s ideas have proven socially and politically dangerous. In particular, they say, the notion that more resilient animals survive and thrive (“survival of the fittest”) has been used by social thinkers, dictators and others to justify heinous crimes, from forced sterilization to mass genocide.

But while theologians, historians and others argue over evolution’s broader social impact, the larger and more intense debate still centers on what children in public schools learn about life’s origins and development. Indeed, the teaching of evolution has become a part of the nation’s culture wars and has been taken up by legislatures and boards of education in more than a dozen states in the last year alone. For example, the Texas Board of Education recently debated what kinds of biology textbooks students should and should not read. (See Fighting Over Darwin: State by State .) And while evolution may not attain the same importance as such culture war issues as abortion or same-sex marriage, the topic is likely to have a place in national debates on values for many years to come.

Evolution: A Glossary of Terms

Creationism – The belief that the creation story in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible book of Genesis is literally true and is akin to a scientific explanation for the creation of the Earth and the development of life.

Creation science – A movement that has attempted to uncover scientific evidence to show that the biblical creation story is true. Some in the creation science movement, known as “young Earth creationists,” reject not only evolution but also the idea that the universe and the Earth are billions of years old.

Darwinian evolution – The theory, first articulated by Charles Darwin, that life on Earth has evolved through natural selection, a process through which plants and animals change over time by adapting to their environments.

Intelligent design – The belief that life is too complex to have evolved entirely through natural processes and that an outside, possibly divine force must have played a role in the origin and development of life.

Social Darwinism – A belief that Darwin’s evolutionary theory can be applied to human society and that groups of people, just like life in the wild, are subject to “survival of the fittest.” The now discredited idea influenced many social theories and movements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, from laissez-faire capitalism to various eugenics movements.

Scientific theory – A statement or principle, honed through scientific observation, reasoning and experimentation, that explains a natural phenomenon.

Theistic evolution – A belief held by some religious groups, including the Catholic Church, that God is the guiding force behind the process of evolution.

This report was written by David Masci, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project.

Promo image credit: Getty Images

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Religion & Government
• Religion & Science

72% of U.S. high school teachers say cellphone distraction is a major problem in the classroom

U.s. public, private and charter schools in 5 charts, is college worth it, half of latinas say hispanic women’s situation has improved in the past decade and expect more gains, a quarter of u.s. teachers say ai tools do more harm than good in k-12 education, most popular, report materials.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

November 1, 2008

The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist

A geneticist ordained as a Dominican priest, Francisco J. Ayala sees no conflict between Darwinism and faith. Convincing most of the American public of that remains the challenge

By Sally Lehrman

Francisco J. Ayala pulls open the top drawer of a black cabinet and flips through nearly a dozen files, all neatly titled by publication and due date. These are the essays on evolution he has been churning out over the past six to eight weeks for popular books and magazines. “Hack jobs,” he calls them with a smile, bragging that each one takes only a day or two to complete.

After some 30 years of proselytizing about evolution to Christian believers, the esteemed evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, has honed his arguments to a fine point. He has stories and examples at the ready, even a shock tactic or two at his fingertips. One out of five pregnancies ends in spontaneous miscarriage, he often reminds audiences. Next he will pointedly ask, as in an interview with U.S. Catholic magazine last year, “If God explicitly designed the human reproductive system, is God the biggest abortionist of them all?” Through such examples, he explains, “I want to turn around their arguments.”

The 74-year-old Ayala is preparing for an exceptionally busy 2009. The year marks the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birthday and the sesquicentennial of the publication of On the Origin of Species, and the battle over the teaching of evolution is sure to heat up. Ayala says the need is especially great for scientists to engage religious people in dialogue. As evidence, he lugs over the 11-by-17-inch, 12-pound Atlas of Creation mailed out by Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar in Turkey to scientists and museums across the U.S. and France. This richly illustrated tome not only attacks evolution but also links Darwin’s theory to horrors, including fascism and even Satan himself.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

In the U.S. the intelligent design–promoting Discovery Institute in Seattle has published biology textbooks questioning evolution and has promoted the 2008 film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowe d to make the case that anti-Darwinist scientists are persecuted. (For a rebuttal, see “Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Integrity Displayed,” by John Rennie, and related articles .) Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has said she believes that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools. One in eight high school biology teachers already treat creationism as a valid alternative, according to a Pennsylvania State University poll.

Despite outreach efforts by scientists and constitutional rulings against them, creationists and intelligent design advocates “are not getting weaker,” Ayala says. “If anything, they’re more visible.”

But Ayala thinks that scientists who attack religion and ridicule the faithful—most notably, Richard Dawkins of the University of Oxford—are making a mistake. It is destructive and gives fodder to the preachers who insist followers must choose either Darwin or God. Often students in Ayala’s introductory biology class tell him that they will answer test questions as he wishes, but in truth they reject evolution because of their Christian beliefs. Then, a couple of years later, when they have learned more science, they decide to abandon their religion. The two, students seem to think, are incompatible.

That saddens him, Ayala says. Instead he would like believers to reconcile their faith with science. Drawing on five years of study in preparation for ordination as a Dominican priest, Ayala uses evolution to help answer a central paradox of Christianity—namely, how can a loving, all-knowing God allow evil and suffering?

Nature is poorly designed—with oddities such as blind spots built into the human eye and an excess of teeth jammed into our jaws. Parasites are sadists. Predators are cruel. Natural selection can explain the ruthlessness of nature, Ayala argues, and remove the “evil”—requiring an intentional act of free will—from the living world. “Darwin solved the problem,” Ayala concludes. He refers to science-savvy Christian theologians who present a God that is continuously engaged in the creative process through undirected natural selection. By addressing religious people on their own terms, Ayala aims to offer a better answer than intelligent design or creationism.

Ayala straddles science and religion by speaking both languages extremely well (and with a Castilian accent). Despite his prolific—and time-consuming—activity in the public arena, he keeps his molecular genetics at the cutting edge. As in his theological debates, he enjoys challenging accepted scientific ideas. Ayala’s early work was the first to demonstrate the extensive nature of genetic variation and the action of natural selection at the protein level. His measures led to important modifications to the theory of the uniform “molecular clock,” which is used to time when species diverged from a common ancestor, based on differences in either protein structure or DNA. He no longer maintains a wet lab but collaborates extensively.

Ayala graduated in physics at the University of Madrid, then worked in a geneticist’s lab while studying theology at the Pontifical Faculty of San Esteban in Salamanca, Spain. By his ordination in 1960 he had already decided to pursue science instead of a ministerial role. At the monastery Darwinism had never been perceived as an enemy of Christian faith. So a year later, when Ayala moved to New York City to pursue a doctorate in genetics, the prevailing U.S. view of a natural hostility between evolution and religion was a shock.

Ever since, Ayala has attempted to address religious skepticism about Darwin’s theory. At first, he recalls, his scientific colleagues were wary and took the position that researchers should not engage in religious discussions. By 1981, when the Arkansas legislature voted to give creationism equal time in schools, the mood began to change. The National Academy of Sciences prepared an amicus curiae brief for a Supreme Court case on the Louisiana “Creation Act” and asked Ayala to lead the effort. The booklet became the 1984 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences.

For the second edition in 1999 Ayala presented the idea of incorporating the words of some theologians but recalls, “I was almost eaten alive.” In the third edition, published this year, one section features statements by four religious denominations and three scientists on the compatibility of evolution with religious beliefs.

Ayala is again giving his colleagues pause by sitting on the advisory board of the John Templeton Foundation, which paid out $70 million in grants last year alone for research and scholarly programs “engaging life’s biggest questions.” Some scientists complain that the organization’s main mission is to inject religion into science. But Ayala defends Templeton’s interest in connecting science to religious life. The foundation has “started to do very good things in recent years,” he explains.

Even so, some philosophers of science, such as Philip Kitcher of Columbia University, have come to believe that evolution and belief in a providential creator cannot coincide. Kitcher admires Ayala but complains that “he has residual supernaturalist tendencies.” For others, Ayala’s approach of debating theological questions and clearly explaining the science is not enough. When two thirds of the public profess a commitment to creationism, argues Stanford University evolutionary biologist Joan E. Roughgarden, the situation is dire. In 2006 Roughgarden wrote what she calls a “religious book” that detailed ideas and examples of evolution written in the Bible. The daughter of Episcopalian missionaries, Roughgarden says she meets believers on their turf—and has even given sermons on evolution from the pulpit. The heart of the debate rests not in theological concepts like explaining evil, she insists, but in the pews.

Sometimes Ayala sounds ready to go there, as when he talks about the vision of God as the author of the universe. But he is unwilling to affirm or deny a personal belief in God, preferring to stick with philosophy. Smart people are being told their faith is incompatible with science. It is his goal, Ayala says, to help believers see evolution as an ally.

Note: This story was originally published with the title, "The Christian Man's Evolution".

Creationism vs. Evolution: Either dust or lightening started it all

Alyssa Beck

Senior Seminar

December 2, 2002

Thesis:   Evolution and Creationism are controversial issues that scientists and theologians are trying to find a common ground to explain how it all started.

A. Introduction

B. The Beginning

C.   Age of the Earth

D. Other topics

E. Human Evolution

F. Conclusion

G. References

Introduction

Creationism and the study of evolution has been a controversial debate for decades now, leaving many people on one side or the other.   Creationism argues that faith should take precedent over science, basing its beliefs on one book for guidance, the Bible.   God created the earth and everything on it, taking six days.   Evolutionists believe that the earth is much older than the Bible describes, and that plants, animals, and humans are a result of a natural progression called evolution.   There were no common ancestors (Adam and Eve) from whom we came; it was a natural selection process, stemming from inorganic compounds and nature.   For many people in the scientific world, it is hard to take a final stance on this issue since there is evidence of evolution, but that is where faith in God and what God has done comes into effect.   According to a great medieval philosopher, Moses Maimonides, “conflicts between science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible”(Schroeder, 3).   This paper will reveal some topics that these two groups debate about, along with their viewpoints.        

The Beginning

The beginning of the earth, along with the birth of humans is one of the biggest and most contentious issues among creationists and evolutionists.   Scientific theory holds the opinion that the universe is eternal, while the Bible states that there is a beginning.   It has been proven that there was an official beginning; the question that arises is when that exact beginning took place, a time where there was neither time nor space nor matter.   Christianity uses the Old Testament to describe the beginning of life.   In the span of six days, God created the heavens, the earth, the sun, moon, water, animals, and ended with the finalé of human beings.   Other major events such as Noah’s flood occurred along the lifespan of the earth, accounting for the distribution of fossils and the formation of the earth’s layers.   St. Augustine of Hippo (who was raised a Christian and later became a member of the Manicheans) believed that the Old Testament was nonsense.   He “believed therefore that organic forms were potentially in a kind of seed-form, and realized actually when the conditions were right- when the seas appeared for instance”(Ruse, 51).   Augustine believed that God created everything in one move: conception, wish, and creation were all at the same time.   This thinking was also a belief held by Galileo later on in history.

Evolution is defined as “the development by natural causes of all organisms, those today and those yesterday, from other forms probably ultimately much simpler and originally perhaps from non-living substances”(Ruse, 12).   According to evolutionists, the earth began approximately 4.5 billion years ago, with the explosion of life beginning around 55 million years ago.   To evolutionists, the starting of life began as inorganic molecules that underwent a natural transformation (through electricity or heat) to become organic molecules.   These building blocks joined to form macromolecule chains that eventually made up organisms.   The chains started to replicate and “feed off the ‘pre-embryonic soup’, which is the state of ponds and so forth as the result of the first stage of evolution”(Ruse, 62).   Experiments done by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in Chicago (1950’s) confirmed this by subjecting inorganic molecules to heat and electric shock.   They were able to obtain organic amino acid compounds naturally and rapidly.   Evolution finds the origins of organisms developing along a 4.5 billion year span, and says that humans are a “new creation”.   It does deny though that humans are the final creation, which contradicts the creationism theory where God created human beings in the last day, then resting after Creation was complete.   Fossil identification and geography gave evolutionists some insight as to when earth and life began.   Other ways used besides fossil identification to guide evolution include: comparing anatomical features, embryological analogies, and similarities/dissimilarities.  

Charles Darwin was a strong believer in evolution and was the founder of the theory of natural selection.   Natural selection is the theory that there is competition – for survival, mates, space, food, shelter, etc.- in which the favorable organisms tend to be preserved by nature and the unfavorable ones tend to die out, leading to evolution.   There are two major types of evolution, macroevolution and microevolution.   Macroevolution deals with changes above the species level, while microevolution is changes in gene frequencies within a population, which may lead to the formation of new species.   Darwin believed natural selection occurred in nature, the need to select and breed only the best and most desirable stock.   The concepts of genetics and hereditary did not come along until later when introduced by Gregor Mendel, and later the study of evolution emerged with the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953.

The Age of the Earth

The age of the earth has been debatable, first with creationists stating that the earth started with God first creating the heavens and the earth.   Some scientists argue that the earth already had the properties to sustain life, as the Bible agrees.   “And God said, Let the land produce vegetation”(Genesis 1:11), and later on, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind”(1:24).   Nowhere in the Bible does it say or suggest that each species had its own creation.   A view that is strongly upheld by creationists is that all living things have remained fixed over time, God created each creature the exact way that we see the organisms today.   When God created the earth and everything on it, God said it was good.   Creationists argue that if something arose that was not perfect in God’s eyes; God had the power to destroy it, hence the reasoning for the flood.   God kept the good and destroyed the bad.  

It is scientifically difficult to take the Bible seriously because many interpretations have been made over the decades and most people believe that one cannot take everything within the Bible literally.   For example in Genesis 1:5,8,13, it describes how God created evening and day, and every verse following a day of creation ends with “and there was evening and the there was morning”.   But it is not until later on in Genesis that a sun and moon were created to govern the day and evening.   “God made two great lights- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night”(1:16).   This example, along with countless others points to scientific belief that the Bible is an unreliable source, one that specific scientific information should not be taken from.   The Bible does suggest one evolutionary change in a physical trait, the trait of longevity.   Throughout the Bible, the life spans (at the beginning were around 900 years) and sexual maturity (ranged from 65-187) decreased, for it was a miracle for Sarah and Abraham to have a son, and she was only 89 years old.   “The trend of shortening life span and more rapid sexual maturity is similar to that observed in domesticated animals”(Schroeder, 15).   This forms a basis for today’s breeding and population genetics.   Evolutionists state that creationists have only one source from which they are arguing from, and their arguments are a way of covering up what they do not know or understand about the scientific world.   This failure has come in two main ways: “1) the failure to deal with the large amount of evidence that supports evolution and the fact that animals and plants are different today than in the past, and 2) the failure to provide any alternative theory to natural history”(Miller, 55).   The real theory of creationism is based and centered on faith, faith in God and what God has provided.   “Science exists because of evidence, whereas religion exists upon faith, and, in the case of fundamentalism and creationism, in spite of evidence”(Berra, 130).

The evolutionists take a different stand on this topic of life.   “No mention of a special creation is associated with the start of life.   The earth itself had the special properties to orchestrate the beginning of life”(29).   Today this would be referred to as self-organization with the aid of catalysts.   The experiments done by Miller and Urey support the statement that the earth was awaiting for its beginning on its own time.   Organic molecules, proteins, plant life, and animal life evolved along with way.   Fossil evidence was discovered that showed life started immediately on a cooled earth.   Fossils show a variety of species and show species evolving into other species (intermediate or transitional species).   “The fact of the matter is that the fossil record not only documents evolution, but that it was the fossil record itself which forced natural scientists to abandon their idea of the fixity of species and looks instead for a plausible mechanism of change, a mechanism of evolution”(Miller, 48).   For example in the western United States, scientists were able to trace the modern single-hoofed horse to a dog-sized creature, Eohippus , which ran around on its five toes.   Also, according to animal and human development, all organisms start out life in the same form, eventually specializing into their specific species.   For example, the human develops similar to a reptile with a few modifications that make the human species unique: yolk sac to fish eggs to having a tail   to a 3- chambered heart (like a reptile) to a 4 -chambered heart to reptilian double jaw joint to skin folds (gill slits) to covering of hair to having human characteristics.

One argument against fossil evidence is the idea that fossil dating could be inaccurate.   Fossil dating is done using Carbon 14, but for it to be of value, the amount of C-14 must have always been a constant.   If the intensity of radiation (specifically cosmic radiation) differed in any way, then the C-14 dating system would be flawed.   Scientists discovered fossils throughout the various layers of the earth according to the time period the organisms corresponded with.   The bottom layers contained species associated with the beginning of the earth, while the top layers contain more recent and advanced species, especially mammals.   Evolutionists feel that these findings strongly argue for evolution.   They feel that if God had created the earth and everything on it, all fossil remains would be mixed together.   Creationists argue that the reason for the fossils being distributed the way they are is because of the Great Flood.   Most of the time creationists avoid this topic because of the lack of evidence they have against it.   The controversy continues whether gradual evolution took place, and if it did occur, why was it not evident in fossil records.   “The ferocity of the battle suggests that sudden leaps in the record would imply God’s direct role in evolution while gradualism would mean randomness and no role for God”(Schroeder, 32).  

Other Topics

Another theory that some scientists are using to explain the beginning of the earth is the Big Bang Theory.   This theory states that the “universe began as an infinitely hot point of infinite density, which cooled and diffused as it exploded outward”(Berra, 71).   Space, time, matter, and energy existed only after the Big Bang.   The reasoning for this theory is based on our knowledge of how the universe is based on the analysis of electromagnetic radiation, providing data that shows the universe is expanding.   Two astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected cosmic microwave background radiation in the ground, which is later the primeval light and heat from the Big Bang.   This heat and light provide the formula for the start of life.   This theory has been controversial among the scientific community as well as the religious community, but it was substantial enough to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978.

Another puzzling question that is brought up among evolutionists when debating with creationists is, what about the dinosaurs?   There is no place in the bible that talks about the dinosaur age, when these huge reptilian creatures roamed the earth without human interference and then suddenly disappeared.   Paleontologists and archeologists estimate the dinosaurs to have lived around 65 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period.   There are a number of speculations for their extinction:   the climate became too extreme one way or the other, the animals fed on newly evolved poisonous plants, new species evolved and ate the eggs of the dinosaurs, or an asteroid or comet fell to the earth, destroying everything on the earth.   “Recent speculation based on marine-animal families over the last 250 million years argues that large scale extinctions occur about every 26 million years”(Berra, 17).   These large scale extinctions are due a companion star coming close to the sun, disrupting the orbits and causing comets and asteroids to hit the earth. According to scientists, this mass extinction is approaching, but in the creationists eyes’ this is the Apocalypse.  

Yet, another approach to the creation of the earth relates to how we view time.   In the Bible, each day is assigned a new creation, but is time today the same as it was at the time of Creation?   Some scientists believe that each day of Creation is related to a geological time period.   As one period began and developed, God added on to it, thus another day of creation.   Each day or time period brings something new and different to the earth.   The days of creation could be seen to humans as a 24-hour day; it is easier for us to comprehend a day in a 24-hour period rather than in millions or billions of years.   The Bible in a sense took the easier way out to describe the story of creation to us.   “Deep within the Psalms 90, there is truth of a physical reality: the six days of Genesis actually did contain the billions of years of the cosmos even while the days remained twenty-four hour days”(Schroeder, 43).   The Bible relates in the first thirty-one verses of Genesis the events that span around 16 billion years, from mere hundred words theologically to more than a million words scientifically.   It is hard to evaluate the time it took for each day of creation since we are unable to have been there or have a first hand source; thus the reasoning for scientists to look more at fossils and the earth’s strata for concrete evidence.  

Human Evolution

How human beings came to be on the earth is another big topic among evolutionists and creationists.   Creationists live faithfully by the belief that God made Adam from dust, in God’s image, “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person”(Genesis 2:7).   Eve was later made from the ribcage of Adam as a companion.   Adam and Eve are the beginning of the human species race, and from them, all human beings descend.   Human beings were made in God’s image, giving us a choice to become spiritual and moral beings.   This is what separates us from any other species, for human beings have a soul, guided by God.   The creation of Adam could be seen differently though depending on how one interprets the Bible.   The making of Adam relates to the body.   In the Hebrew language, the word adam is rooted in the word meaning soil.   The creation of Adam refers to the human soul, the neshama.   Legends and biblical scholars would say that Adam was created at the age of twenty, but it could be possible for him to be made at an earlier age and lived for nineteen years without a soul.   He became a human being at the age of twenty when God created him with neshama.   There are several verses within the Bible (Numbers 1:3, 14:29, Deuteronomy 1:39) that teach at the age of twenty one becomes divinely responsible for their own actions.   Before the soul was given, there was something like a man, but not completely human.   So one view could be that Adam was created at the age of twenty, and before his creation, he had evolved from the primate species.   When God finally saw a creature that God wanted to represent God’s image, a soul was given, and Adam was created.  

Evolutionists have a different view of how human beings came into the world, believing that we have evolved from other species, specifically the primates.   Fossil records have shown that Homo sapiens have evolved from four-legged creatures swinging through trees, to 2-legged creatures that walk the earth.   Fossils of pre-historic humans show a remarkable resemblance to the primates, all the way from the jaw and forehead, to the torso and feet.   Throughout time, evolution has adapted the human species into modern day human beings, making it possible to live in present-day times.   Although it is hard to believe, we have now “established that it was only five to six million years ago that we split off from the ancestral lines leading to the gorillas and chimpanzees, our closest relatives…”(Ruse, 69).   Language developed because of adaptation as the need presented itself.   Just as we have changed technology to make things easier for us, evolution has adapted us also, making it possible for us to live in today’s society.   It is doubtful that we could have lived in the same time that Neanderthals lived, as they would be unable to live in today’s world.   

Creationism and evolution have two very different viewpoints of how the earth and human beings began.   Creationism is based on the belief that the Bible is a credible source, which gives the story of Creation.   In the span of six days (24 hour days), God created the heavens and the earth, the sun, moon, stars, and all of the creatures of the earth.   On the very last day, God created Adam, a human being in God’s image to rule over the earth.   Creationists believe that the earth is young, and that organisms are fixed, every organism that we see today is the same organism that God created a few thousands of years ago.   Adam and Eve are the beginning of the human race, and we are separated from every other species by the soul that God gave us.   Creationists say that those who believe in evolution are immoral.   “Most frequent is the charge that evolutionists are ‘pompous and arrogant, just the kind of people that the First Amendment was written to protect us against’, and that they display ‘an academic arrogance frequently typical of the nation’s scientific educational establishment’”(Toumey, 95).

Evolutionists believe that human beings are a result of evolution, beginning with simple molecules to today’s modern person.   The earth was made over a long period, beginning 4.5 billion years ago.   Life began with inorganic molecules, and with the help of nature, became viable living organisms.   Each time period of the earth had its own characteristics with different organisms and life forms making that period unique, and leaving behind traces with fossils.   Animals and plant life evolve, becoming more fit for the environment.   Human beings have also evolved along the way from our primate ancestors into today’s modern humans, but we are not the final product.   We too, will change over time, becoming a different species in future generations.   Along with evolution, there are theories such as the Big Bang theory, and critiques of how the Bible views time compared to geological time.   Evolutionists believe that God was not the founder of the earth, instead it was a natural phenomenon, beginning with inorganic molecules evolving into today’s modern person.

I agree with both arguments to a certain degree.   As a scientist, it is hard to discard tangible evidence that shows life has evolved across species.   Yet, as a Christian, my life is centered on faith in God.   I believe that God created life, but I believe God did it in a way that uses evolution.   I believe that God created everything in six days, but that each day lasted millions of years, with different species and life forms evolving throughout that era.   I believe that God structured the world so that there could be evolution.   I think that species have to adapt to changing environments, and God made each species of organisms so that it could survive each change that takes place.   I do not necessarily believe that human beings are the finalé; I think that we will change over the decades evolving into higher specie.   I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory or that life stemmed from inorganic molecules.   God started life, and then gave nature freedom to develop.   If God did not like the outcome, it was destroyed by means of a natural disaster, such as the asteroid ending the life of the dinosaurs or by the Noah’s flood.   If it was good, then things stayed, and life continued.   This is a hard topic to take a definite stand on since faith is abstract, yet a way of life for Christians, and science is concrete.   There is a need for cooperation between the two worlds though since there are Christians in science, but it takes one to look at both sides to decide on what one’s own theory is on the beginning of life and human evolution.  

“Reconciliation does not require that every scientist becomes a believer, or that every believer embrace all aspects of science.   It will be complete when we accept the need to read and understand the Bible on the Bible’s terms…and when scientists, having already discovered that there is a limit to knowledge, admit that science is powerless to confirm or deny a purpose for life”(Schroeder, 21).

Berra, Tim M. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford University Press:     Stanford, CA. 1990.

Collegiate and Devotional Bible (NIV).   Zondervan Publishing House: Grand Rapids, MI.   1998.

Kitcher, Philip. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism.   MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.   1982.

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.   Cliff Street Books: New York.   1999.

Montagu, Ashley (Ed).   Science and Creationism.   Oxford University Press: Oxford.   1984.

Pitman, Michael.   Adam and Evolution.   Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI.   1984.

Ruse, Michael.   Can a Darwinian be a Christian?   Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.   2001.

Schroeder, Gerald L.   The Science of God.   The Free Press: New York.   1997.

Toumey, Christopher P. God’s Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World.   Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ.   1994.

Zetterburg, J. Peter.   Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Controversy .   Oryx Press: Phoenix, AZ.   1983.

Creationism and Evolution Theories Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Creationism and Evolution are two strong theories that have been subjected to constant debating and criticism. They are two strong ideas with an abundance of evidence to prove their reliability. At school, students must be taught different facts disregarding ideas that educators may agree or disagree. Teaching creationism and evolution from scientific prospective would expand the scope of information that students learn. For instance, in solving a math problem, students would be able to learn both Creationism and Evolution, and choose the theory they believe to be just. In the United States, the value of furthering the education of young students as a way of broadening their vision of different theories has been always discussed. The theory of evolution offers a groundbreaking and definitive view of the extraordinary impact that the evolutionary process has had on our understanding of the surrounding world. According to “Intelligent Design Network” (2005), the purpose of teaching the origins of science can be defined as explaining the origin of the Universe and life in it along with its diversity and scientific controversy. An ambiguous nature of Origins Science causes the need to evaluate it from the point of view of scientific objectivity whereas Materialistic and Teleological appear to be irrelevant. As educational establishments which support Origins Science provide students with knowledge regarding life origin, the main principles of their work should be objectiveness and impartiality. Sadly, a number of educational establishments tend to favor only a few theories of life origin, and evolution is not among them. For example, Orthodox educational establishments insist on creationism, and, thus, they contradict the principle of neutrality adopted by the government for regulating educational matters (“Intelligent Design Network”, 2005). Understanding evolution is important to meet the twenty-first century innovative challenges. The need is great to provide our next generation with sufficient knowledge to provide them with the necessary skills for finding new ways of treatment of diseases caused by viruses, bacteria, and the other deadly infections (Noll, 2007). To understand the mechanism of developing infectious diseases, children have to acquire knowledge on evolution. Unfortunately, the debate around teaching evolution in public schools remains heated due to insisting by certain people in society on the fact that religious doctrines, which are said to be true to science, should be a part of a school curriculum instead.

It is opportune time for us as educators to defend the theory of evolution. We can start by explaining to our children why it is important for us to know the theory of evolution In my opinion, most parents want their children to do well in school, and receive good grades to enter a college. There is an opinion in the educational world that most of these young learners will attend universities where evolution is taught upfront without apology. Despite individual choices, we as educators must stand for what we believe to be right and just. After reading many Dr Montessori’s books about her theory, I have no doubt that this genius has recognized the fact that the universe contains all of the answers to the eternal questions asked by curious children. She insists on the need of providing children with an understanding of the Universe and the cosmos because they need to know how it came into existence, how life appeared including plants and animals, and humans (“The Five Great Lessons ”, n. d.).

As a final point, I highly recommend the teaching of evolution as a necessity discipline to our children. Cosmic education does not mean just a new way of thinking about teaching geography, history, music, biology, language, or mathematics. Rather, cosmic education has to be thought as the way in which we relate the child to the universe and to humanity so that he or she would be able to understand the law and order being the foundation of everything that exists.

Intelligent Design Network. Seeking objectivity in origins science. (2005). Web.

Noll, J. W. (2007). Ethical Guide. Web.

The Five Great Lessons by Barbara Dubinsky . (n. d.). Web.

• Reading Levels Being a Concern in Vocational Education Areas
• Reflective Practice and Learning Logs
• Anderson and Genetic Research, Evolutionism & Creationism
• Different Religions: Progressive Creationism
• Creationism vs. Evolutionism: The Impacts of Religion
• Childhood Learning in a Digital World
• Mental Mathematic, Recall and Computation
• Leadership Models in the XXI Century: Efficiency, Issues and Challenges
• Student’s Abilities in Fractions and Decimals Topic
• Learning Environment and Student Success
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, February 2). Creationism and Evolution Theories. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-and-evolution-theories/

"Creationism and Evolution Theories." IvyPanda , 2 Feb. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-and-evolution-theories/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Creationism and Evolution Theories'. 2 February.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Creationism and Evolution Theories." February 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-and-evolution-theories/.

1. IvyPanda . "Creationism and Evolution Theories." February 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-and-evolution-theories/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Creationism and Evolution Theories." February 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/creationism-and-evolution-theories/.

Essay on Evolution And Creation

Students are often asked to write an essay on Evolution And Creation in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Evolution And Creation

Understanding evolution.

Evolution is the process where living things change over time. Scientists say life started billions of years ago as simple cells. These tiny life forms slowly changed, turning into all the plants and animals we see today. This change is very slow, taking thousands or millions of years.

What is Creation?

Creation is the belief that a higher power made everything in the universe. Many religions teach that this power is God. They believe God created the world and everything in it, including people, animals, and plants, in a short time.

Comparing Both Ideas

Evolution and creation are two different ways to explain life on Earth. Evolution talks about slow changes over a long time. Creation says a powerful being made everything quickly. People have different beliefs about which idea is true.

Learning Together

It’s important to learn about both evolution and creation. Schools teach evolution as science because it’s based on evidence from nature. Creation is often taught in religious studies. Understanding both can help us respect different views.

250 Words Essay on Evolution And Creation

Evolution is a science theory that explains how living things change over long periods. Imagine a family photo album. Just as children may look a bit like their parents, animals and plants can look like their ancestors. But these changes are very slow, taking millions of years. Scientists say all living things come from earlier forms of life. Charles Darwin, a famous scientist, called this process natural selection. It means animals or plants that are best suited to their environment survive and have babies.

The Idea of Creation

Creation is a different way to explain where everything comes from. Many religions teach that a higher power or God made the universe and everything in it. Stories of creation are found in religious texts like the Bible or the Quran. These stories are often rich with meaning and morals and are important to the faith of many people.

Comparing Both Views

Evolution and creation seem very different. Evolution relies on evidence from fossils and DNA to explain life’s changes. Creation is based on faith and religious teachings. Some people argue about which idea is right. Others believe that both can be true in different ways. They think that science can tell us how life changes, while religion can tell us why the universe is here and what our place is in it.

Finding Common Ground

It’s important to respect different beliefs. Whether someone agrees with evolution, creation, or a mix of both, it’s good to listen and learn from each other. Understanding different views about life and the universe can be interesting and help us all grow.

500 Words Essay on Evolution And Creation

Understanding evolution and creation.

When we look at the world around us, we see a lot of different plants, animals, and other forms of life. People have always wondered how all this life began and how it came to be the way it is now. There are two main ideas that try to explain this: evolution and creation.

What is Evolution?

Evolution is a scientific idea that says all the living things we see today have come from simpler life forms over a very long time. It’s like a big family tree where every branch represents a different kind of animal or plant. Scientists believe that this process happens through changes that occur in living things over generations, called mutations. These changes can help a plant or animal survive better in its environment, and if it survives better, it can have more babies. Over millions of years, these small changes can add up and result in new species.

Creation is a belief that life, Earth, and the universe were made by a powerful being or force. Many people around the world believe in creation because it is a part of their religion or cultural stories. For example, some Christians believe that God created the world and everything in it in six days, as told in the Bible. Other religions have their own creation stories that explain how the world and life came to be.

Creation stories are important to many people because they give meaning to life and explain why the world is the way it is. They are often passed down through generations and are a big part of people’s culture and beliefs.

Are Evolution and Creation at Odds?

Some people think that evolution and creation cannot both be true because they seem to say different things about how life started. But others believe that both can fit together. For example, some people think that evolution is the way a creator made life change and grow over time. This shows that there are many ways to think about the beginning of life and the universe.

Learning About Both Ideas

It’s important for students to learn about both evolution and creation. Understanding evolution helps us know how science works to explain the natural world. It also helps us understand why animals and plants are the way they are and how they can change.

Learning about creation helps us understand different cultures and beliefs. It shows us how people look for meaning in life and how they answer big questions about where we come from.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Try AI-powered search

The Oxford debate where evolution triumphed over creationism

A turning-point in the history of science.

Origin Story. By Howard Markel. W.W. Norton; 368 pages; $35 and £25

I T usually TAKES a rather long time for a worldview to become outmoded and replaced by a new one. But in the eyes of many scientists, a monumental shift took place on one day: June 30th 1860. It was then, at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, that Thomas Huxley , an English biologist and representative of the new theory of evolution, bested in debate Samuel Wilberforce, the city’s bishop and (unsurprisingly) a biblical creationist.

In retrospect, the mythmakers are right, for in the spin game that followed the debate the evolutionists came out on top, the bishop’s reputation was badly tarnished and Huxley acquired the sobriquet “Darwin’s bulldog”. But as to what actually happened that day, no minutes were taken and recollections varied. So Howard Markel, a doctor and historian, has ransacked correspondence, newspaper archives and the memoirs of participants to put together a plausible reconstruction of events.

Seven months before the debate a naturalist called Charles Darwin (pictured) had published a book catchily entitled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. It not only asserted that species were not the individual creations of God, but also proposed an alternative, non-supernatural mechanism for their creation. June 1860 marked the first time the British Association for the Advancement of Science had met since the book’s publication: it was therefore the first opportunity to debate Darwin’s ideas in what was, in those days, a parliament of science.

Books about “On the Origin of Species” are at no risk of going extinct: as Dr Markel observes, there is a thriving “Darwin industry” in publishing. By making the debate its centrepiece, though, “Origin Story” brings something new to the literary selection. The author sets things off with insightful pen-portraits of Darwin and his milieu, including friends (his best mate, Joseph Hooker, a botanist; Charles Lyell, a noted Scottish geologist; and Huxley himself, a self-made scientific gadfly), adversaries (such as Wilberforce) and colleagues (John Murray, the publisher of the “big species book”).

Dr Markel also examines the treatment of Alfred Russel Wallace, a professional specimen collector who came up with the idea of natural selection independently while travelling in the Malay Archipelago in 1858. Dr Markel subscribes to the view that Wallace was genteelly sidelined by Darwin and his friends when the two men’s ideas were presented jointly to a meeting of the Linnean Society in 1858. But, if that was what did happen, Wallace seems to have borne no grudge—and, indeed, went on to fame and respect almost as great as that enjoyed by Darwin.

With his physician’s hat on, Dr Markel also weighs in on the question of Darwin’s mysterious and sometimes convenient illness. (It was this, for example, that stopped him facing the inquisition personally at the Oxford meeting.) Looking at the man’s diet—as evidenced by his wife Emma’s recipe books—and rigorously analysing his symptoms, he concludes it was probably lactose intolerance , whose symptoms were triggered by many dairy-rich meals.

If true, that is ironic. Lactose, a sugar found in milk, is easily digested by babies, but adults generally struggle to stomach it. The exceptions tend to live in cattle-raising societies, such as Europe, where milk from stock animals is routinely drunk. Here, natural selection favours adults who retain lactose digestion. The intolerance did not, in the end, affect Darwin’s contribution to the gene pool (he and Emma raised seven children to adulthood). But gastric troubles no doubt prevented him from feeling the fittest. ■

For more on the latest books, films, TV shows, albums and controversies, sign up to Plot Twist , our weekly subscriber-only newsletter

More from Culture

Coco Gauff risks joining the ranks of tennis’s nearly-greats

Like several of the sport’s best players, her struggles against a particular rival could be career-altering

How fashion conquered television

More and more shows celebrate fancy clothes. Often brands call the shots

How “reading trees” can unlock many mysteries

Ancient trees have deep roots in culture

“Black Myth: Wukong” is China’s first blockbuster video game

Will there be more?

John Sainsbury, a donor to the National Gallery, had the last laugh

A hidden letter offers an insight into disputes between artists and patrons

Nudity, drinking, smoking: Winston Churchill’s unusual diplomacy

His time at the White House serves as a case study in getting what you want

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Evolution — Difference Between Creationism And Evolution

Difference Between Creationism and Evolution

• Categories: Evolution

About this sample

Words: 745 |

Published: Mar 19, 2024

Words: 745 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

I. Introduction

Iii. scientific evidence.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 775 words

5 pages / 2297 words

5 pages / 2183 words

2 pages / 893 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Evolution

In the history of Christianity, the division between Puritanism and Anglicanism has been a significant source of debate and conflict. This essay will explore the origins of both movements, their key theological differences, and [...]

Survival of the Sickest, written by Dr. Sharon Moalem, explores the intriguing concept of how diseases and genetic mutations have shaped human evolution. The book delves into the idea that some diseases, like sickle cell anemia [...]

The journey of becoming a writer is often a convoluted path filled with moments of inspiration, setbacks, and growth. My history as a writer is no exception. From the early days of scribbling stories in elementary school to the [...]

The Scopes Monkey Trial, also known as the State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, was a landmark legal case that took place in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. The trial centered around the teaching of evolution in public schools, [...]

Women’s fashion in the 1920s changed the way women lived. It also changed how people saw women. Women’s clothing has changed a lot throughout the years (Hearst Media, LLC). Flappers in the 1920s cropped their hair, made up their [...]

In conclusion, Leslie Norriss Blackberries are more than just a delicious fruit. They represent a journey into the world of botanical beauty, where history, cultivation, taste, and health intertwine. From their humble origins to [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Retail’s outperformers: Lessons in value creation

When it comes to value creation, retailers have never had it easy. The challenges are well-known: consumer preferences and behaviors are fast changing and rarely predictable . Many retail businesses are highly dependent on supplier actions—a fact that’s become evident to consumers in recent years as supply chain disruptions resulted in rampant out-of-stocks. Given retailers’ heavy reliance on frontline workers , fluctuations in labor markets have a more pronounced effect on retail than on other sectors. And typically thin margin profiles mean that retailer valuations are exceedingly sensitive to macroeconomic conditions , capital costs, and investor expectations.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Becca Coggins  and Steve Begley, with Carson Green, Jad Hamdan, and Susan Nolen Foushee, representing views from McKinsey’s Retail and Strategy & Corporate Finance Practices.

It hasn’t been getting any easier as of late. Indeed, an ever-shrinking number of retailers accounts for most of the value creation in the sector. This group consists almost entirely of retail giants, with revenue exceeding $50 billion each. What’s more, one in four retailers are now destroying value, up from one in six just 15 years ago.

Is this an irreversible trend? Must less-than-gigantic retailers resign themselves to low returns? Is scale—or the lack of it—the ultimate determinant of a retailer’s success?

The answer to these questions is, unequivocally, no. Our analysis of more than 280 publicly traded retailers 1 Our global sample comprised 284 retail companies with consistently available publicly reported annual financial data for 2010 to 2022. reveals that, through bold action and disciplined execution, retailers of all sizes can become high-performing value creators—and can even move from the bottom quartile to the top quartile. Our findings give retail executives a blueprint for realizing the full potential of their businesses, regardless of their starting point.

Grow big or get bold

There isn’t just one valid metric to quantify value creation. Total shareholder returns (TSR) , return on invested capital (ROIC), and economic profit, to name three, are each an important performance metric for any retail management team and board to monitor and debate. For our analysis, we looked at economic profit (defined as the spread between ROIC and the cost of capital multiplied by the amount of invested capital) to isolate financial performance from the volatility of market expectations.

Scale begets scale

From an industry-wide perspective, the picture actually looks quite rosy. The retail sector’s economic profit doubled over the past 15 years, growing at a 6.8 percent clip per year—from $67 billion in 2010 to $159 billion in 2023. 2 For the 34 companies in our sample that haven’t yet reported 2023 financial results, we assumed that their economic profit and revenue were the same in 2022 and 2023.

But a closer look reveals trouble: the sector’s upward trend in economic profit masks vast disparities across retailers. Value creation is becoming more concentrated over time, as we observed in our previous article . 3 “ Retail reset: A new playbook for retail leaders ,” McKinsey Quarterly , July 10, 2023. The top decile of retailers by revenue accounted for a whopping 81 percent of the sector’s economic profit in the 2020–23 period, up from 66 percent in 2010 to 2014. And, as mentioned, the share of companies generating negative economic profit has risen—it’s now 23 percent (Exhibit 1). These value-destroying companies represented a 14 percent drag on total sector economic profit in 2023, up from just 4 percent in the 2010–14 period.

Value creation in retail subsectors

How do retail’s top value creators generate healthy economic profit year after year? Typically, their advantage comes from one of the following three sources: 1) they have hefty product margins (luxury brands, for example, can charge price premiums because of their cachet, while vertically integrated companies and discount retailers can keep sourcing costs low); 2) they exercise strict SG&A discipline; or 3) they benefit from capital-light business models, such as franchises or third-party marketplaces.

Value creation dynamics differ across retail subsectors (exhibit). Some subsectors are structurally more attractive: overall returns are higher and there’s less variability across players. Quick-service restaurants (QSR) is one such subsector, largely because many QSR chains are franchises.

In other subsectors, such as home and mass market/drug/grocery, there’s a strong correlation between scale and value creation. Of course, scale alone doesn’t suffice—the leading value creators systematically flex their muscle, whether it’s by leveraging their scale advantage with vendors and landlords, making pioneering investments in supply chain automation to drive efficiency, or monetizing their sizable customer base in new ways (through retail media networks, for example).

In yet other subsectors, such as apparel, value creation is less a matter of scale and more a function of rich gross margins—often achieved via the considerable price premiums associated with luxury brands.

Generally speaking, value creation in the sector tends to correlate with scale. In 2023, the top quartile of retailers by economic profit was ten times larger by revenue than the bottom quartile—and, in fact, almost eight times larger than even the second-quartile value creators. This scale effect resulted in a fairly predictable roster of long-term winners over the past 15 years, with big companies such as Home Depot, Nike, and Walmart making regular appearances in the top quartile (see sidebar, “Value creation in retail subsectors”).

But scale isn’t everything.

There’s more to the story than scale

We took our longitudinal analysis a step further. To understand whether certain retailers have been able to punch above their weight, so to speak, we studied economic profit relative to revenue . Using this metric, our analysis revealed that 24 retailers—less than one-tenth of our total sample—managed to move up the value creation curve: they were outside the top quartile in the 2010–14 period but joined the top quartile in the 2019–23 period (Exhibit 2). Of these 24 retailers, most of which have annual revenues of less than $10 billion, half made the leap from the second quartile to the top quartile, while the other 12 climbed all the way up to the top quartile from below the median.

How did these ascendant retailers—“movers,” as we call them—pull off such a feat? To find out, we examined the underlying drivers of economic profit: operating margin—specifically, cost of goods sold (COGS) and SG&A ratios—growth, and capital efficiency. We found that movers were significantly more likely than “nonwinners” to improve their performance in at least two of those dimensions: 63 percent of movers did so, versus just 27 percent of nonwinners. One-fourth of movers (but only 3 percent of nonwinners) improved performance on three dimensions. Simply put, movers were able to fire on all cylinders and effect holistic change (Exhibit 3).

Most strikingly, movers managed to deliver substantial improvements in EBITDA margin: nearly half of movers, versus only 12 percent of nonwinners, notched more than 400 basis points of improvement. The disparity was more notable in SG&A than COGS, with movers being three times more likely than nonwinners to reduce SG&A load by at least 200 basis points. This came in part from leverage through faster growth—movers grew 1.5 times faster than nonwinners—but also through real cost discipline. For nonwinners, SG&A costs in the 2019–23 period grew at 1.2 times the rate of topline growth, compared with only 0.9 times for movers. (COGS ratio was less of a differentiator—likely because almost all retailers pulled back on promotions and discounts during the global supply chain disruptions of 2021 and 2022, yielding record gross margins for many retailers.)

Efficient growth also set movers apart. In addition to growing 1.5 times faster than nonwinners, movers were 1.9 times more likely to accelerate growth. And movers achieved capital-efficient growth, with 42 percent of them (versus only 19 percent of nonwinners) increasing capital turnover by 0.5 times or more.

The clear takeaway from our analysis: scale is not destiny. Subsector dynamics notwithstanding, a retailer has ample control over its value creation trajectory. Retailers of any size, if they make bold moves, can become top-tier value creators—even if they’ve historically underperformed.

How to create value in volatile times

How exactly did movers achieve their outcomes? What actions enabled them to rise above challenging economic conditions? In our analysis of movers’ varied paths to value creation, five common themes stood out.

• A well-defined, multipronged growth strategy. Movers accelerated growth by pursuing high-potential opportunities in each of three main growth pathways : identifying where and how to take share in their core business; expanding into adjacencies in which brand equities would successfully translate; and making high-ROI bets on breakthrough businesses, including on new “beyond retail” business models such as commerce media and data monetization. And, critically, when new demand trends emerged—such as “casualization” in apparel, spending on the home, or consumer downtrading—movers had both the organizational and financial agility to capitalize on the trends.
• Technology and the surrounding organization, rewired to outcompete . Strategic plans often fail without the right technology—systems, infrastructure, and organization—to execute them. Movers invested in not just the requisite tools but also the product management capabilities to scale the use of those tools. They placed (and continue to make) big bets on enterprise technology and solutions that power core retail processes, thereby boosting capital and cost efficiency while delivering growth. Movers also recognized early on that AI is reshaping each of retail’s core functions—and have embarked on the journey of rewiring their technology and organization  around digital and AI capabilities.
• Relentless customer focus across value, loyalty, and experience. Movers doubled down on creating customer “stickiness.” They continue to optimize customer engagement in every part of the marketing funnel, from awareness and brand-focused communication to precision-targeted messages to loyal customers. Personalization of the customer experience  is a crucial part of this endeavor: leading retailers are integrating digital technologies into stores and putting inspiration, recommendations, and relevant offers directly in front of in-store shoppers. In addition, movers are using data-driven merchandising—encompassing assortment and private-brand excellence, pricing, and promotions—not just to grow revenue and margin but also to improve customers’ value perception and long-term loyalty.
• Aggressive management of cost structure to boost efficiency while fueling growth. Movers made targeted investments in growth—be it store expansion, marketing campaigns, or digital initiatives—but did so while maintaining cost discipline  in both COGS and SG&A. The most successful and resilient retailers regularly conduct a top-down review of COGS across the enterprise while innovating in both sourcing and product development. At the same time, they increase SG&A efficiency by using modern operating models , ranging from open-to-buy planning to clearance and liquidation. Movers also create a professionalized and empowered procurement function  with a broad mandate, including overseeing increasingly large areas of spend for retailers (such as energy and technology).
• Upping the game in capital planning and allocation . Movers put robust governance  and analytics on capital expenditures, with a very clear understanding of short- and long-term ROI. They bring capital-planning decisions out of the shadows of financial planning and analysis, putting them front and center with the top team—thus securing alignment on the enterprise strategy, trade-offs, metrics, and guideposts to monitor on the path to value creation, as well as the governance needed to execute. In a landscape where bold investments in automation and AI  are a must, it’s not enough to allocate the funding; delivering the expected ROI requires disciplined execution and long-term accountability.

Retailers aspiring to become—or remain—top-tier value creators should ensure that their leadership teams are aligned on the answers to the following questions:

• Do we know where we’ll grow, and is the growth equation realistic? How much growth can come from share gains in the core business, how much can be tapped via expansion into adjacencies, and where will we need to place step-out bets on new models, new brands, or inorganic moves?
• Is our five-year tech and AI road map bold enough? Have we adapted our organization and operating model to capitalize on the capabilities we’ll build—or are we just plugging new capabilities into old ways of working?
• Why would customers continue to choose us over the competition? How can our offers, engagement, and experiences get better and more personalized, creating reasons for customer loyalty beyond product and price?
• How will we fuel investments in growth and customer experience through ongoing efficiency, including AI- and tech-powered opportunities across the entire organization?
• How will we refine our capital planning and allocation processes to ensure that they support our ambitions?
• Do we have clarity on how growth, cost discipline, and capital productivity will come together into a value equation that will deliver sustainably for investors? And how can we strengthen our ability to deliver on all three fronts at once?

Size guarantees neither outperformance nor sustained success. In the same way, lack of size doesn’t condemn a retailer to forever be a low performer or a value destroyer. Creating value in retail is a matter of making courageous decisions and bold moves—and the time to start is now.

Becca Coggins is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Chicago office; Steve Begley is a partner in the New York office; Carson Green is an associate partner in the Washington, DC, office; Jad Hamdan is an associate partner in the Denver office; and Susan Nolen Foushee is a senior knowledge expert in the Connecticut office.

The authors wish to thank Oscar Gonzalez Gil and Shruti Bhargava for their contributions to this article.

This article was edited by Monica Toriello, an editorial director in the New York office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Retail reset: A new playbook for retail leaders

How to do a ‘retail reset’: Priorities for retail leaders

How consumer companies outcompete: High-performing operating models

• Become an Afnic member
• Member Access
• Registrar Access

DNS delegation and its possible evolution with DELEG

Stéphane Bortzmeyer

R&D expert engineer

Administrative and technical context

Its limitations, the role of the dns operator, the deleg project.

The notion of delegation is central to the world of domain names and their use in the DNS. While it may have been around for a long time, the concept is still widely misunderstood. And with the IETF’s (Internet Engineering Task Force, the main standards organisation for the Internet). DELEG project it could change substantially in the future. What is DNS delegation? And what does this project – which will considerably change the DNS if it gets off the ground – consist of?

Figure 1 : Tree diagram of domain names (partial!)

The administration of domain names is decentralised. If you are the owner of wikipedia.org , you can add or remove sub-domains such as fr.wikipedia.org , allocate values (for example an IP address) to the name wikipedia.org , all without having to ask anyone’s permission: there is no central authority 1 .

A domain name consists of several components separated by dots, so decentralisation consists of delegating a sub-domain to another entity. The fact that there is a dot does not mean that there must necessarily be delegation (for example fr.wikipedia.org and wikipedia.org are under the same authority, there is no delegation) but when there is delegation it must be defined by a dot 2 . For instance, Afnic delegates u-bourgogne.fr to the University of Bourgogne which can decide in turn whether or not 3 to delegate iut.u-bourgogne.fr to the university’s IUT 4 .

Delegation can be purely administrative. For example, gouv.fr is managed technically by Afnic, under the .fr TLD , but administratively it is independent: the French government takes its own decisions on the creation or deletion of names under gouv.fr .

But delegation can also be, and indeed mostly is, technical, as allowed by the DNS, the computer protocol on which the functioning of these domain names depends, along with that of the services they provide. This takes from in the DNS by way of the creation of NS records which contain a list of the authoritative name servers for the delegated name. For example, in June 2024, u-bourgogne.fr was delegated to three servers : dns1.u-bourgogne.fr , dns2.u-bourgogne.fr , and ufc.univ-fcomte.fr . When a DNS resolver (the server that your computer queries to obtain DNS information) needs to provide data on u-bourgogne.fr , it will query one of these three servers.

Figure 2: DNS resolution, with the resolver and authoritative servers

This is how decentralisation works: the holder of u-bourgogne.fr (the university) can create, delete and change the names under u-bourgogne.fr as they see fit. No authorisation is needed, from Afnic or any other entity, and the registry for the TLD concerned (.fr in this case) is not even informed.

A contiguous set of domain names delegated together is referred to as a zone 5 . Thus gouv.fr is in the fr zone but u-bourgogne.fr is in its own zone.

So how can we tell whether or not there has been technical delegation? The simplest way is to ask for the NS or SOA records, which can only be at the apex of the zone. If they are there, then the domain has been delegated. If not, then it hasn’t been. Thus DNS client software shows 6 that gouv.fr has not been technically delegated but that museedesconfluences.fr has been :

% dig gouv.fr SOA

;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 59426

;; flags: qr rd ra ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 1

(No error, but zero response.)

% dig  museedesconfluences.fr SOA

;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10536

;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; ANSWER SECTION:

museedesconfluences.fr. 10800 IN SOA ns1.gandi.net. hostmaster.gandi.net. (

                        1718236800 ; serial

                        10800      ; refresh (3 hours)

                        3600       ; retry (1 hour)

                        604800     ; expire (1 week)

                        10800      ; minimum (3 hours)

                        )

(One response.)

Fasten your seat belts (and brace yourself), because we’re now going to have to take a deep dive and get a lot more technical in order to understand the limitations of this technical delegation mechanism and the proposed reform.

The usual DNS records, such as AAAA (IP addresses) , TXT (free text) , MX (names of email servers) , and recent HTTPS (names and characteristics of HTTP servers 7 ), are located in the domain concerned, as is logical. But there are two exceptions to this rule: the first concerns the NS records (names of authoritative DNS servers) mentioned earlier. These records are in both the domain concerned and the parent domain. And they are supposed to be kept identical, which in practice is not always the case. DNS resolvers start with the root and follow the indications in the NS records to arrive at the authoritative servers. So NS records in the parent domain are indispensable, although sometimes neglected.

NS records give only the names of the servers. It is not possible to indicate their characteristics, such as the port number used (it must be 53) and above all whether or not secure encoded communication is possible using DoT (DNS over TLS 8 ). At present (August 2024), very few authoritative servers have this protection 9 , partly because the DNS client, the resolver, does not know in advance whether it can use TLS.

Another exception to the principle of records being in the domain concerned relates to DS (delegation signer) records (signing of DNSSEC keys of the sub-delegated domain) . These records are only in the parent domain.

A third and final exception to the rule that zone data must be in the zone itself concerns what are known as glue records. These contain the IP addresses of name servers that are in the same zone as the zone they serve. The need for them comes from the way DNS resolution works. When the resolver receives a delegation, it receives a list of name servers and domain names. It has to resolve these domain names to IP addresses in order to establish contact with them. If these authoritative server names are in another zone, there is no particular problem. But if they are in the zone that they serve, a dependency loop is created, a chicken-and-egg problem; the delegation of caf.fr implies being able to talk to ns.caf.fr and ns1.caf.fr . But to resolve ns.caf.fr , the resolver has to go through the caf.fr  servers! So to prevent this dependency loop, when a name server is in the same domain as that which it serves, the parent must also indicate the IP addresses, and these indications are referred to as glue records. Here is an example of a delegation by an authoritative name server for .fr , indicating the glue record at the end:

% dig @d.nic.fr www.caf.fr

;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65266

;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 3

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:

caf.fr.                 3600 IN     NS ns.caf.fr.

caf.fr.                 3600 IN     NS ns1.caf.fr.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:

ns1.caf.fr.       3600 IN     A 91.231.174.241

ns.caf.fr.        3600 IN     A 91.231.174.240

The use of servers in the zone served comes with constraints: for example, if these servers change IP address, the parent zone has to be asked to change the glue record. In practice, this step is sometimes forgotten.

And as if the situation were not already complicated enough, we should point out that NS and glue records in the parent zone are not authoritative, being merely copies, in theory, of information in the child zone, whereas DS records are in the parent zone only and are authoritative.

When a domain name is delegated technically, the parent domain is informed of the names of the authoritative servers for this domain. These servers are hosted by one or more DNS operators. This operator or these operators may be the Registrar, a DNS hosting provider other than a registrar, or the holder itself, which is not only technically possible but actually simpler than having an HTTP server hosted. Where this operator is neither the registrar nor the holder, it has no explicit role in the Registry-Registrar-Holder relationship. It cannot change the delegation of its own accord. So if a DNS operator with a set of four name servers were to tell its clients first that they had to give this list to the registry and then that it wished to add a fifth server, it would have to send the new list to all its clients and hope that they would inform the registry of the change, possibly through the registrar.

For example, DNSSEC keys 10 are typically managed by the DNS operator. It would therefore be advantageous for the operator to be able to change the DS records (which point to the DNSSEC keys) itself, rather than having to rely on its client to do so, via the registrar, as at present. If the registrar is also the operator, the situation is simple, but otherwise there is additional communication, complexity and risk of error.

This project is sponsored by the IETF , the standards organisation referred to above. It aims to resolve a number of problems:

• the fact that the DNS operator is not explicitly involved, which makes certain operations difficult, since these must pass through all the name holders that are clients of the operator,
• the fact that the NS records in the parent domain and the delegated domain have to be synchronised,
• the fact that NS records do not allow indication of the technical characteristics of the name servers, for example the use of a network port 11 other than the usual port 53, or the fact that they accept not only DNS in clear text but also encrypted DNS, DoT (DNS over TLS), DoH (DNS over HTTP 12 ) or DoQ (DNS over QUIC 13 ).

The DELEG project therefore envisages replacing NS records in the parent domain with more comprehensive DELEG resource records (RRs). Unlike NS records but in common with DS records, they will be authoritative and will therefore be signed if DNSSEC is used. I’ll give two examples, but keep in mind that DELEG is just a project and that nothing has been definitively decided yet:

• Suppose we want to delegate to example.com , which accepts DoT. A DELEG RR might look like this: DELEG ns1.example.com ipv4hint=192.0.2.1 ipv6hint=2001:db8::1 alpn=dot , to indicate both the IP addresses (glue records) and the fact that DoT works 14 . It is important to note that the list of key-value pairs is extensible: this mechanism will allow other things to be indicated on the name servers in the future.
• Suppose we have a separate DNS operator, net, and we simply wish to make reference to the set of servers. We will use an alias, DELEG config2.example.net , and in config2.example.net we find the list of servers, stored in a single place, which the DNS operator will easily be able to change without having to disturb its clients.

The intention is to use the SVCB (Service Binding) and Parameter Specification general recording framework standardised in RFC 9460 . The first case, with the syntax of the zone files as produced by dig, might look like this:

example.com.  86400  IN DELEG  1 ns1.example.com. (

                   ipv4hint=192.0.2.1 ipv6hint=2001:db8::1 alpn=dot)

And the second case:

example.com.  86400  IN DELEG 0   config2.example.net.

Finally, with the operator:

config2.example.net. 3600    IN SVCB 1 . (

                   ipv4hint=192.0.2.54,192.0.2.56

                   ipv6hint=2001:db8:2423::3.2001:db8:2423::4 )

If this project goes ahead, it will be necessary to modify several programs:

• when authoritative servers are queried on a name under a delegated domain, they will have to send back DELEG records, not NS records,
• resolvers will have to follow DELEG RRs instead of NS records to find the authoritative servers,
• registrars’ Web interfaces and APIs indicating information on delegations will have to be modified,
• as will test and debugging tools such as Zonemaster ,
• EPPs 15 for creating and modifying these DELEG RRs, and RDAPs 16 for posting them will both need to be modified. For an article describing the process of sustaining domain names , see:
• Registries’ registration systems (databases, servers, etc.)

As you can see this is no minor change; it affects a large number of tools and actors. Furthermore, it goes without saying that not everyone will make the transition at the same time and that the interim period, during which both systems will co-exist, will last for many years. The old resolvers will ignore the DELEG records during this period, so it will still be necessary to publish correct NS records. This publication of two sets of information is unlikely to be problem-free.

An additional problem arises from the fact that the indications given by the DELEG records may be wrong, either having been wrong from the outset or becoming so over time. If a DELEG record says that a server accepts DoT but it doesn’t, or no longer does, the DNS client, the resolver, must be ready to quickly try without DoT 17 .

So where is the project at currently? The IETF DELEG working group was created on 27 June 2024 (visit https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/deleg/ for the latest news). Its charter provides for the drawing up of a precise statement of requirements, followed by a specification of the technical changes to be made to the DNS 18 . Future modifications to other protocols, such as EPPs, will be the responsibility of other working groups 19 .

Here’s my personal prediction for what it’s worth. It seems to me that the extent of the changes to be made, and the need to manage both systems in parallel for a large number of years make it impossible to be optimistic about this project.

DELEG would be not just a technical change but also a political change, with power shifting to non-registrar DNS operators. This project would require the agreement of a large number of categories of actors, in a critical environment in which people are hesitant about any changes. The DNS delegation mechanism is far from perfect. DELEG is a good idea, but it is perhaps too late to envisage implementing it.

1 – It was not always so:  a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, all domain names were managed centrally, on a single list, managed by a single person, Elizabeth Feinler. Her retrospective article, “Host Tables, Top-Level Domain Names, and the Origin of Dot Com” is a recommended read. The invention of the DNS brought an end to this system, which would not have been able to cater to the growth of the Internet.

2 – In the case of technical delegation, a new zone is said to have been created. At its apex or top node, each zone has a set of NS (name server) records and an SOA (start of authority) record containing useful metadata. Thus gouv.fr is in the fr zone but cgt.fr is not – it is in a separate zone. In this article, to keep things simple, we will often refer to domains even when they may also be zones.

3 – This name was delegated in June 2024.

4 – Institut Universitaire de Technologie (University Institute of Technology)

5 – And the distinction between zone and domain, a trivial detail in most contexts, is crucial if the DNSSEC security mechanism is used.

6 – In the following examples we use dig, the most widely used DNS testing and debugging software application.

7 – % dig abeille-sucree.fr HTTPS

abeille-sucree.fr.      300 IN HTTPS 1 . alpn="h3,h2" ipv4hint=104.21.69.108,172.67.207.111 ipv6hint=2606:4700:3035::6815:456c,2606:4700:3035::ac43:cf6f

8 – TLS = Transport Layer Security, the same cryptography protocol as for HTTPS. RFC 8446 .

9 – If you want to try for yourself, the authoritative servers for wikipedia.org accept DoT.

10 – Domain Name System Security Extensions, a signature mechanism to ensure the authenticity and integrity of records.

11 – Number identifying a particular service on a machine.

12 – Hypertext Transfer Protocol Security, the basis of most Internet servers, over which the DNS can be sent to protect the connection. DoH is standardised in RFC 8484 .

13 – A transport layer protocol rivalling the classic TCP but including encryption to protect the connection. DNS over QUIC, DoQ is standardised in RFC 9250 .

14 – ALPN stands for Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation, standardised in RFC 7301 , a method for indicating which application protocol to use.

15 – Extensible Provisioning Protocol

16 – Registration Data Access Protocol

17 – RFC 9539 describes a method for trying various possible ways of communicating with a DNS server when we do not know its capabilities in advance.

18 – There are some rough drafts with no official value.

19 – You can consult these very preliminary rough drafts on EPPs and RDAP .

Afnic, the registry responsible for managing the .fr ccTLD ...

The notion of delegation is central to the world of domain names ...

Search for a domain name

Subscribe to the newsletter.

* Required fields

Masterpiece Collection

A unique series from a unique watchmaking studio

Evolution 9 Collection

A new design for a new era

Heritage Collection

Breathing new life into tradition

Sport Collection

Designed for those who love sport and aim high

Elegance Collection

Contemporary elegance for exceptional occasions

Watches inspired by nature

History and watchmaking, world of grand seiko, manufacture.

• Press release
• Grand Seiko Complete Service
• Instructions
• Grand Seiko International Service Network
• Grand Seiko Warranty
• Country/Area
• Boutique Online

Collections

Preserving the natural beauty of the Hiraniwa Plateau

Heritage Collection Re-creation of the 45GS Limited Edition SLGW004

Re-creation of the 45GS captures the heritage and evolution of Grand Seiko’s high-precision watchmaking.

45GS Re-creation Limited model

USD 30,000.00

Nov.2024 Release

Boutique online

Search Stores

• Available at the Grand Seiko Boutiques

In 1968, Grand Seiko introduced the 45GS. This watch came just one year after the 44GS, the legendary creation that established the brand’s design code, the Grand Seiko Style. Although the two watches were nearly identical in styling, the 45GS featured a dramatic upgrade in terms of stability and performance with the brand’s first manual-winding high-beat movement, the Caliber 4520. Today, re-creation of this milestone is born.

Specifications

This creation features a case and clasp in 18k yellow-gold as well as a dial color to capture the elegance of the original version.

The original 45GS introduced in 1968

The design creates a remarkable brilliance based on the interplay of light and shadow, which has been at the core of Grand Seiko's design grammar since it was established in 1967 with the 44GS.

Details of the Grand Seiko Style

Caliber 9SA4

Caliber 9SA4 was created to provide the ultimate hand-winding experience, with a winding sound and feel demonstrating its craftsmanship and quality. It has a high frequency of 10 vibrations per second, which leads to stable precision, and a long power reserve of up to 80 hours.

Details of Caliber 9SA4

The three movements at the heart of Grand Seiko

9S Mechanical

One of the world's foremost mechanical movements, the culmination of high-precision micro-engineering and the attention to detail of Grand Seiko's expert watchmakers.

9R Spring Drive

Spring Drive is a unique movement that delivers one-second-a-day precision, using just the power of a mainspring.

The ultimate quartz movement. Caliber 9F incorporates several unique technologies that raise the performance of quartz to the high standards of Grand Seiko.

• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2024

The creation of a pediatric surgical checklist for adult providers

• Diana Ioana Rapolti 1 ,
• Phyllis Kisa 2 ,
• Martin Situma 2 ,
• Elsa Nico 1 ,
• Thom Lobe 1 ,
• Thomas Sims 1 ,
• Doruk Ozgediz 3 &
• Greg Klazura 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  1029 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

To address the need for a pediatric surgical checklist for adult providers.

Pediatric surgery is unique due to the specific needs and many tasks that are employed in the care of adults require accommodations for children. There are some resources for adult surgeons to perform safe pediatric surgery and to assist such surgeons in pediatric emergencies, we created a straightforward checklist based on current literature. We propose a surgical checklist as the value of surgical checklists has been validated through research in a variety of applications.

Literature review on PubMed to gather information on current resources for pediatric surgery, all papers on surgical checklists describing their outcomes as of October 2023 were included to prevent a biased overview of the existing literature. Interviews with multiple pediatric surgeons were conducted for the creation of a checklist that is relevant to the field and has limited bias.

Forty-two papers with 8,529,061 total participants were included. The positive impact of checklists was highlighted throughout the literature in terms of outcomes, financial cost and team relationship. Certain care checkpoints emerged as vital checklist items: antibiotic administration, anesthetic considerations, intraoperative hemodynamics and postoperative resuscitation. The result was the creation of a checklist that is not substitutive for existing WHO surgery checklists but additive for adult surgeons who must operate on children in emergencies.

The outcomes measured throughout the literature are varied and thus provide both a nuanced view of a variety of factors that must be taken into account and are limited in the amount of evidence for each outcome. We hope to implement the checklist developed to create a standard of care for pediatric surgery performed in low resource settings by adult surgeons and further evaluate its impact on emergency pediatric surgery outcomes.

Fulbright Fogarty Fellowship, GHES NIH FIC D43 TW010540.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Surgery is a vital element of healthcare with the potential to cause serious harm when performed in an unsafe manner. A recent World Health Organization (WHO) survey estimates complications occur in about a quarter of surgical patients [ 1 ]. A large portion of cases in which those serious complications occur are preventable and are related to non-technical skills [ 2 ].

To reduce adverse events such as these, the WHO developed a Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) in 2008. The checklist comprises three phases and 19 items addressing a variety of perioperative safety measures. The mechanism for improving surgical safety is two-fold: through direct action it standardizes what the team does for every procedure and indirectly it promotes a culture of safety in the operating room [ 3 ]. This checklist and others inspired by it have been implemented worldwide with a variety of results.

There is heterogeneity in terms of outcomes studied, however, overall multiple papers suggest that checklists are beneficial: decreasing cost, complications and mortality while improving teamwork and communication. The current literature also highlights the importance of staff perception of SSC with staff attitudes towards SSC affecting how often it is utilized and how it is altered to better adapt to their context [ 4 ].

As the focus of research on surgical checklists has increasingly shifted to include more tailored checklists, their application in pediatric surgery remains largely unexplored. This gap in the literature is of particular importance as it could assist adult surgeons who often must operate on children in emergency circumstances. This is especially true in rural settings and in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) like Uganda where general surgeons perform the majority of general pediatric surgeries [ 5 , 6 ]. In the USA as many as 40% of all pediatric inpatient surgical procedures are performed in adult hospitals [ 7 ]. Furthermore, children are far more complex than just smaller adults yet the WHO SSC does not consider and fully address the intricacies of pediatric surgery. Given the potential worldwide impact of a pediatric surgery checklist for adult general surgeons, we reviewed existing literature on surgical checklists and created a fundamental checklist that surgeons in a variety of resource settings can utilize. Resuscitation, consent, pain control and postoperative care for pediatric patients all require special consideration when the adult surgeon is called to operate on a child. Low and high resource settings may contract or expand this checklist based on their resources and needs. This essential checklist of considerations serves as a guide for adult surgeons needing to operate on children.

The literature review was conducted using PubMed and the University of Illinois library. Papers with text words and subject headings including “surgical checklist” were identified and reviewed. Reference lists from papers identified in the PubMed search were also reviewed and included when appropriate.

We used “surgical checklist” as the keyword search due to the limited availability of pediatric specific checklists and our desire to evaluate all existing papers evaluating checklists’ outcomes to learn the process of creating an effective checklist from them. Two studies out of 42 explicitly mentioned pediatric surgery cases, multiple papers did include patients of all ages however did not provide exact breakdowns. D.R. and E.N. performed independent review of the existing literature for qualifying studies which were then discussed with G.K. to ensure they fit inclusion criteria. We included all papers Jan 2008-October 2023 on the topic. All authors reviewed the list of included papers.

Pediatric surgeons at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Division of Pediatric Surgery and the Paediatric Surgical Foundation of Uganda (PSFU) identified checklist items that they felt were both vital and specific to pediatric general surgery. Dr. Phyllis Kisa from Mulago National Referral Hospital and Dr. Martin Situma from Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda participated in the creation of this checklist and provided valuable insight into its potential real world application in LMICs from their own clinical experience. Dr. Lobe, Dr. Sims, and Dr. Rojnica from the UIC Division of Pediatric Surgery also helped create checklist items they deemed essential for adult surgeons performing pediatric surgery in their setting.

We then integrated checklist items from UIC and PSFU with key findings from our comprehensive literature review to create three age appropriate, contextually adaptable checklists for pediatric surgery.

The majority of papers reviewed employed the WHO SSC and its specific adaptations. (Table 1 ) [ 8 ]. No existing pediatric surgery checklists were identified in our review of the literature.

Checklist effect on complications and mortality

Checklists have been shown to reduce postoperative complications, including SSI and mortality. The WHO SSC specifically targets mortality [ 9 , 21 ], SSI [ 12 ], pneumonia [ 51 ], return to the operating room [ 14 ], urinary tract infection, intubation, and sepsis [ 29 ]. The WHO SSC has shown positive changes in regards to all of these targets [ 45 , 52 ]. Thromboembolism (DVT), however, was not a target. Investigations have shown that although the WHO SSC does affect measures like mortality and SSI it does not affect postoperative measures of safety and quality that are not targeted, like DVT [ 51 ]. Maternal sepsis rates were also found to be reduced with the use of the WHO SSC with adherence negatively correlating with sepsis rates [ 11 ]. Further, there is evidence that intraoperative blood loss and incidence of postoperative intestinal fistula formation was lower with the SSC [ 15 ]. Impact on mortality and SSI has been suggested to be more significant in emergency settings in low and middle income countries [ 18 , 19 ].

Checklist effect on teamwork, communication, and culture of safety

The impact of SSC implementation on teamwork and communication was almost unanimously positive across all the studies. After SSC intervention, Molina et al. [ 53 ] reported improvements in team discussions, physician receptiveness to quality improvements, and overall communication by 15%, 9%, and 11.9%, respectively [ 53 ]. Zingiryan et al. [ 54 ] reported improved communication in 76.4% of participants [ 54 ]. White et al. (2018) reported improved teamwork and communication in 91% and 89% of participants [ 55 ]. Tan et al. (2021) reported improved communication in 85% of participants [ 56 ]. One study, however, stood out as an exception; it demonstrated that while nurses and anesthesiologists experienced significantly fewer communication failures, surgeons found no difference in communication with SSC use [ 57 ]. Despite this outlier, other studies note that although nursing staff involvement is especially important for compliance, support from surgeons is also critical [ 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. Notably, safety culture also improved and was likely correlated with fidelity to a checklist [ 63 ]. However, that fidelity appeared to be compromised when staff perceived the checklists as “add ons” [ 64 ].

Checklist financial impact

Few studies investigated the financial impact of SSC; however, those that did noted SSC implementation was a cost effective health intervention. Checklist implementation costs, length/cost of hospital stay, blood transfusion, antibiotics used in the OR, the cost of OR time, and the economic gain from additional years of life expectancy were considered in studies that did evaluate the financial impact of SSC. In their single-center assessment, Healey et al. (2020) determined that for every 100 admissions the SSC cost $900 to implement but saved $55,899 overall [ 10 ]. Yu et al. (2020) discovered significantly lower hospitalization costs while Haugen et al. [ 20 ] witnessed a 40% reduction in blood transfusion costs with implementation of the SSC [ 15 , 20 ]. The SSC incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one year of life loss averted was $31–118 and for every $1 spent on checklist implementation $9–62 was saved [ 65 ].

Checklist creation

Research indicates that checklists perform best when they are targeted, simple, and contextually appropriate [ 38 , 66 ]. Almeida et al. (2021) analyzed all surgeries performed at their hospital or in their country to gain a more comprehensive view of SSC impact [ 12 ]. Their findings highlighted the need for a tailored checklist [ 12 , 66 ]. Others found that involving hospital staff in checklist creation helps create a contextually appropriate checklist [ 38 ].

Although contextually appropriate checklists are best, this of course has its limits. A checklist made for just one setting has more limited utility. With this in mind, using findings from our literature review, and receiving input from pediatric surgeons in HICs and LMICs we created three age specific, adaptable, general pediatric surgery checklists: Neonatal, Infant, and Toddler/Child.

These checklists have room for contextually-appropriate modifications depending on the operation and resources available. Below is the Neonatal checklist as an example. All three checklists are also located in the appendix.

We also determined that there are important points on neonatal, infant, and child physiology that the provider should be aware of prior to following the checklist, administering resuscitation, and delivering anesthesia (Appendix 2). This information complements the checklists and should serve as a reference for providers who care for the sick surgical child. Broselow Tape is an additional reference that can be used to estimate appropriate tube sizes, medication doses, and defibrillator shock doses but its accuracy has been shown to be limited in recent studies [ 67 ].

Pediatric surgery checklist (Appendix 1)

Resuscitation [ 68 ]

Access as large bore as able to place: 24 gauge for neonates, 22 gauge for infants,

Weigh neonate

Initial bolus resuscitation with crystalloid fluids: 10–20 cc/kg (0.9% NaCl or LR)

Maintenance fluid rate by weight using the 4–2-1 rule

Urine output:

 < 1 year: 2–3 cc/kg/hr

1–3 years: 1.5–2 cc/kg/hr

 > 3 years: 1–1.5 cc/kg/hr

Lab value targets

Potassium > 3.7

Bicarb > 28

HGB > 10

If bowel is resected it will lower HBG and more transfusion may be required

Achieve normothermia—use skin to skin contact, heating blankets, and warm saline to maintain the neonate’s temperature between 36.5 and 37.5 degrees celsius [ 69 ]

Abdominal concerns

Perform a digital rectal exam

Decompress the neonate with an NG tube

Concern for sepsis? If yes then IV antibiotics such as penicillin/ampicillin and gentamicin [ 70 , 71 , 72 ]

Weight-based dosing according to institution protocols

Pain Control [ 68 ]

Weight-based per institution protocols and available medications (paracetamol, morphine etc.)

Do NOT use NSAIDS for patients with age < 6 months, asthma, systemic steroids and bleeding disorders

Do NOT use Aspirin for patients with age < 12 years

Consent obtained from legal guardian

Preop and Anesthesia [ 73 ]

Parents educated on patient’s condition, procedure, and expectations in culturally appropriate and sensitive manner

Size appropriate pediatric monitoring equipment available and functioning

Size appropriate pediatric respiratory equipment available and functioning

Avoid Halothane if possible [ 68 ]

Breast Milk up to 4 h before scheduled procedure

Clear Liquids up to 2 h before scheduled procedure

Formula and Solids up to 6 h before scheduled procedure

Endotracheal tube size

Use little finger as a measure

Perioperative Anxiety (most prevalent ages 1–5 y/o) [ 74 ]

Mother present if possible, to soothe child—even during induction if necessary

Oral midazolam administered if necessary

Surgery [ 68 , 73 ]

Formulate plan for maintaining child’s temperature during the operation

Adjust electrocautery and laparoscopic insufflation settings for patient size, weight and age, place grounding away from site of surgery or potential spillage

Laparoscopic insufflation settings for patient size, weight and age

Weight based dosing of prophylactic antibiotics

Post-operative [ 68 , 73 ]

Antiemetics available

Parent/guardian present to help differentiate pain from anxiety.

Avoid overdistention of stomach if mask ventilation necessary

Post-operative fluid status assessed

Research focusing on a variety of surgical subspecialties including general surgery, neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, orthopedics have shown the positive impact of checklists on clinical outcomes [ 3 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 ]. The evidence for checklist impact overall, however, is quite heterogeneous in terms of outcomes studied and the estimated magnitude of the impact of the checklist. Table 1 attached in the appendix displays the current literature on checklists and shows this variation in existing literature. Nevertheless, the consensus impact of SSC remains generally positive.

One challenge in evaluating checklist implementation is that different research groups have investigated different post-surgical outcomes. Studies have focused on surgical site infections, in-hospital mortality, overall mortality, blood loss, reoperation, embolism and other adverse outcomes. Although this complicates the overall picture when comparing studies and some types of post-surgical outcome have limited evidence, it also provides a more complete description of the many elements that might be improved through the use of the SSC.

Another critical element of SSC use explored throughout the literature is the variability in adherence and attitudes towards SSC and their impact on clinical outcomes. Overall, staff attitudes are critical for utilization compliance [ 58 ]. This perhaps suggests that regular training and education on the purpose of SSC are important for engagement of the team. Training should specifically target collaboration with the surgical team since their cooperation is the most commonly cited obstacle to successful implementation [ 60 ]. These trainings should also have implementation procedures which consider previous experiences and feedback in order to most effectively create a culture of safety. When implementing a SSC it is also important to consider the burden on a workforce in under-resourced settings that is often stretched too thin. Ultimately, SSC’s should not create more work but rather decrease workload through improved patient outcomes.

Although a majority of providers have positive opinions of surgical checklists, there remains a gap in knowledge about their use. In order to bridge this gap there is some evidence that digital SSC displayed on OR monitors increases engagement and accessibility. Many settings, however, do not have an OR computer monitor and efforts to bridge this gap must be made elsewhere [ 61 ]. As with the consideration of not creating more work it is vital to adapt these findings to the local resources as the goal of the SSC is to standardize surgical care and provide guidance.

Towards the goal of providing standardized guidance for pediatric patients, Ugandan pediatric surgeons also developed the Pediatric Emergency Surgery Course (PESC). It is a three day course targeted at rural general surgeons and healthcare providers [ 75 ]. Similar to this checklist the course aims to improve resuscitation and referral patterns for complex surgical conditions such as high anorectal malformations. It also aims to increase provider confidence treating less complex conditions such as pyloric stenosis. The course has been reviewed favorably, demonstrating statistically significant improvements in provider knowledge [ 75 ]. In the future, checklist implementation could coincide with educational interventions such as the PESC. Not only should future work coincide with contextually appropriate training but also investigations and feedback should be gathered from providers who use the checklist so improvements can be made.

As stakeholders improve surgical outcomes and safety locally and globally special consideration should be given to pediatric surgery checklists. Surgical disease represents roughly 28% of the world’s burden of disease [ 76 ]. This burden disproportionately affects children in LMICs; up to 85% of children in LMICs have a surgically-treatable condition by age 15 [ 77 , 78 ]. The lack of a pediatric surgery checklist for any setting further demonstrates the need and potential benefits of a pediatric surgery checklist that can be adapted for different resource levels. Further research on the topic is necessary especially regarding the differences between implementing such a checklist in HIC and LMIC hospitals. As the first checklist seeking to inform surgical care on children for providers without significant specialized training and in urgent, and often resource limited settings, it is important to evaluate its implementation and effectiveness for adult general surgeons.

Although this checklist had input from pediatric surgeons in HICs and LMICs, UIC, Mulago and Mbarara were the only institutions represented in its creation. Our pediatric checklist seeks to integrate as much knowledge from the pediatric surgeons involved in its creation, however it is limited to their experiences and the resources available in their institutions. We acknowledge that other checklists exist already and some may argue against the utility of this checklist and its specificity to pediatric general surgery. It has however been shown throughout this paper that specific checklists have a role to play in different surgical subspecialties, thus supporting our work in the creation of this framework for pediatric general surgery [ 74 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 ].

We have sought to create a comprehensive checklist with input from multiple pediatric surgeons. from both high and low resource settings. We acknowledge that SCC implementation is a process in itself requiring multidisciplinary review and feedback. Effective implementation requires adaptation to specific context in order to achieve local buy-in. We have had extensive conversations with surgeons in high and low resource settings to determine the best way of making this checklist easily adaptable regardless of resource availability. Our cross cultural checklist based on a comprehensive literature review illustrates the importance of adapting checklists to local practices to enhance them instead of implementing a generic checklist. The aim of the pediatric SCC is ultimately to enhance current practice and fill in gaps which exist in pediatric surgery by creating a framework that is both standardized and flexible to the context.

This iteration was based on a panel of pediatric surgeons from different resource levels. A next step would be to obtain multidisciplinary feedback from other providers such as nurses, anesthesiologists during the implementation portion of this checklist.

Although there exist books with pediatric surgery considerations, a concise checklist indicating clear actions that are important for providers is necessary for settings with limited resources. Countries such as Uganda with few pediatric surgeons, general surgeons are required to fill the gaps and provide care to children without a clear standard of care. The next step for standardizing pediatric surgical care in resource limited settings would be evaluating the effectiveness of our pediatric surgery checklist in practice by adult general surgeons in a variety of settings in HICs and LMICs.

The benefits of surgical checklists are far reaching: improved teamwork, communication, clinical outcomes, and patient safety all while saving hospitals and patients money. Keeping in mind that checklists are most effective when they are tailored to the context and the patient, we created three general pediatric surgery checklists that can be adapted to different settings based on resource availability and specific needs. This is the first set of checklists developed specifically for pediatric surgery and providers should carefully weigh their benefits as they consider how to appropriately use them in their practice. This peer reviewed checklist steeped in robust literature review is a critical first step in further standardization of pediatric surgical care and highlights the most important considerations in pediatric surgery in a way that is accessible and concise for general surgeons to use in their practice.

Availability of data and materials

Literature review performed with materials from the University of Illinois library.

Safe surgery saves lives frequently asked questions. World Health Organization; 2014. http://www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery/faq_introduction/en/ .

Berner JE, Ewertz E. The importance of non-technical skills in modern surgical practice. Cir Esp Engl Ed. 2019;97(4):190–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cireng.2019.03.017 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. Changes in safety attitude and relationship to decreased postoperative morbidity and mortality following implementation of a checklist-based surgical safety intervention. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(1):102–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2009.040022 .

Conley DM, Singer SJ, Edmondson L, Berry WR, Gawande AA. Effective surgical safety checklist implementation. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212(5):873–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.01.052 .

Judhan RJ, Silhy R, Statler K, et al. The integration of adult acute care surgeons into pediatric surgical care models supplements the workforce without compromising quality of care. Am J Surg. 2015;81(9):854–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Grabski DF, Ajiko M, Kayima P, et al. Access to pediatric surgery delivered by general surgeons and anesthesia providers in Uganda: results from 2 rural regional hospitals. Surgery. 2021;170(5):1397–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2021.05.007 .

Sømme S, Bronsert M, Morrato E, Ziegler M. Frequency and variety of inpatient pediatric surgical procedures in the United States. Pediatrics. 2013;132(6):1466–72. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-1243 .

World Health Organization. WHO guidelines for safe surgery, safe surgery saves lives. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241598552_eng. pdf. 2009 .

Moore M, Mitchell S, Weller J, et al. A retrospective audit of postoperative days alive and out of hospital, including before and after implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist. Anesthesia. 2022;77(2):185–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15554 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Healey A, Søfteland, Harthug S, et al. A Health economic evaluation of the world health organization surgical safety checklist: a single center assessment. Ann Surg. 2022;275(4):679–684. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004300 .

Wurdeman T, Staffa S, Barash D, et al. Surgical safety checklist use and post-caesarean sepsis in the Lake Zone of Tanzania: results from safe surgery 2020. World J Surg. 2022;46(2):303–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-021-06338-3 .

de Almeida S, de Menezes F, Martino, et al. Impact of a surgical safety checklist on surgical site infections, antimicrobial resistance, antimicrobial consumption, costs and mortality. J Hosp Infect. 2021;116:10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2021.05.003 .

Ngonzi J, Bebell LM, Boatin AA, et al. Impact of an educational intervention on WHO surgical safety checklist and pre-operative antibiotic use at a referral hospital in southwestern Uganda. Int J Qual Health Care. 2021;33(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzab089 .

Storesund A, Haugen A, Flaatten H, et al. Clinical efficacy of combined surgical patient safety system and the World Health Organization’s checklists in surgery. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(7):562–70. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0989 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yu D, Zhao Q. Effects of a perioperative safety checklist on postoperative complications following surgery for gastric cancer: a single-center preliminary study. Surg Innov. 2020;27(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350619894836 .

Chhabra A, Singh A, Kuka PS, Kaur H, Kuka AS, Chahal H. Role of perioperative surgical safety checklist in reducing morbidity and mortality among patients: an observational study. Niger J Surg. 2019;25(2):192–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/njs.NJS_45_18 .

de Jager E, Gunnarsson R, Ho YH. Implementation of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist correlates with reduced surgical mortality and length of hospital admission in a high-income country. World J Surg. 2019;43(1):117–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4703-x .

Gama CS, Backman C, de Oliveira AC. Effect of surgical safety checklist on colorectal surgical site infection rates in 2 countries: Brazil and Canada. Am J Infect Control. 2019;9:1112–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.03.002 .

GlobalSurg Collaborative. Pooled analysis of WHO surgical safety checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy. Br J Surg. 2019;106(2):103–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11051 .

Haugen AS, Waehle HV, Almeland SK, et al. Causal analysis of World Health Organization’s surgical safety checklist implementation quality and impact on care processes and patient outcomes: secondary analysis from a large stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in Norway. Ann Surg. 2019;269(2):283–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002584 .

Ramsay G, Haynes AB, Lipstiz SR, et al. Reducing surgical mortality in Scotland by use of the WHO surgical safety checklist. Br J Surg. 2019;106(8):1005–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11151 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wang H, Zheng T, Chen D, et al. Impacts of the surgical safety checklist on postoperative clinical outcomes in gastrointestinal tumor patients: a single-center cohort study. Med Baltim. 2019;98(28). https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016418 .

Anderson KT, Bartz-Kurycki MA, Masada KM, et al. Decreasing intraoperative delays with meaningful use of the surgical safety checklist. Surgery. 2018;163(2):259–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2017.08.009 .

Rodella S, Mall S, Marino M, et al. Effects on clinical outcomes of a 5-year surgical safety checklist implementation experience: a large-scale population-based difference-in-differences study. Health Serv Insights. 2018;11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178632918785127 .

Schmitt CM, Buchbender M, Musazada S, Bergauer B, Neukam FW. Evaluation of staff satisfaction after implementation of a surgical safety checklist in the ambulatory of an oral and maxillofacial surgery department and its impact on patient safety. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(8):1616–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.03.032 .

Shankar R. Implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist at a teaching hospital in India and evaluation of the effects on perioperative complications. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2018;33(4):836–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2533 .

Westman M, Marttila H, Rahi M, Rintala E, Löyttyniemi E, Ikonen T. Analysis of hospital infection register indicates that the implementation of WHO surgical safety checklist has an impact on early postoperative neurosurgical infections. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;53:188–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2018.04.076 .

Haynes AB, Edmondson L, Lipstiz SR, et al. Mortality trends after a voluntary checklist-based surgical safety collaborative. Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):923–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002249 .

Naidoo M, Moodley J, Gathiram P, Sartorius B. The impact of a modified World Health Organization surgical safety checklist on maternal outcomes in a South African setting: a stratified cluster-randomised controlled trial. S Afr Med J. 2017;107(3):248–57. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2017.v107i3.11320 .

Anwer M, Manzoor S, Muneer N, Qureshi S. Compliance and effectiveness of WHO surgical safety check list: a JPMC audit. Pak J Med Sci. 2016;32(4):831–5. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.324.9884 .

Lacassie HJ, Ferdinand C, Guzmán S, Camus L, Echevarria GC. World Health Organization (WHO) surgical safety checklist implementation and its impact on perioperative morbidity and mortality in an academic medical center in Chile. Med Baltim. 2016;95(23). https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003844 .

García-París J, Coheña-Jiménez M, Montaño-Jiménez P, Córdoba-Fernández A. Implementation of the WHO “safe surgery saves lives” checklist in a podiatric surgery unit in Spain: a single-center retrospective observational study. Patient Saf Surg. 2015;9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-015-0075-4 .

Toor AA, Farooka MW, Ayyaz M, Sarwar H, Malik AA, Shabbir F. Pre-operative antibiotic use reduces surgical site infection. J Pak Med Assoc. 2015;65(7):733–6.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Baradaran Binazir M, Alizadeh M, Jabbari Bayrami H, Azhough R, Movassaghi R, Nikasa P. The effect of a modified world health organization surgical safety checklist on postoperative complications in a tertiary hospital in iran. Iran J Public Health. 2015;44(2):292–4.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kim RY, Kwakye G, Kwok AC, et al. Sustainability and long-term effectiveness of the WHO surgical safety checklist combined with pulse oximetry in a resource-limited setting: two-year update from Moldova. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(5):473–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.3848 .

Lepänluoma M, Rahi M, Takala RSK, Löyttyniemi E, Ikonen T. Analysis of neurosurgical reoperations: use of a surgical checklist and reduction of infection-related and preventable complication-related reoperations. J Neurosurg. 2015;123(1):145–52. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.12.JNS141077 .

Helmiö P, Blomgren K, Lehtivuori T, Palonen R, Aaltonen LM. Towards better patient safety in otolaryngology: characteristics of patient injuries and their relationship with items on the WHO surgical safety checklist. Clin Otolaryngol. 2015;40(5):443–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12396 .

Biskup N, Workman AD, Kutzner E, Adetayo OA, Gupta SC. Perioperative safety in plastic surgery: is the World Health Organization checklist useful in a broad practice? Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(5):550–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000427 .

Chaudhary N, Varma V, Kapoor S, Mehta N, Kumaran V, Nundy S. Implementation of a surgical safety checklist and postoperative outcomes: a prospective randomized controlled study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(5):935–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-015-2772-9 .

Haugen AS, Søfteland E, Almeland SK, et al. Effect of the World Health Organization checklist on patient outcomes a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2015;261(5):821–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000716 .

Urbach DR, Govindarajan A, Saskin R, Wilton AS, Baxter NN. Introduction of surgical safety checklists in Ontario. Canada N Engl J Med. 2014;370(11):1029–38. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1308261 .

Boaz M, Bermant A, Ezri T, et al. Effect of surgical safety checklist implementation on the occurrence of postoperative complications in orthopedic patients. Isr Med Assoc J. 2014;16(1):20–5.

Lepänluoma M, Takala R, Kotkansalo A, Rahi M, Ikonen TS. Surgical safety checklist is associated with improved operating room safety culture, reduced wound complications, and unplanned readmissions in a pilot study in neurosurgery. Scand J Surg. 2013;103(1):66–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496913482255 .

Kwok AC, Funk LM, Baltaga R, et al. Implementation of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist, including introduction of pulse oximetry, in a resource-limited setting. Ann Surg. 2013;257(4):633–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182777fa4 .

Lübbeke A, Hovaguimian F, Wickboldt N, et al. Effectiveness of the surgical safety checklist in a high standard care environment. Med Care. 2013;51(5):425–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31828d1489 .

Tillman M, Wehbe-Janek H, Hodges B, Smythe WR, Papaconstantinou HT. Surgical care improvement project and surgical site infections: can integration in the surgical safety checklist improve quality performance and clinical outcomes? J Surg Res. 2013;184(1):150–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.03.048 .

Rosenberg NM, Urman RD, Gallagher S, Stenglein J, Liu X, Shapiro FE. Effect of an office-based surgical safety system on patient outcomes. Eplasty. 2012;12:e59. 

Bliss LA, Ross-Richardson CB, Sanzari LJ, et al. Thirty-day outcomes support implementation of a surgical safety checklist. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(6):766–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.07.015 .

van Klei WA, Hoff RG, van Aarnhem EEHL, et al. Effects of the introduction of the WHO “surgical safety checklist” on in-hospital mortality: a cohort study. Ann Surg. 2012;255(1):44–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823779ae .

Yuan CT, Walsh D, Tomarken JL, Alpern R, Shakpeh J, Bradley EH. Incorporating the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist into practice at two hospitals in Liberia. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2012;38(6):254–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(12)38032-x .

Sotto KT, Burian BK, Brindle ME. Impact of the WHO surgical safety checklist relative to its design and intended use: a systematic review and meta-meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2021;233(6):794–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.08.692 .

Bergs J, Hellings J, Cleemput I, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist on postoperative complications. Br J Surg. 2014;101(3):150–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9381 .

Molina G, Jians W, Edmondson L, et al. Implementation of the surgical safety checklist in South Carolina Hospitals is associated with improvement in perceived perioperative safety. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(5):725–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.12.052 .

Zingiryan A, Paruch JL, Osler TM, Hyman NH. Implementation of the surgical safety checklist at a tertiary academic center: impact on safety culture and patient outcomes. Am J Surg. 2017;214(2):193–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.10.027 .

White MC, Randall K, Ravelojaona VA, et al. Sustainability of using the WHO surgical safety checklist: a mixed-methods longitudinal evaluation following a nationwide blended educational implementation strategy in Madagascar. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3(6). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001104 .

Tan J, Ngwayi JRM, Ding Z, et al. Attitudes and compliance with the WHO surgical safety checklist: a survey among surgeons and operating room staff in 138 hospitals in China. Patient Saf Surg. 2021;15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-020-00276-0 .

Takala RSK, Pauniaho SL, Kotkansalo A, et al. A pilot study of the implementation of WHO surgical checklist in Finland: improvements in activities and communication. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011;55(10):1206–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02525.x .

Domingo L, Sala M, Miret C, et al. Perceptions from nurses, surgeons, and anesthetists about the use and benefits of the surgical checklist in a teaching hospital. J Healthc Qual Res. 2021;37(1):52–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhqr.2021.06.003 .

Sokhanvar M, Kakemam E, Goodarzi N. Implementation of the surgical safety checklist in hospitals of Iran; operating room personnel’s attitude, awareness and acceptance. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2018;31(6):609–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-03-2017-0051 .

Verwey S, Gopalan PD. An investigation of barriers to the use of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist in theatres. S Afr Med J. 2018;108(4):336–41. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2018.v108i4.12780 .

Alloni R, De Benedictis A, Nobile L, et al. Compliance with the surgical safety checklist results of an audit in a teaching hospital in Italy. Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87(5):401–5.

Santana HT, Rodrigues MCS, do Socorro Nantua Evangelista M. Surgical teams’ attitudes and opinions towards the safety of surgical procedures in public hospitals in the Brazilian Federal District. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:276. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2078-3 .

Haugen AS, Søfteland E, Sevdalis N, et al. Impact of the Norwegian National Patient Safety Program on implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist and on perioperative safety culture. BMJ Open Qual. 2020;9(3). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-000966 .

Waehle HV, Haugen AS, Wiig S, Søfteland E, Sevdalis N, Harthug S. How does the WHO surgical safety checklist fit with existing perioperative risk management strategies? An ethnographic study across surgical specialties. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4965-5 .

White MC, Leather AJM, Sevdalis N, Healey A. Economic case for scale-up of the WHO surgical safety checklist at the national level in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ann Surg. 2022;275(5):1018–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004498 .

Dharampal N, Cameron C, Dixon E, Ghali W, Quan ML. Attitudes and beliefs about the surgical safety checklist: just another tick box? Can J Surg. 2016;59(4):268–75. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.002016 .

Knight J, Nazim M, Riggs D, et al. Is the Broselow tape a reliable indicator for use in all pediatric trauma patients?: A look at a rural trauma center. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011;27(6):479–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0b013e31821d8559 .

Kisa P. Pediatric emergency surgery course manual. 2022.

Situma M. Pediatric emergency surgery course manual. 2021.

Lexicomp Editorial Advisory Panel. Penicillin G (intravenous and short-acting intramuscular): drug information. In: UpToDate.  https://www.uptodate.com/contents/penicillin-g-intravenous-and-short-acting-intramuscular-drug-information?sectionName=Pediatric&topicId=9749&search=penicillin%20g&usage_type=panel&anchor=F207675&source=panel_search_result&selectedTitle=1%7E96&showDrugLabel=true&kp_tab=drug_general&display_rank=1#F207675 .

Lexicomp Editorial Advisory Panel. Ampicillin: drug information. In: UpToDate.  https://www.uptodate.com/contents/ampicillin-drug-information?sectionName=Pediatric&topicId=8737&search=ampicillin&usage_type=panel&anchor=F134982&source=panel_search_result&selectedTitle=1%7E150&showDrugLabel=true&kp_tab=drug_general&display_rank=1#F134982 .

Lexicomp Editorial Advisory Panel. Gentamicin (systemic): pediatric drug information. In: UpToDate.  https://www.uptodate.com/contents/gentamicin-systemic-drug-information?source=auto_suggest&selectedTitle=1~3---2~4---genta&search=gentamicin%20systemic .

Lobe T, Sims T, Rojnica M. Pediatric surgery considerations. 2022.

Butterworth JF, Mackey DC, Wasnick JD. Morgan and Mikhail’s clinical anesthesiology. 5th ed. 2013.

Ullrich S, Kisa P, Ruzgar N, et al. Implementation of a contextually appropriate pediatric emergency surgical care course in Uganda. J Pediatr Surg. 2021;56(4):811–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.10.004 .

Shrime MG, Bickler SW, Alkire BC, Mock C. Global burden of surgical disease: an estimation from the provider perspective. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70384-5 .

Mullapudi B, Grabski DF, Ameh EA. Estimates of number of children and adolescents without access to surgical care. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97(4):254–8.

Butler EK, Tran TM, Nagarajan N, Canner J, Fuller AT, Kushner A, Haglund MM, Smith ER. SOSAS 4 country research group. Epidemiology of pediatric surgical needs in low-income countries. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0170968. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170968 .

Cameron JL, Cameron AM, editors. Current surgical therapy. 12th ed. Elsevier.

Delgado B, Safadi A, Bajaj T. Clark’s rule. In: StatPearls. 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541104/ .

Wade CI, Martinez T. Young’s rule. In: StatPearls. 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554603/ .

Mosteller RD. Simplified calculation of body-surface area. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(17):1098.

Holliday MA, Segar WE. The maintenance need for water in parenteral fluid therapy. Pediatrics. 1957;19(5):823–32.

Download references

Acknowledgements

University of Illinois at Chicago Department of Surgery, Mulago National Referral Hospital.

Greg Klazura received funding from Fulbright Fogarty Fellowship (GHES NIH FIC D43 TW010540).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA

Diana Ioana Rapolti, Elsa Nico, Thom Lobe, Thomas Sims & Greg Klazura

Department of Surgery, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda

Phyllis Kisa & Martin Situma

University of California, San Francisco, USA

Doruk Ozgediz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

D.R. wrote the main manuscript text and prepared the figures with guidance from G.K.. D.R. and E. N. performed literature review, all papers were discussed with G.K.. P.K., M.S, T.L., T.S. and D.O. contributed valuable insight into important considerations for pediatric surgery. P.K. and M.S. provided guidance on how to adapt checklist to low resource settings and the needs of surgeons in LMICs. E.N. contributed to the background of the main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phyllis Kisa .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rapolti, D.I., Kisa, P., Situma, M. et al. The creation of a pediatric surgical checklist for adult providers. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 1029 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11405-1

Download citation

Received : 16 August 2023

Accepted : 06 August 2024

Published : 05 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11405-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Surgical checklists
• Pediatric surgery
• Low-resource settings
• Pediatric perioperative care

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]