Are “Problems with Evolution”
Evidence for Intelligent Design?
Brownville Lyceum
February 12, 2006
(197th Anniversary of Darwin’s Birth,
& the First Annual Evolution Sunday)
Chuck Austerberry, Ph.D.
Biology Department
Creighton University
Nebraska Religious Coalition
for Science Education
1840 Portrait of Charles Darwin (1809-82) by George Richmond
(one year after Darwin’s marriage to Emma Wedgewood)
http://images.art.com/images/-/George-Richmond/Portrait-of-Charles-Darwin-1809-82,-1840--C11725357.jpeg
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
 Novel heritable variations arise.
 Changes (mutations) in genes
 New combinations of genes
 Some variations are more likely than others to be
passed on to offspring.
 Natural selection
 Sexual selection
 Genetic drift
 Accumulated variations may differ among
populations  divergence  speciation.
Figure 5.14
Why is Evolution Controversial?
Origins are important in both science and
religion.
Creation theology developed centuries
before evolutionary science, so different
terms and concepts are used in each.
Why is Evolution Controversial?
Not compatible with a literal interpretation
of Genesis 1 & 2.
Confusion concerning the relationship
between science and religion in general,
and between evolution and creation in
particular.
Such Confusion Isn’t New
Evolution is not the only scientific theory
that has seemed to threaten belief in God.
For example, Leibnitz attacked Newton's
theory of gravity as subversive of religion.
Such a view was temporary, as Charles
Darwin noted in the second edition of On
the Origin of Species, and he added: "I
see no good reason why the views given in
this volume should shock anyone."
A Bit More About Newton
Emphasized natural theology.
Attributed the design of the clock-like universe
to a divine Clockmaker.
Why else would the planetary orbits share the
same direction and plane, unlike comets?
Newton also assumed that God periodically
intervened to ensure stability of mechanism.
Private papers show he was not a traditional
Christian, but natural theology became for
many the most important support for their
religious faith - until Darwin.
Creation in the Bible
A literal reading of Genesis 1 & 2 is rejected
by many Christian and Jewish theologians
and religious bodies, for reasons that often
have nothing to do with science.
Creation in the Bible (cont.)
Nonetheless, it is the right of each student
to freely choose religious beliefs, including
Biblical literalism.
Science teaching standards do not call for
personal acceptance of evolutionary
theory, just an understanding of it.
Other Opposition to Evolution
Not all religious objections to evolution are
based on Biblical literalism. Other
objections include:
 Metaphysical status of “chance”; lack of
predictability, purpose, and design.
 Competition and death as part of the
mechanism of evolution.
 Continuity between humans and other
species; question of the human soul.
Related Controversies
Religion's role in public society,
especially education
Local versus centralized control of
public education
Power struggles within the G.O.P in
some states
Competition between alternative
worldviews
Sources of Controversy
Many opponents of evolution
are motivated by their theism.
Some proponents of evolution
are motivated by their atheism.
Other Sources of Controversy
Misuse of evolution for pseudoscientific
justification of immoral behavior (Social
Darwinism)
Misuse of scientific ignorance as "evidence"
for a Creator (intelligent design theory)
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory
 Unlike creationism, ID does not arise from Biblical
literalism.
 Some ID proponents accept common descent.
 ID does not identify the designer.
 ID postulates that scientific evidence can, and
does, prove that life must have been designed.
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory
 Unlike creationism, ID does not arise from Biblical
literalism, and is not necessarily equivalent to
creationism or "creation science"?
 Creationists reject evidence that contradicts a
literalistic interpretation of Genesis, but many ID
proponents don't expect the scientific evidence to
match the Biblical creation accounts
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory
 Some ID proponents accept common descent.
 Many do not.
"Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place
within a species-but the fossil record has not
yielded evidence of one species becoming another
. . ."
(Charles Colson, Christianity Today,
April 2005, Vol. 49, No. 4, Page 112)
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory
 ID does not identify the designer.
 Religious motivation undeniable nonetheless.
 Sad that such denials are made (e.g. Dover trial)
 Sad that pressure exists to hide one’s religious
motivation (e.g. Guillermo Gonzalez at ISU).
 True, extra-scientific motivations can lead to biased
conduct of science (lots of examples!).
 Also true, however, that great discoveries have been
made by scientists so motivated (also lots of examples).
 Copernicus, wanting to salvage the Great Circle Tradition.
 Francis Crick, wanting to disprove that life requires God.
Example of Strong Motivation!
 In 1976, Jonathan Wells writes, "Father's
[Moon's] words, my studies, and my
prayers convinced me that I should devote
my life to destroying Darwinism, just as
many of my fellow Unificationists had
already devoted their lives to destroying
Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a
PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the
opportunity to prepare myself for battle."
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/0-Toc.htm)
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory
 ID postulates that scientific evidence can, and
does, prove that life must have been designed.
 Herein is the main problem with ID. Why?
1. Conclusions about whether any thing or event
is designed or not designed are based on a
comparison of two probabilities.
2. If the species of the designer is open, and
especially if the designer need not be subject
to natural laws, then it’s impossible to calculate
the probability that something was designed.
 Thus, all “evidence” for ID is negative:
supposedly intractable scientific mysteries.
Problems with (ID) Theory
 “Evidence” for ID is based entirely on
supposedly intractable problems facing
Darwinian evolutionary theory (93% of Ohio
science professors see no such “evidence”).
 ID is rejected by professional scientific
organizations & peer-reviewed journals.
 ID is potentially valid as a metaphysical
position, but not as a scientific theory.
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory
 This limitation was recognized by David Hume
and Immanuel Kant almost immediately after
Newtonian natural theology began, but …
 Few people were aware of such philosophical
argument.
 Thus, we still have the repeating pattern:
 Cast a valid open scientific question (or an
invalid one!) as if it were a fatal blow to a
scientific theory.
 Reject the science, and substitute God (“God
of the gaps”) for the unknown cause.
The latest anti-evolution strategy. . .
Explicitly mandate
intelligent design theory?
No, especially not since Dover.
Instead . . .
Teach “abrupt appearance”
(of species) and other
“problems” with evolution.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/images/origin/millurey.gif
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/images/origin/millurey.gif
“Icons of Evolution” Question 1
 Q: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953
Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may
have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the
early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the
experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
 A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the
origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question
about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because
they were the first successful attempt to show how organic
molecules might have been produced on the early Earth.
When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions
to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere,
they were able to produce most of the same building blocks.
Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.
A. Gishlick, (National Center for Science Education
“Icons of Evolution” Question 2
 Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss
the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups
appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of
branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the
evolutionary tree of life?
 A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and
mammals all are post-Cambrian - aren't these "major
groups"? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian
organisms as "modern"; they are in fact at the roots of the
tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key
features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all
groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups
using not only fossils but also data from developmental
biology.
(A. Gishlick, (National Center for Science Education)
“Icons of Evolution” Question 3
 Q: HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as
similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is
evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument
masquerading as scientific evidence?
 A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an
antenna) in two species may be similar because it was
inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of
similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of
structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the
repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not
sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test
hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not
"evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is
inferred based on many sources of information, and
reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of
anatomical structures.
(A. Gishlick, (National Center for Science Education)
(A. Gishlick, (National Center for Science Education)
“Icons of Evolution” Question 4
 Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use
drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for
their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known
for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most
similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
 A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research
confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate
embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently
species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their
embryological development. The union of evolution and
developmental biology - "evo-devo" - is one of the most
rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not
relied upon: there has been plenty of research in
developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any
textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.
Figure 5.10
(A. Gishlick, (National Center for Science Education)
“Icons of Evolution” Question 5
 Q: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil
as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -even though modern birds are probably not descended from
it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of
years after it?
 A: The notion of a "missing link" is an out-of-date
misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx
(and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles
gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying
adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil
in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations.
Wells's claim that "supposed ancestors" are younger than
Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but
relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your
uncle can be younger than you!
Figure 5.5 (1)
Figure 5.5 (2)
“Icons of Evolution” Question 6
 Q: PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of
peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for
natural selection -- when biologists have known since the
1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and
all the pictures have been staged?
 A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a
point - the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the
danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific
evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare
this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle
of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are
staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered
moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific
evidence for natural selection.
“Icons of Evolution” Question 7
 Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak
changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can
explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even
though the changes were reversed after the drought ended,
and no net evolution occurred?
 A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural
selection: that populations change their physical features in
response to changes in the environment. The finch studies
carefully - exquisitely - documented how the physical features
of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and
survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly
than was realized. That new species did not arise within the
duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!
http://genetics.biol.ttu.edu/genetics/pictures/bithorax.gif
“Icons of Evolution” Question 8
 Q: MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies
with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations
can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the
extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants
cannot survive outside the laboratory?
 A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit
flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can
reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus
indeed providing "raw material" for evolution. This type of
mutation produces new structures that become available for
further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not
every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies
are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide
variation for natural selection to work on.
http://www.lclark.edu/~seavey/images%20/apetree-1.jpg
“Icons of Evolution” Question 9
 Q: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like
humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just
animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil
experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors
were or what they looked like?
 A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the
general outline of human ancestry, about which there is
considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually
add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such
drawings are used to "justify materialistic claims" is ludicrous
and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments
of human evolution.
“Icons of Evolution” Question 10
 Q: EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's
theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of
its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
 A: What does Wells mean by "Darwin's theory of evolution"?
In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed
has been augmented by more modern scientific
understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and
other processes that affect evolution. What remains
unchanged is that similarities and differences among living
things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is
best explained by evolutionary theory. Wells' "10 Questions"
fails to demonstrate a pattern of evolutionary biologists'
"misrepresenting the facts."
Ohio’s “Model” Lesson
In the script for a class debate on evolution:
 “No
new species emerged" in studies of the
British peppered moth.
“Scientists have not observed (bacterial)
cells changing into organelles, such as
mitochondria or chloroplasts."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=mboc4.figgrp.75
Nebraska’s State Standards
Nebraska’s LB 812 required all school
districts to adopt measurable quality
academic content standards for
reading, writing, mathematics, science,
social studies, and history by July 1,
2003.
Nebraska L.E.A.R.N.S.
The standards adopted by Nebraska
school districts may be those adopted
by the State Board of Education called
“Nebraska L.E.A.R.N.S.” (Leading Educational
Achievement through Rigorous Nebraska Standards) or more
rigorous than the state standards. Local
content standards must be approved by
the Nebraska Department of
Education.
Evolution in L.E.A.R.N.S.
On February 9, 1999, the Nebraska
Attorney General’s Office instructed
Education Commissioner Doug
Christensen to revise proposed Nebraska
Science Content Standards because “it
appears they require 12th grade students
to be taught that present forms of life,
including humans, are the product of
evolution.”
June 1999 NE School Board Mtg.
Seven TV cameras were present.
A few citizens who spoke wanted
alternatives to evolution taught.
Three times as many citizens supported
strong science standards.
 Board approved standards by a 5-3 vote.
Lerner’s 2000 Grade of Nebraska’s
Science Teaching Standards*
 “C” = “Satisfactory” for evolution; “B”=“Good” for overall science
standards.
 NE one of 7 states graded “C” for evolution.
 24 states graded higher, 19 states graded lower, than NE for treatment
of evolution.
 “A decent treatment of evolution marred by the incursion of creationist
notions.”
*Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States by Lawrence
S. Lerner, for the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, September 2000
Gross et al.’s Grade of
Nebraska’s Science Standards*
 “Evolution is considered and some of the
essential content is touched.”
 “However . . . we find troubling statements,
inexcusably vague for grade 12 or just carelessly
written.”
*The State of State Science Standards by Paul R. Gross with Ursula
Goodenough, Susan Haack, Lawrence S. Lerner, Martha
Schwartz, and Richard Schwartz, for the Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation, December 2005.
The State of State Science Standards by Paul R. Gross with Ursula Goodenough,
Susan Haack, Lawrence S. Lerner, Martha Schwartz, and Richard Schwartz,
for the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, December 2005.
Gross et al.’s Grade of NE’s Standards
“Students are asked to ‘investigate and use’ the
theory of biological evolution to explain the
diversity of life. But . . . how, exactly, is that
investigation to proceed?”
“Students are to investigate whether natural
selection provides a scientific explanation of the
fossil record and the molecular similarities
among the diverse species of living organisms.
Well, yes. But . . . again . . . ‘investigate’ is a
mere honorific; ‘whether’ is insincere.”
What do Nebraska’s L.E.A.R.N.S. Say?
 Evolution is a series of changes, some gradual
and some sporadic, that account for the present
form and function of objects, organisms, and
natural and designed systems. The goal is for
students to recognize that objects & systems
change over time.
 By the end of twelfth grade, students will develop
an understanding of the theory of biological
evolution.
Example Indicators in NE L.E.A.R.N.S.
 Understand that the concept of biological evolution
is a theory which explains the consequence of the
interactions of:
(1) the potential for a species to increase its numbers;
(2) the genetic variability of offspring due to mutation and
recombination of genes;
(3) a finite supply of the resources of life; and
(4) the ensuing selection by the environment of those
offspring better able to survive and leave offspring.
Example NE Indicators (cont.)
 Investigate and use the theory of biological
evolution to explain diversity of life.
 Investigate whether natural selection provides a
scientific explanation of the fossil record and the
molecular similarities among the diverse species of
living organisms.
 Investigate and use biological classifications based
on similarities.
Could Have been Worse
(Poor Kansas!)
 On August 11, 1999, the Kansas Board of Education
deleted most references to evolution from state teaching
standards (actions later reversed).
 In late 2005 Kansas adopted standards that refer to
Darwinian evolution as inherently atheistic and lacking in
evidence.
 Only some concepts in states’ teaching standards are on
assessment tests. Kansas’ tests reportedly will not
include evolution, so will it even be taught?
Evolution Is a Tested
Standard in Nebraska
 This year (2005-2006) Nebraska schools begin
reporting how well their students are meeting
certain of the LEARNS standards, called the
STAR (Standards That Are Reported) standards.
 Next year (2006-2007) districts will report to the
state Dept. of Education.
 Evolution is one of six STAR life science
standards for high school.
Life Science STAR Standards
 12.4.1 By the end of twelfth grade, students will develop an
understanding of the cell.
 12.4.2 By the end of twelfth grade, students will develop an
understanding of the molecular basis of heredity.
Example Indicators:
 Investigate and describe how DNA carries the genetic code.
 Investigate and understand that genetic variation occurs when
genetic information is transmitted during sexual reproduction.
 Investigate and explain how some mutations could help, harm or
have no effect on individual organisms.
 Investigate and explain how mutations in sex cells, but not in
body cells, could be passed on to offspring.
Life Science STAR Standards (cont.)
12.4.3 By the end of twelfth grade, students will develop an understanding of the
theory of biological evolution.
Example Indicators:

Understand that the concept of biological evolution is a theory which explains
the consequence of the interactions of:
(1) the potential for a species to increase its numbers;
(2) the genetic variability of offspring due to mutation and recombination of genes;
(3) a finite supply of the resources of life; and
(4) the ensuing selection by the environment of those offspring better able to survive and
leave offspring.

Investigate and use the theory of biological evolution to explain diversity of life.

Investigate whether natural selection provides a scientific explanation of the
fossil record and the molecular similarities among the diverse species of living
organisms.

Investigate and use biological classifications based on similarities.
Life Science STAR Standards (cont.)
12.4.4 By the end of twelfth grade, students
will develop an understanding of the
interdependence of organisms.
12.4.5 By the end of twelfth grade, students
will develop an understanding of matter,
energy, and organization in living systems.
Life Science STAR Standards (cont.)
12.4.6 By the end of twelfth grade, students will develop an
understanding of the behavior of organisms.
Example Indicators:
 Investigate and describe how nervous systems function in
multicellular animals.
 Investigate and describe how organisms respond to internal
changes and external stimuli.
 Investigate and explain how the behavioral patterns of
organisms have evolved through natural selection.
 Investigate and understand that behavioral biology relates to
humans since it provides links to psychology, sociology, and
anthropology.
Could Have Been Better Worse
 On December 10, 2002 the Ohio Board of
Education adopted the following benchmark for 910th graders:
Describe a foundation of biological evolution as the
change in gene frequency of a population over time.
Explain the historical and current scientific
developments, mechanisms and processes of
biological evolution. Describe how scientists
continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects
of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark
does not mandate the teaching or testing of
intelligent design.)
In Nebraska as in Ohio?
 Gov. Mike Johanns, in a letter granting final
approval of our state’s revised standards (Dec.
24, 2002):
“I also appreciate the State Board of Education’s
position that the science standards allow local
districts and teachers the academic freedom to
present and discuss arguments for and against
the Darwinian theory of evolution rather than
mandate the ‘teaching of’ one particular
evolutionary theory.”
“Citizens for Objective Science”
(2002 in Nebraska)
"Investigate and distinguish the data and
testable theories of science from religious
or philosophical claims that are made in
the name of science."
"Investigate and understand the full
range of scientific views on biological
evolution that exist."
"Investigate and understand why some
topics, such as biological evolution, may
generate controversy."
Some Santorum “Amendment” (to NCLB)
Recommendations are Good
“Investigate and distinguish the
data and testable theories of
science from religious or
philosophical claims that are
made in the name of
science.”
Other Recommendations
Beg Clarification
“Investigate and understand the full range of
scientific views on biological evolution that
exist.”
How full should that range be?
Who decides which views are scientific?
Why mandate such inclusiveness only for
evolution?
How about Peter Duesberg’s views on the
causes of AIDS, for example?
Other Recommendations
Beg Clarification (cont.)
"Investigate and understand why some topics,
such as biological evolution, may generate
controversy."
 What does it mean to “teach the controversy”?
 What sources of controversy should be
discussed, and in what classes?
How Should Evolution be Taught?
 Implying that evolution rules out a creator, or
(on the other hand) that it requires a designer,
would be incorrect and inappropriate.
 Because silence regarding metaphysical
implications may be interpreted as antireligious, brief acknowledgement that many
religious and philosophical perspectives exist
would be accurate and appropriate.
A Recent Case Study
 Johnson and Giberson (2002) analyzed evolution
teaching in Quincy, MA (pop. 88,000, 12 elementary
schools, five middle schools, two high schools).
 No evolution in elementary schools, but significant
coverage in middle and high schools.
 Textbooks and teachers were generally found to
present evolution in a metaphysically neutral,
balanced way that respects both science and religion.
Evolution is not taught dogmatically nor atheistically,
but it is stressed as being of central importance.
A Recent Case Study (cont.)
 One teacher interviewed by Johnson and Giberson
(2002) said:
 “A theory arises as a result of huge amounts of
data that almost always point to a specific solution.
Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief.”
 This teacher presents a number of possible natural
mechanisms for evolution. Although he excludes
creation, he is careful not to give evolution a
purposeless or meaningless tone.
Compatibility is a Common View
 68% (DYG, 2000) of the general American population
consider evolution compatible with belief in a divine
creator; 37% (Gallup, 2001) consider the evolution of
humans to also be compatible with creation.
 39% of American scientists believe in a personal God
(Larson and Witham, 1997).
 84% of Ohio college science professors (Bishop,
2002) consider evolution consistent with belief in God.
One Denominational Statement
214th GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH USA (2002)
Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of
Scripture and the Reformed Confessions.
Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary
theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.
Encourages State Boards of Education across the nation to
establish standards for science education in Public Schools
based on the most reliable content of scientific knowledge as
determined by the scientific community.
Calls upon Presbyterian scientists and science educators to assist
congregations, presbyteries, communities, and the public to
understand what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.
Origin of the NRCSE
April 25, 2001 meeting at First Central
Congregational Church in Omaha: Chuck
Austerberry, M. Winston Baldwin, Anita
Jeck, and John Lyden.
We find evolution to be compatible with our
religious faiths, and we know that many
other Nebraskans do too.
Why the NRCSE? (cont.)
Science education needs advocates
from all of Nebraska, including its
religious community.
Academic freedom, religious
freedom, and scientific integrity are
compatible.
NRCSE Goals
 We in the NRCSE are confident that evolution can and should be
taught widely and well in Nebraska’s secondary schools.
 Our goal is to help defend Nebraska’s teaching standards from any
further weakening or confusion in regards to the scientific theory of
evolution.
 We also desire to help raise awareness, particularly in Nebraska’s
religious communities, that the search for natural explanations is
essential to science but not anti-religious.
 Web site: http://nrcse.creighton.edu
Other Groups Defending Evolution
 REASON
 Nebraska Citizens for Science
 Nebraska Association of Teachers of Science
 Nebraska Academy of Sciences
 Univ. of Nebraska and most colleges and universities
 Museums (Natural History in Lincoln, Western Heritage
in Omaha)
Evolution Exhibits at Museums
"Explore Evolution" permanent exhibit opened
Sept. 9, 2005 at the Nebraska State
Museum of Natural History in Lincoln.
“The Burgess Shale: Evolution's Big Bang”
Dec. 17, 2005 through March 12, 2006 at the
Durham Western Heritage Museum in
Omaha.