Sites related to Origins, compiled by Martin LaBar, e-mail address (You can't click on that as an address--you have to type it in. Sorry. Welcome to the 21st century.)

I have attempted to find some of the most important web sites on this topic, representing a number of different points of view.

to my page on the Age of the Earth

to my page giving different levels or meaning of evolution, and different theories of origins

Origins is a controversial topic. Please don't expect this group of web pages to agree with each other!

The links in this section were checked on March 16, 2005, or later. This page was last uploaded on March 16, 2005.

Probe Ministries
To quote them: "Probe's mission is to present the Gospel to communities, nationally and internationally, by providing life-long opportunities to integrate faith and learning through balanced, biblically based scholarship, training people to love God with their minds and equipping the Church to engage the culture for Christ."
They publish books and articles on many issues.
One such article is "Christian views of Science and Earth History." After examining common views, the authors state that they just can't make up their minds, and that that is OK.
Another is "Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design"

Access Research Network (Intelligent Design)

Panda's Thumb blog, arguing against Intelligent Design. Posts are frequent, and usually quite thorough

Evolution News & Views is a blog endorsing Intelligent Design. There is a post nearly every day.

American Association for the Advancement of Science Evolution Resources (links to diverse views, including atheistic, some theistic evolution, non-overlapping)

Skeptical Creationism Web site. This site has the most references to other sites of any that I have seen on this topic, and not only those promoting the views of the author.

American Scientific Affiliation. For the most part, the members of this organization are not young-earth creationists, although some are. The organization attempts to consider all points of view on origins compatible with Christianity. (It publishes many articles on topics other than origins.) They do believe in God's creative activity. See the Topic Collections for on-line articles.
Some important articles from this source are as follows:
"Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective," originally published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, in  1994, is, they say, the article most downloaded from their site.
"Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation," by Keith Miller, argues that "
God is continuously active in His creation through the processes that we investigate with our sciences."
"The Mediterranean Flood," by Glenn Morton, proposes, giving scriptural and scientific analysis, that Noah's flood was a flooding of the Mediterranean basin, not world-wide.
"Making Sense of Genesis 1," by Rikki Watts, argues that much of Genesis 1 was not meant to be taken literally.
"How Long Were the Days of Genesis," by Thomas Key, argues, from scriptural evidence, that the days of Genesis 1 could not have been 24-hour days.
Two articles by Conrad Hyers, a religion professor, on the proper interpretation of the text of the first parts of Genesis. Part One, "Dinosaur Religion . . .," and Part Two, "The Narrative Form of Genesis 1 . . ."
The American Scientific Affiliation has been granted permission to post "Because It Had Not Rained," an article by a seminary professor, which argues that a strictly literal interpretation of the Genesis 1 and 2 is not possible, based on the scripture itself.

Reasons to Believe is a progressive creationist organization. To see what their views are, go to their FAQ page.

Theistic Evolution -- One Christian's Perspective is a page presenting an old-earth creationist view. The author has also created a particularly interesting page giving internet references to pertinent information. He majors in showing how young-earth creationists have, too often, misquoted or misinterpreted.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Science. Mostly atheistic.

Creation Research Society. Young-Earth creationism.

Position papers, pro and con, on Intelligent Design, published in the May, 02, issue of Natural History, with links.

Institute for Creation Research. Young-Earth creationism. See, in particular, the Tenets of Creationism by Henry Morris, the founder.

PBS's Faith and Reason. See especially the Cosmology and Evolution pages. Atheistic.

University of California at Berkeley's page on Understanding Evolution. On the face of it, atheistic, but has a "misconceptions" section. One such page says that "Science does try to investigate how life started . . . but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory."

Answers in Genesis. Young-Earth creationism. AiG has a valuable page, called "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use," with reasons for not using them. This page has other useful thoughts on origins, in addition to what the title suggests.

Two pages listing what are seen as mistakes and errors by creationists, which generally means young-earth creationists (See my page on different views on origins) are Creationist Lies and Blunders and an Index to Creationist Claims.

Origins (Intelligent Design)

Youth on the Rock has a page advocating Gap Theory. Here's another such page. Gap Theorists generally base their views on the interpretation of the original Hebrew language of Genesis 1:1-2. This ought to be of considerable importance for believers, but is not strictly a scientific matter.

International Society for Complexity and Design (A site that is pro-Intelligent Design. See especially their archives, which post arguments)

Talk.Origins (opposed to Intelligent Design)

Article from Skeptical Inquirer, Sept. 01, critiquing Intelligent Design on philosophical grounds

Debate between Philip Kitcher and Phillip E. Johnson (one of the strongest Intelligent Design advocates), on "Should Evolution Be Taught in Schools?" posted by Slate. (The link goes to the first day's part of the debate. Click on Wednesday or Thursday for the 2nd or 3rd days.)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. The purpose of this is NOT to prevent use by others, but to prevent other users from restricting free use. I claim no ownership of materials in the above material which are quotations from other sources.