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.)

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.