نیای مشترک ما با شامپانزه ها

* Burian, RM: 1994. Dobzhansky on Evolutionary Dynamics: Some Questions about His Russian Background; in Adams, Mark A. (1994). The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky: essays on his life and thought in Russia and America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03479-6.
* Butler, Samuel (2007). Evolution, Old And New: Or The Theories Of Buffon, Dr. Erasmus Darwin And Lamarck, As Compared With That Of Charles Darwin (1911). Kessinger Publishing, LLC. ISBN 0548641323.
* Beer, Gillian; Darwin, Charles (1996). The origin of species. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019283438X.
* Gould, Stephen Jay; Dobzhansky, Theodosius Grigorievich (1982). Genetics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231054750.
* Haught, John F. (2010). Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 144. ISBN 9780664232856.
* Henig, Robin Marantz (2000). The monk in the garden: the lost and found genius of Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0395977657.
* Kutschera U, Niklas KJ (2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften 91 (6): 255–76. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. PMID 15241603.
* Mayr, Ernst (1985). The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press. ISBN 0674364465.
* Miller, James H. (2001). An evolving dialogue: theological and scientific perspectives on evolution. Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-349-7.
* Morris, HR (1963). The Twilight of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Pub Group. ISBN 0801058627.
* Numbers, Ronald L. (1993). The creationists. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0520083938.
* Pennock RT (2003). "Creationism and intelligent design". Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 4: 143–63. doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400. PMID 14527300.
* Sagan, Carl (1997). The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0345409469.
* Scott, E.C. (1997). "Antievolution And Creationism In The United States". Annual Review of Anthropology 26 (1): 263–289. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.263.
* Maynard Smith, "The status of neo-Darwinism," in "Towards a Theoretical Biology" (C.H. Waddington, ed., University Press, Edinburgh, 1969.
* Hull, D.L. (1999). "The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper". Biology and Philosophy 14 (4): 481–504. doi:10.1023/A:1006554919188. http://www.springerlink.com/index/T4220X33T0284444.pdf. Retrieved 2008-04-11.
* Strobel, Lee (2004). The case for a Creator: a journalist investigates scientific evidence that points toward God. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan/Willow Creek Resources. ISBN 0310240506.
[edit]

References
* AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006-02-16) (pdf), Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, aaas.org, http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf, retrieved 2007-01-14
* Bumiller, Elisabeth (2005-08-03), "Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution", The New York Times (2005-08-03), http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html?ex=1280721600&en=8bbf73d2f5204260&ei=5088&partner=r, retrieved 2007-02-03
* Barbour, Ian G. (1997), Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (first revised ed.), HarperSanFrancisco, pp. 58, 65, ISBN 0060609389
* Burns, Edward M.; Ralph, Philip Lee; Lerner, Robert E.; Standish, Meacham (1982), World Civilizations Their History and Their Culture (Sixth ed.), W.W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-95077-8
* Dawkins, Richard (1986), The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., ISBN 0-393-31570-3
* Dawkins, Richard (1995), River Out of Eden, Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-06990-8
* Dawkins, Richard (January 1997), "Is Science a Religion?", Humanist, http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html, retrieved 2007-01-30
* Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN 0-7181-3430-3
* Dewey, John (1994), "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy", in Martin Gardner, Great Essays in Science, Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-853-8
* Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1973), "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher (National Association of Biology Teachers) 35: 125–129, http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml, retrieved 2007-01-14
* Transcription of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton, TalkOrigins Archive Foundation, 1996-01-30, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html, retrieved 2007-01-31
* Einstein, Albert (1930-11-09), "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine: 1–4, http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm, retrieved 2007-01-30
* Gould, Stephen Jay (1981), Evolution as Fact and Theory, The Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html, retrieved 2007-01-17
* Hodge, Charles (1874), What is Darwinism?, Scribner, Armstrong, and Company, ASIN B0006AEEMO, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-8.txt, retrieved 2007-01-14
* Hovind, Kent (2006), Dr. Hovind's $
50,000 Offer, Creation Science Evangelism, http://www.drdino.com/250k-offer, retrieved 2010-11-11
* Huxley, Thomas H. (1902), "An Episcopal Trilogy 1887", Collected Essays Science and Christian Tradition (Kessinger Publishing) V: 126–159, ISBN 978-1417973729, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15905/15905-8.txt, retrieved 2007-01-14
* IAP, Interacademy Panel (2006-06-21), IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, interacademies.net, archived from the original on 2006-11-02, http://web.archive.org/web/20061102100551/http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution+statement.pdf, retrieved 2007-01-14
* Johnson, Phillip E. (1998), Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, IntervaVsity Press, ISBN 0-8308-1929-0

وسط پیامبر دیده شده است و در حقیقت پیامبر با سفر به آینده، بهشت و جهنم و آینده ای را که در انتظار ما می باشد را دیده است

ببخشید من فقط یک سوال برای اطلاعات عمومی می پرسم بهشت در آینده هست؟یعنی الان نیست؟از روی حرف شما این برداشت رو می شه کرد
اما شما همان اول گفتین که انسان اول در بهشت آفریده شد پس این چه جور سفر به آینده هست ؟
سوال دیگه ی من اینه که اگر خدا انسان را برای این در نظر داشت تا همیشه در بهشت زندگی کند اصلا چرا زمین را به وجود آورد؟

خيلي جالبه. عقايد ما بايد تفتيش بشه ولي مال شما نه.
دوستان عقايدشون رو در مورد جهان مادي گفتن ولي شما علاقه دارين از جهان مادي خارج شين.
شما از حقيقت و چيزي كه قابل مشاهده است ايراد مي گيرين ولي ما نبايد از چيزي كه وجودش مشخص نيست و اصلا معلوم نيست چيه ايراد بگيريم. خيلي ممنون دوست عزيز من از اين به بعد از شما سوالي نخواهم پرسيد چون يا جواب درست و حسابي نميديد، يا به عقايد و مذهب خودتون ربطش ميديد، يا از زيرش در ميريد. قبلا هم گفتم يك بار بدون تعصب فكر كنيد، خودتون رو از بند اين مقدسات آزاد كنيد. اميدوارم اون موقع كه پشيمون ميشيد عمرتون تلف نشده باشه. فقط يك دقيقه خودتون باشيد نه چيزي كه بهتون ياد دادن. اميدوارم به حقيقت برسيد.و براتون آرزوي بيداري دارم. موفق باشد.

Main article: Creation Science
As biologists grew more and more confident in evolution as the central defining principle of biology,[34] American membership in churches favoring increasingly literal interpretations of scripture rose, with the Southern Baptist Convention and Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod outpacing all other denominations.[35] With growth, these churches became better equipped to promulgate a creationist message, with their own colleges, schools, publishing houses, and broadcast media.[36]
In 1961, the first major modern creationist book was published: Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr.'s The Genesis Flood. Morris and Whitcomb argued that creation was literally 6 days long, that humans lived concurrently with dinosaurs, and that God created each 'kind' of life individually.[37] On the strength of this, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at fundamentalist churches, colleges, and conferences.[38] Morris' Creation Science Research Center (CSRC) rushed publication of biology text books that promoted creationism, and also published other books such as Kelly Segrave's sensational Sons of God Return that dealt with UFOlogy, flood geology, and demonology against Morris' objections.[39] Ultimately, the CSRC broke up over a divide between sensationalism and a more intellectual approach, and Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research, which was promised to be controlled and operated by scientists.[40] During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the terms scientific creationism and creation science.[41] The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views".[42]

We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory. … Protestants, Catholics, and Jews are divided among themselves in their beliefs, and that there is no unanimity among the members of any religious establishment as to this subject. Belief or unbelief in the theory of evolution is no more a characteristic of any religious establishment or mode of worship than is belief or unbelief in the wisdom of the prohibition laws. It would appear that members of the same churches quite generally disagree as to these things.
…Furthermore, [the Butler Act] requires the teaching of nothing. It only forbids the teaching of evolution of man from a lower order of animals. … As the law thus stands, while the theory of evolution of man may not be taught in the schools of the State, nothing contrary to that theory [such as Creationism] is required to be taught.
…It is not necessary now to determine the exact scope of the Religious Preference clause of the Constitution … Section 3 of article 1 is binding alike on the Legislature and the school authorities. So far we are clear that the Legislature has not crossed these constitutional limitations.

Creationism
Part of a series on
Creationism
The Creation of Adam.jpg
History of creationism
Neo-creationism
Types of creationism
Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Intelligent design
Mythology and theology
Creation myth
Genesis creation narrative
Framework interpretation
Genesis as an allegory
Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Baraminology
Flood geology
Creation geophysics
Creationist cosmologies
Intelligent design
Controversy
History
Public education
Teach the Controversy
Particular religious views
Deist · Hindu · Islamic · Jewish
Pandeist
Wikipedia book Book · Category Category · PortalPortal
v · d · e
Main article: History of creationism
See also: Creation and evolution in public education
During the 19th century and up until the mid-20th century, Creationism was widely accepted and was considered a foundational truth, but there was no official resistance to evolution by mainline denominations within the United States of America.[14] Around the start of the 20th century some evangelical scholars had ideas accommodating evolution, such as B. B. Warfield who saw it as a natural law expressing God’s will. However, development of the eugenics movement led many Catholics to reject evolution.[14] In this enterprise they received little aid from conservative Christians in Britain and Europe. In Britain this has been attributed to their minority status leading to a more tolerant, less militant theological tradition. The main British Creationist movement in this period was the Evolution Protest Movement, formed in the 1930s.[22]
[edit] Butler Act and Scopes monkey trial
Main article: Scopes Trial
Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan chat in court during the Scopes trial.
In the aftermath of World War I, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the campaigning of William Jennings Bryan several states introduced legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution. By 1925, such legislation was being considered in 15 states, and passed in some states, such as Tennessee.[23] The American Civil Liberties Union offered to defend anyone who wanted to bring a test case against one of these laws. John T. Scopes accepted, and he confessed to teaching his Tennessee class evolution in defiance of the Butler Act. The textbook in question was Hunter's Civic Biology (1914). The trial was widely publicized by H. L. Mencken among others, and is commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial. Scopes was convicted; however, the widespread publicity galvanized proponents of evolution. When the case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court overturned the decision on a technicality (the judge had assessed the minimum $
00 fine instead of allowing the jury to assess the fine).[24][25]
Although it overturned the conviction, the Court decided that the law was not in violation of the Religious Preference provisions of the Tennessee Constitution (section 3 of article 1), which stated that "that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship."[26] The Court, applying that state Constitutional language, held

اگر جهان توسط طراحي هوشمند و غير مادي است پس حتما خالقي بسيار هوشمند تر هم وجود دارد و همينطور تا بي نهايت... در اينجا يك بحث علمي هست و بايد بدونيد توي بحث علمي و ماده از غير ماده(كه شما اصرار بر بودنش دارين) نبايد حرفي باشه. اگر آفريدگار شما تونسته ماده رو از غير ماده(هيچ) بوجود بياره بايد بتونه براي اثباتش از ماده كمك بگيره... اگر هم نه پس نشانه ي عدم وجود چنين موجودي هست. غير ماده اول بايد اثبات بشه... وقتي روشن شد غير ماده يعني چي به طوريكه همه متوجه بشن اونوقت بحث ميشه. نه اينكه شما از يك چيزي استفاده كنين كه وجودش اثبات نشده و اصلا مشخص نيست كه چيه. اول اثبات

راهی برای اثبات خدا به آن صورتی که شما میخواهید وجود ندارد.اگر وجود داشت که دیگر این همه حرف بمیان نمیآمد.مگر ممکن است این همه دانشمند، در مقابل یک نکته ی اثبات شده و مشخص قرار بگیرند!
بنده هر چه فکر میکنم به این نتیجه میرسم که خدا در اصل میخواسته است پنهان بماند.مگر نه، برای اینکه نشان دهد هست لازم نبود راههایی را انتخاب کند که مجبور باشیم با صدها رمز گشایی (و آنهم نه به صورت قاطع) به وجودش پی ببریم.(شما تصور کنید خدایی هستید (نه با قدرت خدایی که در نظر دارند قدرتمند ترین است) آیا راههای ساده تری برای اینکه بگویید هستم، وجود ندارد؟آیا واقعا همین راهها را انتخاب میکردید؟)
حالا در این میان کسانی آمده اند و سعی دارند با ترکیب علوم مختلف چیزی سر هم کنند و بگویند این هم دلیل وجود خدا(که صد البته مشخص است که بسیاری از این مطالب جز چرندیات، چیز دیگری نیستند(که نه خدا را فایده است و نه خلق خدا را! اگر خدا میخواست بگوید هستم به شما ها نیازی نداشت که شده اید کاسه ی داغتر از آش!).فردا که خلاف حرفشان ثابت شود، میروند چیز دیگری سرهم میکنند :)) )

See also: Reaction to Darwin's theory
A satirical 1871 image of Charles Darwin as an ape reflects part of the social controversy over whether humans and apes share a common lineage.
Publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859 brought scientific credibility to evolution, and made it a respectable field of study.[13]
There was intense interest in the religious implications of Darwin's book, but the Church of England's attention was largely diverted by theological controversy over higher criticism set out in Essays and Reviews by liberal Christian authors, some of whom expressed support for Darwin, as did many nonconformists. The Reverend Charles Kingsley openly supported the idea of God working through evolution. However, many Christians were opposed to the idea and even some of Darwin's close friends and supporters including Charles Lyell and Asa Gray could not accept some of his ideas.[14] Thomas Huxley, who strongly promoted Darwin's ideas while campaigning to end the dominance of science by the clergy, coined the term agnostic to describe his position that God’s existence is unknowable, and Darwin also took this position,[14] but evolution was also taken up by prominent atheists including Edward Aveling and Ludwig Büchner and criticised, in the words of one reviewer, as "tantamount to atheism."[15] Following the lead of figures such as St. George Jackson Mivart and John Zahm Catholics in the United States were accepting of evolution itself while ambivalent towards natural selection and stressing humanity's divinely imbued soul.[16] Though evolution was never condemned by the church, initially the more conservative leaning Catholic leadership in Rome held back but gradually adopted a similar position.[16][17]
Creationists during this period were largely premillennialists, whose belief in Christ's return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.[18] However, they were not as concerned about geology, freely granting scientists any time they needed before the Garden of Eden to account for scientific observations, such as fossils and geological findings.[19] In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth or the progressive nature of the fossil record.[20] Likewise, few attached geological significance to the Biblical flood, unlike subsequent creationists.[20] Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually willing either to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or to allow that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days

he creation-evolution controversy originated from Europe and North America in the late 18th century when discoveries in geology led to various theories of an ancient earth, and fossils showing past extinctions prompted early ideas of evolution, notably Lamarckism. In England these ideas of continuing change were seen as a threat to the fixed social order, and were harshly repressed. Conditions eased, and in 1844 the controversial Vestiges popularised transmutation of species. The scientific establishment dismissed it scornfully and the Church of England reacted with fury, but many Unitarians, Quakers and Baptists opposed to the privileges of the Established church favoured its ideas of God acting through laws.]