Difference between revisions of "Creationism" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
m (Robot: Remove date links)
 
(102 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{Contracted}}
+
{{Ebapproved}}{{Paid}}{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{copyedited}}{{2Copyedited}}
  
−
[[Image:Creation of Light.png|thumb|right|200px|"The Creation of Light" by [[Gustave Doré]].]]
+
'''Creationism,''' in its most widely used sense, is a set of [[religion|religious]] positions opposed to modern [[materialism|materialistic]] views of the origin of the [[Earth]] and of [[life|living things]]. In a different and much older sense, creationism is a particular theological position on the origin of the human [[soul]]. Both senses are described here.
−
<!--***********************************************************************
 
−
----This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed.-----------------*
 
−
----Please read this article's TALK PAGE discussion before making---------*
 
−
----substantial changes.--------------------------------------------------*
 
−
************************************************************************—>
 
−
'''Creationism''' at its core is the belief that all humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was [[creation (theology)|created]] by a [[deity|supreme being]] (often referred to as [[God]]<ref>http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861671003 Encarta World English Dictionary [North American Edition], "creationism", accessed [[September 26]], 2006</ref>) or by other forms of [[supernatural]] intervention. Taken further, creationism is the belief in a literal interpretation of specific religious works referring to God creating the universe.<ref>http://www.wordreference.com/definition/creationism WordReference.com, "creationism"</ref><ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=creationism Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, "creationism"</ref>  This latter sense is often referred to as "strict creationism".<ref>For example, ''The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism'' by Ronald L. Numbers, ''Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism'' by Philip Kitcher</ref>
 
  
−
This divine intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing ([[ex nihilo]]) or the (re)-emergence of order from pre-existing chaos (''[[demiurge]]''). Various forms of creationism are found; principally in religions of the [[Abrahamic religion|Abrahamic faiths]] such as [[Christianity]], and in some [[Dharmic religion|Dharmic faiths]] such as [[Hinduism]], although such beliefs can be found in many other theistic religions. In modern usage, the term ''creationism'' has come to be most strongly associated with the brand of conservative [[fundamentalist Christianity|Christian fundamentalism]] which rejects various aspects of [[evolution]], [[geology]], [[Physical cosmology|cosmology]], and other natural sciences that address the origins of the natural world.
+
In the first sense, creationism (not to be confused with the doctrine of [[creation]]) has various meanings. Most broadly, it can mean simply that the universe was divinely created. Somewhat more specifically, it can also mean that life on Earth was divinely created. Even [[Charles Darwin]] (1809-1882) could have been called a "creationist" in this second meaning, since he concluded ''The Origin of Species'' (after the first edition) with the statement that life was “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” But Darwin believed that the evolution of living things after their initial creation could be explained without God’s further involvement,<ref>P.J. Bowler, ''Evolution: The History of an Idea,'' 3rd ed. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003, ISBN 0520236939).</ref> and “creationist” is usually used to describe someone who rejects this aspect of Darwin’s theory of [[evolution]].
  
−
Many who believe in a supernatural creation consider the idea to be an aspect of religious [[faith]] compatible with, or otherwise unaffected by, scientific descriptions. However, "''creationism''" in common usage typically connotes a religious, political, and social campaign&mdash;for instance, in [[creation and evolution in public education|education]]&mdash;to assert the dominance or widespread acceptance of a spiritual view of nature and of humanity's place in it. This view is in direct conflict with certain interpretations of the [[scientific method]] or [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]] that are rejected by such creationists as [[materialism|materialistic]], [[secularism|secular]], or even [[antireligion|antireligious]].
+
In the second sense, Christian theologians have debated for centuries whether the human soul is created directly by [[God]] (“creationism”) or produced by human parents (“traducianism”). The former is more consistent with the immaterial and eternal nature of the soul, while the latter makes it easier to explain the transmission of [[original sin]].
 +
{{toc}}
 +
In modern controversies over cosmic and biological origins, creationism takes two general forms: '''Old-Earth creationism (OEC)''' and '''young-Earth creationism (YEC)'''. The former infers from evidence in nature that the Earth is many millions of years old, and it interprets [[Genesis]] to mean that God created the universe and living things through a long process of change. The latter interprets Genesis to mean that God created the universe and living things in a short time (usually six 24-hour days) a few thousand years ago, and it regards the natural evidence as compatible with this interpretation. [[United States|U.S.]] courts have ruled that creationism is a religious view that cannot be taught in public school science courses, though polls show that most Americans subscribe to some form of it. Creationism is often confused with [[intelligent design]], but there are significant differences between them.
  
−
Those who hold strict creationist views reject scientific theories that they feel contradict their religious texts. Most notable is the rejection of the [[scientific consensus]]<ref>{{cite news | first=PZ | last=Myers | authorlink=PZ Myers | title=Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? | date=2006-06-18 | publisher=scienceblogs.com | url =http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php | work =Pharyngula | pages = | accessdate = 2006-11-18}}</ref><ref>National Association of Biology Teachers [http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp Statement on Teaching Evolution]</ref><ref>[http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the [[United Kingdom|United Kingdom's]] [[Royal Society]] (PDF file)</ref><ref>From the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], the world's largest general scientific society: [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] (PDF file), [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws]</ref> on evolution and [[common descent]] by most creationists. They do not accept [[abiogenesis]] and often also reject the scientific consensus regarding the [[Age of the Earth|geologic history of the Earth]], [[solar nebula|formation of the solar system]], and [[Big Bang|origin of the universe]]. Creationism is also separate from, and should not be confused with the separate Christian tradition of "[[Creation Spirituality]]" which draws upon the theology of [[Matthew Fox (priest)|Matthew Fox]].
+
==Old-Earth creationism (OEC)==
−
{{creationism2}}
+
Before 1800, Western scientists generally took for granted the chronology of the first chapters of [[Genesis]], which describe the creation of the universe in six days, and of biblical genealogies that seemed to establish the creation of human beings about six thousand years ago. (In the seventeenth century, Church of Ireland Archbishop [[James Ussher]] [1581-1656] used the [[Bible]] to calculate that the universe had been created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.) With the rise of modern [[geology]] in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, however, Christians began to reinterpret biblical chronology to accommodate growing evidence that the Earth was much older than six thousand years.<ref>C.C. Gillispie, ''Genesis and Geology: The Impact of Scientific Discoveries upon Religious Beliefs in the Decades Before Darwin'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951, ISBN 0674344812).</ref>
  
−
==Overview==
+
In the nineteenth century, there were two common ways of interpreting scripture in the light of geological evidence. The first was the '''“gap” theory,''' according to which the original creation of "the heavens and the Earth" recorded in Genesis 1:1 was followed by an indefinitely long interval before the subsequent days described in Genesis 1:2-2:3. The second was the '''“era”''' or '''“day-age” theory,''' according to which the days of Genesis represented periods of indefinite duration.<ref>J.R. Moore, "Geologists and Interpreters of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century,” in D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers (eds.), ''God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science'' (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986, ISBN 0520056922).</ref>
−
The term creationism is most often used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the book of [[Genesis]] (for  both [[Judaism|Jews]] and [[Christianity|Christians]]) or the [[Qur'an]] (for [[Islam|Muslims]]). The terms creationism and creationist have become particularly associated with beliefs conflicting with the Theory of evolution by mechanisms acting on [[genetic variation]]. This conflict is most prevalent in the [[United States]], where there has been sustained [[creation-evolution controversy]] in the public arena, centering over the issue of the science curriculum in public schools. Many adherents of the Abrahamic denominations, however, believe in divine creation and accept evolution by natural selection, as well as, to a greater or lesser extent, scientific explanations of the origins and development of the [[universe]], the [[Earth]], and [[life]] &ndash; such beliefs have been given the name "[[theistic evolution]]","evolutionary creationism" or "progressive creationism".  
 
  
−
In a Christian context, many creationists adopt a [[literal]] interpretation of the Biblical creation narratives, and say that the Bible provides a factual account, given from the perspective of the only one who was there at the time to witness it: [[God]]. They seek to harmonize [[science]] with what they believe to be an eye-witness account of the origin of things (see [[Young Earth Creationism]], for example). Opponents argue that this throws doubt upon [[scientific evidence]] as an [[empirical]] source for information on [[natural history]], questioning the scientific nature of the literalistic Biblical view. Creationists take the position that neither theory is verifiable in the scientific sense, and that the scientific evidence conforms more closely to the creation model of origins than it does to the evolutionary model. <ref> see e.g. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/12/12_1a1.html or http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08%2003.PDF page 2, or http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2001/cm0605.pdf page 1</ref>
+
When [[Charles Darwin]] published ''The Origin of Species,'' in 1859, it generated considerable controversy, but not over the age of the Earth. Many critics rejected Darwin’s [[evolution#theory of natural selection|theory of natural selection]] on strictly scientific grounds, and most nineteenth century creationists who rejected it on religious grounds did not rely on biblical chronology. For example, Princeton geologist Arnold Guyot (1807-1884) and Canadian geologist John William Dawson (1820-1899) accepted the evidence pointing to an old Earth but rejected Darwin's theory in favor of a progressive form of evolution in which human beings were created by God. Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878) criticized Darwin's theory of unguided evolution because it denied the doctrines of creation and providence, not because it contradicted a literal reading of Genesis.<ref>J.R. Moore, ''The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America 1870-1900'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, ISBN 0521285718). </ref>
  
−
Almost all churches teach that God created the cosmos. Most contemporary Christian scholars from mainstream churches, such as [[Roman Catholic]], [[Anglican]] and [[Lutheran]], reject reading the Bible as though it could shed light on the physics of creation instead of the spiritual meaning of creation. The [[Roman Catholic]] Church now explicitly accepts the theory of Evolution <ref> see eg [[John Paul II]] address here [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm] </ref>, as do pretty well all [[Anglican]] scholars Of which Rev Dr [[John Polkinghorne]] [[FRS]] is a paradigm, arguing that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier examples of this attitude include [[Frederick Temple]], [[Asa Gray]] and [[Charles Kingsley]] who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories on publication<ref> see eg [[John Polkinghorne]]'s ''Science and Theology'' pp6-7</ref>, and the French Jesuit priest and [[geology|geologist]] [[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin]], saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his more speculative theories. Another example is that of [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal theology]], which assumes that Genesis is a poetic work, and that just as human understanding of God increases gradually over time, so does the understanding of His creation. In fact, both Jews and Christians have been considering the idea of the [[Allegorical interpretations of Genesis|creation history as an allegory]] (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. Two notable examples are [[Saint Augustine]] ([[4th century]]) that, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, (and not in seven days as a plain account of Genesis would require) <ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html Davis A. Young, "THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF AUGUSTINE'S VIEW OF CREATION" (From: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40.1:42-45 (3/1988)), The American Scientific Affiliation</ref>; and the [[1st century]] Jewish scholar [[Philo of Alexandria]], who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time. <ref>http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html ''The Works of Philo Judaeus'', Chapter 2, translated by Charles Duke Yonge</ref>  
+
Like Guyot, Dawson, and Hodge, most creationists in the first decades of the twentieth century accepted the geological evidence for an old Earth. In 1909, the widely used ''Scofield Reference Bible'' promoted the gap theory. Geologist George Frederick Wright (1838-1921), who contributed an essay titled “The Passing of Evolution,” to ''The Fundamentals'' (from which “Fundamentalism” gets its name), advocated the day-age theory. Baptist clergyman [[William Bell Riley]] (1861-1947), who founded the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA) in 1919, said there was no “intelligent fundamentalist who claims that the Earth was made six thousand years ago; and the Bible never taught any such thing.” Riley, like Wright, defended the day-age theory. So did [[William Jennings Bryan]] (1860-1925), who prosecuted [[John Scopes]] in 1925 for teaching that humans descended from lower animals. Creationist Harry Rimmer (1890-1952), who served for years as field secretary for Riley’s WCFA, disagreed with Riley on the age issue, but only because Rimmer preferred the gap theory to the day-age theory.<ref>R.L. Numbers, ''The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006, ISBN 0674023390).</ref>
  
 +
When young-Earth creationism emerged in the U.S. in the 1930s, the Evolution Protest Movement (EPM) was formed in Britain by electrical engineer [[John A. Ambrose]] (1849-1945), submariner Bernard Acworth (1885-1963), and barrister Douglas Dewar (1875-1957). The EPM took no official position on the interpretation of biblical chronology, though it consisted largely of old-Earth creationists.<ref>Numbers (2006), chapter 8.</ref> (In 1980, the EPM became a young-Earth organization and changed its name to the Creation Science Movement.)<ref>Creation Science Movement (CSM), [http://www.csm.org.uk/whoweare.php?PHPSESSID=1c60ba1dbfbda2b5eab2a2cb91257cc4 Who we are,] ''Creation Science Movement'' (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref> In the [[United States]], evangelical scientists formed the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) in 1941, as a forum to discuss issues on which “there is honest disagreement between Christians.” Although the ASA believed in “the divine inspiration, trustworthiness, and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct,” it did “not take a position” on the creation-evolution controversy.<ref>American Scientific Affiliation, [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/faithASA.html What does the ASA believe?] ''American Scientific Affiliation'' (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref> Nevertheless, the ASA soon became dominated by old-Earth progressive creationists and theistic evolutionists who were critical of young-Earth creationism.<ref>Numbers (2006), chapter 9.</ref> (Progressive creation and theistic evolution are varieties of old-Earth creationism; although the terms have been used in various ways, the first usually refers to the view that God has acted by periodically intervening in the history of the universe or of living things, while the second usually refers to the view that God has acted through an unbroken chain of natural causes.)
  
−
However, many believers in a literal interpretation argue that once a poetic view of the creation account in [[Genesis]] is adopted, one begins to question the historicity of other central topics of that book. Furthermore, the liberal approach suggests, sometimes outright, that [[Jesus]] as seen in the New Testament, or the writers of the Bible, had a mistaken understanding of the reliability of the Bible, and erroneously believed the book of Genesis to be literal history: a proposition that, if adopted, could have radical implications for Christian faith and the reliability of the Bible. {{fact}}
+
In 1986, astronomer Hugh Ross founded Reasons to Believe (RTB), a Christian ministry dedicated to showing that science and faith are “allies, not enemies,” and to communicating “the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the error-free Word of God.” RTB accepts the evidence for an old Earth and interprets the days in Genesis as long periods of time, but it rejects Darwinism and theistic evolution on the grounds that “God has miraculously intervened throughout the history of the universe in various ways millions, possibly even billions, of times to create each and every new species of life on Earth.”<ref>Reasons to Believe, [http://www.reasons.org/about/index.shtml About us] (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref>
  
 +
==Young-Earth creationism (YEC)==
 +
In the 1850s, American businessmen (and brothers) Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David N. Lord (1792-1880) published books maintaining that creation had occurred in six 24-hour days about six thousand years ago. During the same decade, British preacher and [[biology|biologist]] Philip H. Gosse (1810-1888) published ''Omphalos,'' in which he argued that even if the Earth were very young, God would have had to create it with the appearance of great age.
  
−
==Political context==
+
It was not until after the turn of the century, however, that self-educated American geologist [[George McCready Price]] (1870-1963) became the first widely influential advocate of young-Earth creationism. As a Seventh Day Adventist, Price held to a literal six-day creation and rejected both the gap theory and day-age theory. Price also attributed the [[fossil]] record and many features of the Earth’s surface to Noah’s flood. He called his view “flood geology” and maintained that it resolved “every major problem in the supposed conflict between modern science and modern Christianity.” The publication of his book, ''The New Geology,'' in 1923, stimulated the rise to prominence of young-Earth creationism in the twentieth century.<ref>Numbers (2006), p. 97.</ref>
−
[[Image:Truth fish.JPG|thumb|right|The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the Darwin fish.]]
 
−
{{main|Creation-evolution controversy|Creation science}}
 
−
In the secular sense, "creationism" refers to a [[politics|political doctrine]] which asserts the validity and superiority of a particular religiously-based origin belief over those of other [[belief systems]], including those in particular espoused through secular or scientific rationale (see [[Creation-evolution controversy]]). The meaning of the term "creationism" depends upon the context wherein it is used, as it refers to a particular origin belief within a particular political culture.
 
  
−
In the [[United States]], more so than in the rest of the world, creationism has become centered in political controversy, in particular over [[public education]], and whether teaching evolution in science classes conflicts unfairly with the creationist worldview. Currently, the controversy has come in the form of whether advocates of the [[Intelligent Design movement]] who wish to "[[Teach the Controversy]]" in science classes have overstepped the boundaries of [[separation of church and state]].<ref>[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005]</ref>
+
Price, together with erstwhile Pentecostal [[Dudley J. Whitney]] (1883-1964) and conservative Lutheran [[Byron C. Nelson]] (1893-1972), formed the Religion and Science Association (RSA) in 1935. Price put the RSA on record as condemning the gap and day-age theories and upholding flood geology, but within two years the organization was torn apart by disagreements over the interpretation of scripture and the age of the Earth. In 1938, Price and other Seventh Day Adventists started the Deluge Geology Society (DGS) to promote the view that creation took “six literal days, and that the Deluge should be studied as the cause of the major geological changes since creation.”<ref>Numbers (2006), p. 137.</ref>
  
−
[[Creation Science]] is a branch of creationism that aims to reconcile modern science with a creationist worldview. Advocates of [[Creation Science]] believe that scientific evidence best supports the [[Bible|Biblical]] account of [[creation]]. The scientific status of [[Creation Science]] is disputed by most of the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]] because Creation Science begins with a desired answer and attempts to interpret all evidence to fit in with this predetermined conclusion. According to the [[scientific method|methodological]] [[Demarcation problem|demarcation]] principle of the [[Critical rationalism|rationalistic]] [[Falsifiability|falsificationism]], justified by [[Karl Popper]] as a [[philosophy of science]] and broadly supported by scientists, scientific theories need to be falsifiable. Opponents of Creation Science see this as in direct conflict with the assumption that the literal interpretation of the Bible is absolutely true and cannot be refuted even in principle.  
+
Flood geologists were divided on the origin of new species, or “[[speciation]].” Price and Nelson maintained at one point that all species were created by God in the beginning, but Whitney, backed by Adventist Harold W. Clark (1891-1986), argued for subsequent speciation within the basic “kinds” described in Genesis. In the early 1940s, young-Earth creationist [[Frank L. Marsh]] (1899-1992) sided with Whitney and Clark and coined the word “baramin” from Hebrew words meaning “created” and “kind.”<ref>Numbers (2006), p. 150.</ref> Young-Earth creationists engaged in “baraminology” now analyze living species with the goal of classifying them into their created kinds.<ref>T.C. Wood, [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm The current status of baraminology,] ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'' 43(2006): 149-158. Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref>
  
−
The most widely accepted [[Postmodern philosophy|postmodern]] [[Irrationalism|irrationalistic]] [[philosophy of science]] was proposed by [[Thomas Kuhn]] and contrasts this rationalistic view. He held that only such theories are accepted (by [[paradigm shift]]) that show a ''superior ability to solve problems''. The scientific consensus is that this is not the case for either creation science or intelligent design{{fact}}. Yet, Kuhn's philosophy was partly welcomed and embraced by creation science and intelligent design proponents, since it lacks universal methodological rules that could rule out their views from science{{fact}}. This intentional and inherent provision has been a frequent cause of attack and criticism on Kuhn's philosophy, especially by those opposing [[relativism]]. (See [[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions#Relevance of SSR|Relevance of ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'']] for details.)
+
By the mid-1940s, the DGS (like the RSA before it) fell victim to disagreements over scriptural interpretation and the age of the Earth. In 1958, the Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) was founded in Loma Linda, California by the Seventh Day Adventist church, which believes that the creation week occurred in the relatively recent past.<ref>Geoscience Research Institute (GRI), [http://www.grisda.org/about.htm About us,] (2005). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref> At about the same time, two Christians who were not Adventists, Bible teacher John C. Whitcomb and engineer Henry M. Morris (1918-2006), teamed up to write ''The Genesis Flood,'' which defended a literal six-day creation and attributed much of the Earth's geology to a worldwide flood.<ref>J.C. Whitcomb and H. M. Morris, ''The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications'' (P& R Publishing, 1960, ISBN 0875523382).</ref> The authors based their argument partly on the grounds that [[fossil]]-bearing rock strata could have been produced only after death was introduced by the fall of [[Adam and Eve]]. Although they cited scientific evidence to support their views, Whitcomb and Morris insisted that the real issue “is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word.”<ref>Numbers (2006), p. 232.</ref>
  
−
==History==
+
In 1963, Morris joined with geneticist [[Walter E. Lammerts]] (1904-1996) and several others to form the Creation Research Society (CRS).<ref>Creation Research Society, [http://www.creationresearch.org/about_crs.htm About CRS] (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref> The same year, Lutheran pastor Walter Lang (1913-2004) started the ''Bible-Science Newsletter'' to promote young-Earth creationism.<ref>Creation Moments (formerly the Bible-Science Association), [http://www.creationmoments.com/about/ About us] (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref> In the early 1970s, Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) near San Diego, California, and [[biochemistry|biochemist]] (and ICR staff member) Duane T. Gish published a best-selling book defending flood geology, ''Evolution: The Fossils Say No!'' In 1974, Morris published ''Scientific Creationism,'' which came in two versions: One for public schools that omitted biblical references, and another for Christian schools that included a chapter on the Bible.<ref>Numbers (2006).</ref>
−
{{main|History of creationism}}
 
−
The history of creationism is tied to the [[history of religions]]. Creationism in the West primarily had some of its earliest roots in [[Judaism]]. For example, [[Abraham ibn Ezra]]'s (c. 1089–1164) commentary on Genesis is greatly esteemed in traditional rabbinical circles and he was a creationist.
 
  
−
In the [[18th century|18th]] and [[19th century|19th]] centuries, [[natural history|naturalist]]s challenged the [[Biblical]] account of [[Creation theology|creation]] as to be in conflict with [[empiricism|empirical observations]] of [[natural history]] from [[science|scientific inquiry]]. Creationists consider their primary source to be the ancient [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] text describing [[creation according to Genesis]]. While the term ''creationism'' was not in common use before the late [[19th century]] they see themselves as being the philosophical and religious offspring of the traditions that held that text sacred.
+
Originally affiliated with Christian Heritage College, ICR became autonomous in 1981, when it received approval from the State of California to offer Master of Science degrees in Astronomy, Biology, Geology, and Science Education.<ref>Institute for Creation Research, [http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_history/ History] (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref>
  
−
The biblical account of history, [[cosmology]] and [[natural history]] was believed by [[Judaism|Jews]], [[Christianity|Christians]] and [[Islam|Muslims]]. But, both Jews and Christians have been considering the idea of the [[Allegorical interpretations of Genesis|creation history as an allegory]] (instead of an historical description) long before the beginning of modern history. <ref>[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith]</ref><ref>[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html Early Christian Writings]</ref> Most people in [[Europe]], the [[Middle East]] and other areas of the [[Islam]]ic world believed that a supreme being had existed and would exist [[eternal]]ly, and that everything else in existence had been created by this supreme being, known variously as [[God]], [[YHWH]], or [[Allah]].  This belief was based on the authority of [[Genesis]], the [[Qur'an]], and other ancient histories, which were held to be historically accurate and no systematic or scientific inquiry was made into the validity of the text.
+
Influenced by Whitcomb and Morris, physician Carl Wieland founded the Creation Science Association (CSA) in Australia in 1977. The CSA soon merged with another Australian group to form the Creation Science Foundation (CFI), the staff of which included geologist Andrew A. Snelling and science teacher Kenneth A. Ham. In 1984, Snelling started the organization’s ''Technical Journal,'' and in 1986, Ham was loaned to the ICR in California. In 1994, Ham left ICR and moved with his family to Kentucky to set up a new ministry, Answers in Genesis (AiG). In 2005, the Australian organization (with branches in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and elsewhere) was renamed Creation Ministries International (CMI). By 2006, AiG had collected $20 million for a planned Creation Museum in Kentucky.<ref>Creation Ministries International (CMI), [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/43/61/ Creation on the Web] (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref>
  
−
Islamic scholars preserved ancient [[Greece|Greek]] texts and developed their ideas, leading to the [[Renaissance]] which brought a questioning of [[Biblical cosmology]]. With [[the Enlightenment]] a variety of scientific and philosophical movements challenged traditional viewpoints in Europe and the Americas. [[Natural history]] developed with the aim of understanding God's plan, but found contradictions, which in revolutionary France were interpreted as science supporting [[evolution]]. Elsewhere, particularly in England, clerical naturalists sought explanations compatible with interpretations of biblical texts, anticipating many later creationist arguments.
+
==U.S. court decisions and public opinion polls==
 +
In 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly passed the Butler Act, which made it a crime for public school teachers to teach “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animal.” The [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU) offered to defend anyone accused of violating the law, and substitute teacher John T. Scopes (1900-1970) was persuaded to make himself a defendant. Old-Earth creationist [[William Jennings Bryan]] argued the case for the prosecution, and [[Clarence S. Darrow]] (1857-1938) argued the case for the defense. After a well-publicized trial, Scopes was convicted and the judge fined him $100. The ACLU appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, which declared the law valid but overturned the fine on the grounds that it had not been imposed by a jury.<ref>''The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes'' (July 21, 1925).</ref>
  
−
While the concept of an ancient earth became widely accepted, [[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of [[natural selection]] directly challenged belief in God's immediate involvement in creating [[species]], and in response Creationism arose as a distinct movement aiming to justify and reassert the literal accuracy of sacred texts, particularly the words of [[Genesis]].  
+
In 1928, the Arkansas legislature adopted a similar law that prohibited teaching in public schools “that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals.” In the 1960s, the Arkansas Education Association enlisted high school teacher Susan Epperson to challenge the law, and the case subsequently went all the way to the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]. In 1968, the Court decided in ''Epperson v. Arkansas'' that “the sole reason for the Arkansas law” was “that a particular religious group considers the evolution theory to conflict with the account of the origin of man set forth in the Book of Genesis.” The Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment mandate of “governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”<ref>U.S. Supreme Court, [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=393&invol=97 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968),] ''FindLaw'' (1968). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref>
  
−
The history of creationism has relevance to the [[creation-evolution controversy]]. Proponents of creationism claim that it has a rich heritage grounded in ancient recorded histories and consistent with scientific observation. Opponents describe creationism's offspring, [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]], as [[pseudoscience]]s and argue that these are reactionary movements against science.
+
Adopting a different strategy, creationist legislators enacted a 1981 Arkansas law that mandated “balanced treatment” of evolution and “creation science.” By “creation science,” the law meant a “relatively recent inception of the Earth and living kinds,” the “occurrence of a worldwide flood” that explained much of the Earth’s geology, changes only within “originally created kinds,” and the “separate ancestry” of humans and apes.<ref>Numbers (2006), 6-7, 272-279.</ref> Some Arkansas taxpayers, supported by the ACLU and various Christian and Jewish organizations, sued the Arkansas Board of Education. In 1982, a U.S. District Court held that “creation science” is actually [[religion]], and that the Arkansas law requiring it to be taught alongside evolution constituted “an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution.”<ref>''McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education,'' 529 F. Supp. (E. D. Ark. 1982).</ref>
  
−
==Types of creationism==
+
When Louisiana adopted a similar law, it was also challenged in a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1987. In ''Edwards v. Aguillard,'' the Court ruled that the law violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Although “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the [[human evolution|origins of humankind]] to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction,” a majority of the justices concluded that the “primary purpose” of the Louisiana law was “to endorse a particular religious doctrine” embodied in creation science, namely, “that a supernatural being created humankind.” Justices Scalia and Rehnquist dissented on the grounds that the Louisiana legislators had “specifically articulated the secular purpose they meant it to serve,” and the law could not be judged unconstitutional “by impugning the motives of its supporters.”<ref>U.S. Supreme Court, [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=482&invol=578 Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987),] ''FindLaw'' (1987). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref>
−
Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the broad types listed below. As a matter of popular belief and characterizations by the media, most people labeled "creationists" are those who object to specific parts of science for religious reasons, though many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science.
 
  
−
===Young Earth creationism===
+
Court decisions notwithstanding, several Gallup polls taken from 1982 to 2006 show that about 45 percent of [[United States|Americans]] believe that “God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” The same polls show that about another 38 percent of Americans believe that humans evolved “over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.”<ref>Pew Research Center, [http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=118 Reading the polls on evolution and creationism] (September 28, 2005). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref>
−
{{main|Young Earth creationism}}
 
−
The belief that the Earth was created by [[God]] within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in [[Creation according to Genesis|Genesis]], within the approximate timeframe of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the [[Ussher chronology]]).  (They may or may not believe that the [[Universe]] is the same age.)  It rejects not only [[radiometric dating|radiometric]] and [[isochron dating]] of the [[age of the Earth]], arguing that they are based on debatable assumptions, but also approaches such as [[ice core]] dating and [[dendrochronology]].  Instead, it interprets the geologic record largely as a result of a [[Noah's Ark|global flood]]. This view is held by many Protestant Christians in the USA, and by many [[Haredi Judaism|Haredi Jews]].  It is also estimated that 47% of Americans hold this view, and a little under 10% of Christian colleges teach it<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0131colleges.asp Creation crisis in Christian colleges]</ref>.  For Christian groups promoting this view, see the [[Institute for Creation Research]] (ICR), [[El Cajon, California]], USA, and the ''Creation Research Society'' (CRS), [[Saint Joseph, Missouri]], USA.  [[Answers in Genesis]] (AIG) Ministries based in the Greater Cincinnati area is currently constructing the first [[Answers in Genesis#The Creation Museum|Creation Museum]].
 
  
−
Because Young Earth creationists believe in the literal truth of the description in Genesis of divine creation of every "kind" of plant and creature during a week about 6,000 years ago, they dispute parts of [[evolution]] (specifically [[common descent|universal common descent]]) which describes all [[species]] developing from a common ancestor, independent of divine intervention, by [[mutation|gene mutation]] and [[natural selection]], over a much longer time.  
+
The 45 percent who believe God created humans within the last ten thousand years are certainly creationists, but not necessarily young-Earth creationists, since the Earth could be much older than the human species. The 38 percent who believe that humans evolved over millions of years with God's guidance are certainly not young-Earth creationists, but except for those who might reject the creationist label in favor of “theistic evolution,” they would count as old-Earth creationists. So even though creationism has been effectively prohibited in public schools for the past quarter century, a majority of Americans are still, technically, creationists. Although it should be noted that the supreme courts' decisions were likely intended to protect the minority of Americans who are not creationists.
  
−
====Modern geocentrism====
+
==Creationism and intelligent design==
−
{{main|Modern geocentrism}}
+
[[Intelligent design]] (ID) is sometimes confused with creationism, especially by people defending [[Darwinism|Darwinian evolution]]. Unlike creationism, however, ID neither bases its claims on the [[Bible]] nor identifies the designer as [[God]].
−
The view that God recently created a spherical world, and placed it in the center of the universe.  The [[Sun]], [[planets]] and everything else in the universe revolve around it.
 
  
−
====Omphalos hypothesis====
+
The most prominent OEC organization, at least in the U.S., has publicly distinguished its views from ID. While applauding the “efforts and integrity” of intelligent design advocates, Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe wrote in 2002: “Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars… The time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap.”<ref>H. Ross, [http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id More than intelligent design,] ''Facts for Faith'' Issue 10 (Pasadena, CA: Reasons to Believe, 2002). Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref>
−
{{main|Omphalos hypothesis}}
 
−
The Omphalos hypothesis argues that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created the [[Earth]] with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, and that therefore ''no'' evidence that we can see of the presumed [[Age of the Earth|age of the earth]] and [[age of the universe|universe]] can be taken as reliable.<ref>Gosse, Henry Philip, 1857. Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. J. Van Voorst, London
 
−
</ref> The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that [[starlight problem|appears to originate]] in far-off [[star]]s and [[galaxy|galaxies]].
 
  
−
====Creation science====
+
Two of the most prominent YEC organizations in the world have likewise distinguished their views from intelligent design. Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, “even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't work is because it is not the Biblical method.” According to Morris: “The evidence of intelligent design… must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting.”<ref>H.M. Morris, [http://www.icr.org/article/859/17/ Design is not enough!] ''Back to Genesis'' No. 127. (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999.) Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref> In 2002, Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis (AiG) criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, “left the Bible out of it” and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland explained that “AiG’s major ‘strategy’ is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations… [so] we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it.”<ref>C. Wieland, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design movement,] ''Answers in Genesis'' (2002). Retrieved April 25, 2007. </ref>
−
{{main|Creation science}}
 
−
The technical arm of the creationist movement, most adherents to creation science believe that God created the Earth only recently, and the scientific evidence supports their interpretation of scripture. Various claims of these creation scientists include such ideas as [[creationist cosmologies]] which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the destruction of the [[global flood]] recorded in [[Genesis]] (see [[flood geology]]), and explanations for the present [[biodiversity|diversity]] as a result of rapid degradation of the perfect [[genome]]s God placed in "[[created kinds]]" (see [[creation biology]]).
 
  
−
===Old Earth creationism===
+
Nevertheless, a U.S. District court in Pennsylvania ruled in 2005, that the constitutional prohibition against teaching creationism in public schools also applies to intelligent design.<ref>U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Memorandum opinion, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board, Case No. 04cv2688 (December 20, 2005),] ''U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania'' (2005). Retrieved April 25, 2007. </ref> For details, including criticisms of the decision, see the entry on [[intelligent design]].
−
{{main|Old Earth creationism}}
 
−
The view that the [[universe|physical universe]] was created by God, but that the creation event of Genesis is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally believes that the [[age of the Universe]] and the [[age of the Earth]] are as described by [[astronomers]] and [[geologists]], but that details of the [[evolutionary theory]] are questionable.
 
  
−
Old-Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:
+
==Origin of the soul==
 +
Early Christian thinkers had several different opinions about the origin of the human soul. [[Tertullian]], a third-century Latin [[theology|theologian]], maintained that after God first breathed a soul into Adam each subsequent soul was generated by human parents in the same act that produces the body. After the fall, the descendants of [[Adam and Eve]] still had free will but inherited original sin as a stain on the soul. Tertullian’s view was known as “traducianism.”
  
−
====Gap creationism====
+
[[Origen]], a third century Greek theologian, taught that souls pre-exist their bodies&mdash;a teaching that was compatible with the Manichaen view of bodies as inherently evil and was later formally condemned by the church. Other Greek and Latin theologians taught instead that each soul is created independently by God when the body is physically produced by its parents, a view known as “creationism.” This view was held by Pelagius, who maintained that we are all born sinless but become sinful when we succumb to the evil circumstances that surround us. For Pelagius, Christ was merely an example of how all can save themselves if we act morally.
−
{{main|Gap creationism}}
 
−
Also called "Restitution creationism" this is the view that life was immediately created on a pre-existing old Earth. This group generally translates Genesis 1:2 as "The earth ''became'' without form and void," indicating a destruction of the original creation by some unspecified cataclysm. This was popularized in the ''[[Scofield Reference Bible]]'', but has little support from Hebrew scholars.
 
  
−
====Day-age creationism====
+
In opposition to Pelagius, [[Augustine of Hippo]] taught that people cannot save themselves because their souls are tainted with original sin, inherited from the fall of Adam and Eve, and that original sin can be removed only by Christ. [[Augustine]] regarded his view as more consistent with traducianism than creationism, though he never fully embraced the former or rejected the latter.<ref>J.N.D. Kelly, ''Early Christian Doctrines'' (New York: Harper & Row, 1978, ISBN 006064334X).</ref>
−
{{main|Day-Age Creationism}}
 
−
The view that the "six days" of [[Genesis]] are not ordinary twenty-four-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time). This theory often states that the [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] word "yôm", in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age." Some adherents claim we are still living in the seventh age ("seventh day").
 
  
−
====Progressive creationism====
+
Most later theologians, including the Roman Catholic [[Thomas Aquinas]] and the Calvinist Francis Turretin, defended creationism and rejected traducianism on various philosophical and theological grounds, though the issue was not completely resolved.<ref>F. P. Siegfried, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm Creationism,] ''The Catholic Encyclopedia,'' Volume IV (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908.) Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref>
−
{{main|Progressive creationism}}
 
−
The view that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operates (often leaving room for God's direct intervention at key moments in Earth/life's history).  This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the earth, but rejects much of modern evolutionary biology or looks to it for evidence that [[evolution]] by [[natural selection]] alone is incorrect. This view can be, and often is, held in conjunction with other Old-earth views such as Day-age creationism or framework/metaphoric/poetic views.
 
  
−
===Theistic evolution===
+
It may be that there is an element of truth in both creationism and traducianism: A soul is created with an original mind that reflects God’s image, but it is also tainted by original sin that is passed down from Adam and Eve. Philosophical views that accept some degree of continuity between matter and spirit can allow for the conception of a human soul through the joint action of God and the parents.  
−
{{main|Theistic evolution}}
 
−
Also known as "evolutionary creationism", this is the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about [[God]] and [[creation theology|creation]] are compatible with some or all of modern [[scientific]] [[scientific theory|theories]], including specifically [[evolution]].  It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, and can synthesize with gap or day-age creationism. Most adherents consider that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description.  It can still be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the [[origin of life]] or that divine Laws govern formation of species, but in the [[creation-evolution controversy]] its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. [[George Coyne]], (Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):
 
−
:''...in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense.  It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.''<ref>http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504</ref>
 
  
−
While supporting the [[naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]] inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some [[atheism|atheists]] that this gives credence to [[Ontology|ontological]] [[materialism]].  In fact, many modern philosophers of science<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/026216180X The Tower of Babel] by [[Robert T. Pennock]], [http://www.freeinquiry.com/naturalism.html Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry] by [[Steven D. Schafersman]], [http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/bleiter/001072.html The Leiter Reports], [http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/ntse182.htm Report on "Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise" conference], [http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/philosophy/0195138090/acprof-0195138090-chapter-12.html The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, 11: GOD, SCIENCE, AND NATURALISM] by [[Paul R. Draper]], [http://www.philosophynow.org/issue46/46pigliucci.htm Philosophy Now: The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory], [http://www.biology.uiowa.edu/ID.html Statement on Intelligent Design], [http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v6/n12/full/7400589.html Science and fundamentalism] by [[Massimo Pigliucci]], [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/naturalism.html Justifying Methodological Naturalism] by [[Michael Martin (philosopher)]]</ref>, including atheists,<ref>[http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=158 Butterflies and wheels article] by [[Raymond Bradley]], Emeritus Professor of Philosophy in New Zealand.</ref> refer to the long standing convention in the [[scientific method]] that [[observation|observable]] events in [[nature]] should be explained by natural causes, with the distinction that it does not assume the actual existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Among other things, it means that science does not deal with the question of the existence of a Creator, and argues neither for nor against it.
+
==Notes==
−
 
+
<references/>
−
Many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all, while on the other hand many scientists support such faiths which allow a voice to their spiritual side.
 
−
 
 
−
===Neo-Creationism===
 
−
{{main|Neo-Creationism}}
 
−
Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy.  Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the [[scientific community]].  It aims to re-frame the debate over the [[Origin belief|origins of life]] in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the scientific debate before the public.  One of its principal claims is that ostensibly [[Objectivity (science)|objective]] orthodox science is actually a dogmatically [[atheism|atheistic]] [[religion]].  Its proponents argue that the [[scientific method]] excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements.  This effectively excludes religious insight from contributing to understanding the [[universe]].  Neo-Creationists also argue that science, as an "atheistic enterprise", is at the root of many of contemporary society's ills (social unrest, family breakdown). The most recognized form of Neo-Creationism in the [[United States]] is the [[Intelligent Design movement]].  Unlike their philosophical forebears, Neo-Creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such a [[Young Earth creationism|young Earth]], or in a dogmatically [[Biblical inerrancy|literal interpretation of the Bible]].  Common to all forms of Neo-Creationism is a rejection of [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], usually made together with a tacit admission of [[supernaturalism]], and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "[[Darwinism]]", which generally is meant to refer to [[evolution]].
 
−
 
 
−
====Intelligent design====
 
−
{{main|Intelligent design}}
 
−
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the [[Discovery Institute]], a conservative Christian think tank [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200502/ai_n9521923], claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.
 
−
 
 
−
==Jewish creationism==
 
−
{{main|Judaism and evolution}}
 
−
 
 
−
Judaism has a continuum of views about creation, the origin of life and the role of evolution in the formation of species. The major [[Jewish denominations]], including many Orthodox Jewish groups, accept evolutionary creationism or theistic evolution. Reform and Conservative Judaism do not take the [[Torah]] as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work.  For Orthodox Jews who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, our own epistemological limits are to blame for any apparent irreconcilable point. They point to various discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear.  They point out to the fact that the even root word for "world" in the [[Hebrew language]] &mdash; עולם (oh•luhm) &mdash; means hidden.  Just as they believe God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their adult state, so too can they believe that the world was created in its "adult" state, with the understanding that there are, and can be, no physical ways to verify this.  This belief has been advanced by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, former philosophy professor at Johns Hopkins University. Also, relatively old Kabbalistic sources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the universe was first determined are in close concord with modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe, according to Rabbi [[Aryeh Kaplan]]. Other interesting parallels are brought down from, among other sources, [[Nachmanides]], who expounds that there was a [[Neanderthal]]-like species with which [[Adam and Eve|Adam]] mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).<ref>Aviezer, Nathan. In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science. Ktav, 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0-88125-328-6</ref><ref>Carmell, Aryeh and Domb, Cyril, eds. ''Challenge: Torah Views on Science'' New York: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists/Feldheim Publishers, 1976. ISBN 0-87306-174-8</ref><ref>Schroeder, Gerald L. ''The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom'' Broadway Books, 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X</ref><ref>Jeffrey H. Tigay, ''Genesis, Science, and "Scientific Creationism"'', Conservative Judaism, Vol. 40(2), Winter 1987/1988, p.20-27, The [[Rabbinical Assembly]]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
==Christian God as absolute origin==
 
−
Nearly all denominations of Christianity assert that God is the origin, the [[Cosmological argument|first cause]].  The [[Roman Catholic Church]] holds as an unchangeable tenet of Christian faith, that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Here, creation is described as an absolute beginning, which includes the assertion that the very existence of the universe is contingent upon a necessary higher being, [[God]], who is not Himself created.  Therefore the doctrine of biblical creation places the knowledge of God central in the pursuit of the knowledge of anything, for everything comes from God.  Nevertheless, this view does not mandate the concept of separate human creation; it says nothing about the mechanism by which any thing was created.
 
−
 
 
−
==Prevalence of creationism==
 
−
===United States===
 
−
[[Image:Creationist car.jpg|250px|right|thumb|Anti-evolution car in [[Athens, Georgia]]]]
 
−
According to a 2006 [[Gallup]] poll,<ref name="timespoll">See [http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm Americans Still Hold Faith In Divine Creation].</ref> about 46% of Americans believe in strict creationism, concurring with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," and 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution.  Only 13% believe that humans evolved over millions of years, without any supernatural intervention.  Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22% believe in strict creationism.<ref name="timespoll" />
 
−
 
 
−
In 1987, [[Newsweek]] reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who ascribed to Biblically literal creationism."<ref>{{cite news|publisher=[[Newsweek]]|date=[[June 29]], 1987|pages=23|title=Keeping God Out of the Classroom}}</ref><ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm US poll results - "Public beliefs about evolution and creation", religioustolerance.org</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
In 2000, a poll by the left wing <ref>See [http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6400].</ref> think-tank [[People For the American Way]] <ref>{{PDFlink|[http://media.pfaw.org/pdf/creationism/creationism-poll.pdf Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public Opinion]}}</ref> estimated that:
 
−
:20% of Americans believe public schools should teach evolution only;
 
−
:17% of Americans believe that only evolution should be taught in science classes &mdash; religious explanations should be taught in another class;
 
−
:29% of Americans believe that Creationism should be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory;
 
−
:13% of Americans believe that Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class;
 
−
:16% of Americans believe that only Creationism should be taught;
 
−
 
 
−
According to a study published in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult Americans who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48 to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). <ref name="Science survey">{{cite journal|journal=Science|date=[[11 August]] 2006|volume=313|issue=5788|pages=765-766|title=Public Acceptance of Evolution|id={{doi|10.1126/science.1126746}}}}</ref> (See the [http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg&cap=A+chart+showing+public+acceptance+of+evolution+in+34+countries.+The+United+States+ranked+near+the+bottom%2C+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit%3A+Science chart])
 
−
 
 
−
Less-direct [[anecdotal evidence]] of the popularity of creationism is reflected in the response of [[IMAX]] theaters to the availability of ''[[Volcanoes of the Deep Sea]]'', an IMAX film which makes a connection between human [[DNA]] and [[microbe]]s inside undersea [[volcano]]es. The film's distributor reported that the only U.S. states with theaters which chose not to show the film were [[Texas]], [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], [[North Carolina]], and [[South Carolina]]:
 
−
:We've got to pick a film that's going to sell in our area. If it's not going to sell, we're not going to take it," said the director of an IMAX theater in Charleston that is not showing the movie. "Many people here believe in creationism, not evolution." <ref>[http://www.artistsnetwork.org/news15/news708.html Evolution Reference Hurts Volcano Film]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
===The western world outside the United States===
 
−
Most vocal creationists are from the United States, and creationist views are much less common elsewhere in the western world.
 
−
 
 
−
According to a [[PBS]] documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that “five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.”  The documentary further states that “Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement.”  Taking these claims at face value, Young Earth Creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries.
 
−
 
 
−
In [[Europe]], creationism is a less well-defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available. However, evolution is taught as scientific fact in most schools. In countries with a [[Roman Catholic]] majority, [[pope|papal]] acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. In the [[United Kingdom]] the [[Emmanuel Schools Foundation]] (previously the Vardy Foundation), which runs three government-funded 13 to 19 schools in the north of England (out of several thousand in the country) and plans to open several more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid “faith positions”. One exam board (OCR) also specifically mentions and deals with creationism in its biology syllabus <ref>[http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1728235,00.html Exam board brings creationism into science class]</ref>. However, this deals with it as a historical belief and addresses hostility towards evolution rather than promoting it as an alternative to naturalistic evolution. Mainstream scientific accounts are still expressed as fact. In [[Italy]], former prime minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.<ref>[http://www2.onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/19/01/33/1901336.html We put the clock back a 1000 years (German language)]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
According to a study published in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', a survey over the United States, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.<ref name="Science survey"/> (See the [http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg&cap=A+chart+showing+public+acceptance+of+evolution+in+34+countries.+The+United+States+ranked+near+the+bottom%2C+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit%3A+Science chart])
 
−
 
 
−
Of particular note for [[Eastern Europe]], [[Serbia]] suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in 2004, under education minister [[Ljiljana Čolić]], only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/09/wdarw09.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/09/ixworld.html Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools]</ref> "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties" says the BBC report, Čolić's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive" and announced that the decision was reversed.
 
−
<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3642460.stm Serbia reverses Darwin suspension]</ref> Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3663196.stm 'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits]</ref> [[Poland]] saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006 when the deputy education minister, [[Mirosław Orzechowski]], denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education [[Roman Giertych]], has stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory." Giertych's father, [[Member of the European Parliament]] [[Maciej Giertych]], has however opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.<ref>"[http://www.wbj.pl/?command=article&id=35336&type=wbj And finally...]", Warsaw Business Journal, 18 December 2006.</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
In the [[United Kingdom]], it is notable that The Archbishop of Canterbury, and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, [[Rowan Williams]] views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake. <ref>[http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1735731,00.html]</ref>.  A 2006 poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolution theory and the rest did not know. The poll had the effect of reinforcing a [[culture war]] [[Creation-evolution controversy#False dichotomy|false dichotomy]] on the subject in an attempt by the news organization to demonstrate the extent of the controversy. As the poll lacked nuanced [[statistical survey|survey techniques]] and [[Creation-evolution controversy#Defining evolution|equivocated on origin definitions]] as well as forced participants to make choices as though there were only three options, its results do not necessarily indicate the views of the general public concerning mainstream science or religious alternatives.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm Britons unconvinced on evolution]</ref><ref>[http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/bbc-horizon.shtml BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
==Criticism of creationism==
 
−
===Scientific critique of creationism===
 
−
Since the origins of modern [[geology]] in the 18th and 19th centuries, forms of creationism have become increasingly separated from mainstream science. As modern science called into question the [[biblical literalism|literal interpretations]] of [[Creation according to Genesis|biblical account of creation in Genesis]], creationists (especially Young Earth creationists) began to actively oppose the [[scientific consensus]] on questions of origins.
 
−
 
 
−
There is a fundamental difference between the scientific approach to explaining the natural world and the creationist approach. The scientific approach uses the [[scientific method]] as a means of discovering information about nature. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of [[Theory#Science|scientific theories]]. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. This is a [[Meritocracy|meritocratic]] form of systematic enquiry, where the best ideas supported by evidence and positive experimental results survive. In principle, the scientific method does not seek answers that fit a certain pre-determined conclusion, but rather works to construct viable, testable, and provable theories based on a solid evidential foundation.  The evidential foundation therefore precludes any reference to revelation. 
 
−
 
 
−
Creationism, on the other hand, works by taking theologically conservative interpretations of scripture as the primary or only source of information about origins. Creationists believe that since the Creator created everything and also revealed scriptures, the scriptures have pre-eminence as a kind of evidence. Consistency with their interpretations of scripture is the measure by which they judge all other evidence. They then accept or reject scientific accounts based on whether or not they agree with their beliefs, discounting that which contradicts their understanding of scriptural revelation.  This perspective can be seen as a type of [[Luddite|luddism]] or [[anti-modernism]] since any seemingly opposing ideas are either ignored or dismissed. Those who oppose creationism point out that such positions are fundamentally unscientific and a hallmark of [[pseudoscience]]. Additionally, aspects of the scriptures which are not subject to scientific examination are not considered as reliable evidence to scientists.
 
−
 
 
−
Certain adherents to creationism have declared that there exist versions of creationism (namely [[creation science]]) that are based on the [[scientific method]]. It was such claims that were the basis for the legal arguments that creationism deserved equal-time in the science classroom. [[Scientific skepticism|Skeptical critics]] charge that creation science is not a theory that has come about through a systematic and scientific accumulation of evidence. It is predominantly based on the assumption of a literal interpretation of religious scripture and the emphasis of the authority of scripture over other sources of knowledge is evident in creation science literature.
 
−
 
 
−
All scientific [[theory|theories]] are [[falsifiability|falsifiable]]; that is, if evidence that contradicts any given theory comes to light, or if the theory is proven to no longer fit with the evidence, the theory itself is shown to be invalid and is either modified to be consistent with all the evidence or is discarded. Scientific theories can be (and often are) found to be incorrect or incomplete. Since creationism rests on an article of [[faith]], its construction assumes that the narrative accounts of origins can never be shown falsified, no matter how strong the evidence is to the contrary.
 
−
 
 
−
[[Modern synthesis|Evolutionary modern synthesis]] is the theory that fits all known biological and genetic evidence while being backed up by overwhelming evidence in the [[fossil record]]. Contrary to frequent claims by many opponents of the theory of evolution, [[transitional fossil]]s exist which show a gradual change from one species to another. Moreover, evolutionary selection has been observed in living species (evolution of resistance in bacteria is routinely produced in high school biology experiments, and for a macroscopic example, see “tuskless elephants” in [[elephant]]).
 
−
 
 
−
In the last ten years, [[DNA]] analysis techniques applied to many organisms have demonstrated the genetic relationship between all forms of known life (humans share 50% of their DNA with yeast, 96%<ref>[http://www.genome.gov/15515096 New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level]</ref> with chimpanzees). Even if the theory of evolution was disproved, this would not imply separate human creation, which is the main feature of creationism in the Abrahamic religions. It is exclusively in the public sphere, where [[Young Earth creationism|young Earth creationists]] (especially in the U.S.) have fought for recognition of their [[world view]], that the [[Creation-evolution controversy|debate about creationism and evolution]] continues.{{cn}}
 
−
 
 
−
===The Christian critique of creationism===
 
−
In "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the common view that [[life on Earth]] in all its forms is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes Phillip Johnson's claim that he is speaking "of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus." The basis of this theology is [[Isaiah]] 45:15, "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior." This verse inspired [[Blaise Pascal]] to write, "What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals himself." In the ''Heidelberg Disputation'', [[Martin Luther]] referred to the same Biblical verse to propose his "theology of the cross": "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened ... He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross." 
 
−
 
 
−
Luther opposes his [[Theology of the Cross|theology of the cross]] to what he called the "[[Theology of Glory|theology of glory]]":
 
−
:A theologian of glory does not recognize, along with the Apostle, the crucified and hidden God alone [I Cor. 2:2]. He sees and speaks of God's glorious manifestation among the heathen, how his invisible nature can be known from the things which are visible [Cf. Rom. 1:20] and how he is present and powerful in all things everywhere.
 
−
For Murphy, Creationists are modern-day theologians of glory. Following Luther, Murphy argues that a true Christian cannot discover God from clues in creation, but only from the crucified Christ.
 
−
 
 
−
Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by Roman authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require Divine action. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" Himself. It was for this reason that Paul wrote, in Philippians 2:5-8,
 
−
:Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
 
−
 
 
−
Murphy concludes that,
 
−
:Just as the son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on the cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws God has chosen.  This enables us to understand the world on its own terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation.
 
−
For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a ''methodological'' naturalism, meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a ''metaphysical'' naturalism, which proposes that nature is all that there is.<ref>Murphy, George L., 2002, "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem," in ''Covalence: the Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science, and Technology'' </ref>
 
−
 
 
−
In March 2006, Archbishop of Canterbury [[Rowan Williams]], the leader of the world's Anglicans, reported that he was opposed to teaching creationism in schools. "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it," Williams explained.  Archbishop Williams also explained that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." Williams's position is in line with that of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html '''The Guardian''', Archbishop: Stop teaching creationism, Williams backs science over Bible]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
==See also==
 
−
{{col-begin}}
 
−
{{col-2}}
 
−
* [[Abrahamic religions]]
 
−
* [[Adnan Oktar]]
 
−
* [[Allegorical interpretations of Genesis]]
 
−
* [[Biblical cosmology]]
 
−
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]
 
−
* [[Clockmaker hypothesis]]
 
−
* [[Cosmogony]]
 
−
* [[Cosmological argument]]
 
−
* [[Cosmology]]
 
−
* [[Creation evolution controversy]]
 
−
* [[Creation (mythology)]]
 
−
* [[Creation science]]
 
−
* [[Creation (theology)]]
 
−
* [[Creator deity]]
 
−
* [[Dating Creation]]
 
−
* [[Devolution (fallacy)|Devolution]]
 
−
{{col-2}}
 
−
* [[Deism]]
 
−
* [[Divine simplicity]]
 
−
* [[Evolution]]
 
−
* [[Evolution denial]]
 
−
* [[Existence]]
 
−
* [[Intelligent design]]
 
−
* [[Irreducible complexity]]
 
−
* [[Origin belief]]
 
−
* [[Natural theology]]
 
−
* [[Starlight problem]]
 
−
* [[Teleological argument]]
 
−
* [[Theism]]
 
−
* [[Watchmaker analogy]]
 
−
* [[William Paley]]
 
−
{{col-end}}
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
−
<div class="references-small">
+
*Alters, B. J. and S. M. Alters. ''Defending Evolution: A Guide to the Creation/Evolution Controversy''. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2001. ISBN 0763711187
−
<references/>
+
*Bowler, P.J. ''Evolution: The History of an Idea,'' 3rd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003. ISBN 0520236939
−
</div>
+
*Brand, L. and D.C. James. ''Beginnings: Are Science and Scripture Partners in the Search for Origins?'' Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing, 2005. ISBN 0816321442
−
 
+
*DeYoung, D. ''Thousands… Not Billions.'' Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005. ISBN 0890514410
−
==Additional References==
+
*Eldredge, N. ''The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism''. New York: Owl Books, 2001. ISBN 0805071474
−
* [[Ronald L. Numbers]]: ''The Creationists'' (University of California Press, 25. November 1993), 458pp, ISBN 0-520-08393-8
+
*Gillispie, C.C. ''Genesis and Geology''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951. ISBN 0674344812
−
* [[Bernhard Anderson|Anderson, Bernhard W.]] (editor) ''Creation in the Old Testament'' (ISBN 0-8006-1768-1)
+
*Ham, K. (ed). ''The New Answers Book''. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2007. ISBN 0890515093
−
* [[Bernhard Anderson|Anderson, Bernhard W.]] ''Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible'' (ISBN 1-59752-042-X)
+
*Larson, E.J. ''Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion''. New York: Basic Books, 1997. ISBN 0465075096
−
* [[Ian Barbour]] ''When Science Meets Religion'', 2000, Harper SanFrancisco
+
*Moore, J. R. ''The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America 1870-1900''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. ISBN 0521285178
−
* Ian Barbour ''Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues'', 1997, Harper SanFrancisco.  
+
*Numbers, R.L. ''The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. ISBN 0674023390
−
*[http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm  Bradshaw, Robert I.,  "The Early Church & the Age of the Earth"]
+
*Newman, R.C., and H. J. Eckelmann, Jr. ''Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth''. Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1989. ISBN 0944788971
−
* [[Stephen Jay Gould]] ''Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life'', Ballantine Books, 1999
+
*Perloff, J. ''The Case Against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined''. Refuge Books, 2002. ISBN 0966816013
−
* Scott, Eugenie C., 1999 (Jul/Aug). The creation/evolution continuum. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 19(4): 16-17,21-23.
+
*Pigliucci, M. ''Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science''. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2002. ISBN 0878936599
−
 
+
*Rana, F. ''Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man''. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress Publishing Group, 2005. ISBN 1576835774
−
==Further reading==
+
*Ross, H. ''The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God''. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress Publishing Group, 2001. ISBN 1576832880
−
* Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams ''In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah'', Tikkun, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 66-73
+
*Ross, H. ''Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars''. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress Publishing Group, 2006. ISBN 1576835782
−
* Aryeh Kaplan, ''Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View'', Ktav, NJ, in association with the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, NY, 1993
+
*Ruse, M. ''The Evolution-Creation Struggle''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. ISBN 0674016874
 +
*Sarfati, J. ''Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of 'Progressive Creationism' (Billions of Years) as popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross''. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004. ISBN 0890514119
 +
*Scott, E.C. ''Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction''. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004. ISBN 0520246500
 +
*Snoke, D.W. ''A Biblical Case for an Old Earth''. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006. ISBN 0801066190
 +
*Wise, K. P. ''Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe.'' Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2002. ISBN 0805424628
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
−
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
+
All links retrieved January 11, 2024.
−
<!-- overviews of creationism, i.e. all these links are similar because they describe the variety of viewpoints that have been described as creationist. —>
 
−
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com CreationOnTheWeb] A creation website for Creation Ministries International, an apologetics ministry that supports a 6-day biblical creation worldview
 
−
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/ Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Creationism]
 
−
* [http://www.howstuffworks.com/creationism.htm How creationism works]
 
−
* [http://www.harunyahya.com Muslim viewpoint]
 
−
* [http://www.darwinismrefuted.com Darwinism Refuted]
 
−
* [http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/creationevolutionboth.html Creation and Evolution Both?] Examines whether Biblical creation and neo-darwinistic evolution can be reconciled.
 
−
* [http://www.allviewpoints.org/RESOURCES/EVOLUTION/timeline.htm Evolution, Creationism & ID Timeline] Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate
 
−
* [http://images.derstandard.at/20051012/Evolution-and-Creationism.pdf Evolution and Creationism]. A Guide for Museum Docents (PDF)
 
−
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html What is creationism?] from [[talk.origins]]
 
−
* [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp The Creation/Evolution Continuum] by [[Eugenie Scott]].
 
−
*[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html Armies of the Night] by [[Isaac Asimov]].
 
−
*[http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6935/693551.html ''Workers have stake in defending science''] a [[Dialectical materialism|materialist]] statement on creationism by ''[[The Militant]]'', 2005.
 
−
* Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham ''Leading scientists still reject God'' in ''Nature,'' Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. Online at [http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/news/file002.html Freethought-web.org]
 
−
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html Creationism: The Hindu View]
 
−
</div>
 
  
−
===Organizations===
+
===Pro-OEC===
−
[[Talk.origins]] maintains an extensive list of [http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html general links relevant to creationism] and [http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-cre.html a full list of creationist websites]. The following are links to the main organizations espousing a variety of viewpoints:
+
* [http://www.reasons.org/ Reasons to Believe].
 +
* [http://www.oldearth.org/ Old Earth Ministries].  
  
−
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
+
===Pro-YEC===
−
'''Young Earth Creationism'''
+
* [http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research].
−
* [http://www.creationscience.com In the Beginning - Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood] By [[Walt Brown (creationist)|Walt Brown]]
+
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis].  
−
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis] A group promoting Young-Earth Creationism.
+
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/ Creation Research Society].  
−
* [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International] formerly Answers in Genesis. Headquarters in Australia
+
* [http://www.csm.org.uk/ Creation Science Movement].
−
* [http://worldwide.familyradio.org/zusa/graphical/literature/calendar/calendar_contents.html The Biblical Calendar of History]
+
* [http://www.trueorigin.org/ The True.Origin Archive].
−
* [http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research] "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry"
+
* [http://www.creationmoments.com/ Creation Moments].
−
* [http://www.creationresearch.org/ The Creation Research Society]
+
* [http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International].
−
* [http://www.trueorigin.org/ The True.Origin Archive]
+
* [http://www.grisda.org/ Geoscience Research Institute].  
−
* [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki]
+
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/Creationism Creationism] Conservapedia.
  
−
'''Old Earth Creationism'''
+
===Anti-Creationist===
−
* [http://www.reasons.org Reasons to Believe] led by [[Hugh Ross]]
+
* [http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16154res20020311.html American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)].
−
* [http://www.answersincreation.org Answers In Creation] led by [[Greg Neyman]]
+
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/ TalkOrigins].
 +
* [http://www.pandasthumb.org/ The Panda’s Thumb].
 +
* [http://www.talkreason.org/ Talk Reason].
 +
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/ The Secular Web].
  
−
'''Intelligent design'''
 
−
* [http://www.arn.org/ Access Research Network]
 
−
* [http://www.discovery.org/csc/ Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture]
 
  
−
''' Evolutionary creationism''' <!-- These are a bit thin on the ground. —>
+
[[category:Philosophy and religion]][[category:Religion]]
−
* [http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/religion/scifaith.html Faith of a scientist: a personal witness]
+
[[Category:Life sciences]]
 +
[[Category:Evolution]]
  
−
'''Evolution'''
+
{{template:Original}}
−
* [http://richarddawkins.net/foundation,ourMission Foundation For Reason And Science]
 
−
* [http://www.talkorigins.org talk.origins Archive]
 
−
* [http://www.ncseweb.org/ National Center for Science Education]
 
−
* [http://www.mineralogie.uni-wuerzburg.de/palbot/evolution/creationism.html Evolution Sciences versus Doctrines of Creationism and Intelligent Design] A pro-evolution or anti-creationism link directory
 
−
*[http://www.evowiki.org The EvoWiki]
 
−
</div>
 
−
 
 
−
{{credit|97336226}}
 
−
 
 
−
Also used: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_biology&oldid=26110527
 
−
Also used: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_science&oldid=26176026
 
−
 
 
−
[[category:Philosophy and religion]][[category:Religion]]
 
−
[[category:Life sciences]]
 

Latest revision as of 06:18, 11 January 2024


Creationism, in its most widely used sense, is a set of religious positions opposed to modern materialistic views of the origin of the Earth and of living things. In a different and much older sense, creationism is a particular theological position on the origin of the human soul. Both senses are described here.

In the first sense, creationism (not to be confused with the doctrine of creation) has various meanings. Most broadly, it can mean simply that the universe was divinely created. Somewhat more specifically, it can also mean that life on Earth was divinely created. Even Charles Darwin (1809-1882) could have been called a "creationist" in this second meaning, since he concluded The Origin of Species (after the first edition) with the statement that life was “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” But Darwin believed that the evolution of living things after their initial creation could be explained without God’s further involvement,[1] and “creationist” is usually used to describe someone who rejects this aspect of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

In the second sense, Christian theologians have debated for centuries whether the human soul is created directly by God (“creationism”) or produced by human parents (“traducianism”). The former is more consistent with the immaterial and eternal nature of the soul, while the latter makes it easier to explain the transmission of original sin.

In modern controversies over cosmic and biological origins, creationism takes two general forms: Old-Earth creationism (OEC) and young-Earth creationism (YEC). The former infers from evidence in nature that the Earth is many millions of years old, and it interprets Genesis to mean that God created the universe and living things through a long process of change. The latter interprets Genesis to mean that God created the universe and living things in a short time (usually six 24-hour days) a few thousand years ago, and it regards the natural evidence as compatible with this interpretation. U.S. courts have ruled that creationism is a religious view that cannot be taught in public school science courses, though polls show that most Americans subscribe to some form of it. Creationism is often confused with intelligent design, but there are significant differences between them.

Old-Earth creationism (OEC)

Before 1800, Western scientists generally took for granted the chronology of the first chapters of Genesis, which describe the creation of the universe in six days, and of biblical genealogies that seemed to establish the creation of human beings about six thousand years ago. (In the seventeenth century, Church of Ireland Archbishop James Ussher [1581-1656] used the Bible to calculate that the universe had been created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.) With the rise of modern geology in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, however, Christians began to reinterpret biblical chronology to accommodate growing evidence that the Earth was much older than six thousand years.[2]

In the nineteenth century, there were two common ways of interpreting scripture in the light of geological evidence. The first was the “gap” theory, according to which the original creation of "the heavens and the Earth" recorded in Genesis 1:1 was followed by an indefinitely long interval before the subsequent days described in Genesis 1:2-2:3. The second was the “era” or “day-age” theory, according to which the days of Genesis represented periods of indefinite duration.[3]

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, in 1859, it generated considerable controversy, but not over the age of the Earth. Many critics rejected Darwin’s theory of natural selection on strictly scientific grounds, and most nineteenth century creationists who rejected it on religious grounds did not rely on biblical chronology. For example, Princeton geologist Arnold Guyot (1807-1884) and Canadian geologist John William Dawson (1820-1899) accepted the evidence pointing to an old Earth but rejected Darwin's theory in favor of a progressive form of evolution in which human beings were created by God. Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878) criticized Darwin's theory of unguided evolution because it denied the doctrines of creation and providence, not because it contradicted a literal reading of Genesis.[4]

Like Guyot, Dawson, and Hodge, most creationists in the first decades of the twentieth century accepted the geological evidence for an old Earth. In 1909, the widely used Scofield Reference Bible promoted the gap theory. Geologist George Frederick Wright (1838-1921), who contributed an essay titled “The Passing of Evolution,” to The Fundamentals (from which “Fundamentalism” gets its name), advocated the day-age theory. Baptist clergyman William Bell Riley (1861-1947), who founded the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA) in 1919, said there was no “intelligent fundamentalist who claims that the Earth was made six thousand years ago; and the Bible never taught any such thing.” Riley, like Wright, defended the day-age theory. So did William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), who prosecuted John Scopes in 1925 for teaching that humans descended from lower animals. Creationist Harry Rimmer (1890-1952), who served for years as field secretary for Riley’s WCFA, disagreed with Riley on the age issue, but only because Rimmer preferred the gap theory to the day-age theory.[5]

When young-Earth creationism emerged in the U.S. in the 1930s, the Evolution Protest Movement (EPM) was formed in Britain by electrical engineer John A. Ambrose (1849-1945), submariner Bernard Acworth (1885-1963), and barrister Douglas Dewar (1875-1957). The EPM took no official position on the interpretation of biblical chronology, though it consisted largely of old-Earth creationists.[6] (In 1980, the EPM became a young-Earth organization and changed its name to the Creation Science Movement.)[7] In the United States, evangelical scientists formed the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) in 1941, as a forum to discuss issues on which “there is honest disagreement between Christians.” Although the ASA believed in “the divine inspiration, trustworthiness, and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct,” it did “not take a position” on the creation-evolution controversy.[8] Nevertheless, the ASA soon became dominated by old-Earth progressive creationists and theistic evolutionists who were critical of young-Earth creationism.[9] (Progressive creation and theistic evolution are varieties of old-Earth creationism; although the terms have been used in various ways, the first usually refers to the view that God has acted by periodically intervening in the history of the universe or of living things, while the second usually refers to the view that God has acted through an unbroken chain of natural causes.)

In 1986, astronomer Hugh Ross founded Reasons to Believe (RTB), a Christian ministry dedicated to showing that science and faith are “allies, not enemies,” and to communicating “the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the error-free Word of God.” RTB accepts the evidence for an old Earth and interprets the days in Genesis as long periods of time, but it rejects Darwinism and theistic evolution on the grounds that “God has miraculously intervened throughout the history of the universe in various ways millions, possibly even billions, of times to create each and every new species of life on Earth.”[10]

Young-Earth creationism (YEC)

In the 1850s, American businessmen (and brothers) Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David N. Lord (1792-1880) published books maintaining that creation had occurred in six 24-hour days about six thousand years ago. During the same decade, British preacher and biologist Philip H. Gosse (1810-1888) published Omphalos, in which he argued that even if the Earth were very young, God would have had to create it with the appearance of great age.

It was not until after the turn of the century, however, that self-educated American geologist George McCready Price (1870-1963) became the first widely influential advocate of young-Earth creationism. As a Seventh Day Adventist, Price held to a literal six-day creation and rejected both the gap theory and day-age theory. Price also attributed the fossil record and many features of the Earth’s surface to Noah’s flood. He called his view “flood geology” and maintained that it resolved “every major problem in the supposed conflict between modern science and modern Christianity.” The publication of his book, The New Geology, in 1923, stimulated the rise to prominence of young-Earth creationism in the twentieth century.[11]

Price, together with erstwhile Pentecostal Dudley J. Whitney (1883-1964) and conservative Lutheran Byron C. Nelson (1893-1972), formed the Religion and Science Association (RSA) in 1935. Price put the RSA on record as condemning the gap and day-age theories and upholding flood geology, but within two years the organization was torn apart by disagreements over the interpretation of scripture and the age of the Earth. In 1938, Price and other Seventh Day Adventists started the Deluge Geology Society (DGS) to promote the view that creation took “six literal days, and that the Deluge should be studied as the cause of the major geological changes since creation.”[12]

Flood geologists were divided on the origin of new species, or “speciation.” Price and Nelson maintained at one point that all species were created by God in the beginning, but Whitney, backed by Adventist Harold W. Clark (1891-1986), argued for subsequent speciation within the basic “kinds” described in Genesis. In the early 1940s, young-Earth creationist Frank L. Marsh (1899-1992) sided with Whitney and Clark and coined the word “baramin” from Hebrew words meaning “created” and “kind.”[13] Young-Earth creationists engaged in “baraminology” now analyze living species with the goal of classifying them into their created kinds.[14]

By the mid-1940s, the DGS (like the RSA before it) fell victim to disagreements over scriptural interpretation and the age of the Earth. In 1958, the Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) was founded in Loma Linda, California by the Seventh Day Adventist church, which believes that the creation week occurred in the relatively recent past.[15] At about the same time, two Christians who were not Adventists, Bible teacher John C. Whitcomb and engineer Henry M. Morris (1918-2006), teamed up to write The Genesis Flood, which defended a literal six-day creation and attributed much of the Earth's geology to a worldwide flood.[16] The authors based their argument partly on the grounds that fossil-bearing rock strata could have been produced only after death was introduced by the fall of Adam and Eve. Although they cited scientific evidence to support their views, Whitcomb and Morris insisted that the real issue “is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word.”[17]

In 1963, Morris joined with geneticist Walter E. Lammerts (1904-1996) and several others to form the Creation Research Society (CRS).[18] The same year, Lutheran pastor Walter Lang (1913-2004) started the Bible-Science Newsletter to promote young-Earth creationism.[19] In the early 1970s, Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) near San Diego, California, and biochemist (and ICR staff member) Duane T. Gish published a best-selling book defending flood geology, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! In 1974, Morris published Scientific Creationism, which came in two versions: One for public schools that omitted biblical references, and another for Christian schools that included a chapter on the Bible.[20]

Originally affiliated with Christian Heritage College, ICR became autonomous in 1981, when it received approval from the State of California to offer Master of Science degrees in Astronomy, Biology, Geology, and Science Education.[21]

Influenced by Whitcomb and Morris, physician Carl Wieland founded the Creation Science Association (CSA) in Australia in 1977. The CSA soon merged with another Australian group to form the Creation Science Foundation (CFI), the staff of which included geologist Andrew A. Snelling and science teacher Kenneth A. Ham. In 1984, Snelling started the organization’s Technical Journal, and in 1986, Ham was loaned to the ICR in California. In 1994, Ham left ICR and moved with his family to Kentucky to set up a new ministry, Answers in Genesis (AiG). In 2005, the Australian organization (with branches in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and elsewhere) was renamed Creation Ministries International (CMI). By 2006, AiG had collected $20 million for a planned Creation Museum in Kentucky.[22]

U.S. court decisions and public opinion polls

In 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly passed the Butler Act, which made it a crime for public school teachers to teach “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animal.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offered to defend anyone accused of violating the law, and substitute teacher John T. Scopes (1900-1970) was persuaded to make himself a defendant. Old-Earth creationist William Jennings Bryan argued the case for the prosecution, and Clarence S. Darrow (1857-1938) argued the case for the defense. After a well-publicized trial, Scopes was convicted and the judge fined him $100. The ACLU appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, which declared the law valid but overturned the fine on the grounds that it had not been imposed by a jury.[23]

In 1928, the Arkansas legislature adopted a similar law that prohibited teaching in public schools “that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals.” In the 1960s, the Arkansas Education Association enlisted high school teacher Susan Epperson to challenge the law, and the case subsequently went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1968, the Court decided in Epperson v. Arkansas that “the sole reason for the Arkansas law” was “that a particular religious group considers the evolution theory to conflict with the account of the origin of man set forth in the Book of Genesis.” The Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment mandate of “governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”[24]

Adopting a different strategy, creationist legislators enacted a 1981 Arkansas law that mandated “balanced treatment” of evolution and “creation science.” By “creation science,” the law meant a “relatively recent inception of the Earth and living kinds,” the “occurrence of a worldwide flood” that explained much of the Earth’s geology, changes only within “originally created kinds,” and the “separate ancestry” of humans and apes.[25] Some Arkansas taxpayers, supported by the ACLU and various Christian and Jewish organizations, sued the Arkansas Board of Education. In 1982, a U.S. District Court held that “creation science” is actually religion, and that the Arkansas law requiring it to be taught alongside evolution constituted “an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution.”[26]

When Louisiana adopted a similar law, it was also challenged in a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1987. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Court ruled that the law violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Although “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction,” a majority of the justices concluded that the “primary purpose” of the Louisiana law was “to endorse a particular religious doctrine” embodied in creation science, namely, “that a supernatural being created humankind.” Justices Scalia and Rehnquist dissented on the grounds that the Louisiana legislators had “specifically articulated the secular purpose they meant it to serve,” and the law could not be judged unconstitutional “by impugning the motives of its supporters.”[27]

Court decisions notwithstanding, several Gallup polls taken from 1982 to 2006 show that about 45 percent of Americans believe that “God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” The same polls show that about another 38 percent of Americans believe that humans evolved “over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.”[28]

The 45 percent who believe God created humans within the last ten thousand years are certainly creationists, but not necessarily young-Earth creationists, since the Earth could be much older than the human species. The 38 percent who believe that humans evolved over millions of years with God's guidance are certainly not young-Earth creationists, but except for those who might reject the creationist label in favor of “theistic evolution,” they would count as old-Earth creationists. So even though creationism has been effectively prohibited in public schools for the past quarter century, a majority of Americans are still, technically, creationists. Although it should be noted that the supreme courts' decisions were likely intended to protect the minority of Americans who are not creationists.

Creationism and intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is sometimes confused with creationism, especially by people defending Darwinian evolution. Unlike creationism, however, ID neither bases its claims on the Bible nor identifies the designer as God.

The most prominent OEC organization, at least in the U.S., has publicly distinguished its views from ID. While applauding the “efforts and integrity” of intelligent design advocates, Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe wrote in 2002: “Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars… The time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap.”[29]

Two of the most prominent YEC organizations in the world have likewise distinguished their views from intelligent design. Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, “even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't work is because it is not the Biblical method.” According to Morris: “The evidence of intelligent design… must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting.”[30] In 2002, Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis (AiG) criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, “left the Bible out of it” and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland explained that “AiG’s major ‘strategy’ is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations… [so] we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it.”[31]

Nevertheless, a U.S. District court in Pennsylvania ruled in 2005, that the constitutional prohibition against teaching creationism in public schools also applies to intelligent design.[32] For details, including criticisms of the decision, see the entry on intelligent design.

Origin of the soul

Early Christian thinkers had several different opinions about the origin of the human soul. Tertullian, a third-century Latin theologian, maintained that after God first breathed a soul into Adam each subsequent soul was generated by human parents in the same act that produces the body. After the fall, the descendants of Adam and Eve still had free will but inherited original sin as a stain on the soul. Tertullian’s view was known as “traducianism.”

Origen, a third century Greek theologian, taught that souls pre-exist their bodies—a teaching that was compatible with the Manichaen view of bodies as inherently evil and was later formally condemned by the church. Other Greek and Latin theologians taught instead that each soul is created independently by God when the body is physically produced by its parents, a view known as “creationism.” This view was held by Pelagius, who maintained that we are all born sinless but become sinful when we succumb to the evil circumstances that surround us. For Pelagius, Christ was merely an example of how all can save themselves if we act morally.

In opposition to Pelagius, Augustine of Hippo taught that people cannot save themselves because their souls are tainted with original sin, inherited from the fall of Adam and Eve, and that original sin can be removed only by Christ. Augustine regarded his view as more consistent with traducianism than creationism, though he never fully embraced the former or rejected the latter.[33]

Most later theologians, including the Roman Catholic Thomas Aquinas and the Calvinist Francis Turretin, defended creationism and rejected traducianism on various philosophical and theological grounds, though the issue was not completely resolved.[34]

It may be that there is an element of truth in both creationism and traducianism: A soul is created with an original mind that reflects God’s image, but it is also tainted by original sin that is passed down from Adam and Eve. Philosophical views that accept some degree of continuity between matter and spirit can allow for the conception of a human soul through the joint action of God and the parents.

Notes

  1. ↑ P.J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 3rd ed. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003, ISBN 0520236939).
  2. ↑ C.C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology: The Impact of Scientific Discoveries upon Religious Beliefs in the Decades Before Darwin (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951, ISBN 0674344812).
  3. ↑ J.R. Moore, "Geologists and Interpreters of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century,” in D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers (eds.), God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986, ISBN 0520056922).
  4. ↑ J.R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America 1870-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, ISBN 0521285718).
  5. ↑ R.L. Numbers, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006, ISBN 0674023390).
  6. ↑ Numbers (2006), chapter 8.
  7. ↑ Creation Science Movement (CSM), Who we are, Creation Science Movement (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  8. ↑ American Scientific Affiliation, What does the ASA believe? American Scientific Affiliation (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  9. ↑ Numbers (2006), chapter 9.
  10. ↑ Reasons to Believe, About us (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  11. ↑ Numbers (2006), p. 97.
  12. ↑ Numbers (2006), p. 137.
  13. ↑ Numbers (2006), p. 150.
  14. ↑ T.C. Wood, The current status of baraminology, Creation Research Society Quarterly 43(2006): 149-158. Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  15. ↑ Geoscience Research Institute (GRI), About us, (2005). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  16. ↑ J.C. Whitcomb and H. M. Morris, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (P& R Publishing, 1960, ISBN 0875523382).
  17. ↑ Numbers (2006), p. 232.
  18. ↑ Creation Research Society, About CRS (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  19. ↑ Creation Moments (formerly the Bible-Science Association), About us (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  20. ↑ Numbers (2006).
  21. ↑ Institute for Creation Research, History (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  22. ↑ Creation Ministries International (CMI), Creation on the Web (2007). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  23. ↑ The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes (July 21, 1925).
  24. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), FindLaw (1968). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  25. ↑ Numbers (2006), 6-7, 272-279.
  26. ↑ McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. (E. D. Ark. 1982).
  27. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), FindLaw (1987). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  28. ↑ Pew Research Center, Reading the polls on evolution and creationism (September 28, 2005). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  29. ↑ H. Ross, More than intelligent design, Facts for Faith Issue 10 (Pasadena, CA: Reasons to Believe, 2002). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  30. ↑ H.M. Morris, Design is not enough! Back to Genesis No. 127. (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999.) Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  31. ↑ C. Wieland, AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design movement, Answers in Genesis (2002). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  32. ↑ U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Memorandum opinion, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board, Case No. 04cv2688 (December 20, 2005), U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (2005). Retrieved April 25, 2007.
  33. ↑ J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper & Row, 1978, ISBN 006064334X).
  34. ↑ F. P. Siegfried, Creationism, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908.) Retrieved April 25, 2007.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Alters, B. J. and S. M. Alters. Defending Evolution: A Guide to the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2001. ISBN 0763711187
  • Bowler, P.J. Evolution: The History of an Idea, 3rd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003. ISBN 0520236939
  • Brand, L. and D.C. James. Beginnings: Are Science and Scripture Partners in the Search for Origins? Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing, 2005. ISBN 0816321442
  • DeYoung, D. Thousands… Not Billions. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005. ISBN 0890514410
  • Eldredge, N. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. New York: Owl Books, 2001. ISBN 0805071474
  • Gillispie, C.C. Genesis and Geology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951. ISBN 0674344812
  • Ham, K. (ed). The New Answers Book. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2007. ISBN 0890515093
  • Larson, E.J. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion. New York: Basic Books, 1997. ISBN 0465075096
  • Moore, J. R. The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America 1870-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. ISBN 0521285178
  • Numbers, R.L. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. ISBN 0674023390
  • Newman, R.C., and H. J. Eckelmann, Jr. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth. Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1989. ISBN 0944788971
  • Perloff, J. The Case Against Darwin: Why the Evidence Should Be Examined. Refuge Books, 2002. ISBN 0966816013
  • Pigliucci, M. Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2002. ISBN 0878936599
  • Rana, F. Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress Publishing Group, 2005. ISBN 1576835774
  • Ross, H. The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress Publishing Group, 2001. ISBN 1576832880
  • Ross, H. Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress Publishing Group, 2006. ISBN 1576835782
  • Ruse, M. The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. ISBN 0674016874
  • Sarfati, J. Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of 'Progressive Creationism' (Billions of Years) as popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004. ISBN 0890514119
  • Scott, E.C. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004. ISBN 0520246500
  • Snoke, D.W. A Biblical Case for an Old Earth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006. ISBN 0801066190
  • Wise, K. P. Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2002. ISBN 0805424628

External links

All links retrieved January 11, 2024.

Pro-OEC

Pro-YEC

Anti-Creationist

Credits

This article began as an original work prepared for New World Encyclopedia and is provided to the public according to the terms of the New World Encyclopedia:Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Any changes made to the original text since then create a derivative work which is also CC-by-sa licensed. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Creationism&oldid=1133012

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Copyright Logo
Powered by MediaWiki