Creationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. For the movement in Spanish
literature, see Creacionismo.

Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. However, the
term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much of evolution, as an
explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.[2] As science developed from the 18th century onwards,
various views developed which aimed to reconcile science with the Genesis creation narrative.[3] At this time those holding that species had
been separately created were generally called "advocates of creation" but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private
correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term "anti-evolutionists"
became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term "creationism" first became specifically associated with Christian
fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth, though its usage was contested by other groups who believed in
various concepts of creation.[4]

Since the 1920s, creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution,[5][6] which derive from natural
observations of the universe and life. Strict creationists [7] believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and
complexity of life on Earth.[8] Strict creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation
narrative.[7][9] Other religions have different deity-led creation myths,[note 1][10][11][12] while different members of individual faiths vary in their
acceptance of scientific findings. In contrast to the strict creationists, evolutionary creationists maintain that, although evolution accounts for
the nature of the biosphere, evolution itself is cosmologically attributable to a Creator deity.[13]

When mainstream scientific research produces theoretical conclusions which contradict a strict creationist interpretation of scripture,
creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[14] or its underlying scientific theories[15] or its methodology.[16] The rejection of
scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[2] Two offshoots of creationism—creation science and intelligent design
—have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[17] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of
living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the
universe.[18][19][20][21]

Contents

[hide]

• 1 History
o 1.1 Judaism and early and medieval Christianity
o 1.2 Natural theology
o 1.3 Growing evidence for evolution
o 1.4 Theistic evolution
o 1.5 Re-emergence in the United States
• 2 Movements
o 2.1 Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
o 2.2 Bahá'í Faith
o 2.3 Judaism and Christianity
 2.3.1 Types of Biblical creationism
 2.3.1.1 Young Earth creationism
 2.3.1.2 Modern geocentrism
 2.3.1.3 Omphalos hypothesis
 2.3.1.4 Creation science
 2.3.1.5 Old Earth creationism
 2.3.1.6 Gap creationism
 2.3.1.7 Day-Age creationism
 2.3.1.8 Progressive creationism
 2.3.1.9 Neo-Creationism
 2.3.1.10 Intelligent design
o 2.4 Hinduism
o 2.5 Islam
o 2.6 Judaism
• 3 Prevalence
o 3.1 Australia
o 3.2 Canada
o 3.3 Europe
 o 3.4 United States
 3.4.1 Education controversies
• 4 Christian criticism
• 5 Scientific criticism
• 6 Organizations
• 7 See also
• 8 Notes on terminology
• 9 Notes
• 10 References
• 11 Further reading

• 12 External links

[edit] History

Main article: History of creationism

The history of creationism is part of the history of religions, though the term itself is modern. In the 1920s the term became particularly
associated with Christian fundamentalist movements that insisted on a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and likewise
opposed the idea of human evolution. These groups succeeded in getting teaching of evolution banned in United States public schools, then
from the mid-1960s the young Earth creationists promoted the teaching of "scientific creationism" using "Flood geology" in public school
science classes as support for a purely literal reading of Genesis. [22] After the legal judgment of the case Daniel v. Waters (1975) ruled that
teaching creationism in public schools contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the content was stripped of overt
biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ruled that creation science similarly
contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was
subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and
contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.[23]

[edit] Judaism and early and medieval Christianity

The Genesis creation narrative appears in the Jewish Torah. Early Jewish teachers believed that the biblical text contained layers of
meaning, with the spiritual and allegorical interpretations of Genesis often being seen as more important than the literal. The first century
Jewish writer Philo admired the literal narrative of passages concerning the Patriarchs, but in other passages viewed the literal interpretation
as being for those unable to see an underlying deeper meaning. For example, he noted that Moses said the world was created in six days, but
did not consider this as a length of time as "we must think of God as doing all things simultaneously" and the six days were mentioned
because of a need for order and according with a perfect number. Genesis was about real events, but God through Moses described them in
figurative or allegorical language. The tradition of such writers as Abraham ibn Ezra consistently rejected overly literal understandings of
Genesis, and Maimonides described the story of Eve and the serpent as "most absurd in its literal sense; but as an allegory it contains
wonderful wisdom, and fully agrees with the real facts".[24][25]

To a large extent, the early Christian Church Fathers read creation history as an allegory, and followed Philo's ideas of time beginning with
an instantaneous creation, with days not meant literally. Christian orthodoxy rejected the second century Gnostic belief that Genesis was
purely allegorical, but without taking a purely literal view of the texts. Thus Origen believed that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation
of God, but did not take the chronology or the days as ‘literal’. Similarly, Saint Basil in the fourth century while literal in many ways,
described creation as instantaneous and timeless, being immeasurable and indivisible.[24]

Augustine of Hippo in The Literal Meaning of Genesis was insistent that Genesis describes the creation of physical things, but also shows
creation occurring simultaneously, with the days of creation being categories for didactic reasons, a logical framework which has nothing to
do with time. For him, light was the illumination of angels rather than visible light, and spiritual light was just as literal as physical light.
Augustine emphasized that the text was difficult to understand and should be reinterpreted as new knowledge became available. In
particular, Christians should not make absurd dogmatic interpretations of scripture which contradict what people know from physical
evidence.[26]

In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering while cautioning
"that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such
measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers,
and obstacles be placed to their believing."[24]

[edit] Natural theology

Main article: Natural theology

From 1517 the Protestant Reformation brought a new emphasis on lay literacy, with Martin Luther advocating the idea that creation took six
literal days about 6000 years ago, and claiming that "Moses wrote that uneducated men might have clear accounts of creation", though a
German peasant listening to a translation would have different perceptions from a Jew familiar with early Jewish language and culture, and
Luther still had to refer to allegorical understandings such as the meaning of the serpent. John Calvin also rejected instantaneous creation,
but criticised those who, contradicting the contemporary understanding of nature, asserted that there are "waters above the heavens".[24]

Discoveries of new lands brought knowledge of a huge diversity of life, and a new belief developed that each of these biological species had
been individually created by God. In 1605 Francis Bacon emphasized that the works of God in nature teach us how to interpret the word of
God in the Bible, and his Baconian method introduced the empirical approach which became central to modern science.[27] Natural theology
developed the study of nature with the expectation of finding evidence supporting Christianity, and numerous attempts were made to
reconcile new knowledge with the biblical Deluge myth and story of Noah's Ark.[28]

In 1650 the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, published the Ussher chronology based on Bible history giving a date for Creation of
4004 BC. This was generally accepted, but the development of modern geology in the 18th and 19th centuries found geological strata and
fossil sequences indicating an ancient Earth. Catastrophism was favoured in England as supporting the Biblical flood, but this was found to
be untenable[28] and by 1850 all geologists and most Evangelical Christians had adopted various forms of old Earth creationism, while
continuing to firmly reject evolution.[24]

[edit] Growing evidence for evolution

Main article: History of evolutionary thought

See also: History of science

From around the start of the nineteenth century, ideas such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's concept of transmutation of species had gained a
small number of supporters in Paris and Edinburgh, mostly amongst anatomists.[24] Britain at that time was enmeshed in the Napoleonic
Wars, and fears of republican revolutions such as the American Revolution and French Revolution led to a harsh repression of such
evolutionary ideas, which challenged the divine hierarchy justifying the monarchy. Charles Darwin's development of his theory of natural
selection at this time was kept closely secret. Repression eased, and the anonymous publication of Vestiges of Creation in 1844 aroused
wide public interest with support from Quakers and Unitarians, but was strongly criticised by the scientific community, which emphasized
the need for solidly backed science. In 1859 Darwin's On the Origin of Species provided that evidence from an authoritative and respected
source, and gradually convinced scientists that evolution occurs. This acceptance was resisted by conservative evangelicals in the Church of
England, but their attention quickly turned to the much greater uproar about Essays and Reviews by liberal Anglican theologians, which
introduced into the controversy "the higher criticism" begun by Erasmus centuries earlier. This book re-examined the Bible and cast doubt
on a literal interpretation.[29] By 1875 most American naturalists supported ideas of theistic evolution, often involving special creation of
human beings.[22]

At this time those holding that species had been separately created were generally called "advocates of creation", but they were occasionally
called "creationists" in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends.[4] The term appears in letters Darwin wrote between
1856 and 1863,[30] and was also used in a response by Charles Lyell.[31]

[edit] Theistic evolution

Main article: Theistic evolution

Through the 19th century the term creationism most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism.
Following the publication of Vestiges there was interest in ideas of Creation by divine law. In particular, the liberal theologian Baden Powell
argued that this illustrated the Creator's power better than the idea of miraculous creation, which he thought ridiculous. [32] When On the
Origin of Species was published, the cleric Charles Kingsley wrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity".[33][34] Darwin's view
at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature,[35][36] and the book makes several references to "creation", though he later
regretted using the term rather than calling it an unknown process.[37] In America, Asa Gray argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or
modus operandi, of the first cause, design,[38] and published a pamphlet defending the book in theistic terms, Natural Selection is not
inconsistent with Natural Theology.[33][39][40] Theistic evolution became a popular compromise, and St. George Jackson Mivart was among
those accepting evolution but attacking Darwin's naturalistic mechanism. Eventually it was realised that supernatural intervention could not
be a scientific explanation, and naturalistic mechanisms such as neo-Lamarckism were favoured as being more compatible with purpose
than natural selection.[41]

Some theists took the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings
about Christian God and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including specifically evolution; it is also
known as "evolutionary creation". In Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott and Niles Eldredge state that it is in fact a type of evolution.
[42]

It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the first cause and immanent sustainer/upholder of the universe; it is
therefore well accepted by people of strong theistic (as opposed to deistic) convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize with the day-age
interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted
as a "literal" description, but rather as a literary framework or allegory.

From a theistic viewpoint, the underlying laws of nature were designed by God for a purpose, and are so self-sufficient that the complexity
of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles in processes such as stellar evolution, life forms developed in biological
evolution, and in the same way the origin of life by natural causes has resulted from these laws.[43]

In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries[44] For Catholics,
human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. Evolution and the Roman Catholic
Church are not in conflict. The Catechism of the Catholic Church comments positively on the theory of evolution, which is neither
precluded nor required by the sources of faith, stating that scientific studies "have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and
dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man."[45] Roman Catholic schools teach evolution without
controversy on the basis that scientific knowledge does not extend beyond the physical, and scientific truth and religious truth cannot be in
conflict.[46] Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that
divine Laws govern formation of species, though many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all. 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.[47]

While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken
by some atheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,[48] including atheists,[49]
refer to the long standing convention in the scientific method that 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.

[edit] Re-emergence in the United States

See also: Intelligent Design and Creation science

In the United States, some religious communities have refused to accept, as theistic evolutionists have accepted, naturalistic explanations,
and tried instead to counter them. In the United States the term started to become associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to
human evolution and belief in a young Earth in 1929.[4] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools,
as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since
then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and
intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal
judgments.[23] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science
and flood geology.[4]

Such beliefs include Young Earth creationism, proponents of which believe that the earth is thousands rather than billions of years old. They
typically believe the days in Genesis Chapter 1 are 24 hours in length, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings and other
methods of dating the earth and believes that these findings do not contradict the Genesis myth, but reject evolution. The term theistic
evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creationism which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of
the Earth. Alternately, there are other religious people who support creationism, but in terms of allegorical interpretations of Genesis.

By the start of the twentieth century, evolution was widely accepted and was beginning to be taught in U.S. public schools. After World War
I, popular belief that German aggression resulted from a Darwinian doctrine of "survival of the fittest" inspired William Jennings Bryan to
campaign against the teaching of Darwinian ideas of human evolution.[22] In the 1920s, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy led to an
upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor in which schools were prevented from teaching evolution through state laws such as Tennessee’s
1925 Butler Act,[50][51] and by getting evolution removed from biology textbooks nationwide. Creationism became associated in common
usage with opposition to evolution.[52]

In 1961 in the United States, an attempt to repeal the Butler Act failed.[23] The Genesis Flood by the Baptist engineer Henry M. Morris
brought the Seventh-day Adventist biblically literal flood geology of George McCready Price to a wider audience, popularizing a novel idea
of Young Earth creationism,[24] and by 1965 the term "scientific creationism" had gained currency.[53] The 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas
judgment ruled that state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion. [54] and when in 1975 Daniel v. Waters ruled that a state law requiring biology textbooks
discussing "origins or creation of man and his world" to give equal treatment to creation as per Book of Genesis was unconstitutional, a new
group identifying themselves as creationists promoted a "Creation science" which omitted explicit biblical references.[23]

In 1981 the state of Arkansas passed a law, Act 590, mandating that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution,
and defining creation science as positing the “creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing,” as well as explaining the earth’s
geology by "the occurrence of a worldwide flood".[53] This was ruled unconstitutional at McLean v. Arkansas in January 1982 as the
creationists' methods were not scientific but took the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempted to find scientific support for it. [53]
Undaunted, Louisiana introduced similar legislation that year. A series of judgments and appeals led to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in
Edwards v. Aguillard that it too violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[51]

"Creation science" could no longer be taught in public schools, and in drafts of the creation science school textbook Of Pandas and People
all references to creation or creationism were changed to refer to intelligent design.[51] Proponents of the intelligent design movement
organised widespread campaigning to considerable effect. They officially denied any links to creation or to religion, and indeed claimed that
"creationism" only referred to young Earth creationism with flood geology; [55] but in Kitzmiller v. Dover the court found intelligent design to
be essentially religious, and unable to dissociate itself from its creationist roots, as part of the ruling that teaching intelligent design in public
school science classes was unconstitutional.[51]

However, the percentage of people in the USA who accept the idea of evolution declined from 45% in 1985, to 40% in 2005.[56]

[edit] Movements
Creationist movements exist among peoples with various religions perspectives such as Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam.

[edit] Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

See also: Ahmadiyya views of Evolution and Islamic creationism

The Ahmadiyya Movement is perhaps the only denomination in Islam that actively promotes evolutionary theory.[57] Ahmadis interpret
scripture from the Quran to support the concept of macroevolution and give precedence to scientific theories. Furthermore, unlike more
orthodox Muslims, Ahmadis believe that mankind has gradually evolved from different species. Ahmadis regard Adam as being the first
Prophet of God – as opposed to him being the first man on Earth.[58] Rather than wholly adopting the theory of natural selection, Ahmadis
promote the idea of a "guided evolution", viewing each stage of the evolutionary process as having been selectively woven by God.[59]Mirza
Tahir Ahmad, Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has stated in his magnum opus Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge &
Truth that evolution did occur but only through God being the One who brings it about. It does not occur itself, according to the Ahmadiyya
Muslim Community.

[edit] Bahá'í Faith

Main article: Bahá'í Faith and science

The Bahá'í Faith holds the harmony of religion and science as a fundamental principle. Bahá'ís regards the biblical account of creation as
symbolic, albeit important and full of symbolic meaning.[60] Far from accepting the idea of a Young Earth, Bahá'í theology regards the Earth
as ancient.[61]

Humanity, Bahá'ís hold, has changed in physical form over time. Bahá'í theology holds that humanity is a species essence - an essential
reality and part of God's eternal creation; as a biological species, however, humanity has gone through numerous physical changes and
adaptations in time.[61] The Bahá'í faith regards evolution (as a progress of physical form) and the act of divine creation as related processes
or even as the same process viewed in different contexts. However, Bahá'í literature maintains that humanity is distinct from other parts of
creation on Earth - that only mankind has a soul, and is capable of abstract thought and of spiritual development.[61]

[edit] Judaism and Christianity

Many Christians around the world today accept evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and do not take a literal
view of the Genesis creation narrative. The United States is the exception where belief in religious fundamentalism is much more likely to
affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere. Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because
whilst political partisanship in the U.S. is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking this is not so in Europe.[56]

Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,[62] such as Anglicans[63] and Lutherans,[64] consider that there is
no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan
Williams, "...for most of the history of Christianity (and I think this is fair enough) an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the
creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."[65]

Leaders of the Anglican[66] and Roman Catholic[67][68] churches have made statements in favor of evolutionary theory, as have scholars such
as John Polkinghorne, who argue that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier supporters of
evolutionary theory include Frederick Temple, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon
their publication,[69] and the French Jesuit priest and 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 theology, not
providing any creation models, but instead focusing on the symbolism in beliefs of the time of authoring Genesis, the cultural environment,
and comparison to non-Jewish "cosmologies" of that age.[clarification needed] In fact, both Jews and Christians had been considering the idea of the
creation history as an allegory (instead of a historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. Two notable
examples are the first century Jewish neoplatonic philosopher Philo of Alexandria and Saint Augustine of the late fourth century who was
also a former neoplatonist. Philo wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time. [70]
Augustine argued that everything in the universe was created by God at the same moment in time (and not in six days as a literal reading of
Genesis would seem to require);[71] It appears that both Philo and Augustine felt uncomfortable with the idea of a seven day creation because
it detracted from the notion of God's omnipotence.

However, in the United States, an inversion has happened. Few Jews today (17%) are likely to accept the Biblical literal interpretation of the
creation and favor an alternative explanation. However evangelical Christians have continued to believe the literal claims of Genesis.
Members of Protestant (70%), Mormon (76%) and Jehovah's Witnesses (90%) denominations are those most likely to reject the
evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.[72]

The historic Christian literal interpretation of creation requires the harmonization of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis
2:4-25, for there to be a consistent interpretation.[73][74] They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in
American schools (see Young Earth Creationism, for example). Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic Biblical view meets the
criteria required to be considered scientific.

Many religious sects teach that God created the Cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical
interpretations of Genesis as well as literal aspects.[24]
[edit] Types of Biblical creationism

Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "taxonomy" of creationists.[75][76][77]
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;
however many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science.

Comparison of major creationist views

Humanity Biological species Earth Age of Universe
Young Earth Directly created by God. Macroevolution Less than 10,000 years old. Less than 10,000
Directly created by God.
creationism does not occur. Reshaped by global flood. years old.
Gap Directly created by God. Macroevolution Scientifically accepted age. Scientifically
Directly created by God.
creationism does not occur. Reshaped by global flood. accepted age.
Directly created by God
Progressive Direct creation + evolution. No single Scientifically accepted age. Scientifically
(based on primate
creationism common ancestor. No global flood. accepted age.
anatomy).
Proponents hold various Divine intervention at some point in the past, Some adherents claim the
Intelligent Scientifically
beliefs. e.g. Behe accepts as evidenced by what intelligent-design existence of Earth is the result
design accepted age
evolution from primates creationists call "irreducible complexity" of divine intervention
Theistic Scientifically accepted age. Scientifically
Evolution from primates. Evolution from single common ancestor.
evolution No global flood. accepted age.

[edit] Young Earth creationism

Main article: Young Earth creationism

Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by God within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in Genesis
creation narrative, within the approximate time frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Most Young
Earth creationists believe that the Universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assign a much older age to the Universe than to Earth.
Creationist cosmologies are attempts by some creationist thinkers to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and
other Young-Earth time frames. Other Young-Earth creationists believe that the Earth and the universe were created with the appearance of
age, so that the world appears to be much older than it is, and that this appearance is what gives the geological findings and other methods of
dating the earth and the universe their much longer timelines.

The Christian organizations Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society (CRS) both promote Young Earth
Creationism in the USA. Another organization with similar views, Answers in Genesis (AIG) Ministries based in both the US and United
Kingdom, has opened a Creation Museum to promote Young Earth Creationism. Creation Ministries International promotes Young Earth
views in Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. Among Catholics, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation promotes similar
ideas.

[edit] Modern geocentrism

Main article: Modern geocentrism

Modern geocentrism holds 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.

[edit] Omphalos hypothesis

Main article: Omphalos hypothesis

The Omphalos hypothesis argues that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created a mature Earth with mountains and
canyons, rock strata, trees with growth rings, and so on; therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe
can be taken as reliable.[78] The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the
argument to light that appears to originate in far-off stars and galaxies (see Starlight problem).

[edit] Creation science

Main article: Creation science

Creation science is the attempt to present scientific evidence interpreted with Genesis axioms that supports the claims of creationism.
Various claims of creation scientists include such ideas as creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands
of years old, attacks on the science of radiometric dating through a technical argument about radiohalos, explanations for the fossil record as
a record of the destruction of the global flood recorded in Book of Genesis (see flood geology), and explanations for the present diversity as
a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect genomes God placed in "created kinds" or
"Baramin" (see creation biology) due to mutations.
[edit] Old Earth creationism

Main article: Old Earth creationism

Old Earth creationism holds that the 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 modern evolutionary theory are questionable.

Old-Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:

[edit] Gap creationism

Main article: Gap creationism

Gap creationism, also called "Restitution creationism", holds that life was recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. This theory relies on
a particular interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2. It is considered that the words formless and void in fact denote waste and ruin, taking into
account the original Hebrew and other places these words are used in the Old Testament. Genesis 1:1-2 is consequently translated:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Original act of creation.)
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the
face of the waters."

Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start sometime after the Earth was "without form and void." This allows an indefinite "gap"
of time to be inserted after the original creation of the universe, but prior to creation according to the Genesis creation narrative(when
present biological species and humanity were created). Gap theorists can therefore agree with the scientific consensus regarding the age of
the Earth and universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text.

Some gap theorists expand the basic theory by proposing a "primordial creation" of biological life within the "gap" of time. This is thought
to be "the world that then was" mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-7.[79] Discoveries of fossils and archaeological ruins older than 10,000 years are
generally ascribed to this "world that then was", which may also be associated with Lucifer's rebellion. These views became popular with
publications of Hebrew Lexicons such as the Strong's Concordance, and Bible commentaries such as the Scofield Reference Bible and the
Companion Bible.

[edit] Day-Age creationism

Main article: Day-Age creationism

Day-Age creationism states that the "six days" of Book 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
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").

Strictly speaking, Day-Age creationism is not so much a creationist theory as a hermeneutic option which may be combined with theories
such as progressive creationism.

[edit] Progressive creationism

Main article: Progressive creationism

Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how
the process operated—though it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order 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.[citation needed] Organizations such as Reasons to Believe, founded by
Hugh Ross, promote this theory.

Progressive creationism can be held in conjunction with hermeneutic approaches to Genesis chapter 1 such as the day-age theory or
framework/metaphoric/poetic views.

[edit] Neo-Creationism

Main article: 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 origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture,
and to bring the debate before the public.

One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion. Neo-Creationists argue
that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements. They
argue that this effectively excludes any possible religious insight from contributing to a scientific understanding of the universe. Neo-
Creationists also argue that science, as an "atheistic enterprise," is at the root of many of contemporary society's ills including social unrest
and 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 as a young Earth, or in a dogmatically
literal interpretation of the Bible. Common to all forms of Neo-Creationism is a rejection of 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.

[edit] Intelligent design

Main article: Intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is the claim 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".[80] All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute,[81] a think tank
whose Wedge strategy aims to replace the scientific method with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which
accepts supernatural explanations.[51][82] It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of
creationism,[83][76][77][84] and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".[85][86][87]

ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to get round a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism
in U.S. public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run a series of campaigns to change school curricula.[23] In Australia, where curricula
are under the control of State governments rather than local school boards, there was a public outcry when the notion of ID being taught in
science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson; the minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if
it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.[88]

In the United States, teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a Federal District court to be in violation
of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court
found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.", and hence
cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a persuasive
precedent, based on previous Supreme Court decisions in Edwards v. Aguillard and Epperson v. Arkansas, and by the application of the
Lemon test, that creates a legal hurdle to teaching Intelligent Design in public school districts in other Federal court jurisdictions.[51][89]

[edit] Hinduism

Main article: Hindu views on evolution

Some Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas.[90] The International Society for
Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) includes several members who actively oppose "Darwinism" and the modern evolutionary synthesis.[91]

[edit] Islam

Main article: Islamic creationism

Islamic creationism is the belief that the universe (including humanity) was directly created by God as explained in the Qur'an. It usually
views Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation myths in the Qur'an are vaguer and allow for a wider range of
interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions. Most Muslims generally accept the scientific positions on the age of the earth,
the age of the universe, however unlike Ahmadi Muslims, not evolution. Muslims believe that humans have been inserted on earth on a
much later date from the creation of earth.[citation needed]

Islam also has its own school of Evolutionary creationism/Theistic evolutionism, which holds that mainstream scientific analysis of the
origin of the universe is supported by the Qur'an. Some Muslims believe in evolutionary creationism, especially among Liberal movements
within Islam.

Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, at a conference called 'Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools', made points
including the following:[92] There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and survival of the fittest.
However, some Muslims, such as Adnan Oktar, do not agree that one species can develop from another.[93]

But there is also a growing movement of Islamic creationism. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived
conflicts between the Qur'an and the main points of evolutionary theory. The main location for this has been in Turkey, where fewer than
25% of people believe in evolution.[94]
There are several verses in the Qur'an which some modern writers have interpreted as being compatible with the expansion of the universe,
Big Bang and Big Crunch theories:[95][96][97]

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the skies (space) and the earth were joined together, then We (Allah) clove them asunder and We (Allah)
created every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"[Qur'an 21:30]

"Then turned He to the sky (space) when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said:
We come, obedient."[Qur'an 41:11]

"And it is We (Allah) Who have constructed the sky (space) with might, and it is We (Allah) Who are steadily expanding it."[Qur'an 51:47]

"On the day when We (Allah) will roll up the sky (space) like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We (Allah) originated the first
creation, (so) We (Allah) shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about."[Qur'an 21:104]

Many Islam majority countries have expelled science textbooks containing human evolution.[98]

[edit] Judaism

Main article: 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. Many Conservative Rabbis
follow theistic evolution, although Conservative Judaism does not have an official view on the subject. Conservative Judaism however, does
generally embrace science and therefore finds it a "challenge to traditional Jewish theology." [99] Reform Judaism does 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 the fact that the even root word for "world" in the Hebrew language — ‫( עולם‬Olam) — means hidden
— ‫( נעלם‬Neh-Eh-Lahm). 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 it.
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, and based on Sefer Temunah, an early kabbalistic work
attributed to the 1st century Tanna Nehunya ben ha-Kanah. Many kabbalists accepted the teachings of the Sefer Temunah, including the
Ramban, his close student Yitzhak of Akko, and the RADBAZ. Other interesting parallels are derived, among other sources, from
Nachmanides, who expounds that there was a Neanderthal-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had
even been discovered scientifically).[100][101][102][103] In 1838 rabbi Israel Lipschitz again restated that the calculations of the ancient kabbalists
that Creation occurred about 15.3 billion years ago were in line with the 19th century scientific theories.

[edit] Prevalence

Main article: Level of support for evolution

Views on human evolution in various countries.[104][105]

Most vocal strict creationists are from the United States, and strict creationist views are much less common in other developed countries.
According to a study published in Science, a survey of the United States, Turkey, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of
evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[56]

[edit] Australia

According to a 1980 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." [106] A 2009 Nielsen poll showed that almost a quarter of
Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins" rather than the Darwinian account. Forty-two percent believe in a "wholly
scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32 percent believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God".[107]

[edit] Canada

A 2008 Canadian poll revealed that "58 percent accept evolution, while 22 percent think that God created humans in their present form
within the last 10,000 years."[108]

[edit] Europe

In Europe, strict creationism is less well accepted, though regular opinion polls are not available. Most people accept that evolution is the
most widely accepted scientific theory as taught in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, papal acceptance of
evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people.

In the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, views the idea of
teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.[109] 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 evolutionary theory,
and the rest did not know.[110][111]

Exceptionally, 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) 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.[112] 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 expressed as fact. In Italy, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from
schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.[113]

There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious fundamentalists throughout Europe to introduce
creationism into public education.[114] In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has released a draft report entitled
The dangers of creationism in education on June 8, 2007,[115] reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4, 2007.
[116]

Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in September 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Čolić, only allowing schools
to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.[117] "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.[118] Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to
reflect on the work of the entire government."[119]

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 opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-
existed.[120]

[edit] United States

Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia

According to a 2001 Gallup poll,[121] about 45% of North Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present
form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from
less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process",[122] and 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years
from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process".[121]

Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept evolution.[123][124] 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 give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared
'abruptly.'"[125][126]

A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the United States public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.
[127]

According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult North 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, Turkey, and Japan. The
only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).[56]

[edit] Education controversies

The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the Darwin fish.
Main article: Creation-evolution controversy

In the United States, creationism has become centered in the political controversy over creation and evolution in public education, and
whether teaching creationism in science classes conflicts with the separation of church and state. Currently, the controversy comes in the
form of whether advocates of the Intelligent Design movement who wish to "Teach the Controversy" in science classes have conflated
science with religion.[89]

People for the American Way polled 1500 North Americans about the teaching of evolution and creationism in November and December
1999. They found that most North Americans were not familiar with Creationism, and most North Americans had heard of evolution, but
many did not fully understand the basics of the theory. The main findings were:

Americans believe that:[127]

Public schools should teach evolution only   20%

Only evolution should be taught in science classes, religious explanations can be discussed in
  17%
another class
Creationism can be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory   29%
Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class   13%
Only Creationism should be taught   16%
Teach both evolution and Creationism, but unsure how to do so   4%
No opinion   1%

In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously based origin belief is superior to those of other belief systems, in
particular those made through secular or scientific rationale. Political creationists are opposed by many individuals and organizations who
have made detailed critiques and given testimony in various court cases that the alternatives to scientific reasoning offered by creationists
are opposed by the consensus of the scientific community.[128][129]

[edit] Christian criticism

Many Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism. Several religious organizations, among them the Catholic Church, hold that their
faith is not in conflict with the scientific consensus regarding evolution.[130] The Clergy Letter Project, which has collected more than 13,000
signatures, is an "endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible."

In the article "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the 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."

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.[131]

Other Christians have expressed qualms about teaching creationism. In March 2006, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader
of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the
Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than
enhancing it." The views of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion, on teaching creationism are also the
same as Williams.[132]

In April 2010, the American Academy of Religion issued Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K‐12 Public Schools in the United
States which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation science and
intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based
on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, they, as well as other "worldviews
that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately
studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of
religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."[133]

[edit] Scientific criticism

Main article: Creation–evolution controversy

Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence and testable explanations of natural phenomena. By contrast,
creationism is based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts. Some creationist beliefs involve purported forces
that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and these cannot be confirmed or disproved by scientists.[134] However, many
creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its geological history and the origins,
distributions and relationships of living organisms found on it. Early science incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science
developed these beliefs were gradually falsified and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence.[135]
[136]
Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould,[137] consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with
authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called non-overlapping magisteria.[138] This view is also held by many theologians, who
believe that ultimate origins and meaning are addressed by religion, but favour verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over
those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as Richard Dawkins,[139] reject the non-overlapping magisteria and argue that, in disproving
literal interpretations of creationists, the scientific method also undermines religious texts as a source of truth. Irrespective of this diversity
in viewpoints, since creationist beliefs are not supported by empirical evidence, the scientific consensus is that any attempt to teach
creationism as science should be rejected.[140][141][142]

[edit] Organizations
Young Earth Creationism Intelligent design

• Answers in Genesis, a group promoting Young-Earth • Access Research Network

Creationism • Center for Science and Culture
• Creation Ministries International, an organisation
promoting biblical creation
Evolution
• Institute for Creation Research, "a Christ-Focused
Creation Ministry"
• Creation Research Society • TalkOrigins Archive

Old Earth Creationism • National Center for Science Education

• Reasons to Believe led by Hugh Ross

• Answers In Creation led by Greg Neyman[143]

[edit] See also

• Abiogenesis
• Biogenesis
• Biblical inerrancy
• Cosmological argument
• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Teleological argument
• Watchmaker analogy

[edit] Notes on terminology

1. ^ While the term myth is often used colloquially to refer to "a false story", this article uses the term in the academic meaning of
"a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form" (Dundes A, 1996. "Madness in
method plus a plea for projective inversion in myth". In LL Patton & W Doniger (Eds.), Myth & method. Charlottesville:
University Press of Virginia [pp. 147-162], p. 147).