Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:42, 22 September 2003

Creationism is a belief that the origin of the universe and everything in it is due to an event of creation brought about by the deliberate act of a creator god. In traditional Christian theology, creationism is the doctrine that every human soul is created by God, as opposed to inherited (traducianism). This article describes primarily the fundamentalist Christian form of creationism that is strongly opposed to scientific theories of origins, most notably the Theory of Evolution. See creation beliefs for a detailed discussion of beliefs concerning the origin of the universe in various religions and cultures.

Historical overview

The creation beliefs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have their origins in the Hebrew Bible and classical Judaism. In the West, until the late 19th century, Jews and Christians believed that all things originated by an act of God, with the single exception of God who is said to have existed eternally. Religion greatly influenced life in Europe after the decline of the Roman empire, but the watershed of scientific discovery and progressive thinking unleashed by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment made other explanations than purely theological ones conceivable again, as they already had been in antiquity, when simple predecessors to the theory of evolution were developed.

Charles Darwin's work, The Origin of Species (1859) introduced the theory of evolution, which did not require the careful work of a creator God to produce life forms well-adapted to their environment. At this point, however, evolution by natural selection was perceived as opposing not religious accounts of creation, but rather Lamarck's theory of Evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics.

In his subsequent book The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin applied his theory to the origin of humankind, and put forth the hypothesis that humans were descended from apes by the mechanism of evolution by natural selection. A monumental controversy ensued in Victorian England.

The reason for the controversy was that this theory apparently contradicted the accounts of the creation of man given in the Bible, which had so far been the primary source on the matter. A similar controversy (the Scopes Monkey Trial) took place decades later, well into the 20th century, in the United States, when a teacher defied the Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of the theory of evolution.

The modern creationist movement formalized the old belief in a literal interpretation of scripture and tried to present it as superior to scientific explanations. As more moderate branches of creationism appeared, "creationism" developed into an umbrella term for various creation beliefs, and for non-theological justifications thereof, although it is generally understood to refer to the fundamentalist variants. In the United States, Christian fundamentalists continue to try to introduce creationist teachings into the primary or supplemental curriculum of schools to the disappointment of evolutionary biologists.

The two creation stories in Genesis

The Book of Genesis contains two creation stories.

1. The story of the creation in six days (Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a)
2. The story of the day of creation (Genesis 2:4a-24)

These two stories have stood side by side ever since the book of Genesis was compiled. They are important not only as creation stories, but also because attempts to account for their differences helped to lead to documentary theories of the origin of various books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The story of creation in six days

This account is of God (Elohim) creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh day. ( According to Strong’s Concordance, Elohim is a plural form. Elohim is variously translated as God, gods or the magistrates, depending on the context.)

The order of creation in this story was as follows:

1. creation of the heavens and the earth, a formless void (1:2) and light (1:3)
2. a dome (firmament) to separate the waters from the waters (1: 6,7)
3. dry land, vegetation and fruit trees (1:9-13)
4. lights in the dome of the sky , the sun, moon and stars (1: 14-19)
5. living creatures in the waters and the sky (1: 20-23)
6. living creatures on land: wild animals, cattle and creeping things (1: 24-25)
7. mankind (in the image of Elohim, male and female (1:26-31)
8. the Sabbath (2:1-4a)

The story of the day of creation

This is an account of the day the LORD God (Yahweh Elohim) creating the earth and the heavens.

1. the man was formed (2:7)
2. the LORD God planted a garden (2:8)
3. the growth of trees (2:9)
4. the man put in the garden (2:15)
5. the creation of the animals and birds (2:19)
6. the creation of the first woman (2: 21-2)

The second creation story gives a different order of creation to the first story. This apparent contradiction does not seem to trouble the average reader. However, another difficulty between the two stories has proved to be far more striking.

Apparent contradictions between the two creation stories

The first creation story is about six days of creation in Genesis 1:31; the second creation story talks about the day of creation in Genesis 2:4b). This apparent contradiction in two verses that are so close together has troubled many commentators (see A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by A.D. White, 1896, Dover Publications, 1960, page 5). These days, however, those difficulties are effectively concealed because many translations say ‘when the LORD God created…’ instead of the literal ‘on the day that the LORD God created…’

To sustain a creationist position the commentator has to ignore or explain these apparent difficulties.

Spectrum and types of beliefs

There is no single set of beliefs or arguments which identifies creationism. According to Mark Isaak, "creation and evolution are not a dichotomy, but ends of a continuum, and most creationist and evolutionist positions may be fit along this continuum". An example of such a continuum is given below:

1. Modern Flat Earthers, who follow a highly literal belief in the Bible, and deny a spherical earth.
2. Modern Geocentrism, which accepts the spherical earth, but denies heliocentrism.
3. Young Earth Creationism, which accept the spherical earth and heliocentrism, but believe that the Earth was created by God around 6,000 years ago.
4. Old Earth Creationism includes a variety of beliefs. These are distinguished from Young Earth Creationism by their acceptance that the Earth is millions of years old. Old Earth Creationism comes in four flavours:
   • Gap Creationism (or Restitution Creationism) - the view that life was immediately created on a pre-existing old Earth.
   • Day-Age Creationism holds that the "six days" of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods.
   • Progressive Creationism
   • Intelligent Design
5. Evolutionary Creationism and Theistic Evolution accept the existence of biological evolution, but also hold that God controls apparently random events, or designed the fundamental physical laws that allow evolution in the first place. Process theology is also compatible with acceptance of evolution.
6. Materialistic Evolutionism, which accepts the theory of evolution, but denies the existence of any divine agency (atheism) or believes it to be unknowable (agnosticism).

This spectrum was proposed in 1999 by Eugenie Scott, in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education.

Interpretation of Genesis

Some Creationists do not believe that the two accounts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are compatible, and yet hold that the creation of Man is in some important sense the culmination of God's creating work, although neither account is taken as "history". Other Creationists harmonize the two accounts, as one version with two distinct emphases, historical but with some events arranged in non-chronological order.

Day-Age Creationism holds that the six days referred to are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years); the Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of the process of evolution. There are even some Christians who believe the six day period refers to the time spent by light traveling from the center of the universe at the time and point of creation.

Evolutionary creationists typically hold that the passages in Genesis are not to be interpreted literally, but are rather a symbolic or poetic account of the creation of the universe. Some believe that they are based on the prevailing scientific ideas of the time they were written, and that only the moral and religious, as opposed to the scientific, content of the Bible is inspired.

Creation today

Some creationists argue that progress and differentiation of some kind under the guidance of God has not ceased. Others argue that the creating work reached its culmination in the creation of mammals and Man, and has since ceased.

Creation science

Some believers posit that certain assumptions, procedures, theories and findings of science — especially the Theory of Evolution — are fundamentally incompatible with creation beliefs, and are incorrect. They propose alternative theories (creation science) that they consider more compatible with their religious beliefs. They believe that the explanation of origins, especially of Man and other living things, requires reference to a Creator.

Evolutionary creationists do not seek to challenge mainstream science in this way, believing that science and religion can be reconciled. Other creationists view scientific truth as separate from spiritual truth and are unconcerned by apparent contradictions between the two.

Common descent

Creationists who reject macro-evolution naturally also reject common descent. However, amongst creationists who do accept the theory of evolution, there is debate over whether to accept or reject the theory of common descent, and in particular, the common descent of mankind and other species. Those who reject common descent argue that although other life on Earth evolved, Adam and Eve were fashioned and given life directly by God, unique in the creation. Evolutionary creationists and many advocates of Intelligent Design accept common descent, or have no reason to doubt it.

Age of the Earth

There is a sharp distinction in particular between Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists who hold contradictory views regarding the age of the Earth. Young Earth Creationism is typically based on Jewish and Christian religious fundamentalism and holds that scientific findings simply conflict with the account of creation given in Genesis, where it is recorded that the Earth was created by God in six days. This adherence to six actual days comes from a strict belief in biblical inspiration. Young Earth creationists who interpret the Bible literally believe that the Earth is somewhere around 6,000 years old (according to Bishop James Ussher's dating) and usually reject the Big Bang theory of creation. Rather, they believe that all created existence began within a single terrestrial week, six to ten thousand years ago.

See creation beliefs for a more detailed discussion of theological views on creationism within different religious belief systems.

Creationism vs. evolution

Most types of creationism are in direct conflict with some findings of empirical sciences like astronomy, geology, and biology. The view that life gradually, over millions of years, evolved from simple to ever more complex forms by means of mutation and natural selection, commonly referred to as biological evolution, is claimed by these creationists to have no empirical support.

Historically, the "creationism vs. evolution" debate began when Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published their independent observations on evolutionary mechanisms in 1858 and 1859. Darwin's The Origin of Species would soon become the focal point of creationist debate, at a time when universities were still dominated by religious thought. Darwin was well aware of the likely implications of his work for people with strong religious beliefs and withheld its publication until it became inevitable because Wallace held similar views. The debate only intensified with the publication of Darwin's The Descent of Man in 1871. The debate had fully arrived in the United States in 1925, when the famous Scopes Trial tested a law that forbade the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools.

By now, the modern theory of evolution is almost universally accepted among scientists, who hold that it accurately explains how complex life can emerge over billions of years from simple self-replicating molecules. Creationism nevertheless remains a particularly controversial topic in the United States, where Christian creationist groups are lobbying for changes to regional school board rules and textbooks in order to give equal time to creationist views in the classroom, or to ban the teaching of evolution altogether.

In recent times, Christian creationist views have been appearing in the form of a movement called intelligent design. Advocates of ID take care to never explicitly name God as their intelligent designer. Scientific advocates of the theory of evolution find the ID claims pseudoscientific and dismiss the movement as quasi-academic, and they often charge that these are merely creationism in disguise, and a dishonest attempt to bring religion into the classroom.

Arguments against evolution

Many creationists posit what they claim are scientific arguments against the theory of evolution. Evolutionists often respond that these are merely attempts to "mask" creationism as a science, and that so-called creation science is, per definition, a pseudoscience. Nevertheless, biologists have invested considerable time responding to claims by creationists, and have frequently expressed frustration that claims that they consider debunked are tirelessly repeated, which they interpret as evidence that creationists have no interest to engage in a scientific debate (Arthur 1996, see references below).

At the present time, the primary line of scientific argument against evolution, which has adherents within the community of hard scientists, centers around the notion that many biological systems have irreducible complexity in terms of intermediate forms. That is, organs such as the human eye do not have stepwise functional iterations that can be adequately explained by evolution, as necessary intermediate steps would be completely nonfunctional and maladaptive. This perspective has been extensively presented by biochemist Michael Behe in the book "Darwin's Black Box". While a common counterargument is that organs do in fact have less-complex predecessors, some see this as a straw man argument in that the actual criteria that must be met is for all intermediate steps to be demonstrable as being both statistically explainable by genetic mutation, and individually functional and adaptive concurrent with this process.

Macroevolution vs. Microevolution

While they hold that so-called microevolution can occur, some Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars, such as Henry Morris (Christian) of the Creation Research Institute, have offered what they believe to be proof of the impossibility of macroevolution in larger organisms. They charge that none of the examples of evolution provided by scientists illustrate macroevolution.

Fossils and macroevolution

Creationists claim that though many varieties of reptiles and mammals exist, there is no record of an animal capable of bridging the gap between them, and that "gaps in the fossil record" reveal "missing links" between different species which refute the idea of gradual transitions.

Scientists respond that missing links are constantly being found and that we have thousands of fossil examples for many species showing transition states from one form to another. Fossil finds are generally restricted only to the extremely small amount of sedimentary rock that is exposed on the surface of the Earth at any one time. The vast majority of actual fossils remain concealed within the rock strata.

One theory about why transitional forms are sometimes missing (although they are also sometimes found) is called punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is the theory that speciation happens in small populations which are cut off, possibly geographically, from others of their species, and which develop independently. Evolution in these small groups is believed to occur relatively quickly, perhaps in only a few thousands of years. Later the isolated population reenters the wider geographical area and supplants its closest relatives. Many scientists support this view, but it is still somewhat controversial.

Scientists also state that each time a missing link is found, creationists then point to this fossil and one that it links to, and ask "But where is the transition step between these two?" Scientists have uncovered millions of fossils that fit together in a coherent evolutionary tree, with a few exceptions that are as yet incertae sedis. They hold that no amount of evidence will convince someone who has a religious belief that biological evolution simply does not occur.

Scientists also point out that transitions between any two forms of a life-form are inherently more difficult to find than other fossils. Any missing stages are due to the fast rate of evolutionary leaps when they actually occur, in contrast to the time in between where there is very little change. Indeed, there must always be gaps in the fossil record, no matter how many separate species are discovered, as it is unreasonable to demand that one can dig up a continuous chain of millions of fossils for each and every life-form. Many transitional forms are missing only because, for whatever geographic reason, they failed to be fossilized.

Considering that fossilization of organisms is actually an incredibly rare and exceptional event rather than the norm, this is a likely explanation. For one thing, the vast majority of fossils involved deposition in an aqueous environment where they are then covered by sediment in a progressive way so that they are not re-exposed to the elements. It is known from direct observation that this is a rare process, especially considering that most organisms become food for other organisms.

Differences in scale

Most biologists consider the difference between microevolution and macroevolution to be relative. Creationists who reject Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection argue that the difference is absolute. They have proposed that microevolution always takes the form of destructive genetic mutations, which happen to confer an advantage to individuals in a specific environment. Because macroevolution requires many constructive genetic changes, they argue that microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution. One example of a destructive mutation that conferred a competitive advantage under a specific situation occurred in Streptococcus pneumoniae, some strains of which are resistant to penicillin. But this resistance requires the bacterium to expend extra resources that the nonresistant bacteria do not, and so it does not compete well with them in the absence of penicillin. Competitive advantage is the driving force behind natural selection, so the relevance is unclear to evolutionists.

More specifically, the contention of creationists is that the observed and verified process of microevolution does not lead to increasingly complex species. When the mutations occur, they lead to the elimination of certain unuseful genetic traits, decreasing the genetic complexity and diversity of the affected species, creationists say. The creationists claim proponents of macroevolution accept that increases in genetic complexity are brought about solely through improbable major mutation. An evolutionist response might be:

1. The mechanisms of mutation show no preference for simplification.
2. If the mutation were disadvantageous, it would probably die out, leaving diversity unchanged.
3. If the mutation were neutral, it would coexist with the original form, increasing diversity.
4. A series of advantageous simplifying mutations could produce a new species.

Creationists claim that although helpful mutations have been observed, mutations that increase genetic complexity have not. This claim does not, however, appear to be bourne out by recent evidence from comparative genomics, since larger-scale genetic rearrangements other than mutation, such as gene duplication and chromosome duplication do lead to increased genetic complexity.

Intelligent design

The above-mentioned intelligent design movement allows for macroevolution but denies the theory of natural selection as a probable mechanism, arguing that God has guided the evolution. One argument against this view is that the possibility of an intelligent designer is real, but substantially more complex than alternative possibilities, such as a modified theory of evolution, or even the possibility of extraterrestrial origin. As such, it should be rejected as flawed because of the tested scientific principle of Ockham's Razor. If God, or an unspecified "designer", guided the process, this raises further questions, such as:

• What designed the Designer(s)? (see first cause)
• What is the Designers' motivation for guiding an evolutionary process?
• Who or what is the Designer(s)?
• What is the evidence for the existence of the Designer(s)?
• Which methods did the Designer(s) use to "guide" the process?
• What is the evidence for the use of such methods?
• Did or does the Designer also do this on other planets, or only on Earth?
• Why did the Designer(s)not choose to create a process that does not require further intervention, e.g. did God lack the competency to create a system in which natural selection can operate?

Further arguments

The argument from irreducible complexity is that some structures, such as rotary flagella could not have developed gradually, and have no precursor forms. However, other structures that were once thought unexplainable have since been explained. Darwin initially commented on how he could not conceive of how a structure as complex as the eye could evolve. Since then, a computer simulation that allowed standard eye components to randomly modify themselves showed a steady progression from an eyespot to a complex eye with a lens focus.

Other arguments proposed by creationists include:

Do arguments against evolution support creationism?

Suppose one accepts that:

1. Evolution is a counter-argument against the teleological argument (argument from design).
2. The teleological argument is an otherwise convincing argument for a creator God.

In this case, convincing arguments against evolution would support the existence of a creator God. However, not everyone accepts these premises. In particular, the teleological argument has been criticised on other grounds than evolution.

From a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Ockham's Razor, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. The following table tries to summarize the positions.

Distribution of creationist views

In the United States, creationism remains popular among non-scientists. According to several evolution polls over the last decade, 45-50% of Americans believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." Only about 10% believe that the evolution of species occurred without any divine intervention. These numbers are higher among the upper class, among Internet users and among college graduates, and much higher among scientists (about 55% believe that evolution occurred without God over millions of years according to a 1997 Gallup poll ), and higher still among biologists and geologists. This data has remained relatively stable over time.

In 1987, Newsweek said: "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.'". This suggests that support for this form of creationism as a fraction of scientists working in the area is negligible. A 2000 poll by People for the American Way examined the question of popular support for evolution and creationism in schools, and showed that a large majority of 83% supported the teaching of the theory of evolution .

The United States fundamentalist Christian community has no real parallels (in terms of numbers, prominence, and political influence) elsewhere in the Western world, and because most vocal creationists are from the United States, it is generally assumed that creationist views are not as common elsewhere. Statistics in the area are however patchy. According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian 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 other than the USA.

In Europe specifically, creationism is a less well defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not taken; however, the option of teaching creationism in school has not yet been seriously considered in any Western European country. Even in Catholic-majority countries, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. Nevertheless, creationist groups such as the German Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen are actively lobbying there as well. There is a Turkish creationist organization BAV, whose pseudonymous spokesman Harun Yahya puts an Islamic face on familiar American creationism. There apparently are a number of Hindu creationists as well. In the United Kingdom the Vardy Foundation, which owns one college in the north of England and plans to open six more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid "faith positions".

Creationism in public education

The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as prohibiting public schools from teaching religious beliefs as facts and has ruled that a government-funded science curriculum should not support the teaching of religious beliefs in science classes. It has specifically ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v Aguillard that creationism, even when referred to as a science, is such a religious belief. Creationists claim that this position does not consider the possibility that humankind and other living creatures were in fact created by God. They also claim that this viewpoint has been used to squelch classroom discussion by students who insist that their faith in creationism is relevant to the origins controversy. Supporters of evolution claim that the teaching of evolution is not necessarily incompatible with a belief that God is the ultimate creator of the universe, and therefore of all life. This is a position that is widely adopted by many, if not, most mainstream Christian denominations.

Despite the Supreme Court rulings, Boards of Education and local communities continue to struggle with controversy when scientific creationism is raised as an argument in opposition to the teaching of evolution. For example, supporters of intelligent design, who typically seek to differentiate ID from faith-based creationism, argued in December 2002 for the inclusion of the hypothesis that life had an intelligent designer in the Ohio Board of Education standards for science education.

In the UK, one of the few countries in which teaching religion in public schools is a legal requirement, there is an agreed syllabus for religious education with the right of parents to withdraw their children from these lessons.

The prescribed UK national curriculum for science includes the theory of evolution; a creationist teacher who insisted on teaching creationism instead of evolution was disciplined and eventually dismissed.

Creationism and naturalism

The following tenets of creationism inherently contradict philosophical naturalism and materialism:

1. There was an origin of the universe for which the direct intervention of God was required.
2. The origin of life required the direct intervention of God.
3. Sentience, perception, self-awareness, and the capacities for knowledge and understanding, are not reducible to physical processes alone, but were granted to living and intelligent creatures by the direct intervention of God.
4. These capacities, and more basically life itself, are not possible to describe in terms of physics alone.

A general response to the modern creationism controversy has been articulated by creationist Phillip E. Johnson, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, who argues that the entire issue of biological origins has been framed in terms of naturalism, and that natural science per se is not identical with naturalism. According to him, the statement, "Science has nothing to say about whether or not there exists a supernatural realm" is true and based on the fact that rigorous physical science is naturalistic, but the statement, "Science holds that there is no supernatural realm" is false because it is beyond the scope of natural science to make such an assertion, but is instead a philosophical position. According to Johnson, this distinction opens the possibility of natural science and creationism being non-contradictory. However, such an assertion becomes problematic in light of very specific creationist claims that pertain to the natural realm, and also does not answer the question whether creationism in the form of creation science has a place in public schools.

See also

• Evolution
• Creation and creation myths for details on how creation is depicted.
• Intelligent design
• creator god for more information on the role of creator in creationism.
• Scopes Trial
• National Center for Science Education
• Theory of evolution
• "creationism" on Wiktionary

Creationists

• Ken Ham
• Kent Hovind
• Gerard Keane
• Duane Gish

External links and references

• The Belief Spectrum: Who Believes What? - a list of sites, categorised by belief
• What is Creationism - Mark Isaak describes the varieties of Christian creationism, and additionally describes how the beliefs of other religions fit into the creationist spectrum.
• The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie C. Scott, for the National Center for Science Education

Creationism

• Reasons.org Creation vs. Evolution FAQ
• Institute for Creation Research
• Research on issues surrounding creationism
• Answers in Genesis - Creation research
• The Center for Scientific Creation
• Keane, Gerard: "Creation Rediscovered: Evolution & the Importance of the Origins Debate"
• Creationnews daily
• 'Outcry at creationism in UK schools' - Article on the Vardy Foundation in The Guardian 2003-05-12

Evolution

• The Talk.Origins Archive - Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy - excellent site with good link section
• National Center for Science Education -- defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools
• Arthur, Joyce: Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? Critical discussion of Duane Gish's methods. Published in the Skeptic, magazine of the Skeptic Society, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1996, pp. 88-93.