| Revision as of 23:35, 17 February 2008 view sourceGSlicer (talk | contribs)1,094 edits Undid revision 192170772 by Itsovabliss (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:54, 18 February 2008 view source 65.13.39.64 (talk) ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| :''"Creationism" can also refer to ]s in general, or to a ].'' | |||
| <!--*********************************************************************** | |||
| ----This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed.-----------------* | |||
| ----Please read this article's TALK PAGE discussion before making---------* | |||
| ----substantial changes.--------------------------------------------------* | |||
| ************************************************************************--> | |||
| {{creationism2}} | |||
| '''Creationism''' is a religious ] that ]ity, ], the ], and the ] were ] in their original form by a ] (often the ] ] of ], ] and ]) or deities, whose existence is ].<ref>{{harvnb|Hayward|1998|p=11}}</ref> | |||
| In relation to the ] the term ''creationism'' (or ''strict creationism'') is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of ]. | |||
| Such beliefs include ], which takes ] ], while ] accepts ] but rejects evolution. The term '']'' has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the ]. | |||
| Creationism in the ] is usually based on ], and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to ], in contrast to ]. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with ] opposition to ] and belief in a young Earth.<ref name=num>{{cite web |url=http://www.counterbalance.net/history/anticreat-frame.html |title=Antievolutionists and Creationists |accessdate=2007-08-15 |author=Ronald L. Numbers |authorlink=Ronald L. Numbers |work=Creationism History |publisher=Counterbalance Meta-Library }}</ref> Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in ]s, as upheld in the ]. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the ] until the 1960s. Since then, renewed ] in the form of ], ], and ] have been consistently held to contravene the ] ] by a succession of legal judgements.<ref name=lenny> By Lenny Flank, Talk Reason </ref> 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.<ref name=num/> | |||
| When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,<ref></ref> its underlying scientific theories,<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/v17n1_proteins.pdf</ref> or its methodology.<ref></ref> For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as ] by the mainstream ]. The most notable disputes concern the effects of ] on the development of living organisms, the idea of ], the ], the ], and the ].<ref></ref><ref>National Association of Biology Teachers </ref><ref> Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the ] ] (PDF file)</ref><ref>From the ], the world's largest general scientific society: {{PDFlink||44.8 ]<!-- application/pdf, 45910 bytes -->}}, </ref> | |||
| ==Overview== | |||
| The term '' creationism'' is generally used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the ] (for both ] and ]) or the ] (for ]). The terms ''creationism'' and ''creationist'' have become particularly associated with beliefs about the time frame of creation, conflicting with scientific understanding of ], particularly ]. This conflict is most prevalent in the ], where there has been sustained ] in the public arena, centering over the issue of the science curriculum in public schools. | |||
| In a Christian context, many creationists adopt a ] interpretation of the Biblical creation narratives. This literal interpretation requires the harmonisation of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, which require interpretation to be consistent.<ref>{{cite_web |url=http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194 |title= | |||
| Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? |author=Wayne Jackson |accessdate=2007-05-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite_web |url=http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/creationint.html |title=The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties |accessdate=2007-05-23}}</ref> They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in ] classes, mainly in American schools (see ], 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 ] ] there were ] as well as literal aspects.<ref name=rsf>{{Citation | |||
| | last= Forster | |||
| | first= Roger | |||
| | last2= Marston | |||
| | first2=Dr Paul | |||
| | year=2001 | |||
| | title=Reason Science and Faith | |||
| | place=Chester, England | |||
| | publisher=Monarch Books | |||
| | contribution=Chapter 7 - Genesis Through History | |||
| | isbn =1854244418 | |||
| | url=http://www.ivycottage.org/group/group.aspx?id=6826 | |||
| | accessdate =] | |||
| }}.</ref> Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches, such as ] and ], reject reading the Bible as though it could shed light on the physics of creation instead of the spiritual meaning of creation. According to the ], ], " most of the history of Christianity there's been 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."<ref> </ref> | |||
| Leaders of the ]<ref></ref> and ] <ref>, Keelin McDonell, Explainer, ], July 12, 2005.</ref><ref>See also the article ].</ref> churches have made statements in favour of evolutionary theory, as have scholars such as ], who argue that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier supporters of evolutionary theory include ], ] and ] who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon their publication,<ref> see eg ]'s ''Science and Theology'' pp6-7</ref> and the French Jesuit priest and ] ] saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his more speculative theories. Another example is that of ], which assumes that Genesis is a poetic work, and that just as human understanding of God increases gradually over time, so does the understanding of God's creation. In fact, both Jews and Christians had been considering the idea of the ] (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. Two notable examples are ] (]) who argued on theological grounds that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant (and not in seven days as a plain account of Genesis would require);<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html Davis A. Young, "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation" (From: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40.1:42-45 (3/1988)), The American Scientific Affiliation</ref> and the ] Jewish scholar ], who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time.<ref>http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html ''The Works of Philo Judaeus'', Chapter 2, translated by Charles Duke Yonge</ref> | |||
| ==Political context== | |||
| ].]] | |||
| {{main|Creation-evolution controversy}} | |||
| In the ], more than in the rest of the world, creationism has become centered in the ] ] over ], and whether teaching creationism in science classes conflicts with the ]. Currently, the controversy comes in the form of whether advocates of the ] who wish to "]" in science classes have conflated ].<ref name=kitz>]</ref> | |||
| In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously-based origin belief is superior to those of other ], 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 ] are opposed by the ] of the ].<ref name="aaas">{{cite web|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf|title=Statement on the Teaching of Evolution|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=2006|accessdate=2007-03-20}}</ref><ref>"99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" ]</ref> | |||
| ==History== | |||
| {{main|History of creationism}} | |||
| The history of creationism is part of the ], though the term itself is modern. In the 1920s the term became particularly associated with ] movements that insisted on a ] interpretation of ] and likewise opposed the idea of ]. These groups succeeded in getting teaching of evolution banned in United States ]s, then from the mid-1960s the ] promoted the teaching of "scientific creationism" using "]" in public school science classes as support for a purely literal reading of Genesis.<ref name=encarta> Contributed By: ], William Coleman: Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.</ref> After the legal judgement of the case ] ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened constitutional ], the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed ]. When the court case ] ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to ], which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The ] ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.<ref name=lenny> By Lenny Flank, Talk Reason </ref> | |||
| ===Creation in early and medieval Christianity=== | |||
| {{main|Creation (theology)}} | |||
| To a large extent the early ] ] read ] with the spiritual meaning seen as more important than the literal, without denying the literal meaning.<ref><br></ref> In the first century ] described Genesis 2:24 as an allegory meaning Christ and the Church, and ] described creation as happening simultaneously, with the six days of creation meeting a need for order and according with a ]. ] such as ] could be described as creationists, while consistently rejecting overly literal understandings of Genesis. ] explicitly states that parts of Genesis 1-3 cannot be taken literally.<ref name=rsf/> | |||
| In response to the second century ] belief that Genesis was purely allegorical, Christian orthodoxy rejected this interpretation without taking a purely literal view of the texts. Thus ] believes that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation of God, but does not take the chronology or the days as ‘literal’. Similarly, ] in the fourth century while literal in many ways, describes creation as instantaneous and timeless, being immeasurable and indivisible. ] in ''The Literal Meaning of Genesis'' is insistent that Genesis describes the creation of physical things, but also has creation occurring simultaneously, with the days of creation being categories for didactic reasons and light being the illumination of angels rather than visible light. In the thirteenth century ], 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."<ref name=rsf/> | |||
| ===Natural theology=== | |||
| {{main|Natural theology}} | |||
| From 1517 the ] brought a new emphasis on lay literacy, with ] advocating the idea that creation took six literal days about ], and claiming that "Moses wrote that uneducated men might have clear accounts of creation", though a ] peasant listening to a translation would have different perceptions from a ] familiar with early Jewish language and culture, and Luther still had to refer to allegorical understandings such as the meaning of the serpent. ] also rejected instantaneous creation, but criticised those who, contradicting the contemporary understanding of nature, asserted that there are "waters above the heavens".<ref name=rsf/> | |||
| 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 ] emphasised that the works of God in nature teach us how to interpret the word of God in the Bible, and his ] introduced the empirical approach which became central to modern science.<ref name=moore>{{cite web | last = Moore | first = James | authorlink = James Moore (biographer) | title = Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin | work = Speaking of Faith (Radio Program) | publisher = American Public Media | url =http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml | accessdate = 2007-06-27 }}</ref> ] developed the study of nature with the expectation of finding evidence supporting Christianity, and numerous attempts were made to reconcile new knowledge with ].<ref name=floodgeol>, adapted from ''The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence'' (Eerdmans, 1995) by Davis A. Young, Retrieved ].</ref> | |||
| In ] the ] of ], ], published the ] based on Bible history giving a date for Creation of 4004 BC. This was generally accepted, but the development of modern ] in the ] and ] centuries found ] and ] sequences indicating an ancient Earth. ] was favoured in England as supporting the Biblical flood, but this was found to be untenable<ref name=floodgeol/> and by 1850 all geologists and most Evangelical Christians had adopted various forms of ], while continuing to firmly reject ].<ref name=rsf/> | |||
| ===Evolution=== | |||
| {{main|History of evolutionary thought}} | |||
| From around the start of the nineteenth century ideas like ]'s concept of ] had gained a small number of supporters in ] and ], mostly amongst anatomists.<ref name=rsf/> England at that time was enmeshed in the ], and fears of republican revolutions such as the ] and ] led to a harsh repression of such evolutionary ideas which challenged the divine hierarchy justifying the monarchy. ]'s ] of ] at this time was kept closely secret. Repression eased, and the anonymous publication of '']'' in 1844 aroused wide public interest with support from ]s and ]s, but was strongly criticised by the ], which emphasised the need for solidly backed science. In 1859 Darwin's '']'' provided that evidence from an authoritative and respected source, and gradually convinced scientists that ] occurs. This was resisted by conservative evangelicals in the ], but their attention quickly turned to the much greater uproar about '']'' by ], which introduced into the controversy "]" begun by ] centuries earlier. This book re-examined the Bible and cast doubt on a literal interpretation.<ref>{{Citation | last = Desmond | first = Adrian | last2 = Moore | first2 = James | author2-link = James Moore (biographer) | year = 1991 | title = Darwin | place = London | publisher =Michael Joseph, Penguin Group | isbn = 0-7181-3430-3}}</ref> By 1875 most American ] supported ideas of ], often involving ] of human beings.<ref name=encarta/> | |||
| By the start of the twentieth century, evolution was widely accepted and was beginning to be taught in U.S. ]s. After ], stories that German aggression resulted from ''Darwinismus'' promoting "]" inspired ] to campaign against the teaching of Darwinian ideas of ].<ref name=encarta/> In the 1920s, the ] led to an upsurge of ] religious fervor in which schools were prevented from teaching evolution through state laws such as Tennessee’s 1925 ],<ref>]</ref><ref name=BF07>{{PDFlink||413 ]<!-- application/pdf, 423650 bytes -->}} A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.</ref> and by getting evolution removed from biology textbooks nationwide. ''Creationism'' became associated in common usage with opposition to evolution.<ref name=tolenny>, The History of Creationism by Lenny Flank.</ref> | |||
| ===Creation science and intelligent design=== | |||
| {{seealso|Intelligent Design}} | |||
| {{seealso|Creation science}} | |||
| The effective ban lasted until 1957 when ] raised fears that the U.S. had fallen behind in science, and the 1959 ] promoted science. ] textbooks teaching evolution were used in almost half of U.S. high schools, though the prohibitions were still in place and a 1961 attempt to repeal the Butler Act failed.<ref name=lenny/> In 1961 '']'' by the Baptist engineer ] brought the ] biblically literal ] of ] to a wider audience, popularizing a novel idea of ],<ref name=rsf/> and by 1965 the term "scientific creationism" had gained currency.<ref name=mclean>, Decision January 5, 1982.</ref> The 1968 ] judgement ruled that state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution violate the ] of the ] which prohibits state aid to religion.<ref name=eva></ref> and when in 1975 ] 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 '']'' was unconstitutional, this new group identifying themselves as creationists promoted a "]" which omitted explicit biblical references.<ref name=lenny/> | |||
| 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 occurrence of a worldwide flood.”<ref name=mclean/> This was ruled unconstitutional at ] 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.<ref name=mclean/> Undaunted, Louisiana introduced similar legislation that year. A series of judgements and appeals led to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in ] that it too violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.<ref name=BF07/> | |||
| "Creation science" could no longer be taught in public schools, and in drafts of the creation science school textbook '']'' all references to creation or creationism were changed to refer to ].<ref name=BF07/> Proponents of the ] 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,<ref name=witt>, ], Posted by Jonathan Witt on December 20, 2005 4:43 PM, retrieved ]</ref> but in ] 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.<ref name=BF07/> | |||
| ==Types of Christian creationism== | |||
| Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "]" of creationists.<ref>, ], | |||
| ] Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.</ref><ref>Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.</ref><ref>, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323</ref> | |||
| Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the broad types listed below. As a matter of popular belief and characterizations by the media, most people labeled "creationists" are those who object to specific parts of science for religious reasons; however many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science. | |||
| {| border="1" cellspacing="0" | |||
| |+ ''Comparison of major creationist views'' | |||
| |- align="center" style="background-color:#ccc;" | |||
| | | |||
| |'''Humanity''' | |||
| |'''Biological species''' | |||
| |'''Earth''' | |||
| |'''Universe''' | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="background-color:#ddd;" | ''''']''''' | |||
| |Directly created by God. | |||
| |Directly created by God. ] does not occur. | |||
| |< 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. | |||
| |< 10,000 years old. | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="background-color:#ddd;" | ''''']''''' | |||
| |Directly created by God. | |||
| |Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="background-color:#ddd;" | ''''']''''' | |||
| |Directly created by God (based on ] anatomy). | |||
| |Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="background-color:#ddd;" | ''''']''''' | |||
| |''N/A'' | |||
| |Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by what they call "]" | |||
| |Some adherents claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention | |||
| |Some adherents believe in the ], that the existence of Universe is the result of divine intervention | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="background-color:#ddd;" | ''''']''''' | |||
| |Evolution from primates. | |||
| |Evolution from single common ancestor. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. | |||
| |} | |||
| ===Young Earth creationism=== | |||
| {{main|Young Earth creationism}} | |||
| {{Globalize/USA}} | |||
| Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by ] within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in ], within the approximate time frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the ]). Young Earth creationists often believe that the ] has a similar age as the Earth. ] are attempts by some creationist thinkers to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other Young-Earth time frames. | |||
| This view is held by many Protestant Christians in the USA. It is also estimated that 47% of Americans hold this view, and almost 10% of Christian colleges teach it.<ref></ref> The Christian organizations ] (ICR), ], USA, and the ] (CRS), ], USA both promote Young Earth Creationism. Another organization with similar views, ] (AIG) Ministries based in the Greater Cincinnati area, has opened a ] to promote Young Earth Creationism. | |||
| ====Modern geocentrism==== | |||
| {{main|Modern geocentrism}} | |||
| Modern geocentrism holds that God recently created a spherical world, and placed it in the center of the universe. The ], ] and everything else in the universe revolve around it. | |||
| ====Omphalos hypothesis==== | |||
| {{main|Omphalos hypothesis}} | |||
| The Omphalos hypothesis argues that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created a mature ] with mountains and canyons, rock strata, trees with growth rings, and so on; therefore ''no'' evidence that we can see of the presumed ] and ] can be taken as reliable.<ref>Gosse, Henry Philip, 1857. Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. J. Van Voorst, London | |||
| </ref> The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that ] in far-off ]s and ]. | |||
| ====Creation science==== | |||
| {{main|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 ] which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, attacks on the science of ] through a technical argument about ]s, explanations for the ] as a record of the destruction of the ] recorded in ] (see ]), and explanations for the present ] as a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect ]s God placed in "]" or "Baramin" (see ]) due to ]. | |||
| ===Old Earth creationism=== | |||
| {{main|Old Earth creationism}} | |||
| Old Earth creationism holds that the ] was created by God, but that the creation event of Genesis is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally believes that the ] and the ] are as described by ] and ], but that details of the ] are questionable. | |||
| Old-Earth creationism itself comes in at least four types: | |||
| ====Gap creationism==== | |||
| {{main|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 {{bibleverse||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 ]. Genesis 1:1-2 is consequently translated: | |||
| : "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Original act of creation.) | |||
| : "Now the earth '''became''' and ''ruin'', darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." | |||
| Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start sometime after the Earth became "waste and ruin". This allows an indefinite "gap" of time to be inserted after the original creation of the universe, but prior to ] (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 ] 3:3-7.<ref = Bible_online>{{cite web | title = The Holy Bible, King James Version | url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=3&version=9 | accessdate = 2006-12-31 }}</ref> Discoveries of ]s and archaeological ruins older than 10,000 years are generally ascribed to this "world that then was", which may also be associated with ]'s rebellion. These views became popular with publications of Hebrew Lexicons such as the ], and Bible commentaries such as the '']'' and the ]. | |||
| ====Day-age creationism==== | |||
| {{main|Day-Age Creationism}} | |||
| Day-age creationism states that the "six days" of ] 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 ] 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 ] option which may be combined with theories such as progressive creationism. | |||
| ====Progressive creationism==== | |||
| {{main|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 ], but rejects much of modern ] or looks to it for evidence that ] by ] alone is incorrect. Organizations such as ], founded by ], promote this theory. | |||
| Progressive creationism can be held in conjunction with ] approaches to ] chapter 1 such as the ] or ]/metaphoric/poetic views. | |||
| This view of natural history runs counter to current scientific understanding, is unsupported by peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals, and is considered pseudoscience. | |||
| ===Neo-Creationism=== | |||
| {{main|Neo-Creationism}} | |||
| Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the ]. It aims to re-frame the debate over the ] 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 ] orthodox science is actually a dogmatically ] ]. Its proponents argue that the ] 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 ]. 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 ] is the ]. Unlike their philosophical forebears, Neo-Creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such a ], or in a dogmatically ]. Common to all forms of Neo-Creationism is a rejection of ], usually made together with a tacit admission of ], and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "]", which generally is meant to refer to ]. | |||
| ====Intelligent design==== | |||
| {{main|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 ]."<ref name=DIposition>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign|title=Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-05-13}}.</ref>. All of its leading proponents are associated with the ],<ref>, ], 2005.</ref> a think tank whose ] aims to replace the ] with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations.<ref>, Discovery Institute, 1999.</ref><ref name=BF07>{{PDFlink||413 ]<!-- application/pdf, 423650 bytes -->}} A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.</ref> It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,<ref>"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a ] ]." , David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.<br>• "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." , ], 2001.<br>• ]</ref><ref>Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.</ref><ref>, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323</ref><ref> | |||
| ''The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition'', ], ], ], November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.</ref> and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".<ref>{{citation | url= http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf| title = Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy| first = Barbara| last = Forrest| author-link = Barbara Forrest | date = ],]| month = May| year = 2007| publisher = ], Inc.| place = ]|accessdate = 2007-08-22}}; ] and Gross, P.R., 2003, ''Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy'', ], ], 224 p., ISBN 0195157427 </ref><ref>"''Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism." He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops". (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability...''", from , Roger T. Pennock, p. 645-667 of ''Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives'', Roger T. Pennock (editor), ], ], 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0262661241; Pennock, R.T., 1999, ''Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism'', ], ], 440 p.</ref><ref> | |||
| , ], | |||
| ] Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.; ], 2004, ''Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction'', Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p, ISBN 0520246500 </ref> | |||
| ID originated as a re-branding of ] 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 ] to change school curricula.<ref name=lenny> By Lenny Flank, Talk Reason </ref> 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 ]; the minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.<ref> , Deborah Smith Science Editor, ], October 21, 2005.</ref> | |||
| 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 ] of the ]. In ], 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 ] in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a ], based on previous Supreme Court decisions in ] and ], and by the application of the ], that creates a legal hurdle to teaching Intelligent Design in public school districts in other Federal court jurisdictions.<ref name=kitz/><ref name=BF07/> | |||
| ===Theistic evolution=== | |||
| {{main|Theistic evolution}} | |||
| Theistic evolution, also known as "evolutionary creationism", is the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about ] and ] are compatible with some or all of modern ], including specifically ]. It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the ] and ] sustainer/upholder of the universe; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong ] (as opposed to ]) convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize with the ] interpretation of the ]; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a ] or ]. | |||
| In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline ] seminaries<ref> by ] (accessed at 2007-07-09).</ref> For Catholics, ] is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. ] are not in conflict. The ] 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."<ref>{{Citation | last = Akin | first = Jimmy | title =Evolution and the Magisterium | newspaper =This Rock | year = 2004 | date = January 2004 | url =http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp | accessdate =2007-08-15 }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_21_41/ai_n13592804/print |title=National Catholic Reporter: Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias |accessdate=2007-08-15 |author=Jeff Severns Guntzel }}</ref> Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the ] 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 ] its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. ], (Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006): | |||
| :''...in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.''<ref></ref> | |||
| While supporting the ] inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some ] that this gives credence to ] ]. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,<ref> by ], by ], , , by ], , , by ], by ]</ref> including atheists,<ref> by ], Emeritus Professor of Philosophy in New Zealand.</ref> refer to the long standing convention in the ] that ] events in ] should be explained by natural causes, with the distinction that it does not assume the actual existence or non-existence of the supernatural. <!---Among other things, it means that science does not deal with the question of the existence of a Creator, and argues neither for nor against it. | |||
| "while on the other hand many scientists support such faiths which allow a voice to their spiritual side." Don't know how to include this, it anyway should talk about scientific positions (and not faiths) and spiritual side---> | |||
| ==Non-Christian creationist movements== | |||
| There are creationist movements based in religious traditions other than Christianity. | |||
| ===Hinduism and creationism=== | |||
| {{main|Hinduism and creationism}} | |||
| A variety of theories exist regarding the universe, but in general the Hindu view of the cosmos is as eternal and cyclic. ] teach that humans have lived in unchanged form on the earth for many millions of years{{Fact|date=June 2007}}. An account is recorded in the scriptures according to which the universe, the Earth, along with humans and other creatures undergo repeated cycles of creation and destruction (]). | |||
| In general, many Hindus believe in biological evolution in some form, <ref> , V. Jayaram, Hinduwebsite.com </ref> while others believe in puranic story of god Brahma being the creator. Some Hindu religious and political organizations have been charged with promoting creationism (or other ] ideas) based on interpretations of Hindu scriptures.{{Fact|date=June 2007}} | |||
| ===Islamic creationism=== | |||
| {{main|Islamic creationism}} | |||
| There is a growing movement of ]. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived conflicts between the ] and the main points of ]ary theory. | |||
| ===Jewish creationism=== | |||
| {{main|Judaism and evolution}} | |||
| Judaism has a continuum of views about creation, the origin of life and the role of evolution in the formation of species. The major ], including many Orthodox Jewish groups, accept evolutionary creationism or theistic evolution. Reform and Conservative Judaism do not take the ] 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 ] 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 ] — עולם (oh•luhm) — means hidden. Just as they believe God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their adult state, so too can they believe that the world was created in its "adult" state, with the understanding that there are, and can be, no physical ways to verify this. This belief has been advanced by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, former philosophy professor at Johns Hopkins University. Also, relatively old Kabbalistic sources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the universe was first determined are in close concord with modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe, according to Rabbi ]. Other interesting parallels are brought down from, among other sources, ], who expounds that there was a ]-like species with which ] mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).<ref>Aviezer, Nathan. In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science. Ktav, 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0-88125-328-6</ref><ref>Carmell, Aryeh and Domb, Cyril, eds. ''Challenge: Torah Views on Science'' New York: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists/Feldheim Publishers, 1976. ISBN 0-87306-174-8</ref><ref>Schroeder, Gerald L. ''The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom'' Broadway Books, 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X</ref><ref>Jeffrey H. Tigay, ''Genesis, Science, and "Scientific Creationism"'', Conservative Judaism, Vol. 40(2), Winter 1987/1988, p.20-27, The ]</ref> | |||
| ==Prevalence== | |||
| {{main|Level of support for evolution}} | |||
| ===United States=== | |||
| ]]] | |||
| According to a ] ],<ref name="Gallup2007"> </ref> about 45% of 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."<ref name="poll2001Gallup"></ref> Only 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."<ref name="Gallup2007"/> | |||
| Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, 74% believe in evolution.<ref>Frank Newport, Gallup Organization, June 11, 2007.</ref><ref> From: religioustolerance.org. Retrieved on November 11, 2007.</ref> A poll in the year 2000 done for ] found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.<ref name="pfaw"/>. | |||
| In ], ] 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.'"<ref>{{cite news|publisher=]|date=], ]|pages=23|title=Keeping God Out of the Classroom}}</ref><ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm US poll results - "Public beliefs about evolution and creation", religioustolerance.org</ref> | |||
| In ], a poll by ]<ref name="pfaw">{{PDFlink||481 ]<!-- application/pdf, 492925 bytes -->}}</ref> estimated that: | |||
| :20% of Americans believe public schools should teach evolution only; | |||
| :17% of Americans believe that only evolution should be taught in science classes—religious explanations should be taught in another class; | |||
| :29% of Americans believe that Creationism should be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory; | |||
| :13% of Americans believe that Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class; | |||
| :16% of Americans believe that only Creationism should be taught; | |||
| According to a study published in '']'', between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).<ref name="Science survey">{{cite journal|journal=Science|date=] ]|volume=313|issue=5788|pages=765-766|title=Public Acceptance of Evolution|id={{doi|10.1126/science.1126746}}}}</ref> (See the ) | |||
| Less-direct ] of the popularity of creationism is reflected in the response of ] theaters to the availability of '']'', an IMAX film which makes a connection between human ] and ]s inside undersea ]es. The film's distributor reported that the only U.S. states with theaters which chose not to show the film were ], ], ], and ]: | |||
| : "We've got to pick a film that's going to sell in our area. If it's not going to sell, we're not going to take it," said the director of an IMAX theater in Charleston that is not showing the movie. "Many people here believe in creationism, not evolution."<ref></ref> | |||
| ===The western world outside the United States=== | |||
| Most vocal strict creationists are from the United States, and strict creationist views are much less common elsewhere in the western world. | |||
| According to a ] documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that “five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.” The documentary further states that “Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement.”<ref>, Evolution, ]</ref> Taking these claims at face value, Young Earth Creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries. | |||
| In ], strict creationism is a less well-defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available. However, evolution is taught as scientific fact in most schools. In countries with a ] majority, ] acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. In the ] the ] (previously the Vardy Foundation), which runs three government-funded 13 to 19 schools in the north of England (out of several thousand in the country) and plans to open several more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid “faith positions”. One exam board (OCR) also specifically mentions and deals with creationism in its biology syllabus.<ref></ref> However, this deals with it as a historical belief and addresses hostility towards evolution rather than promoting it as an alternative to naturalistic evolution. Mainstream scientific accounts are expressed as fact. In ], former prime minister ] wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.<ref></ref> | |||
| According to a study published in '']'', a survey over 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.<ref name="Science survey"/> (See the ) | |||
| Of particular note for ], ] suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in ], under education minister ], only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.<ref></ref> "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties" says the BBC report, Čolić's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive" and announced that the decision was reversed.<ref></ref> Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."<ref></ref> ] saw a major controversy over creationism in ] when the deputy education minister, ], denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education ], 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, ] ], has however opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.<ref>"", Warsaw Business Journal, 18 December 2006.</ref> | |||
| In the ], it is notable that The Archbishop of Canterbury, and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, ] views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.<ref>, Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent, The Guardian, Tuesday March 21, 2006.</ref>. A 2006 poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolution theory and the rest did not know. The poll had the effect of reinforcing a ] ] on the subject in an attempt by the news organization to demonstrate the extent of the controversy. As the poll lacked nuanced ] and ] as well as forced participants to make choices as though there were only three options, its results do not necessarily indicate the views of the general public concerning mainstream science or religious alternatives.<ref></ref><ref></ref> | |||
| There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious fundamentalists throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.<ref>, ISTANBUL, MOSCOW AND ROME, Evolution and religion, The Economist, Apr 19th 2007.</ref> In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the ] has released a draft report entitled ''The dangers of creationism in education'' on June 8, 2007, <ref>, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, June 8, 2007.</ref> reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4th, 2007. <ref>, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, October 4, 2007.</ref> | |||
| ==Criticism== | |||
| ===The Christian critique=== | |||
| In March 2006, Archbishop of Canterbury ], 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.<ref> See transcript of Guardian interview for primary source</ref> | |||
| In "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the view that ] 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 ] 45:15, "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior." This verse inspired ] to write, "What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals himself." In the ''Heidelberg Disputation'', ] referred to the same Biblical verse to propose his "theology of the cross": "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened ... He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross." | |||
| Luther opposes his ] to what he called the "]": | |||
| :A theologian of glory does not recognize, along with the Apostle, the crucified and hidden God alone . He sees and speaks of God's glorious manifestation among the heathen, how his invisible nature can be known from the things which are visible and how he is present and powerful in all things everywhere. | |||
| For Murphy, Creationists are modern-day theologians of glory. Following Luther, Murphy argues that a true Christian cannot discover God from clues in creation, but only from the crucified Christ. | |||
| Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by Roman authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require Divine action. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" Himself. It was for this reason that Paul wrote, in Philippians 2:5-8, | |||
| :Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. | |||
| Murphy concludes that, | |||
| :Just as the son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on the cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws God has chosen. This enables us to understand the world on its own terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation. | |||
| For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a ''methodological'' naturalism, meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a ''metaphysical'' naturalism, which proposes that nature is all that there is.<ref>Murphy, George L., 2002, "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem," in ''Covalence: the Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science, and Technology'' </ref> | |||
| ===Scientific critique=== | |||
| As creationism is based on religious faith rather than evidence acquired through experiment and observation, it cannot be evaluated by science, which does not attempt to address issues of supernatural intervention in natural phenomena. The scientific consensus rejects any attempt to teach creationism as science.<ref>{{cite news | title =Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design | language =English | publisher =The Royal Society | date =2006-04-11 | url =http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298 | accessdate =2007-04-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title = 10 Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creationism | language =English | publisher =] |last= Matsumura |first=Molleen |coauthors=Mead, Louise | date =2005-02-15 | url = http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5690_10_significant_court_decisions_2_15_2001.asp | accessdate =2007-09-12}}</ref><ref> {{cite journal | title = Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution? | language =English | publisher = ScienceBlogs | journal = Pharyngula |last= Myers |first= PZ | date =2006-02-15 | url = http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php | accessdate =2007-09-12}}</ref> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| {{col-begin}} | |||
| {{col-2}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{col-2}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{col-end}} | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist|2}} | |||
| ==Additional references== | |||
| *{{Harvard reference | |||
| | Surname = Hayward | |||
| | Given = James L. | |||
| | Year = 1998 | |||
| | Title = The Creation/Evolution Controversy : an Annotated Bibliography | |||
| | Publisher = Scarecrow Press/Salem Press | |||
| | Pages = 253 | |||
| | ID = ISBN 0-8108-3386-7 | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{cite book | |||
| | last = Numbers | |||
| | first = Ronald | |||
| | authorlink = Ronald Numbers | |||
| | coauthors = | |||
| | title = ]: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition | |||
| | publisher = Harvard University Press | |||
| |date=Nov 30, 2006 | |||
| | location = | |||
| | pages = 624 pages | |||
| | url = | |||
| | doi = | |||
| | id = | |||
| | isbn = 0674023390}} | |||
| * ] (editor) ''Creation in the Old Testament'' (ISBN 0-8006-1768-1) | |||
| * ] ''Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible'' (ISBN 1-59752-042-X) | |||
| * ] ''When Science Meets Religion'', 2000, Harper SanFrancisco | |||
| * Ian Barbour ''Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues'', 1997, Harper SanFrancisco. | |||
| * | |||
| * ] ''Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life'', Ballantine Books, 1999 | |||
| * Scott, Eugenie C., 1999 (Jul/Aug). The creation/evolution continuum. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 19(4): 16-17,21-23. | |||
| * Batten, Don | |||
| ==Further reading== | |||
| * Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams ''In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah'', Tikkun, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 66-73 | |||
| * Aryeh Kaplan, ''Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View'', Ktav, NJ, in association with the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, NY, 1993 | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| <div style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> | |||
| <!-- overviews of creationism, i.e. all these links are similar because they describe the variety of viewpoints that have been described as creationist. --> | |||
| * This site features many interesting videos bringing a Creationist perspective. | |||
| * A creation website for Creation Ministries International, an apologetics ministry that supports a 6-day biblical creation worldview | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * Examines whether Biblical creation and neo-darwinistic evolution can be reconciled. | |||
| * Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate | |||
| * {{PDF||204 ]<!-- application/pdf, 209359 bytes -->}}. A Guide for Museum Docents | |||
| * from ] | |||
| * by ]. | |||
| * by ]. | |||
| * a ] statement on creationism by '']'', 2005. | |||
| * Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham ''Leading scientists still reject God'' in ''Nature,'' Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. Online at | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * A study of the Early Church's teaching on Genesis chapters 1-11. | |||
| </div> | |||
| ===Organizations=== | |||
| {{commons|Creationism|Creationism}} | |||
| ] maintains an extensive list of and . The following are links to the main organizations espousing a variety of viewpoints: | |||
| {|width=100% | |||
| |-valign=top | |||
| |width=47%| | |||
| '''Young Earth Creationism''' | |||
| * A site promoting Intelligent Design and "Young-life" Creationism | |||
| * By ] | |||
| * A group promoting Young-Earth Creationism. | |||
| * formerly Answers in Genesis. Headquarters in Australia | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry" | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| '''Old Earth Creationism''' | |||
| *Johnson, Gaines R. 1997. | |||
| * led by ] | |||
| * led by ] | |||
| |width=6%| | |||
| |width=47%| | |||
| '''Intelligent design''' | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ''' Theistic Evolution''' <!-- These are a bit thin on the ground. --> | |||
| * | |||
| '''Evolution''' | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * A pro-evolution or anti-creationism link directory | |||
| * | |||
| |} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||