Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Diego (talk | contribs) at 14:06, 17 October 2007 (Reverted good faith edits by Til Eulenspiegel; "Bible" is capitalized, 'biblical" is not (per APA, Chicago, MLA, etc.) Please find source for Oriental Orthodox statement. using TW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Creationism" can also refer to origin beliefs in general, or to a concept about the origin of the soul.

Part of a series on
Creationism
History
Types
Young Earth Old Earth day-age gap progressive Neo-creationism
Biblical cosmology
Book of Genesis creation narrative as an allegory Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Created kind Flood geology Creationist cosmologies Intelligent design
Rejection of evolution by religious groups
History Public education "Teach the Controversy"
Religious views
Non-creation Creator in Buddhism Jainism and non-creationism Evolution Theistic evolution Buddhist Catholic Hindu Islamic Jewish Mormon
v t e

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.

Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, which takes Genesis literally, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth.

Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth. Several states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements. 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.

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, its underlying scientific theories, or its methodology. For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community. The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.

Overview

The term creationism is generally used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the book of Genesis (for both Jews and Christians) or the Qur'an (for Muslims). The terms creationism and creationist have become particularly associated with beliefs about the time frame of creation, conflicting with scientific understanding of natural history, particularly evolution. This conflict is most prevalent in the United States, where there has been sustained controversy in the public arena, centering over the issue of the science curriculum in public schools.

In a Christian context, many creationists adopt a literal 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. They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in American schools (see Young Earth Creationism, for example). Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic Biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific.

Many religious sects teach that God created the cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of Genesis as well as literal aspects. Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches, such as Anglicans and Lutherans, 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 Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, " 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."

Leaders of the Anglican and Catholic churches have made statements in favour of evolutionary theory, as have scholars such as John Polkinghorne, who argue that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier supporters of evolutionary theory include Frederick Temple, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon their publication, and the French Jesuit priest and geologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his more speculative theories. Another example is that of Liberal theology, 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 creation history as an allegory (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. Two notable examples are Saint Augustine (4th century) 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); and the 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time.

Political context

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

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

History

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

Creation in early and medieval Christianity

To a large extent the early Christian Church Fathers read creation history as an allegory with the spiritual meaning seen as more important than the literal, without denying the literal meaning. In the first century Saint Paul described Genesis 2:24 as an allegory meaning Christ and the Church, and Philo described creation as happening simultaneously, with the six days of creation meeting a need for order and according with a perfect number. Jewish writers such as Abraham ibn Ezra could be described as a creationist, while consistently rejecting overly literal understandings of Genesis. Maimonides explicitly states that parts of Genesis 1-3 cannot be taken literally.

In response to the second century Gnostic belief that Genesis was purely allegorical, Christian orthodoxy rejected this interpretation without taking a purely literal view of the texts. Thus Origen believes that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation of God, but does not take the chronology or the days as ‘literal’. Similarly, Saint Basil in the fourth century while literal in many ways, describes creation as instantaneous and timeless, being immeasurable and indivisible. Augustine of Hippo 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 Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering while cautioning "that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

Natural theology

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

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

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

Evolution

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

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

Creation science and intelligent design

The effective ban lasted until 1957 when Sputnik raised fears that the U.S. had fallen behind in science, and the 1959 National Defense Education Act promoted science. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study 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. In 1961 The Genesis Flood by the Baptist engineer Henry M. Morris brought the Seventh-day Adventist biblically literal flood geology of George McCready Price to a wider audience, popularizing a novel idea of Young Earth creationism, and by 1965 the term "scientific creationism" had gained currency. The 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas judgement ruled that state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion. and when in 1975 Daniel v. Waters ruled that a state law requiring biology textbooks discussing "origins or creation of man and his world" to give equal treatment to creation as per Genesis was unconstitutional, this new group identifying themselves as creationists promoted a "Creation science" which omitted explicit biblical references.

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.” This was ruled unconstitutional at McLean v. Arkansas in January 1982 as the creationists' methods were not scientific but took the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempted to find scientific support for it. Undaunted, Louisiana introduced similar legislation that year. A series of judgements and appeals led to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that it too violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

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

Types of creationism

Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "taxonomy" of creationists. 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.

Young Earth creationism

Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by God within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in Genesis, within the approximate timeframe of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Young Earth creationists often believe that the Universe has a similar age as the Earth. Creationist cosmologies are attempts by some creationist thinkers to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other Young-Earth timeframes.

This view is held by many Protestant Christians in the USA. It is also estimated that 47% of Americans hold this view, and a little under 10% of Christian colleges teach it. The Christian organizations Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, California, USA, and the Creation Research Society (CRS), Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA both promote Young Earth Creationism. Another organization with similar views, Answers in Genesis (AIG) Ministries based in the Greater Cincinnati area, has opened a Creation Museum to promote Young Earth Creationism.

Modern geocentrism

Modern geocentrism holds that God recently created a spherical world, and placed it in the center of the universe. The Sun, planets and everything else in the universe revolve around it.

Omphalos hypothesis

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

Creation science

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

Old Earth creationism

Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event of Genesis is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally believes that the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of the evolutionary theory are questionable.

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

Gap creationism

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

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Original act of creation.)

"Now the earth became waste 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 creation week (when present biological species and humanity were created). Gap theorists can therefore agree with the scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text.

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

Day-age creationism

Day-age creationism holds that the "six days" of Genesis are not ordinary twenty-four-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time). This theory often states that the Hebrew word "yôm", in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age." Some adherents claim we are still living in the seventh age ("seventh day").

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

Progressive creationism

Progressive creationism holds that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operated—though it is generally taken that God directly intervened in the natural order at key moments in Earth/life's history. This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the earth, but rejects much of modern evolutionary biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection alone is incorrect. Organizations such as Reasons to Believe, founded by Hugh Ross, promote this theory.

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

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

Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public.

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

The most recognized form of Neo-Creationism in the United States is the Intelligent Design movement. Unlike their philosophical forebears, Neo-Creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such a young Earth, or in a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible. Common to all forms of Neo-Creationism is a rejection of naturalism, usually made together with a tacit admission of supernaturalism, and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism", which generally is meant to refer to evolution.

Intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.". All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a think tank whose Wedge strategy aims to replace the scientific method with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations. It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".

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

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

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

In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries For Catholics Human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are not in conflict. The Catechism of the Catholic Church comments positively on the theory of evolution, which is neither precluded nor required by the sources of faith, stating that scientific studies "have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man." 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. Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, though many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all. In the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. George Coyne, (Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):

...in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.

While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some atheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism. In fact, many modern philosophers of science, including atheists, refer to the long standing convention in the scientific method that observable events in nature should be explained by natural causes, with the distinction that it does not assume the actual existence or non-existence of the supernatural.

Non-Christian creationist movements

There are creationist movements based in religious traditions other than Christianity.

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. Vedic texts teach that humans have lived in unchanged form on the earth for many millions of years. 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 (pralaya).

In general, many Hindus believe in biological evolution in some form, 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 pseudo-scientific ideas) based on interpretations of Hindu scriptures.

Islamic creationism

There is a growing movement of Islamic creationism. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived conflicts between the Qur'an and the tenets of evolutionary theory.

Jewish creationism

Judaism has a continuum of views about creation, the origin of life and the role of evolution in the formation of species. The major Jewish denominations, including many Orthodox Jewish groups, accept evolutionary creationism or theistic evolution. Reform and Conservative Judaism do not take the Torah as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work. For Orthodox Jews who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, our own epistemological limits are to blame for any apparent irreconcilable point. They point to various discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear. They point out the fact that the even root word for "world" in the Hebrew language — 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 Aryeh Kaplan. Other interesting parallels are brought down from, among other sources, Nachmanides, who expounds that there was a Neanderthal-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).

Christian God as absolute origin

Nearly all denominations of Christianity assert that God is the origin, the first cause. The Roman Catholic Church holds as an unchangeable tenet of Christian faith, that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Here, creation is described as an absolute beginning, which includes the assertion that the very existence of the universe is contingent upon a necessary higher being, God, who is not Himself created. Therefore the doctrine of biblical creation places the knowledge of God central in the pursuit of the knowledge of anything, for everything comes from God. Nevertheless, this view does not mandate the concept of separate human creation; it says nothing about the mechanism by which any thing was created.

Prevalence

United States

According to a 2007 Gallup poll, about 43% 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." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in a 2006 Gallup poll. 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." Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22% believe in strict creationism. A poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.

In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"

In 2000, a poll by People For the American Way 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 Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey ,and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). (See the chart)

Less-direct anecdotal evidence of the popularity of creationism is reflected in the response of IMAX theaters to the availability of Volcanoes of the Deep Sea, an IMAX film which makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes. The film's distributor reported that the only U.S. states with theaters which chose not to show the film were Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina:

"We've got to pick a film that's going to sell in our area. If it's not going to sell, we're not going to take it," said the director of an IMAX theater in Charleston that is not showing the movie. "Many people here believe in creationism, not evolution."

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 PBS documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that “five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.” The documentary further states that “Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement.” Taking these claims at face value, Young Earth Creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries.

In Europe, 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 Roman Catholic majority, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. In the United Kingdom the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (previously the Vardy Foundation), which runs three government-funded 13 to 19 schools in the north of England (out of several thousand in the country) and plans to open several more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid “faith positions”. One exam board (OCR) also specifically mentions and deals with creationism in its biology syllabus. However, this deals with it as a historical belief and addresses hostility towards evolution rather than promoting it as an alternative to naturalistic evolution. Mainstream scientific accounts are expressed as fact. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.

According to a study published in Science, 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. (See the chart)

Of particular note for Eastern Europe, Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Čolić, only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism. "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. Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government." Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006 when the deputy education minister, Mirosław Orzechowski, denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education Roman Giertych, has stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory." Giertych's father, Member of the European Parliament Maciej Giertych, has however opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

In the United Kingdom, it is notable that The Archbishop of Canterbury, and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, Rowan Williams views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.. A 2006 poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolution theory and the rest did not know. The poll had the effect of reinforcing a culture war false dichotomy on the subject in an attempt by the news organization to demonstrate the extent of the controversy. As the poll lacked nuanced survey techniques and equivocated on origin definitions as well as forced participants to make choices as though there were only three options, its results do not necessarily indicate the views of the general public concerning mainstream science or religious alternatives.

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

Criticism

The Christian critique

In March 2006, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

The views of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion, on teaching creationism are also the same as Williams.

In "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the common view that life on Earth in all its forms is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes Phillip Johnson's claim that he is speaking "of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus." The basis of this theology is Isaiah 45:15, "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior." This verse inspired Blaise Pascal to write, "What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals himself." In the Heidelberg Disputation, Martin Luther referred to the same Biblical verse to propose his "theology of the cross": "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened ... He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross."

Luther opposes his theology of the cross to what he called the "theology of glory":

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.

Scientific critique

As creationism is based on religious faith rather than evidence acquired through experiment and observation, it is 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.

See also

References

1. Hayward 1998, p. 11 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHayward1998 (help)
2. ^ Ronald L. Numbers. "Antievolutionists and Creationists". Creationism History. Counterbalance Meta-Library. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
3. ^ Creationism/ID, A Short Legal History By Lenny Flank, Talk Reason
4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp
5. http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/v17n1_proteins.pdf
6. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2480
7. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298
8. National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
9. IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
10. From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: Template:PDFlink, AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
11. Wayne Jackson. "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?". Retrieved 2007-05-23.
12. "The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties". Retrieved 2007-05-23.
13. ^ Forster, Roger; Marston, Dr Paul (2001), "Chapter 7 - Genesis Through History", Reason Science and Faith, Chester, England: Monarch Books, ISBN 1854244418, retrieved 2007-06-30 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help).
14. Archbishop of Canterbury, Transcript of interview with the Guardian
15. Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution: Well, he is a Primate, Chris Williams, The Register, Tuesday 21 March 2006
16. What Catholics Think of Evolution? They don't not believe in it, Keelin McDonell, Explainer, Slate Magazine, July 12, 2005.
17. See also the article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church.
18. see eg John Polkinghorne's Science and Theology pp6-7
19. 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
20. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html The Works of Philo Judaeus, Chapter 2, translated by Charles Duke Yonge
21. ^ Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005
22. "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-20.
23. "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" Finding the Evolution in Medicine National Institutes of Health
24. ^ Creationism," Contributed By: Ronald L. Numbers, William Coleman: Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007 http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
25. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
    Early Christian Writings
26. Moore, James. "Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin". Speaking of Faith (Radio Program). American Public Media. Retrieved 2007-06-27.
27. ^ History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth, adapted from The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (Eerdmans, 1995) by Davis A. Young, Retrieved 2007-06-30.
28. Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN 0-7181-3430-3
29. s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 19 of 139
30. ^ Template:PDFlink A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
31. TalkOrigins Archive: Post of the Month: March 2006, The History of Creationism by Lenny Flank.
32. ^ McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Decision January 5, 1982.
33. Edwards v. Aguillard
34. Evolution News & Views: Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design, Discovery Institute, Posted by Jonathan Witt on December 20, 2005 4:43 PM, retrieved 2007-07-01
35. The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.
36. Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.
37. Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323
38. Creation crisis in Christian colleges
39. Gosse, Henry Philip, 1857. Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. J. Van Voorst, London
40. "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13..
41. Kitzmiller v. Dover Testimony, Barbara Forrest, 2005.
42. Wedge Strategy, Discovery Institute, 1999.
43. "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
    • Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling
44. Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.
45. Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323
46. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.
47. Forrest, Barbara (May,2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF), Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., retrieved 2007-08-22 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link); Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 224 p., ISBN 0195157427
48. "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 Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski, Roger T. Pennock, p. 645-667 of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Roger T. Pennock (editor), Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0262661241; Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism, Cambridge, MIT Press, 440 p.
49. The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.; Scott, E.C., 2004, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p, ISBN 0520246500
50. Intelligent design not science: experts, Deborah Smith Science Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, October 21, 2005.
51. Science, Religion, and Evolution by Eugenie Scott (accessed at 2007-07-09).
52. Akin, Jimmy (January 2004), "Evolution and the Magisterium", This Rock, retrieved 2007-08-15{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
53. Jeff Severns Guntzel. "National Catholic Reporter: Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias". Retrieved 2007-08-15.
54. http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504
55. The Tower of Babel by Robert T. Pennock, Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry by Steven D. Schafersman, The Leiter Reports, Report on "Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise" conference, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, 11: GOD, SCIENCE, AND NATURALISM by Paul R. Draper, Philosophy Now: The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory, Statement on Intelligent Design, Science and fundamentalism by Massimo Pigliucci, Justifying Methodological Naturalism by Michael Martin (philosopher)
56. Butterflies and wheels article by Raymond Bradley, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy in New Zealand.
57. Hinduism and evolution, V. Jayaram, Hinduwebsite.com
58. Aviezer, Nathan. In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science. Ktav, 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0-88125-328-6
59. 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
60. Schroeder, Gerald L. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom Broadway Books, 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X
61. Jeffrey H. Tigay, Genesis, Science, and "Scientific Creationism", Conservative Judaism, Vol. 40(2), Winter 1987/1988, p.20-27, The Rabbinical Assembly
62. ^ See Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution.
63. ^ See Americans Still Hold Faith In Divine Creation.
64. ^ Template:PDFlink
65. "Keeping God Out of the Classroom". Newsweek. June 29, 1987. p. 23. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
66. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm US poll results - "Public beliefs about evolution and creation", religioustolerance.org
67. ^ "Public Acceptance of Evolution". Science. 313 (5788): 765–766. 11 August 2006. doi:10.1126/science.1126746. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
68. Evolution Reference Hurts Volcano Film
69. Evolution Revolution, Evolution, Public Broadcasting System
70. Exam board brings creationism into science class
71. We put the clock back a 1000 years (German language)
72. Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools
73. Serbia reverses Darwin suspension
74. 'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits
75. "And finally...", Warsaw Business Journal, 18 December 2006.
76. Archbishop: stop teaching creationism-Williams backs science over Bible, Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent, The Guardian, Tuesday March 21, 2006.
77. Britons unconvinced on evolution
78. BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life
79. In the beginning: The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global, ISTANBUL, MOSCOW AND ROME, Evolution and religion, The Economist, Apr 19th 2007.
80. The dangers of creationism in education, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, June 8, 2007.
81. The dangers of creationism in education - Resolution 1580, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, October 4, 2007.
82. The Guardian, Archbishop: Stop teaching creationism, Williams backs science over Bible See transcript of Guardian interview for primary source
83. 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
84. "Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design". The Royal Society. 2006-04-11. Retrieved 2007-04-23.
85. Matsumura, Molleen (2005-02-15). ["10 Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creationism". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2007-09-12. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
86. Myers, PZ (2006-02-15). ["Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?". Pharyngula. ScienceBlogs. Retrieved 2007-09-12. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)

Additional references

• Template:Harvard reference
• Template:Harvard reference
• Ronald L. Numbers: The Creationists (University of California Press, 25. November 1993), 458pp, ISBN 0-520-08393-8
• Anderson, Bernhard W. (editor) Creation in the Old Testament (ISBN 0-8006-1768-1)
• Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible (ISBN 1-59752-042-X)
• Ian Barbour When Science Meets Religion, 2000, Harper SanFrancisco
• Ian Barbour Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, 1997, Harper SanFrancisco.
• Bradshaw, Robert I., "The Early Church & the Age of the Earth"
• Stephen Jay Gould 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 "It's not science"

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

• The Edinburgh Creation Group This site features many interesting videos bringing a Creationist perspective.
• CreationOnTheWeb A creation website for Creation Ministries International, an apologetics ministry that supports a 6-day biblical creation worldview
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Creationism
• How creationism works
• Muslim viewpoint
• Darwinism Refuted
• Creation and Evolution Both? Examines whether Biblical creation and neo-darwinistic evolution can be reconciled.
• Evolution, Creationism & ID Timeline Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate
• Template:PDF. A Guide for Museum Docents
• What is creationism? from talk.origins
• The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie Scott.
• Armies of the Night by Isaac Asimov.
• Workers have stake in defending science a materialist statement on creationism by The Militant, 2005.
• Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham Leading scientists still reject God in Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. Online at Freethought-web.org
• Creationism: The Hindu View
• Northwest Creation Network's extensive list of International Creation Science links
• Teaching Hearts Creation Science
• Creationism & The Early Church A study of the Early Church's teaching on Genesis chapters 1-11.

Organizations

Talk.origins maintains an extensive list of general links relevant to creationism and a full list of creationist websites. The following are links to the main organizations espousing a variety of viewpoints:

• Creationism
• Theism
• Theology