Creationism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.139.199.98 (talk) at 10:31, 25 July 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:31, 25 July 2012 by 86.139.199.98 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. For the movement in Spanish literature, see Creacionismo.

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

Rejection of evolution by religious groups

Religious views

Non-creation

Evolution

Theistic evolution

Creationism is the religious beliefCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). 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 opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

United States

According to a 2001 Gallup poll, 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", and 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process".

Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept evolution. 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.'"

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

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

According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in Creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999. 21% believe in 'the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientists' (up from 15% in 1999), and 27% answered that both are true (up from 26% in 1999).

Education controversies

The Truth fish, one of the many creationist responses to the Darwin fish.

Main article: Creation–evolution controversy

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

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

Americans believe that:

Public schools should teach evolution only			20%
Only evolution should be taught in science classes, religious explanations can be discussed in another class			17%
Creationism can be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory			29%
Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class			13%
Only Creationism should be taught			16%
Teach both evolution and Creationism, but unsure how to do so			4%
No opinion			1%

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

Criticism

Christian criticism

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

In his 2002 article "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the view that life on Earth, in all its forms, is direct evidence of God's act of creation (Murphy quotes Phillip Johnson's claim that he is speaking "of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints on all the evidence."). Murphy argues that this view of God is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as "the one revealed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus." The basis of this theology is Isaiah 45:15, "Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior."

Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by Roman authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require Divine action. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" Himself. It was for this reason that Paul wrote, in Philippians 2:5-8,

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Murphy concludes that,

Just as the son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on the cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws God has chosen. This enables us to understand the world on its own terms, but it also means that natural processes hide God from scientific observation.

For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a methodological naturalism, meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a metaphysical naturalism, which proposes that nature is all that there is.

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

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

Scientific criticism

Main article: Creation–evolution controversy

Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence and testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts. Some creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and often do not allow predictions at all. Therefore, these can neither be confirmed nor disproved by scientists. However, many creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its geological history and the origins, distributions and relationships of living organisms found on it. Early science incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually falsified and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence that often allows the accurate prediction of future results. Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called non-overlapping magisteria. This view is also held by many theologians, who believe that ultimate origins and meaning are addressed by religion, but favour verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, reject the non-overlapping magisteria and argue that, in disproving literal interpretations of creationists, the scientific method also undermines religious texts as a source of truth. Irrespective of this diversity in viewpoints, since creationist beliefs are not supported by empirical evidence, the scientific consensus is that any attempt to teach creationism as science should be rejected.

Organizations

Creationism (in general)

Young Earth Creationism

Answers in Genesis, a group promoting Young-Earth Creationism
Creation Ministries International, an organisation promoting biblical creation
Creation Research Society
Institute for Creation Research, "a Christ-Focused Creation Ministry"

Old Earth Creationism

Reasons to Believe led by Hugh Ross
Answers In Creation led by Greg Neyman

Intelligent design

Evolutionary creationism

BioLogos Foundation

Evolution

Notes on terminology

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "myth" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Notes

"'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits", BBC News, 16 September 2004
"And finally...", Warsaw Business Journal, 18 December 2006
^ "Majority of Americans Doubt Theory of Evolution". Gallup.com. 2004-11-19. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
"Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans". Unl.edu. 2001-03-05. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
Frank Newport, "Evolution Beliefs." Gallup Organization, June 11, 2007.
"Public beliefs about evolution and creation." From: religioustolerance.org. Retrieved on November 11, 2007.
"Keeping God Out of the Classroom". Newsweek. June 29, 1987. p. 23.
"US poll results - "Public beliefs about evolution and creation"". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
^ Template:PDFlink
Cite error: The named reference Science survey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Fox News Poll: Creationism". Fox News. New Corporation. 7 September 2011. Retrieved 22 September 2011.
Cite error: The named reference kitz was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
"Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-20.
"99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" Finding the Evolution in Medicine National Institutes of Health
"National Center for Science Education: Statements from Religious Organizations". Ncse.com. 2003-10-14. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
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
publisher=The Guardian "Archbishop: Stop teaching creationism, Williams backs science over Bible (See transcript of Guardian interview for primary source)". {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help)
"American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism". National Center for Science Education. July 23, 2010. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism (free pdf download ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. pp. 10–12. ISBN 0-309-10586-2. Retrieved 2008-10-27. In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations.
"An Index to Creationist Claims". Retrieved 2008-08-12.
Futuyma, Douglas J. "Evolutionary Science, Creationism, and Society" (PDF). "Evolution" (2005). Retrieved 2008-08-12.
Gould, S. J. (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books.
Gould, Stephen Jay (1997). "Nonoverlapping Magisteria". Natural History. 106 (3): 16–22. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Transworld Publishers. p. 5. ISBN 0-593-05548-9.
"Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design". The Royal Society. 2006-04-11. Retrieved 2007-04-23.
Matsumura, Molleen (2007-07-31). "10 Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creationism". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2008-11-04. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Myers, PZ (2006-02-15). "Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?". Pharyngula. ScienceBlogs. Retrieved 2007-09-12. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
"Answers In Creation". Answers In Creation. Retrieved 2011-03-10.

References

Barlow, Nora, ed. (1963). "Darwin's Ornithological Notes". Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series. Vol. 2, no. No. 7. pp. 201–278. Retrieved 2009-06-10. {{cite news}}: |issue= has extra text (help)
Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23693-9.
Barlow, Nora, ed. (1958). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin | 1809–1882 | With the Original Omissions Restored. Edited and with Appendix and Notes by his Granddaughter Nora Barlow. London: Collins. Retrieved 2009-01-09.
Desmond, Adrian (1989). The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-14374-0.
Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. ISBN 0-7181-3430-3.
Dewey, John (1994). "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy". In Martin Gardner (ed.). Great Essays in Science. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-853-8.
Forster, Roger; Marston, Dr Paul (1999). "Genesis Through History". Reason Science and Faith (Ivy Cottage: E-Books ed.). Chester, England: Monarch Books. ISBN 1-85424-441-8. Retrieved 2009-03-24.
Hayward, James L. (1998). The Creation/Evolution Controversy: an annotated bibliography. Scarecrow Press/Salem Press. p. 253. ISBN 0-8108-3386-7.
Miles, Sara Joan (2001). "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Vol. 53. pp. 196–201. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
Moore, James (2006). Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin. Speaking of Faith (Radio Program). American Public Media. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
Quammen, David (2006). The Reluctant Mr. Darwin. New York: Atlas Books. ISBN 0-393-05981-2.
Secord, James A. (2000). Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74411-6.