Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
creationist cre·a'tion·ist adj. & n.ADVERTISEMENT
|
Results for creationism
|
On this page:
|
n.
Hacker Slang:
creationism
The (false) belief that large, innovative software designs can be completely specified in advance and then painlessly magicked out of the void by the normal efforts of a team of normally talented programmers. In fact, experience has shown repeatedly that good designs arise only from evolutionary, exploratory interaction between one (or at most a small handful of) exceptionally able designer(s) and an active user population — and that the first try at a big new idea is always wrong. Unfortunately, because these truths don't fit the planning models beloved of management, they are generally ignored.
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
creationism
For more information on creationism, visit Britannica.com.
Philosophy Dictionary:
creationism
1. The doctrine that a new soul is created afresh for each person: opposed to traducianism.
2. In the philosophy of biology, the belief that perceived difficulties or gaps in the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection are well filled by positing Divine intervention, to create new species, and certainly to create people. Even when it does not depend upon misunderstanding the theory of evolution, the doctrine is unscientific because it simply postulates a God-sized cause for whatever gap is currently of interest: this leads to no
Archaeology Dictionary:
creationism
[Th]
The attribution of all matter and biological species to separate acts of creation rather than evolution. Such theories were current during the early centuries of antiquarian and archaeological research, and many reputations were staked and much energy was spent refuting them.
US History Encyclopedia:
Creationism
Creationism, the belief that life on Earth is the product of a divine act rather than organic evolution, has had a strong and persistent presence in American culture. From the first responses to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in the 1860s through vigorous curriculum debates at the end of the twentieth century, American voices have been raised in defense of biblical accounts of the history of life. Indeed, prior to the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, America's leading naturalist, Louis Agassiz, had articulated a scientifically sophisticated creationism—a position he continued to defend until his death in 1873, using it to point out flaws in Darwin's theory. In response to Darwin's work, many American scientists sought to retain a place for divine intervention in the history of life, even if they—like renowned botanist Asa Gray—considered themselves evolutionists. While American naturalists were embracing some form of organic evolution, conservative American theologians criticized the theory for its inconsistency with scriptural accounts.
As organic evolution became a generally accepted scientific principle and an element in school curricula in the early years of the twentieth century, American Christianity was experiencing the rise of fundamentalism. These two cultural developments collided dramatically in the 1920s as fundamentalist-led movements in twenty states sought to outlaw the teaching of evolution in public schools. Although their challenges to evolutionary theory were rooted in its incompatibility with a literal interpretation of the Bible, Christian critics also made opportunistic use of criticisms raised about the scientific merits of Darwin's theory. The conflict between supporters of evolutionary theory and the theory's fundamentalist opponents reached a high point in 1925, when a Tennessee high school teacher, John Thomas Scopes, confessed to violating that state's new law forbidding the teaching of evolution. The courtroom clash between defense attorney Clarence Darrow and Williams Jennings Bryan ended badly for the creationist movement, despite their guilty verdict, as Bryan—elderly and poorly prepared—failed to present a coherent challenge to the evolutionists.
The creationist movement, as it was now known, received less publicity during the four decades following the Scopes Trial. Nevertheless, a strong constituency opposed to evolution remained among American Christians, especially conservative fundamentalists and evangelicals. For the first time, a significant number of individuals with advanced scientific training became active in the movement. This gave the creationists a more effective voice in criticizing evolutionary theory for its scientific flaws as they organized groups such as the Creation Research Society (founded in 1963). Increasingly, the debate between creationists and evolutionists used the language, credentials, and style of science.
The goal of scientific creationism, as the movement came to be known in the 1970s, differed from that of earlier creationist movements. Rather than trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution, scientific creationists argued for equal curriculum time. By working to demonstrate that evolution and creationism were two competing, legitimate scientific theories, they portrayed the exclusion of creationism from textbooks and classrooms as an act of prejudice rather than a defensible exclusion of religion from scientific education. This tactic brought significant victories. More than twenty state legislatures considered balanced treatment laws, and several passed them. While most of these legal victories were quickly reversed, the debate's impact on textbooks, teachers, and local school boards was subtle and long-lived. Particularly in the South and Midwest, where fundamentalist Christianity had the greatest influence, the argument for a balanced science curriculum swayed classroom content away from the rigorous teaching of evolutionary theory. The universal condemnation of scientific creationism by accepted scientific authorities was labeled intolerance By the creationists.
By the end of the twentieth century, the American-based creationist movement had inspired similar movements in a number of other countries. While evolutionary theory retained the full confidence of practicing scientists, the wider public remained more skeptical, with sizable fractions of the population around the country professing not to accept evolution. Clearly, the persistence of the creationist movement helped this belief survive well beyond the community of fundamentalist Christians.
Bibliography
Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: Norton, 1983.
Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
———. Darwinism Comes to America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Ruse, Michael, ed. But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1996.
—Loren Butler Feffer
Columbia Encyclopedia:
creationism
or creation science, belief in the biblical account of the creation of the world as described in Genesis, a characteristic especially of fundamentalist Protestantism (see fundamentalism). Advocates of creationism have campaigned to have it taught in U.S. public schools along with the theory of evolution, which they dispute. In 1981 a federal judge ruled unconstitutional an Arkansas law requiring the teaching of creationism, holding it to be religious in nature; a similar Louisiana law was overturned in 1982. In 1999, supporters of creationism in Kansas succeeded in removing the requirement that evolution be taught as part of the state's high school biology curriculum, but after several supporters of the measure were not reelected to the state school board that decision was reversed in 2001. Fundamentalist Christians have also opposed the teaching of scientific theories concerning the formation of the universe (see cosmology). See also intelligent design.
Bibliography
See E. C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism (2004); M. Ruse, The Evolution-Creation Struggle (2005).
Wikipedia:
creationism
- "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 |
|
|
| Types of creationism |
|
Day-age creationism |
| Other religious views |
| Creation theology |
|
Creation in Genesis |
| Creation science |
| Controversy |
|
Politics of creationism |
| Creationism Portal · |
Creationism is a religious belief that humanity,
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.[2] 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.[3] 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.[2]
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,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] or its methodology.[6] 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
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.[11][12] 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.[13] 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, "[for] 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."[14]
Leaders of the Anglican[15] and Catholic [16][17] 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,[18] 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);[19] 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.[20]
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.[21]
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.[22][23]
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.[24] 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.[3]
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.[25] 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.[13]
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."[13]
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".[13]
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.[26] 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.[27]
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[27] and by 1850 all geologists and most Evangelical Christians had adopted various forms of old Earth creationism, while continuing to firmly reject evolution.[13]
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.[13] 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
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.[24] 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,[29][30] and by getting evolution removed from biology textbooks nationwide. Creationism became associated in common usage with opposition to evolution.[31]
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.[3] 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,[13] and by 1965 the term "scientific creationism" had gained currency.[32] 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.[33] 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.[3]
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.”[32] 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.[32] 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.[30]
"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.[30] 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,[34] 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.[30]
Types of creationism
Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "taxonomy" of creationists.[35][36][37] 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.
| Humanity | Biological species | Earth | Universe | |
| Young Earth creationism | Directly created by God. | Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. | < 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. | < 10,000 years old. |
| Gap creationism | Directly created by God. | Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. | Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. | Scientifically accepted age. |
| Progressive creationism | Directly created by God (based on primate anatomy). | Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. | Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. | Scientifically accepted age. |
| Intelligent design | N/A | Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by irreducible complexity | Some adherents claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention | Some adherents believe in the teleological argument, that the existence of Universe is the result of divine intervention |
| Theistic evolution | Evolution from primates. | Evolution from single common ancestor. | Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. | Scientifically accepted age. |
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 almost 10% of Christian colleges teach it.[38] 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.[39] 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.[40] 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
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."[41]. All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute,[42] 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.[43][30] It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,[44][45][46][47] and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".[48][49][50]
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.[3] 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.[51]
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.[21][30]
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[52] 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."[53] 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.[54] 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.[55]
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,[56] including atheists,[57] 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[citation needed]. 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, [58] 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.[citation needed]
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