Asked in
The Bible
Creation

What is creationism?

Answer

User Avatar
Wiki User
November 15, 2015 9:52PM

Creationism was a movement that began in response to the discovery that all higher animals, including humans, evolved from simpler organisms. Creationism is the belief that the universe, earth, and life were created much as they now exist by a supernatural being (most often the God of the Bible), and did not gradually evolve or develop.

Creationism can be separated into two basic groups: traditional, young-earth and old-earth creationism:

Young-earth creationists interpret the Book of Genesis literally, and believe that the whole universe, including the earth and life on it, was created in six, 24-hour days as stated in Genesis chapter 1. Based on Biblical chronologies, they also believe that the Earth is around 6,000 years old and that the earth's fossils and rock layers are the result of a global flood. Because Young-earth creationism so obviously contradicts established science, it has developed a 'pseudo-science' of its own.

Old-earth creationists accept the scientific evidence that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Rather than believing that everything was created in six, 24-hour days, many old-earth creationists believe that these "days" represent long periods of time. While they accept that the earth is immensely old, most old-earth creationists do not accept evolution as the process by which life developed.

Theistic evolution is related to old-earth creationism, but says that God guided the development of the universe and the process of evolution, allowing them to take place gradually and subject to the natural laws of the universe. This, at least, is a more rational form of creationism because it accepts the facts of science and is capable of adapting to new scientific discoveries.

User Avatar
Wiki User
November 15, 2015 8:53PM

It is the belief that life was created. it rejects Evolution, especially if Evolution is presented as part of an atheistic world-view.

Here are some arguments for Creationism, or against Evolution:

These point to Divine Creation:

  • The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
  • The vastness of our minds and emotions.
  • The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism.)
  • The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
See: More detailed evidence of Creation

Also:

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."


3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.


4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).


5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.


6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.


7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.


8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.


9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary paleontology would require.


10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).


11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).


12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).


13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.


14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.


15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)


16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.
e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom


Dissent against Darwin

The facts


Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation

User Avatar
Wiki User
December 11, 2013 8:44PM

Creationism is the belief that the Universe, Earth, and life was created much as they now exist by a supernatural being (most often the God of the Bible), and did not gradually evolve or develop.

When referring to Biblical creationism, it can be separated into two groups: Young-earth and old-earth creationism.

Young-earth creationists interpret the Book of Genesis literally, and believe that the whole Universe, including the Earth and life, was created in six, 24-hour days as is explicitly stated in Genesis. They also believe that the Earth is around 6,000 years old based on Biblical chronologies, and that the Earth's fossils and rock layers are the result of a global flood. Young-earth creationists have often been heavily criticized for rejecting the scientific consensus of an old earth.

Old-earth creationists accept the scientific evidence that points to the Earth being approximately 4.5 billion years old, as well as the Universe being approximately 13.7 billion years old. They don't interpret Genesis as literally as young-earth creationists, and rather than believing that everything was created in six, 24-hour days, the believe that these "days" represent long periods of time. While they accept an old earth, these creationists may not necessarily accept evolution as the process by which life developed.

Theistic evolution, the belief that God guided the process of evolution, may or may not fit under old-earth creationism, because theistic evolutionists always accept an old earth.