| Revision as of 23:58, 15 November 2017 view sourceJust plain Bill (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,205 editsm Reverted 4 edits by Example123456482834748929384748229 (talk) to last revision by ClueBot NG. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:09, 16 November 2017 view source Example123456482834748929384748229 (talk | contribs)7 edits ←Replaced content with 'Creationism was founded by George Washington s. bush. He looked at the bible at said no. This is all fake. John Marlow made the bible in the testament. So...'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Creationism was founded by George Washington s. bush. He looked at the bible at said no. This is all fake. John Marlow made the bible in the testament. Sorry, it was the drunk Christopher Marlow. He was playing cards when he stood up an said" boy get on the ground and slap yourself!" Oh wow, it is Asian month. There was a joke for you guys that Christopher Columbus said a lot. How do you blindfold an asian? by putting floss over their eyes! That is what james s bush said | |||
| {{Hatnote|"Creationism" can also refer to ]s, or to a ]. ] refers to the pseudoscientific movement in the United States.<ref>], p. 436</ref>}} | |||
| {{For|the movement in Spanish literature|Creacionismo}} | |||
| {{Creationism2}} | |||
| '''Creationism''' is the ] that the ] and ] originated "from specific acts of ],"<ref name="Gunn2004">], p. 9, "The ''Concise Oxford Dictionary'' says that creationism is 'the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation.'"</ref><ref> | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| | first1=Olivier | |||
| | last1=Brosseau | |||
| | first2=Marc | |||
| | last2=Silberstein | |||
| | contribution = Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s) | |||
| | editor-first1 = Thomas | |||
| | editor-last1 = Heams | |||
| | editor-first2 =Philippe | |||
| | editor-last2=Huneman | |||
| | editor-first3 =Guillaume | |||
| | editor-last3=Lecointre | |||
| | editor-first4 =Marc | |||
| | editor-last4=Silberstein. | |||
| | title = Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences | |||
| | pages = 881–96 | |||
| | publisher = Springer | |||
| | place = Dordrecht | |||
| | year = 2015 | |||
| | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=46aUBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA789&dq=Handbook+of+Evolutionary+Thinking+in+the+Sciences&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgkvjm5ajRAhUG-GMKHSnfBYMQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=881&f=false | |||
| | ref=harv | |||
| }}</ref> as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.<ref name="OD_creationism">{{cite web|url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism?q=creationism|title=creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)|website=Oxford Dictionaries|publisher=]|location=Oxford|type=Definition|oclc=656668849|quote=The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|accessdate=2014-03-05}}</ref> The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of ] describing those who objected on religious grounds to the emerging science of ].<ref name="Darwin_letters_1856_1863">{{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-1919 |title=Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D. |last=Darwin |first=Charles |authorlink=Charles Darwin |date=July 5, 1856 |website=] |publisher=] |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 1919 |accessdate=2010-08-11}} | |||
| *{{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-4196 |title=Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa |last=Darwin |first=Charles |date=May 31, 1863 |website=Darwin Correspondence Project |publisher=Cambridge University Library |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 4196 |accessdate=2010-08-11}}</ref> | |||
| Creationism covers a spectrum of views including ''evolutionary creationism'', a ] variant of ] which asserts that both evolutionary science and a belief in creation are true, but the term is commonly used for literal creationists who reject various aspects of science, and instead promote ] beliefs.<ref name="Scott1999" /><ref name="Stewart2009" /> | |||
| Literal creationists base their beliefs on a ] reading of ], including the ]s found in ] and the ].<ref name="nytimes.com">https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html?_r=0</ref><ref name=Huffpo>{{cite web|last=al-Azami|first=Usaama|title=Muslims and Evolution in the 21st Century: A Galileo Moment?|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/usaama-alazami/muslims-and-evolution-in-the-21st-century-a-galileo-moment_b_2688895.html|work=Huffington Post Religion Blog|accessdate=19 February 2013}}</ref><ref name="Campbell_2006" /> For ], these beliefs are based on a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and rejection of the ] of evolution.<ref name="Stewart2009">], p. 168, "Some Christians, often called 'Young Earth creationists,' reject evolution in order to maintain a semi-literal interpretation of certain biblical passages. Other Christians, called 'progressive creationists,' accept the scientific evidence for some evolution over a long history of the earth, but also insist that God must have performed some miracles during that history to create new life-forms. ], as it is promoted in North America is a form of progressive creation. Still other Christians, called 'theistic evolutionists' or 'evolutionary creationists,' assert that the scientific theory of evolution and the religious beliefs of Christianity can both be true."</ref> Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the ], ], and ] of life on ].<ref name="Campbell_2006">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation|title=Academics fight rise of creationism at universities|last=Campbell|first=Duncan|date=February 20, 2006|publisher=]|newspaper=]|location=London|accessdate=2010-04-07}}</ref> Pseudoscientific branches of creationism include ],<ref>{{cite journal |title=Creation Science Is Not Science |year=1982 |first=Michael |last=Ruse |journal=Science, Technology, & Human Values |volume=7 |number=40 |pages=72–78 |url=http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/3330/ruseandlaudan-demarcation.pdf}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite book|last=Montgomery|first= David R.|year= 2012 |title=The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|ref=harv}}</ref> and ],<ref>{{cite journal |last=Padian |first=Kevin |authorlink=Kevin Padian |date=January–April 2006 |title=The Dover Victory |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2/dover-victory |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=26 |issue=1-2 |pages=49–50 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2014-05-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Alters |first=Brian |authorlink=Brian Alters |date=January–April 2006 |title='Ties' to Canada |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2/ties-to-canada-0 |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=26 |issue=1-2 |pages=51–52 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2014-05-06}}</ref> as well as subsets of ],<ref>{{cite book |title=Cult Archaeology and Creationism |first1=Francis B. |last1=Harold |first2=Raymond A. |last2=Eve |publisher=University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa |year=1995 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=649mAAAAMAAJ&q=creationist+pseudoarchaeology+bible&dq=creationist+pseudoarchaeology+bible&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj979z9kKLJAhVFPD4KHe2IDEM4ChDoAQg5MAU}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=The Oxford Companion to Archaeology |page=54 |first=Gabriel |last=Moshenska |chapter=Alternative archaeologies |publisher=Oxford University Press |editor=Neil Asher Silberman|volume=1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xeJMAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Oxford+Companion+to+Archaeology&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY08X3lqLJAhWIHT4KHYhfA2sQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=The%20Oxford%20Companion%20to%20Archaeology&f=false}}</ref> ], and pseudolinguistics.<ref>{{cite book |first=Robert T. |last=Pennock |title=Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism |publisher=Bradford Books |year=2000 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aC1OccYnX0sC&dq=Tower+of+Babel:+The+Evidence+Against+the+New+Creationism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNlNKqwKLJAhVHpYgKHfsaDyUQ6AEIJjAB}}</ref> | |||
| ==Biblical basis== | |||
| The basis for many creationists' beliefs is a literal or quasi-literal interpretation of the ], especially from stories from the ]: | |||
| * The ] (Genesis 1–2) describes how ] brings the Universe into being in a series of creative acts over six days and places the first man and woman (]) in a divine garden (the ]). This story is the basis of Creationist cosmology and biology. | |||
| * The ] (Genesis 6–9) tells how God destroys the world and all life through a great flood, saving representatives of each form of life by means of ]. This forms the basis of Creationist geology, better known as ]. | |||
| A further important element is the interpretation of the ], the elaborate system of life-spans, "generations," and other means by which the Bible measures the passage of events from the Creation (Genesis 1:1) to the ], the last biblical book in which it appears. Recent decades have seen attempts to de-link Creationism from the Bible and recast it as science: these include ] and ].<ref>Richard F. Carlson, Tremper Longman III, Science, Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins, p.25</ref> There are also non-Christian forms of Creationism, notably Islamic Creationism and Hindu Creationism. | |||
| ==Types of creationism== | |||
| Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "]" of creationists.<ref name="Scott1999">{{cite journal |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |authorlink=Eugenie Scott |date=July–August 1999 |title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=16–17, 23–25 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2014-03-14}}</ref><ref name="Wise-p30">{{cite journal |last=Wise |first=Donald U. |date=January 2001 |title=Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution |url=http://nagt.org/nagt/jge/abstracts/jan01.html |journal=Journal of Geoscience Education |location=Bellingham, WA |publisher=] |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=30–35 |issn=1089-9995 |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref><ref name="nagt-pdf-Ross">{{cite journal |last=Ross |first=Marcus R. |authorlink=Marcus R. Ross |date=May 2005 |title=Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism |url=http://nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf |format=PDF |journal=Journal of Geoscience Education |location=Bellingham, WA |publisher=National Association of Geoscience Teachers |volume=53 |issue=3 |pages=319–323 |issn=1089-9995 |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref> Creationism (broadly construed) covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the general types listed below. | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| |+ Comparison of major creationist views | |||
| |- | |||
| ! | |||
| !Acceptance in the US | |||
| !Humanity | |||
| !Biological species | |||
| !Earth | |||
| !Age of Universe | |||
| |- | |||
| ! ] | |||
| |rowspan="2"| 38% (2017)<ref name=Gallup2017/> | |||
| |rowspan="2"| Directly created by God. | |||
| |rowspan="2"| Directly created by God. ] does not occur. | |||
| |Less than 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. | |||
| |Less than 10,000 years old, but some hold this view only for our Solar System. | |||
| |- | |||
| ! ] | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. | |||
| |- | |||
| ! ] | |||
| |rowspan="3"| 38% (2017)<ref name=Gallup2017/> | |||
| |Directly created by God, based on ] anatomy. | |||
| |Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. | |||
| |- | |||
| ! ] | |||
| |Proponents hold various beliefs. (For example, ] accepts evolution from primates.) | |||
| |] at some point in the past, as evidenced by what intelligent-design creationists call "]." | |||
| |Some adherents accept ], others not. Some claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. | |||
| |- | |||
| ! ] (evolutionary creationism) | |||
| |Evolution from primates. | |||
| |Evolution from single common ancestor. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. | |||
| |Scientifically accepted age. | |||
| |} | |||
| ===Young Earth creationism=== | |||
| {{Main article|Young Earth creationism}} | |||
| ] (ICR) is a young-Earth creationist organization.]] | |||
| Young Earth creationists such as ] and ] believe that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the ]). Most young Earth creationists believe that the universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assign a much older age to the universe than to Earth. ] give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other young Earth time frames. Other young Earth creationists believe that the Earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, so that the world appears to be much older than it is, and that this appearance is what gives the geological findings and other methods of dating the Earth and the universe their much longer ]s. | |||
| The Christian organizations ] (ICR) and the ] (CRS) both promote young Earth creationism in the US. Another organization with similar views, ] (AiG)—based in both the US and the ]—has opened the ] in ], to promote young Earth creationism. ] promotes young Earth views in Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, the US, and the UK. Among ], the ] for the Study of Creation promotes similar ideas. In 2007, Ken Ham founded the ] and ] in northern ]. | |||
| ===Old Earth creationism=== | |||
| {{Main article|Old Earth creationism}} | |||
| Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event described in the Book of Genesis is to be taken figuratively. This group generally believes that the ] and the age of the Earth are as described by ]s and ]s, but that details of ] are questionable.<ref name="Scott1999" /> | |||
| Old Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:<ref name="Scott1999" /> | |||
| ====Gap creationism==== | |||
| {{Main article|Gap creationism}} | |||
| Gap creationism, also called "restoration creationism," holds that life was recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. This version of creationism relies on a particular interpretation of {{Bibleverse|Genesis|1:1–2|KJV}}. It is considered that the words ] in fact denote waste and ruin, taking into account the original Hebrew and other places these words are used in the ]. Genesis 1:1–2 is consequently translated: | |||
| : "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Original act of creation.) | |||
| : "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." | |||
| Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start sometime after the Earth was "without form and void." This allows an indefinite "gap" of time to be inserted after the original creation of the universe, but prior to the ], (when present biological species and ]ity were created). Gap theorists can therefore agree with the ] regarding the age of the Earth and universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text. | |||
| Some{{which|date=November 2013}} gap creationists expand the basic version of creationism by proposing a "primordial creation" of biological life within the "gap" of time. This is thought to be "the world that then was" mentioned in ] 3:3–7.<ref>{{Bibleverse|2 Peter|3|KJV}}</ref> 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 ]'s rebellion. These views became popular with publications of Hebrew Lexicons such as '']'', and Bible commentaries such as the '']'' and ].{{citation needed|date=November 2013}} | |||
| ====Day-age creationism==== | |||
| {{Main article|Day-age creationism}} | |||
| Day-age creationism states that the "six days" of the Book of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time). The physicist ] is one such proponent of this view. This version of creationism often states that the ] word "yôm," in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age." Some{{which|date=September 2013}} adherents claim we are still living in the seventh age ("seventh day"). | |||
| Strictly speaking, day-age creationism is not so much a version of creationism as a ] option which may be combined with other versions of creationism such as progressive creationism.{{Citation needed|date=January 2017}} | |||
| ====Progressive creationism==== | |||
| {{Main article|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 history. This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the Earth, but rejects much of modern ] or looks to it for evidence that evolution by ] alone is incorrect.{{Citation needed|date=June 2009}} Organizations such as ], founded by ], promote this version of creationism. | |||
| Progressive creationism can be held in conjunction with ] approaches to the Genesis creation narrative such as the ] or ]/metaphoric/poetic views. | |||
| ===Philosophic and scientific creationism=== | |||
| ====Creation science==== | |||
| {{Main article|Creation science}} | |||
| Creation science, or initially scientific creationism, is a ]<ref>], </ref><ref name=amicus>{{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html |date=* |title=Amicus Curiae Brief Of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies Of Science, And 7 Other Scientific Organizations }}, '']''</ref><ref name=philofscience>{{cite book|author1=Sahotra Sarkar|author2=Jessica Pfeifer|title=The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. A-M|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=od68ge7aF6wC|year=2006|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-0-415-93927-0|page=}}</ref><ref>], p. 127. Okasha's full statement is that "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham{{snd}}a dishonest and misguided attempt to promote religious beliefs under the guise of science, with extremely harmful educational consequences."</ref> that emerged in the 1960s with proponents aiming to have young Earth creationist beliefs taught in school science classes as a counter to teaching of evolution. Common features of Creation science argument include: creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, criticism of ] through a technical argument about ]s, explanations for the ] as a record of the ] (see ]), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of pre-designed genetic variability and partially due to the rapid degradation of the perfect ]s God placed in "created kinds" or "]" (see ]) due to ]s. | |||
| ====Neo-creationism==== | |||
| {{Main article|Neo-creationism}} | |||
| Neo-creationism is a ] movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by the ]. It aims to ] the debate over the ] in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the ] in '']'' that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the ].<ref name=morris_neo>{{cite web |url= http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=425 |title=Neocreationism |last=Morris |first=Henry M. |authorlink=Henry M. Morris |website=icr.org |publisher=] |accessdate=Sep 29, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Safire |first =William |date=August 21, 2005 |title=On Language: Neo-Creo |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21ONLANGUAGE.html?ref=onlanguage |journal= The New York Times |accessdate=Sep 29, 2014}}</ref><ref name=Scott1996>{{cite conference | |||
| |author=Scott, Eugenie C. | |||
| |authorlink=Eugenie Scott | |||
| |conference=The Flight from Science and Reason | |||
| |year=1996 | |||
| |title=Creationism, ideology, and science | |||
| |url= http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationism-ideology-science | |||
| |accessdate=2009-11-12 | |||
| |booktitle=Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences | |||
| |volume=775 | |||
| |pages=505–22 | |||
| |doi= 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb23167.x | |||
| |bibcode=1995NYASA.775..505S | |||
| }}</ref> | |||
| One of the principal claims of neo-creationism propounds that ostensibly ] orthodox science, with a foundation in ], is actually a dogmatically ] ].<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.darwinreconsidered.org/media/MaterialistMythology.pdf |title= Darwinism is Materialist Mythology, Not Science |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |date=October 2004 |website= DarwinReconsidered.org |accessdate=Sep 29, 2014}}</ref> Its proponents argue that the ] excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards ] elements, thus effectively excluding religious insight from contributing to understanding the ]. This leads to an open and often hostile opposition to what neo-creationists term "]", which they generally mean to refer to ], but which they may extend to include such concepts as ], ] and the ] theory. | |||
| Unlike their philosophical forebears, neo-creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such as a young Earth, or in a dogmatically ]. | |||
| ====Intelligent design==== | |||
| {{Main article|Intelligent design}} | |||
| Intelligent design (ID) is the ] view<ref name="Boudry 2010">{{cite journal |last1=Boudry |first1=Maarten |authorlink1=Maarten Boudry |last2=Blancke |first2=Stefaan |last3=Braeckman |first3=Johan |authorlink3=Johan Braeckman |date=December 2010 |title=Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience |journal=] |location=Chicago, Illinois |publisher=] |volume=85 |issue=4 |pages=473–82 |doi=10.1086/656904 |pmid=21243965|url=https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482/file/6828579.pdf }} Article available from </ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Pigliucci |first1=Massimo |authorlink=Massimo Pigliucci |year=2010 |chapter=Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design |chapterurl=http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Nonsenseonstilts.pdf |title=Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk |format=PDF |location=Chicago, Illinois |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-66786-7 |lccn=2009049778 |oclc=457149439 |pages=160–86 |ref=Pigliucci 2010}}</ref> 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."<ref name="DIposition">{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? |website=] |publisher=] |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2007-05-13}}</ref> All of its leading proponents are associated with the ],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2014-03-13}}</ref> a think tank whose ] aims to replace the scientific method with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper">{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |authorlink=Barbara Forrest |date=May 2007 |website=] |publisher=Center for Inquiry |location=Washington, D.C. |type=A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-13 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |archivedate=2011-05-19 |df= }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf |title=The Wedge |year=1999 |publisher=] |location=Seattle, WA |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-13}}</ref> It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,<ref name="Wise-p30" /><ref name="nagt-pdf-Ross" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Mu |first=David |date=Fall 2005 |title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design |url=http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf |format=PDF |journal=] |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=Harvard Science Review, Inc. |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=22–25 |accessdate=2014-03-13 |ref=Mu 2005 |quote=...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.}} | |||
| * {{cite journal |last=Klotzko |first=Arlene Judith |date=May 28, 2001 |title=Cynical Science and Stem Cells |url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/13410/title/Cynical-Science-and-Stem-Cells/ |journal=] |volume=15 |issue=11 |page=35 |issn=0890-3670 |quote=Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudo-science of 'intelligent design theory.' |accessdate=2014-03-13}} | |||
| * {{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}}, ].</ref><ref name="Numbers 2006">]</ref> and is sometimes referred to as "intelligent design creationism."<ref name="Scott1999" /><ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref>]</ref><ref>], "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski," pp. 645–667, "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..." | |||
| * ]</ref><ref>]</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Young |first1=Matt |last2=Edis |first2=Taner | authorlink2=Taner Edis |title=Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism |publisher=Rutgers University Press |year=2006 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hYLKdtlVeQgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Why+Intelligent+Design+Fails:+A+Scientific+Critique+of+the+New+Creationism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMIg6_llsqkyAIVyjKICh0fcg77#v=onepage&q=Why%20Intelligent%20Design%20Fails%3A%20A%20Scientific%20Critique%20of%20the%20New%20Creationism&f=false}}</ref> | |||
| ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to avoid a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism in American public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run ] to change school curricula.<ref name="Flank_April2006">{{cite web|url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm |title=Creationism/ID: A Short Legal History |last=Flank |first=Lenny |website=Talk Reason |date=April 24, 2006 |accessdate=2014-03-09 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140823063247/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm |archivedate=August 23, 2014 |df= }}</ref> In Australia, where curricula are under the control of state governments rather than local school boards, there was a public outcry when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister ]; the minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.<ref>{{cite news |last=Smith |first=Deborah |date=October 21, 2005 |title=Intelligent design not science: experts |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/intelligent-design-not-science-experts/2005/10/20/1129775902661.html |newspaper=] |location=Sydney |publisher=] |accessdate=2007-07-13}}</ref> | |||
| In the US, teaching of intelligent design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a ] to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In ], the court found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,"<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}}, ].</ref> and hence cannot be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a ], based on previous US ] decisions in ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' and '']'' (1968), and by the application of the ], that creates a legal hurdle to teaching intelligent design in public school districts in other federal court jurisdictions.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref name="kitz">]</ref> | |||
| ===Obscure and largely discounted beliefs=== | |||
| {{Main article|Geocentric model}} | |||
| In ], the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is a description of the ] where Earth is at the orbital center of all celestial bodies. This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ]. As such, they assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and ] circled Earth, including the noteworthy systems of ] (see ]) and ]. | |||
| Articles arguing that geocentrism was the biblical perspective appeared in some early creation science newsletters associated with the Creation Research Society pointing to some passages in the Bible, which, when taken literally, indicate that the daily apparent motions of the Sun and the Moon are due to their actual motions around the Earth rather than due to the rotation of the Earth about its axis for example, ] 10:12 where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky, and ] 93:1 where the world is described as immobile.<ref name="Numbers1993">{{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |year=1993 |origyear=Originally published 1992; New York: ] |title=The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=] |page=237 |isbn=0-5200-8393-8 |lccn=93015804 |oclc=810488078}}</ref> Contemporary advocates for such ]s include ], co-author of the self-published ''Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right'' (2006).<ref name="Sefton2006">{{cite news |first=Dru |last=Sefton |date=March 30, 2006 |title=In this world view, the sun revolves around the earth |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_1kaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XCYEAAAAIBAJ&dq=robert-sungenis&pg=6714%2C4991566 |newspaper=] |location=Hendersonville, NC |publisher=Hendersonville Newspaper Corporation |agency=] |page=5A |accessdate=2014-03-14}}</ref> These people subscribe to the view that a plain reading of the Bible contains an accurate account of the manner in which the universe was created and requires a geocentric worldview. Most contemporary creationist organizations reject such perspectives.{{refn|group="note"|Donald B. DeYoung, for example, states that "Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the 'language of appearance,' just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1997/11/05/astronomy-bible |title=Astronomy and the Bible: Selected questions and answers excerpted from the book |last=DeYoung |first=Donald B. |date=November 5, 1997 |website=] |publisher=Answers in Genesis Ministries International |location=Hebron, KY |accessdate=2013-12-01}}</ref>}} | |||
| The ] 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 age of the universe can be taken as reliable.<ref>]</ref> The idea has seen some revival in the 20th century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to address the ]. The idea has been criticised as ], and on the grounds that it requires a deliberately deceptive creator. | |||
| ==Theistic evolution== | |||
| {{Main article|Theistic evolution}} | |||
| Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, is a belief that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."<ref>], , "''Evolutionary Creation'' (or Theistic Evolution) asserts that the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."</ref> According to the American Scientific Affiliation: | |||
| {{quote|A theory of theistic evolution (TE){{snd}}also called evolutionary creation{{snd}}proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution{{snd}}astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life){{snd}}but it can refer only to biological evolution.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te2-cr.htm |title=Evolutionary Creation |last=Rusbult |first=Craig |year=1998 |publisher=American Scientific Affiliation |location=Ipswich, MA |accessdate=2014-03-14 }}</ref>}} | |||
| Through the 19th century the term ''creationism'' most commonly referred to ], in contrast to ]. Following the publication of ''Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation'', there was interest in ideas of Creation by ]. In particular, the ] ] argued that this illustrated the Creator's power better than the idea of miraculous creation, which he thought ridiculous.<ref>], p. 139</ref> When ''On the Origin of Species'' was published, the cleric ] wrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity."<ref name="Darwinanddesign">{{cite web|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article |title=Darwin and design: historical essay |year=2007 |website=Darwin Correspondence Project |publisher=Cambridge University Library |location=Cambridge, UK |accessdate=2012-04-18 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141021101910/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article |archivedate=2014-10-21 |df= }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2534 |title=Kingsley, Charles to Darwin, C. R. |last=Kingsley |first=Charles |authorlink=Charles Kingsley |date=November 18, 1859 |website=Darwin Correspondence Project |publisher=Cambridge University Library |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 2534 |accessdate=2010-08-11}}</ref> Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature,<ref name="James_Moore">{{cite interview |last=Moore |first=James |authorlink=James Moore (biographer) |interviewer=] |title=Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin |url=http://www.onbeing.org/program/evolution-and-wonder-understanding-charles-darwin/transcript/899 |via=] |work=] |date=September 20, 2007 |publisher=] |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref><ref>], p. 119</ref> and the book makes several references to "creation," though he later regretted using the term rather than calling it an unknown process.<ref>], </ref> In America, ] argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or ''modus operandi'', of the first cause, design,<ref>], p. 27</ref> and published a pamphlet defending the book in theistic terms, ''Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology''.<ref name="Darwinanddesign" /><ref name="Miles_2001">{{cite journal |last=Miles |first=Sara Joan |date=September 2001 |title=Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design |url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html |journal=Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith |location=Ipswich, MA |publisher=American Scientific Affiliation |volume=53 |pages=196–201 |accessdate=2008-11-22}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Gray |first=Asa |authorlink=Asa Gray |year=1860 |title=Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/84/69/ |journal=] |type=Reprint |location=Boston, MA |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090220124011/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/84/69/ <!--Added by H3llBot--> |archivedate=2009-02-20 |accessdate=2009-04-11}} "Atlantic Monthly for ''July'', ''August'', and ''October'', 1860, reprinted in 1861."</ref> Theistic evolution, also called, evolutionary creation, became a popular compromise, and ] was among those accepting evolution but attacking Darwin's naturalistic mechanism. Eventually it was realised that supernatural intervention could not be a scientific explanation, and naturalistic mechanisms such as ] were favoured as being more compatible with purpose than natural selection.<ref name="bowl202">], pp. 202–08</ref> | |||
| Some theists took the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about ] and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theory, including specifically evolution; it is also known as "evolutionary creation." In Evolution versus Creationism, ] and ] state that it is in fact a type of evolution.<ref>], pp. 62–63</ref> | |||
| It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the ] and ] sustainer/upholder of the universe; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong ] (as opposed to ]) convictions. Theistic evolution can synthesize with the day-age creationist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of the Book of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a ] or allegory. | |||
| From a theistic viewpoint, the underlying laws of nature were designed by God for a purpose, and are so self-sufficient that the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles in processes such as ], life forms developed in biological evolution, and in the same way the ] has resulted from these laws.<ref name="The Origin of Life">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#intro |title=The Origin of Life |last=Moritz |first=Albrecht |date=October 31, 2006 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2008-11-22}}</ref> | |||
| In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline ] seminaries.<ref>]</ref> For Roman Catholics, human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. ] are not in conflict. The ] comments positively on the theory of evolution, which is neither precluded nor required by the sources of faith, stating that scientific studies "have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Akin |first=Jimmy |date=January 2004 |title=Evolution and the Magisterium |url=http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp |journal=] |location=San Diego, CA |publisher=] |volume=15 |issue=1 |issn=1049-4561 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070804102139/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp |archivedate=2007-08-04 |accessdate=2014-03-14}}</ref> ] schools teach evolution without controversy on the basis that scientific knowledge does not extend beyond the physical, and scientific truth and religious truth cannot be in conflict.<ref>{{cite news |last=Guntzel |first=Jeff Severns |url=http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005a/032505/032505ssn.htm |date=March 25, 2005 |title=Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias |newspaper=] |location=Kansas City, MO |publisher=The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company |issn=0027-8939 |accessdate=2007-08-15}}</ref> Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that ] 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 controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. ], (the ]'s chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):<blockquote>...in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504 |title=Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on 'Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution' |last=Coyne |first=George V. |authorlink=George Coyne |date=January 30, 2006 |publisher=Catholic Online, LLC |accessdate=2011-03-10}}</ref></blockquote> | |||
| While supporting the ] inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some ] that this gives credence to ] ]. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,<ref>] | |||
| * {{cite web |url=http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/files/naturalism.html |title=Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry |last=Schafersman |first=Steven D. |authorlink=Steven Schafersman |date=May 1997 |website=Free Inquiry: The Humanist and Skeptic Website of Steven Schafersman |publisher=Steven Schafersman |accessdate=2014-03-15}} | |||
| * {{cite web |url=http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/04/on_methodologic.html |title=On Methodological Naturalism and Intelligent Design (or Why Can't Lawrence VanDyke Leave Well Enough Alone?) |last=Leiter |first=Brian |authorlink=Brian Leiter |date=April 6, 2004 |website=Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog |publisher=Brian Leiter |type=Blog |accessdate=2014-03-15}} | |||
| * {{cite journal |last=Burgeson |first=John W. |year=1997 |title=NTSE: An Intellectual Feast |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/ntse182.htm |journal=Origins & Design |location=Colorado Springs, CO |publisher=] |volume=18 |issue=2 |accessdate=2014-03-15}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * {{cite journal |last1=Pigliucci |first1=Massimo |authorlink=Massimo Pigliucci |last2=Banta |first2=Joshua |last3=Bossu |first3=Christen |last4=Crouse |first4=Paula |last5=Dexter |first5=Troy |last6=Hansknecht |first6=Kerry |last7=Muth |first7=Norris |display-authors=1 |date=May–June 2004 |title=The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory |url=http://philosophynow.org/issues/46/The_Alleged_Fallacies_of_Evolutionary_Theory |journal=] |location=London |issue=46 |issn=0961-5970 |accessdate=2014-03-15}} | |||
| * {{cite web |url=http://www.biology.uiowa.edu/ID.html |title=Statement on Intelligent Design |year=2005 |website=The Department of Biology |publisher=] |type=Petition |location=Iowa City, IA |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100901150357/http://www.biology.uiowa.edu/ID.html |archivedate=2010-09-01 |accessdate=2014-03-15}} | |||
| * {{cite journal |last=Pigliucci |first=Massimo |date=December 2005 |title=Science and fundamentalism |url=http://embor.embopress.org/content/6/12/1106 |journal=EMBO Reports |location=London |publisher=] |volume=6 |issue=12 |doi=10.1038/sj.embor.7400589 |issn=1469-3178 |accessdate=2014-03-15}} | |||
| * {{cite web |url=http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/naturalism.html |title=Justifying Methodological Naturalism |last=Martin |first=Michael |authorlink=Michael Martin (philosopher) |year=2002 |website=The Secular Web |publisher=] |location=Colorado Springs, CO |accessdate=2014-03-15}}</ref> including atheists,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2005/intelligent-design-or-natural-design/ |title=Intelligent Design or Natural Design |last=Bradley |first=Raymond |date=November 23, 2005 |website=Butterflies and Wheels |publisher=] |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref> refer to the long-standing convention in the scientific method that ] 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. <!---Among other things, it means that science does not deal with the question of the existence of a Creator, and argues neither for nor against it. | |||
| "while on the other hand many scientists support such faiths which allow a voice to their spiritual side." Don't know how to include this, it anyway should talk about scientific positions (and not faiths) and spiritual side---> | |||
| ==Religious views== | |||
| ===Christianity=== | |||
| {{Further information|Genesis creation narrative|creation–evolution controversy}} | |||
| {{As of|2006}}, most ]s around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a ] of the ]. The United States is an exception where belief in religious ] is much more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere. Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because political partisanship in the US is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike in Europe.<ref name="Science survey">{{cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=Jon D. |last2=Scott |first2=Eugenie C. |authorlink2=Eugenie Scott |last3=Okamoto |first3=Shinji |date=August 2006 |title=Public acceptance of evolution |url=http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/706 |journal=] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |volume=313 |issue=5788 |pages=765–66 |doi=10.1126/science.1126746 |pmid=16902112 |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref> | |||
| Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,<ref name="Denominational Views">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/religion/denominational-views |title=Denominational Views |date=October 17, 2008 |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2010-05-17}}</ref> such as ]<ref name="Episcopal Church">{{cite web|url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/episcopal-church-general-convention-2006 |title=Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006) |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2010-05-17}}</ref> and ],<ref name="Lutheran">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Schick |first=Edwin A. |editor-last=Bodensieck |editor-first=Julius |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church |url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/lutheran-world-federation |accessdate=2010-05-17 |title=Evolution |year=1965 |publisher=] |volume=1 |location=Minneapolis, MN |lccn=64021500 |oclc=947120}} Edited for the ]. | |||
| *{{cite journal |last=Hollabaugh |first=Mark |date=October 2006 |title=God allows the universe to create itself and evolve |url=http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=6093 |journal=] |location=Minneapolis, MN |publisher=] |issn=0024-743X |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref> consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution. According to the former ], ], "...for most of the history of Christianity, and I think this is fair enough, most of the history of the Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 21, 2006 |title=Interview: Rowan Williams |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/21/religion.uk |newspaper=The Guardian |type=Transcript |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref> | |||
| Leaders of the Anglican<ref>{{cite news |last=Williams |first=Christopher |date=March 21, 2006 |title=Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/archbishop_backs_evolution/ |work=] |location=London |publisher=Situation Publishing Limited |accessdate=2011-03-10}}</ref> and Roman Catholic<ref>{{cite journal |last=McDonell |first=Keelin |date=July 12, 2005 |title=What Catholics Think of Evolution |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2122506/ |journal=] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=] |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050716003211/http://www.slate.com/id/2122506/ |archivedate=2005-07-16 |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref><ref>See also the article ]. | |||
| </ref> churches have made statements in favor of evolutionary theory, as have scholars such as the physicist ], who argues that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier supporters of evolutionary theory include ], Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon their publication,<ref>], pp. 7–8</ref> and the French Jesuit priest and geologist ] saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his more speculative theories. Another example is that of ], not providing any creation models, but instead focusing on the ]ism in beliefs of the time of authoring Genesis and the cultural environment. | |||
| Many Christians and Jews had been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of historical) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. For example, Philo, whose works were taken up by early Church writers, wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time.<ref name="Philo_Chapter2">]</ref><ref name="www.earlychurch.org.uk">{{cite web |url=http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/philo.php |title=Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC{{snd}}c. AD 50) |last=Bradshaw |first=Rob |website=Early Church.org.uk |publisher=Steve Bradshaw |location=West Wickham, England |accessdate=December 21, 2011}}</ref> Augustine of the late fourth century who was also a former neoplatonist argued that everything in the universe was created by God at the same moment in time (and not in six days as a literal reading of the Book of Genesis would seem to require);<ref name="Augustine">{{cite journal |last=Young |first=Davis A. |date=March 1988 |title=The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation |url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html |journal=] |location=Ipswich, MA |publisher=American Scientific Affiliation |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=42–45 |issn=0892-2675 |accessdate=2008-08-18}}</ref> It appears that both Philo and Augustine felt uncomfortable with the idea of a seven-day creation because it detracted from the notion of God's omnipotence. In 1950, ] stated limited support for the idea in his ] '']''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html |author=Pope Pius XII |authorlink=Pope Pius XII |title=Humani Generis |website=Vatican: the Holy See |publisher=] |location=St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City |type=] |date=August 12, 1950 |accessdate=2011-11-08 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120419021937/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html |archivedate=April 19, 2012 |df= }}</ref> In 1996, ] stated that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis," but, referring to previous papal writings, he concluded that "if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual ] is immediately created by God."<ref>{{cite news |author=Pope John Paul II |authorlink=Pope John Paul II |date=October 30, 1996 |title=Magisterium is concerned with question of evolution, for it involves conception of man |url=http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.html |newspaper=] |type=Message to the ] |edition=Weekly English |location=Tipografia Vaticana, Vatican City |publisher=Holy See |number=44 |pages=3, 7 |accessdate=2014-03-19}}</ref> | |||
| In the US, Evangelical Christians have continued to believe in a literal Genesis. Members of evangelical Protestant (70%), ] (76%) and ] (90%) denominations are the most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.<ref>{{cite report |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2008 |title=U.S. Religious Landscape Survey |url=http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf |publisher=] |location=Washington, D.C. |chapter=Social and Political Views |page=95 |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-19}} Report 2: Religious Beliefs & Practices, Chapter 2.</ref> However, the official website of the Jehovah's Witnesses states that while Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God created everything, they do not accept creationism, believing that some creationist views conflict with the Bible.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/creationism-belief/#?insight=40964ac1-6a8a-4735-b57b-2c516f96e6e9&insight=1 |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Creationism? |website=JW.org}}</ref> | |||
| The historic Christian literal interpretation of creation requires the harmonization of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1–2:3 and Genesis 2:4–25, for there to be a consistent interpretation.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194 |title=Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? |last=Jackson |first=Wayne |website=Apologetics Press |location=Montgomery, Al |accessdate=2007-05-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/creationint.html |last=Tobin |first=Paul N. |year=2000 |title=The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties |website=The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity |publisher=Paul Tobin |location=Singapore |accessdate=2014-03-19}}</ref> They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in American schools. Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific. Many religious groups teach that God created the Cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of the Book of Genesis as well as literal aspects.<ref name="rsf">]</ref> | |||
| ], a system of thought and practice derived from the writings of ], interprets the Book of Genesis figuratively rather than literally. It holds that the material world is an illusion, and consequently not created by God: the only real creation is the spiritual realm, of which the material world is a distorted version. Christian Scientists regard the story of the creation in the Book of Genesis as having symbolic rather than literal meaning. According to Christian Science, both creationism and evolution are false from an absolute or "spiritual" point of view, as they both proceed from a (false) belief in the reality of a material universe. However, Christian Scientists do not oppose the teaching of evolution in schools, nor do they demand that alternative accounts be taught: they believe that both material science and literalist theology are concerned with the illusory, mortal and material, rather than the real, immortal and spiritual. With regard to material theories of creation, Eddy showed a preference for Darwin's theory of evolution over others.<ref name=S&Hp547>], p. 547</ref> | |||
| ===Hinduism=== | |||
| {{Main article|Hindu views on evolution}} | |||
| According to Hindu creationism, all species on Earth including humans have "devolved" or come down from a high state of pure ].{{citation needed|date=March 2013}} Hindu creationists claim that species of ] and ] are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.<ref>], p. 140</ref> ] says that: "Hindu Creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."<ref>], p. 420</ref> Hindu creationism is a form of old Earth creationism, according to Hindu creationists the universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on the ], the creation myths of which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the Earth.<ref>], p. 167</ref><ref>], p. 10</ref> | |||
| ===Islam=== | |||
| {{Main article|Islamic views on evolution}} | |||
| ] is the belief that the universe (including humanity) was directly created by ] as explained in the ]. It usually views the Book of Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation myths in the Qur'an are vaguer and allow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions.<ref name="nytimes.com"/> | |||
| Islam also has its own school of theistic evolutionism, which holds that mainstream scientific analysis of the origin of the universe is supported by the Qur'an. Some ] believe in evolutionary creation, especially among ].<ref name="Huffpo"/> | |||
| Writing for '']'', Drake Bennett noted: "Without a Book of Genesis to account for ... Muslim creationists have little interest in proving that the age of the Earth is measured in the thousands rather than the billions of years, nor do they show much interest in the problem of the dinosaurs. And the idea that animals might evolve into other animals also tends to be less controversial, in part because there are passages of the Koran that seem to support it. But the issue of whether human beings are the product of evolution is just as fraught among Muslims."<ref name="Bennett 4">{{cite news |last=Bennett |first=Drake |date=October 25, 2009 |title=Islam's Darwin problem |url=http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full |newspaper=] |location=Boston, MA |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20091030044754/http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full |archivedate=2009-10-30 |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> However, some Muslims, such as ] (also known as Harun Yahya), do not agree that one species can develop from another.<ref name="PrizeforFossil">{{cite news |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3102103/Creationist-Adnan-Oktar-offers-trillion-pound-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution.html |last=Irvine |first=Chris |date=September 29, 2008 |title=Creationist Adnan Oktar offers trillion-pound prize for fossil proof of evolution |newspaper=] |location=London |publisher=] |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref><ref name=guardian0104>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 7, 2004 |url=http://education.guardian.co.uk/conferences/story/0,,1117752,00.html |title=Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools |newspaper=The Guardian |type=Conferences |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2008-07-18}}</ref> | |||
| Since the 1980s, Turkey has been a site of strong advocacy for creationism, supported by American adherents.<ref name="NCSE Edis">{{cite journal |last=Edis |first=Taner |date=November–December 1999 |title=Cloning Creationism in Turkey |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/cloning-creationism-turkey |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=19 |issue=6 |pages=30–35 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2008-02-17}}</ref><ref name=WaPo2009>{{cite news |last=Kaufman |first=Marc |date=November 8, 2009 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110702233.html |title=In Turkey, fertile ground for creationism |newspaper=] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=The Washington Post Company |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> | |||
| There are several verses in the Qur'an which some modern writers have interpreted as being compatible with the ], ] and ] theories:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.harunyahya.com/tr/works/3344/The-Big-Bang-echoes-throught-the-map-of-the-galaxy |title=The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy |author=Harun Yahya |authorlink=Adnan Oktar |date=June 30, 2005 |website=Harun Yahya |publisher=Global Publication Ltd. Co. |location=Horsham, England |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref><ref>] | |||
| * ]</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html |title=The Qur'an, Knowledge, and Science |last=Abd-Allah |first=A. |website=Compendium of Muslim Texts |publisher=] |location=Los Angeles, CA |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081128054613/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html |archivedate=2008-11-28 |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> | |||
| : {{Cite quran|21|30|t=y|q=Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?}} | |||
| : {{Cite quran|41|11|t=y|q=Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come (together), in willing obedience.'}} | |||
| : {{Cite quran|51|47|t=y|q=With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space.}} | |||
| : {{Cite quran|21|104|t=y|q=The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as | |||
| We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it.}} | |||
| {{see also|Predestination in Islam}} | |||
| ====Ahmadiyya==== | |||
| The ] movement actively promotes evolutionary theory.<ref name="Masood_Ch13">], </ref> Ahmadis interpret scripture from the Qur'an to support the concept of ] and give precedence to scientific theories. Furthermore, unlike orthodox Muslims, Ahmadis believe that mankind has gradually evolved from different species. Ahmadis regard ] as being the first Prophet of God{{spaced ndash}}as opposed to him being the first man on Earth.<ref name="Masood_Ch13" /> Rather than wholly adopting the theory of natural selection, Ahmadis promote the idea of a "guided evolution," viewing each stage of the evolutionary process as having been selectively woven by God.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Guided_evolution_and_punctuated_equilibrium-20081104MN.pdf |title=Guided Evolution: Proof From Punctuated Equilibrium |last1=Lahaye |first1=Ataul Wahid |last2=Shah |first2=Zia H. |website=Al Islam |publisher=] |location=London |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> ], Fourth ] of the ] has stated in his magnum opus '']'' (1998) that evolution did occur but only through God being the One who brings it about. It does not occur itself, according to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. | |||
| ===Judaism=== | |||
| {{Main article|Jewish views on evolution}} | |||
| For ] who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the creation myths in 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 ] and if there seems to be a problem, ] limits are to blame for apparently irreconcilable points. They point to discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear. They note that even the root word for "world" in the ]—עולם (Olam)—means hidden—נעלם (Neh-Eh-Lahm). Just as they know from the Torah that God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their observed state, so too can they know that the world was created in its over the six days of Creation that reflects progression to its currently-observed state, with the understanding that physical ways to verify this may eventually be identified. This knowledge has been advanced by Rabbi ], former philosophy professor at ].{{Citation needed|date=August 2015}} Also, relatively old ] 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 ], and based on Sefer Temunah, an early kabbalistic work attributed to the first-century ] ]. Many kabbalists accepted the teachings of the ], including the medieval Jewish scholar ], his close student ], and ]. Other parallels are derived, among other sources, from Nahmanides, who expounds that there was a ]-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).<ref>]</ref><ref>]</ref><ref>]</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Tigay |first=Jeffrey H. |date=Winter 1987–1988 |title=Genesis, Science, and 'Scientific Creationism' |url=http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/sci.htm |journal=] |location=New York |publisher=]; ] |volume=40 |issue=2 |pages=20–27 |issn=0010-6542 |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> ] does not take the Torah as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work. | |||
| Some contemporary writers such as Rabbi Gedalyah Nadel have sought to reconcile the discrepancy between the account in the Torah, and scientific findings by arguing that each day referred to in the Bible was not 24 hours, but billions of years long.<ref>The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006, p. 129</ref> Others claim that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, but was deliberately made to look as if it was five billion years old, e.g. by being created with ready made fossils. The best known exponent of this approach being Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson<ref>The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006, p. 158</ref> Others state that although the world was physically created in six 24 hour days, the Torah accounts can be interpreted to mean that there was a period of billions of years before the six days of creation.<ref>The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006, pp. 169, 170</ref> | |||
| ===Bahá'í Faith=== | |||
| {{main|Bahai Faith and science#Creation}} | |||
| In the creation myth taught by ], the ] founder, the universe has "neither beginning nor ending," and that the component elements of the material world have always existed and will always exist.<ref>], </ref> With regard to evolution and the origin of human beings, ] gave extensive comments on the subject when he addressed western audiences in the beginning of the 20th century. Transcripts of these comments can be found in '']'', '']'' and ''The Promulgation of Universal Peace''. `Abdu'l-Bahá described the human species as having evolved from a primitive form to modern man, but that the capacity to form human intelligence was always in existence. | |||
| ==Prevalence== | |||
| {{Main article|Level of support for evolution|Creationism by country}} | |||
| ] |location=London |publisher=] |volume=198 |issue=2652 |page=31 |doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7 |issn=0262-4079 |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Hecht |first=Jeff |date=August 19, 2006 |title=Why doesn't America believe in evolution? |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html |journal=New Scientist |location=London |publisher=Reed Business Information |volume=191 |issue=2565 |page=11 |doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X |issn=0262-4079 |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref>]] | |||
| Most vocal literalist creationists are from the US, and strict creationist views are much less common in other developed countries. According to a study published in '']'', a survey of the US, Turkey, ] and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.<ref name="Science survey" /> There seems to be no significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/5/24/weekend-update-youd-have-to-be-science-illiterate-to-think-b.html |title=Weekend update: You'd have to be science illiterate to think 'belief in evolution' measures science literacy |last=Kahan |first=Dan |authorlink=Dan Kahan |date=May 24, 2014 |website=] |publisher=] |location=New Haven, CT |type=Blog |accessdate=2015-03-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Shtulman |first=Andrew |date=March 2006 |title=Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028505000745 |journal=Cognitive Psychology |location=Amsterdam, the Netherlands |publisher=] |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=170–94 |doi=10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001 |issn=0010-0285 |accessdate=2015-03-23}}</ref> | |||
| ===Australia=== | |||
| A 2009 ] poll, showed that almost a quarter of Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins." Forty-two percent believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32 percent believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God."<ref>{{cite news |last=Maley |first=Jacqueline |date=December 19, 2009 |title=God is still tops but angels rate well |url=http://www.theage.com.au/national/god-is-still-tops-but-angels-rate-well-20091218-l5v9.html |newspaper=] |location=Melbourne, Australia |publisher=Fairfax Media |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> | |||
| ===Canada=== | |||
| A 2012 survey, by ] revealed that 61 percent of Canadians believe in evolution. The poll asked "Where did human beings come from{{snd}}did we start as singular cells millions of year ago and evolve into our present form, or did God create us in his image 10,000 years ago?"<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Believe In Evolution: Canadians More Likely Than Americans To Endorse Evolution |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/06/believe-in-evolution_n_1861373.html |date=September 6, 2012 |work=] |publisher=] |accessdate=2012-04-28}} | |||
| * {{cite press release |last=Canseco |first=Mario |date=September 5, 2012 |title=Britons and Canadians More Likely to Endorse than Americans |url=http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012.09.05_CreEvo.pdf |format=PDF |location=New York |publisher=] |accessdate=2014-05-11}}</ref> | |||
| ===Europe=== | |||
| In Europe, literalist creationism is more widely rejected, though regular opinion polls are not available. Most people accept that evolution is the most widely accepted scientific theory as taught in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, ] as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. | |||
| In the UK, 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 evolutionary theory, and the rest did not know.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 26, 2006 |title=Britons unconvinced on evolution |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm |work=BBC News |location=London |publisher=BBC |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=262 |title=BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 30, 2006 |website=] |publisher=Ipsos MORI |location=London |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> A subsequent 2010 ] poll on the correct explanation for the origin of humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% didn't know.<ref name="YouGov">{{cite web |url=http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Pol-Prospect-Evolution-181110.pdf |title=The origin of humans |date=November 20, 2010 |website=YouGov Global |publisher=] |location=London |type=Prospect Survey Results |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> The former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the worldwide ], views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.<ref name="Archbishop_2006">{{cite news |last=Bates |first=Stephen |date=March 20, 2006 |title=Archbishop: stop teaching creationism |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/mar/21/religion.topstories3 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> | |||
| In Italy, Education Minister ] wanted to retire evolution from the secondary school level; after one week of massive protests, she reversed her opinion.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=May 3, 2004 |title=Italy Keeps Darwin in its Classrooms |url=http://www.dw.de/italy-keeps-darwin-in-its-classrooms/a-1188423-1 |work=Deutsche Welle |location=Bonn, Germany |publisher=ARD |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Lorenzi |first=Rossella |date=April 28, 2004 |title=No evolution for Italian teens |url=http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/22817/title/No-evolution-for-Italian-teens/ |journal=] |location=London |publisher=] |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> | |||
| There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious groups throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.<ref name="Economist_2007">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 19, 2007 |title=In the beginning |url=http://www.economist.com/node/9036706 |work=] |location=London |publisher=] |issn=0013-0613 |accessdate=2007-04-25}}This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.</ref> In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has released a draft report titled ''The dangers of creationism in education'' on June 8, 2007,<ref name="Doc11297">{{cite web|url=http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11678&Language=EN |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=June 8, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe |type=Report |id=Doc. 11297 |accessdate=2014-03-22 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130309011447/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11678&Language=EN |archivedate=March 9, 2013 |df= }}</ref> reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4, 2007.<ref name="R1580">{{cite web|url=http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=October 4, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=] |type=Resolution |id=Resolution 1580 |accessdate=2014-03-22 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140307163155/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta07%2FERES1580.htm |archivedate=March 7, 2014 |df= }} Paras. 13, 18</ref> | |||
| Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in September 2004, under education minister ], only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.<ref name="Serbian_schools">{{cite news |last=de Quetteville |first=Harry |date=September 9, 2004 |title=Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1471367/Darwin-is-off-the-curriculum-for-Serbian-schools.html |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=January 24, 2012}}</ref> "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties" says the BBC report, Čolić's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive" and announced that the decision was reversed.<ref name="Serbia_Darwin">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 9, 2004 |title=Serbia reverses Darwin suspension |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3642460.stm |work=] |location=London |publisher=] |accessdate=2014-03-21 }}</ref> Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 16, 2004 |title='Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3663196.stm |work=BBC News |location=London |publisher=BBC |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> | |||
| Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006, when the Deputy Education Minister, ], denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education ], has stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory." Giertych's father, ] ], has opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that ]s and humans co-existed.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=December 18, 2006 |title=And finally... |url=http://www.wbj.pl/?command=article&id=35336&type=wbj |newspaper=] |location=Warsaw, Poland |publisher=Valkea Media |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> | |||
| ===United States=== | |||
| ] ]] | |||
| A 2017 poll by ] found that 62% of Americans believe humans have evolved over time and 34% of Americans believe humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Masci|first1=David|title=For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate|url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/|work=Pew Research Center|date=10 February 2017}}</ref> Another 2017 ] creationism survey found that 38% of adults in the United States inclined to the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, which Gallup noted was the lowest level in 35 years.<ref name=Gallup2017>{{cite news|title=In US, Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx|work=Gallup|date=May 22, 2017|language=en-us}}</ref> | |||
| According to a 2014 Gallup poll,<ref name="Gallup2014">{{cite web |url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx |title=In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins |last=Newport |first=Frank |date=November 19, 2004 |website=Gallup.com |publisher=Gallup, Inc. |location=Omaha, NE |accessdate=2014-05-10}}</ref> about 42% 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."<ref name="Gallup2014" /> Another 31% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,"and 19% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."<ref name="Gallup2014" /> | |||
| Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with ]s, 74% accept evolution.<ref>{{cite AV media |people=Newport, Frank (Host) |date=June 11, 2007 |title=Evolution Beliefs |url=http://www.gallup.com/video/27838/Evolution-Beliefs.aspx |series=The Gallup Poll Daily Briefing |accessdate=2014-03-27 |location=Omaha, NE |publisher=Gallup, Inc.}}</ref><ref name="Robinson_BA">{{cite web |url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm |title=Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation |last=Robinson |first=Bruce A. |date=November 1995 |website=ReligiousTolerance.org |publisher=Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance |location=Kingston, Canada |accessdate=2007-11-11}}</ref> In 1987, '']'' reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"<ref name="Robinson_BA" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Martz |first1=Larry |last2=McDaniel |first2=Ann |date=June 29, 1987 |title=Keeping God Out of the Classroom |url=http://kgov.com/files/docs/Newsweek-1987-God-Classroom.pdf |format=PDF |journal=] |location=New York |publisher=Newsweek LLC |pages=23–24 |issn=0028-9604 |accessdate=2015-09-25}}</ref> | |||
| A 2000 poll for ] found 70% of the US public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.<ref name="pfaw">{{cite web |url=http://media.pfaw.org/pdf/creationism/creationism-poll.pdf |title=Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public Opinion |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 2000 |website=] |publisher=People For the American Way |location=Washington, D.C. |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-28}}</ref> | |||
| According to a study published in ''Science'', between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult ]ns 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 US the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the US was Turkey (25%).<ref name="Science survey" /> | |||
| According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in Creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.<ref name="Fox Creationism Poll">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 7, 2011 |title=Fox News Poll: Creationism |url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/07/fox-news-poll-creationism/ |work=] |publisher=] |accessdate=2011-09-22}}</ref> 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).<ref name="Fox Creationism Poll" /> | |||
| In September 2012, educator and television personality Bill Nye spoke with the ] and aired his fears about acceptance of creationism, believing that teaching children that creationism is the only true answer without letting them understand the way science works will prevent any future innovation in the world of science.<ref name="APNews-20120924">{{cite news |last=Luvan |first=Dylan |date=September 24, 2012 |title=Bill Nye Warns: Creation Views Threaten US Science |url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bill-nye-warns-creation-views-threaten-us-science |agency=] |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref><ref name="Youtube-20120823">{{cite web |last=Fowler |first=Jonathan |last2=Rodd |first2=Elizabeth |title=Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU |date=August 23, 2012 |website=] |publisher=] |location=New York |accessdate=2012-09-24}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20141103-JD">{{cite news |last=Deiviscio |first=Jeffrey |title=A Fight for the Young Creationist Mind: In ‘Undeniable,’ Bill Nye Speaks Evolution Directly to Creationists |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/science/in-undeniable-bill-nye-speaks-evolution-directly-to-creationists.html |date=November 3, 2014 |work=] |accessdate=November 4, 2014 }}</ref> In February 2014, Nye defended ] in a ] with creationist Ken Ham on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern, ].<ref name="NBC-20140204">{{cite news |last=Boyle |first=Alan |authorlink=Alan Boyle |date=February 5, 2014 |title=Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/bill-nye-wins-over-science-crowd-evolution-debate-n22836 |work=] |accessdate=2014-02-06}}</ref><ref name="TG-20140204">{{cite news |last=Kopplin |first=Zack |authorlink=Zack Kopplin |date=February 4, 2014 |title=Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/04/bill-nye-science-guy-evolution-debate-creationists |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2014-02-06}}</ref><ref name="Debate-20140204">{{YouTube |id=z6kgvhG3AkI |title=Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham |last=Foreman |first=Tom (Moderator) |authorlink=Tom Foreman |date=February 4, 2014 |website=YouTube |publisher=Answers in Genesis |location=Hebron, KY |accessdate=2014-02-05}} (program begins at 13:14).</ref> | |||
| ====Education controversies==== | |||
| ] ]] | |||
| {{Main article|Creation–evolution controversy}} | |||
| In the US, creationism has become centered in the political controversy over ], 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 "]" in science classes have conflated ].<ref name="kitz" /> | |||
| ] 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: | |||
| {{bar box | |||
| |title= Americans believe that:<ref name="pfaw" /> | |||
| |barwidth=200px | |||
| |width=50% | |||
| |bars= | |||
| {{bar percent|Public schools should teach evolution only|silver|60|20%}} | |||
| {{bar percent|Only evolution should be taught in science classes, religious explanations <br>can be discussed in another class|gray|51|17%}} | |||
| {{bar percent|Creationism can be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory|silver|87|29%}} | |||
| {{bar percent|Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class|gray|39|13%}} | |||
| {{bar percent|Only Creationism should be taught|silver|48|16%}} | |||
| {{bar percent|Teach both evolution and Creationism, but unsure how to do so|gray|12|4%}} | |||
| {{bar percent|No opinion|silver|3|1%}} | |||
| }} | |||
| In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously based origin belief is superior to those of other ]s, in particular those made through secular or scientific rationale. Political creationists are opposed by many individuals and organizations who have made detailed critiques and given testimony in various court cases that the ] are opposed by the ] of the scientific community.<ref name="aaas">{{cite web|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf|title=Statement on the Teaching of Evolution|date=February 16, 2006|publisher=]|location=Washington, D.C.|format=PDF|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf|archivedate=2006-02-21|accessdate=2014-03-09}} | |||
| * {{cite press release|title=AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event|date=February 19, 2006|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|location=St. Louis, MO|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml|last=Pinholster|first=Ginger|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060421193306/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml|archivedate=2006-04-21|accessdate=2014-08-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Delgado |first=Cynthia |date=July 28, 2006 |title=Finding the Evolution in Medicine |url=http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm |journal=] |location=Bethesda, MD |publisher=]; ] |issn=1057-5871 |accessdate=2014-03-31 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm |archivedate=November 22, 2008 |df= }} "...While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory."{{snd}}]</ref> | |||
| ==Criticism== | |||
| ===Christian criticism=== | |||
| Most Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools.<ref>{{cite book |title=Exploring and Proclaiming the Apostles' Creed |first1=Roger |last1=van Harn |first2=David F. |last2=Ford |first3=Colin E. |last3=Gunton |publisher=A&C Black |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-8192-8116-6 |page=44 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GCXUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA44}} </ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism |first1=Aron |last1=Ra |publisher=Pitchstone Publishing |year=2016 |isbn=978-1-63431-079-6 |page=182 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F-rvDAAAQBAJ}} </ref> Several religious organizations, among them the ], hold that their faith does not conflict with the scientific consensus regarding evolution.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion |title=Statements from Religious Organizations |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2011-03-10}}</ref> The ], 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 ]'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 Christ." The basis of this theology is ] 45:15, "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." | |||
| Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by ] authorities is in and of itself an ordinary event and did not require ]. On the contrary, for the crucifixion to occur, God had to limit or "empty" Himself. It was for this reason that ] wrote, in ] 2:5-8: | |||
| : "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." | |||
| Murphy concludes that,<blockquote>"Just as the Son of God limited himself by taking human form and dying on a cross, God limits divine action in the world to be in accord with rational laws which 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."</blockquote>For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a ], meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a ], which proposes that nature is all that there is.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Murphy |first=George L. |year=2002 |title=Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem |url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/nrcse/IDTHG.html |journal=Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology |location=Chicago, Illinois |publisher=Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Division for Ministry |volume=IV |issue=2 |oclc=52753579 |accessdate=2014-03-31}} Reprinted with permission.</ref> | |||
| The Jesuit priest ] has stated that is "unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean...some literal interpretation of Genesis." He argues that "...Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in belief that everything depends on God, or better, all is a gift from God."<ref>{{cite book|last1=Purcell|first1=Brendan|title=From Big Bang to Big Mystery: Human Origins in the Light of Creation and Evolution|date=2012|publisher=New City Press of the Focolare|isbn=1565484339|pages=94|accessdate=18 May 2017}}</ref> | |||
| ===Teaching of creationism=== | |||
| Other Christians have expressed qualms about teaching creationism. In March 2006, then 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 ], 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 ]{{snd}}a major American-based branch of the Anglican Communion{{snd}}on teaching creationism resemble those of Williams.<ref name="Archbishop_2006" /> | |||
| The National Science Teachers Association is opposed to teaching creationism as a science,<ref>{{cite web |title=NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution |publisher=National Science Teachers Association | year=2013 |url=http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx}}</ref> as is the Association for Science Teacher Education,<ref>{{cite web |title= ASTE Position Statement on Teaching Biological Evolution |year=2015 |publisher=Association for Science Teacher Education |url=https://theaste.org/about/aste-position-statement-on-teaching-biological-evolution/}}</ref> the National Association of Biology Teachers,<ref>{{cite web |title=NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution |publisher=National Association of Biology Teachers |year=2011 |url=http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/?p=92}}</ref> the American Anthropological Association,<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement on Evolution and Creationism |publisher=American Anthropological Association |year=2000 |url=http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2599}}</ref> the American Geosciences Institute,<ref>{{cite web |title=American Geological Institute Position on Teaching Evolution |publisher=American Geoscience Institute |year=2000 |url=http://www.agiweb.org/gapac/evolution_statement.html}}</ref> the Geological Society of America,<ref>{{cite web |year=2012 |title=Position Statement: Teaching Evolution |publisher=Geological Society of America |url=http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm}}</ref> the American Geophysical Union,<ref>{{cite web |title=AGU Position Statement on Teaching Creationism as Science |publisher=American Geophysical Institute |year=1998 |url=http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/CLONE/debate.html}}</ref> and numerous other professional teaching and scientific societies. | |||
| In April 2010, the ] 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."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/news/2010/07/american-academy-religion-teaching-creationism-005712 |title=American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism |date=July 23, 2010 |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2010-08-09}}</ref> | |||
| Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, from the biology program at the ], reflect on the relevance of teaching creationism in the article "The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism?" They conclude that "Despite decades of science education reform, numerous legal decisions declaring the teaching of creationism in public-school science classes to be unconstitutional, overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, and the many denunciations of creationism as nonscientific by professional scientific societies, creationism remains popular throughout the United States."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Moore |first1=Randy |last2=Cotner |first2=Sehoya |date=May 2009 |title=The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism? |journal=] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=Oxford University Press on behalf of the ] |volume=59 |issue=5 |pages=429–35 |doi=10.1525/bio.2009.59.5.10 |issn=0006-3568 |jstor=25502451}}</ref> | |||
| ===Scientific criticism=== | |||
| {{Main article|Creation–evolution controversy}} | |||
| Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence, and the development of theories that yield testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is often based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts.<ref>], </ref> 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.<ref name="SEaC">], , "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."</ref> However, many creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its ] and the origins, ] and ] of living organisms found on it. ] incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually ] and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence that often allows the accurate prediction of future results.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html |title=An Index to Creationist Claims |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |year=2006 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2012-12-09}}</ref><ref>]</ref> | |||
| Some scientists, such as ],<ref name="RoA">]</ref> consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called ].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |date=March 1997 |title=Nonoverlapping Magisteria |url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html |journal=] |location=Research Triangle Park, NC |publisher=Natural History Magazine, Inc. |volume=106 |pages=16–22 |issue=3 |issn=0028-0712 |accessdate=2014-03-31}}</ref> This view is also held by many theologians, who believe that ] and ] are addressed by religion, but favor verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as ],<ref>], p. 5</ref> 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.<ref name="RoyalSociety_2006">{{cite web|url=http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298|title=Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design|date=April 11, 2006|website=]|publisher=Royal Society|location=London|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080602213726/http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=4298|archivedate=2008-06-02|accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism |title=Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism |last1=Matsumura |first1=Molleen |last2=Mead |first2=Louise |date=February 14, 2001 |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2008-11-04}} Updated 2007-07-31.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php |title=Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? |last=Myers |first=PZ |authorlink=PZ Myers |date=June 18, 2006 |website=] |publisher=] |type=Blog |accessdate=2007-09-12 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070809011055/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php |archivedate=August 9, 2007 |df= }}</ref> | |||
| ==Organizations== | |||
| {| style="width:100%;" | |||
| |- style="vertical-align:top;" | |||
| |width=47%| | |||
| ;Creationism (in general) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ;Young Earth Creationism | |||
| * ], a group promoting young Earth creationism | |||
| * ], an organisation promoting biblical creation | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ;Old Earth Creationism | |||
| * Old Earth Ministries (OEM), formerly Answers In Creation (AIC), led by Greg Neyman<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.oldearth.org/about_aic.htm |title=About Old Earth Ministries? |website=Old Earth Ministries |publisher=Old Earth Ministries |location=Springfield, OH |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref> | |||
| * ], led by ] | |||
| |width=6%| | |||
| |width=47%| | |||
| ;Intelligent design | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ;Evolutionary creationism | |||
| * ] | |||
| ;Evolution | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * Why Evolution is True (]'s website) | |||
| |} | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages books | |||
| |1=Evolution | |||
| |3=Creationism and Intelligent Design | |||
| }} | |||
| {{div col|2}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{div col end}} | |||
| ==Footnotes== | |||
| {{Reflist|group="note"|refs= | |||
| <!-- <ref name="myth" group="note">], . While the term '']'' is often used colloquially to refer to "a false story," this article uses the term in the academic meaning of "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form."</ref> -->}} | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| {{Reflist|30em}} | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{Refbegin|30em}} | |||
| *{{cite book |author=`Abdu'l-Bahá |authorlink=`Abdu'l-Bahá |year=1982 |origyear=Originally published 1922–1925 |title=The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by `Abdu'l-Bahá during His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912 |others=Compiled by Howard MacNutt |edition=2nd |location=Wilmette, IL |publisher=Bahá’í Publishing Trust |isbn=0-8774-3172-8 |lccn=81021689 |oclc=853066452 |ref=`Abdu'l-Bahá 1982}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Aviezer |first=Nathan |authorlink=Nathan Aviezer |year=1990 |title=In the Beginning—: Biblical Creation and Science |location=Hoboken, NJ |publisher=KTAV Publishing House |isbn=0-88125-328-6 |lccn=89049127 |oclc=20800545 |ref=Aviezer 1990}} | |||
| *{{cite journal |editor-last=Barlow |editor-first=Nora |editor-link=Nora Barlow |year=1963 |title=Darwin's Ornithological Notes |url=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1577&viewtype=side |journal=Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series |location=London |publisher=] |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=201–278 |issn=0068-2306 |accessdate=2009-06-10 |ref=Barlow 1963}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Bowler |first=Peter J. |year=2003 |title=Evolution: The History of an Idea |edition=3rd |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=] |isbn=0-520-23693-9 |lccn=2002007569 |oclc=49824702 |ref=Bowler 2003}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Bucaille |first=Maurice |authorlink=Maurice Bucaille |year=1977 |origyear=Original French edition published 1976 |title=The Bible, The Qur'an and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge |others=translated from the French by Alastair D. Pannell and the author |location=Paris |publisher=Seghers |lccn=76488005 |oclc=373529514 |ref=Bucaille 1977}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Bucaille |first=Maurice |year=1976 |title=The Qur'an and Modern Science |url=http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html |type=Booklet |location=Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia |publisher=Cooperative Offices for Call & Guidance at Al-Badiah & Industrial Area |oclc=52246825 |accessdate=2014-03-21 |ref=Bucaille 1976}} | |||
| *{{cite book |editor1-last=Carmell |editor1-first=Aryeh |editor2-last=Domb |editor2-first=Cyril |year=1976 |title=Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems |location=Jerusalem; New York |publisher=]; ] |isbn=0-87306-174-8 |lccn=77357516 |oclc=609518840 |ref=Carmell & Domb 1976}} | |||
| *{{cite book |editor1-last=Carper |editor1-first=James C. |editor2-last=Hunt |editor2-first=Thomas C. |year=2009 |title=The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States |volume=1: A–L |location=Westport, CT |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-275-99228-6 |lccn=2008041156 |oclc=246888936 |ref=Carper & Hunt 2009}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Collins |first=Francis S. |authorlink=Francis Collins |year=2006 |title=] |location=New York |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-7432-8639-8 |lccn=2006045316 |oclc=65978711 |ref=Collins 2006}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Dasgupta |first=Surendranath |authorlink=Surendranath Dasgupta |year=1922 |title=A History of Indian Philosophy |volume=1 |location=Cambridge, England |publisher=] |lccn=22018463 |oclc=4235820 |ref=Dasgupta 1922}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Dawkins |year=2006 |title=The God Delusion |location=London |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-5930-5548-9 |lccn=2006015506 |oclc=70671839 |ref=Dawkins 2006}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Desmond |first=Adrian |authorlink=Adrian Desmond |year=1989 |title=The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London |series=Science and its Conceptual Foundations |location=Chicago, Illinois |publisher=] |isbn=0-226-14346-5 |lccn=89005137 |oclc=828159401 |ref=Desmond 1989}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Desmond |first=Adrian |last2=Moore |first2=James |author2-link=James Moore (biographer) |year=1991 |title=Darwin |location=London; New York |publisher=]; ] |isbn=0-7181-3430-3 |lccn=92196964 |oclc=26502431 |ref=harv}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Dewey |first=John |authorlink=John Dewey |year=1994 |chapter=The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy |editor=Martin Gardner |editor-link=Martin Gardner |title=Great Essays in Science |location=Buffalo, NY |publisher=] |isbn=0-87975-853-8 |lccn=93035453 |oclc=28846489 |ref=Dewey 1994}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Draper |first=Paul R. |authorlink=Paul Draper (philosopher) |year=2005 |chapter=God, Science, and Naturalism |editor-last=Wainwright |editor-first=William J. |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion |url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195138090.001.0001/acprof-9780195138092-chapter-12 |location=Oxford; New York |publisher=] |doi=10.1093/0195138090.003.0012 |isbn=978-0-1951-3809-2 |lccn=2004043890 |oclc=54542845 |accessdate=2014-03-15 |ref=Draper 2005}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Dundes |first=Alan |authorlink=Alan Dundes |year=1984 |chapter=Introduction |editor-last=Dundes |editor-first=Alan |title=Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=0-5200-5192-0 |lccn=83017921 |oclc=9944508 |ref=Dundes 1984}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Dundes |first=Alan |year=1996 |chapter=Madness in Method, Plus a Plea for Projective Inversion in Myth |editor1-last=Patton |editor1-first=Laurie L. |editor1-link=Laurie L. Patton |editor2-last=Doniger |editor2-first=Wendy |editor2-link=Wendy Doniger |title=Myth and Method |location=Charlottesville; London |publisher=] |isbn=0-8139-1657-7 |lccn=96014672 |oclc=34516050 |ref=Patton & Doniger 1996}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Eddy |first=Mary Baker |authorlink=Mary Baker Eddy |year=1934 |origyear=Originally published 1875 as ''Science and Health''; Christian Scientist Publishing Company: Boston, MA |title=] |edition=Sunday school |location=Boston, MA |publisher=] for the Trustees under the will of Mary Baker G. Eddy |lccn=42044682 |oclc=4579118 |ref=Eddy 1934}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last1=Forrest |first1=Barbara |authorlink1=Barbara Forrest |last2=Gross |first2=Paul R. |authorlink2=Paul R. Gross |year=2004 |title=] |location=Oxford; New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-515742-7 |oclc=50913078 |lccn=2002192677 |ref=Forrest & Gross 2004}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last1=Forster |first1=Roger |authorlink1=Roger T. Forster |last2=Marston |first2=V. Paul |year=1999 |chapter=Genesis Through History |title=Reason, Science, and Faith |location=Crowborough, East Sussex |publisher=Monarch Books |isbn=1-85424-441-8 |lccn=99488551 |oclc=41159110 |ref=Forster & Marston 1999}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Futuyma |first=Douglas J. |authorlink=Douglas J. Futuyma |year=2005 |chapter=Evolutionary Science, Creationism, and Society |title=Evolution |location=Sunderland, MA |publisher=] |isbn=0-87893-187-2 |lccn=2004029808 |oclc=57311264 |ref=Futuyma 2005}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last1=Giberson |first1=Karl W. |last2=Yerxa |first2=Donald A. |year=2002 |title=Species of Origins: America's Search for a Creation Story |location=Lanham, MD |publisher=] |isbn=0-7425-0764-5 |lccn=2002002365 |oclc=49031109 |ref=Giberson & Yerxa 2002}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Gosse |first=Philip Henry |authorlink=Philip Henry Gosse |year=1857 |title=] |location=London |publisher=] |lccn=11004351 |oclc=7631539 |ref=Gosse 1857}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |authorlink=Stephen Jay Gould |year=1999 |title=] |series=Library of Contemporary Thought |edition=1st |location=New York |publisher=] |isbn=0-345-43009-3 |lccn=98031335 |oclc=39886951 |ref=Gould 1999}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Gunn |first=Angus M. |year=2004 |title=Evolution and Creationism in the Public Schools: A Handbook for Educators, Parents, and Community Leaders |location=Jefferson, NC |publisher=] |isbn=0-7864-2002-2 |lccn=2004018788 |oclc=56319812 |ref=Gunn 2004}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Hayward |first=James L. |year=1998 |title=The Creation/Evolution Controversy: An Annotated Bibliography |series=Magill Bibliographies |location=Lanham, MD; Pasadena, CA |publisher=Scarecrow Press; Salem Press |page=253 |isbn=0-8108-3386-7 |lccn=98003138 |oclc=38496519 |ref=Hayward 1998}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Lamoureux |first=Denis O. |authorlink=Denis Lamoureux |year=1999 |chapter=Evangelicals Inheriting the Wind: The Phillip E. Johnson Phenomenon |title=Darwinism Defeated?: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins |others=Foreword by ] |location=Vancouver, B.C. |publisher=] |isbn=1-57383-133-6 |oclc=40892139 |ref=Lamoureux 1999}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Masood |first=Steven |year=1994 |origyear=Originally published 1986 |title=Jesus and the Indian Messiah |location=Oldham, England |publisher=Word of Life |isbn=1-898868-00-X |lccn=94229476 |oclc=491161526 |ref=Masood 1994}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=McComas |first=William F. |year=2002 |chapter=Science and Its Myths |editor-last=Shermer |editor-first=Michael |editor-link=Michael Shermer |title=] |volume=1 |location=Santa Barbara, CA |publisher=] |isbn=1-57607-653-9 |lccn=2002009653 |oclc=50155642 |ref=Shermer 2002}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=McGrath |first=Alister E. |authorlink=Alister McGrath |year=2010 |title=Science and Religion: A New Introduction |edition=2nd |location=Malden, MA |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-4051-8790-9 |lccn=2009020180 |oclc=366494307 |ref=McGrath 2010}} | |||
| *{{cite book |author=National Academy of Sciences |authorlink=National Academy of Sciences |year=1999 |title=Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences |url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024 |edition=2nd |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=] |isbn=0-309-06406-6 |lccn=99006259 |oclc=43803228 |accessdate=2014-11-22 |ref=NAS 1999}} | |||
| *{{cite book |author1=National Academy of Sciences |author2=Institute of Medicine |authorlink2=Institute of Medicine |year=2008 |title=Science, Evolution, and Creationism |url=http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876 |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=National Academy Press |isbn=978-0-309-10586-6 |lccn=2007015904 |oclc=123539346 |accessdate=2014-11-22 |ref=NAS 2008}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |authorlink=Ronald Numbers |year=1998 |title=Darwinism Comes to America |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=] |isbn=0-674-19312-1 |lccn=98016212 |oclc=38747194 |ref=Numbers 1998}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |year=2006 |origyear=Originally published 1992 as ''The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism''; New York: ] |title=] |edition=Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=] |isbn=0-674-02339-0 |lccn=2006043675 |oclc=69734583 |ref=Numbers 2006}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Okasha |first=Samir |year=2002 |title=Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction |series=Very Short Introductions |volume=67 |location=Oxford; New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-280283-6 |lccn=2002510456 |oclc=48932644 |ref=Okasha 2002}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Pennock |first=Robert T. |authorlink=Robert T. Pennock |year=1999 |title=Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=] |isbn=0-262-16180-X |lccn=98027286 |oclc=44966044 |ref=Pennock 1999}} | |||
| *{{cite book |editor-last=Pennock |editor-first=Robert T |editor-link=Robert T. Pennock |year=2001 |title=Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=] |isbn=0-262-66124-1 |lccn=2001031276 |oclc=46729201 |ref=Pennock 2001}}<!--|accessdate=2014-01-10 --> | |||
| *{{cite book |author=Philo, of Alexandria |authorlink=Philo |year=1854–55 |chapter=The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, after the Work of the Six Days of Creation |chapterurl=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html |title=The Works of Philo Judaeus |url=https://archive.org/details/worksofphilojuda01yonguoft |series=Bohn's Classical Library |others=Translated from the Greek, by ] |location=London |publisher=] |lccn=20007801 |oclc=1429769 |accessdate=2014-03-09 |ref=Philo}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Plimer |first=Ian |authorlink=Ian Plimer |year=1994 |title=Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism |location=Milsons Point, NSW |publisher=] |isbn=0-09-182852-X |lccn=94237744 |oclc=32608689 |ref=Plimer 1994}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Polkinghorne |first=John |authorlink=John Polkinghorne |year=1998 |title=Science and Theology: An Introduction |location=Minneapolis, MN |publisher=] |isbn=0-8006-3153-6 |lccn=98229115 |oclc=40117376 |ref=Polkinghorne 1998}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Quammen |first=David |authorlink=David Quammen |year=2006 |title=The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution |series=Great Discoveries |location=New York |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-393-05981-6 |lccn=2006009864 |oclc=65400177 |ref=Quammen 2006}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Rainey |first=David |title=Faith Reads: A Selective Guide to Christian Nonfiction |year=2008 |location=Westport, CT |publisher=Libraries Unlimited |isbn=978-1-59158-602-9 |lccn=2008010352 |oclc=213599217 |ref=Rainey 2012}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Schroeder |first=Gerald L. |authorlink=Gerald Schroeder |year=1998 |origyear=Originally published 1997; New York: ] |title=The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom |edition=1st Broadway Books trade paperback |location=New York |publisher=] |isbn=0-7679-0303-X |lccn=97014978 |oclc=39162332 |ref=Schroeder 1998}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |authorlink=Eugenie Scott |year=1999 |chapter=Science, Religion, and Evolution |editor1-last=Springer |editor1-first=Dale A. |editor2-last=Scotchmoor |editor2-first=Judy |title=Evolution: Investigating the Evidence |url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/528_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp |type=Reprint |series=The Paleontological Society Special Publications |volume=9 |location=Pittsburgh, PA |publisher=] |lccn=00274093 |oclc=42725350 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20030628210954/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/528_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp |archivedate=2003-06-28 |ref=Scott 1999}} "Presented as a Paleontological Society short course at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Denver, Colorado, October 24, 1999." | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |authorlink=Eugenie Scott |year=2005 |origyear=Originally published 2004; Westport, CT: ] |title=Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction |others=Foreword by ] |edition=1st paperback |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=0-520-24650-0 |lccn=2005048649 |oclc=60420899 |ref=Scott 2005}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Secord |first=James A. |title=Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation |location=Chicago, Illinois |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2000 |isbn=0-226-74410-8 |lccn=00009124 |oclc=43864195 |ref=Secord 2000}} | |||
| *{{cite book |editor-last=Stewart |editor-first=Melville Y. |editor-link=Melville Y. Stewart |year=2010 |title=Science and Religion in Dialogue |location=Malden, MA |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |isbn=978-1-4051-8921-7 |lccn=2009032180 |oclc=430678957 |ref=Stewart 2010}} | |||
| *{{cite book |editor1-last=Sweet |editor1-first=William |editor1-link=William Sweet |editor2-last=Feist |editor2-first=Richard |year=2007 |title=Religion and the Challenges of Science |location=Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-7546-5715-6 |lccn=2006030598 |oclc=71778930 |ref=Sweet & Feist 2007}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Wilder-Smith |first=A. E. |authorlink=A. E. Wilder-Smith |year=1978 |title=Die Naturwissenschaften kennen keine Evolution: Empirische und theoretische Einwände gegen die Evolutionstheorie |trans-title=The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution |location=Basel, Switzerland |publisher=Schwabe Verlag |isbn=3-7965-0691-7 |lccn=80067425 |oclc=245955034 |ref=Wilder-Smith 1978}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Young |first=Davis A. |year=1995 |title=The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence |location=Grand Rapids, MI |publisher=] |isbn=0-8028-0719-4 |lccn=95001899 |oclc=246813515 |ref=Young 1995}} | |||
| {{Refend}} | |||
| ==Further reading== | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Anderson |first=Bernard W. |authorlink=Bernhard Anderson |year=1967 |title=Creation versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible |location=New York |publisher=Association Press |lccn=67014578 |oclc=671184 |ref=Anderson 1967}} | |||
| *{{cite book |editor-last=Anderson |editor-first=Bernhard W. |year=1984 |title=Creation in the Old Testament |series=Issues in Religion and Theology |volume=6 |others=Introduction by Bernhard W. Anderson |location=Philadelphia; London |publisher=Fortress Press; ] |isbn=0-8006-1768-1 |lccn=83048910 |oclc=10374840 |ref=Anderson 1984}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Barbour |first=Ian G. |authorlink=Ian Barbour |year=1997 |title=Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues |edition=1st HarperCollins revised |location=San Francisco, CA |publisher=] |isbn=0-06-060938-9 |lccn=97006294 |oclc=36417827 |ref=Barbour 1997}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Barbour |first=Ian G. |year=2000 |title=When Science Meets Religion |edition=1st |location=San Francisco, CA |publisher=HarperSanFrancisco |isbn=0-06-060381-X |lccn=99055579 |oclc=42752713 |ref=Barbour 2000}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Clark |first=Kelly James |year=2014 |title=Religion and the Sciences of Origins: Historical and Contemporary Discussions |edition=1st |location=Basingstoke, UK |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-137-41483-0 |lccn=2014466739 |oclc=889777438 |ref=Clark 2014}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Darwin |first=Charles |authorlink=Charles Darwin |year=1958 |editor-last=Barlow |editor-first=Nora |title=The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With original omissions restored; Edited and with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter, Nora Barlow |url=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=side&pageseq=1 |location=London |publisher=Collins |lccn=93017940 |oclc=869541868 |accessdate=2009-01-09 |ref=Darwin 1958}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Kaplan |first=Aryeh |authorlink=Aryeh Kaplan |year=1993 |title=Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View |others=With an appendix Derush Or ha-Hayyim by Israel Lipschitz; translated and annotated by Yaakov Elman |location=Hoboken, NJ |publisher=KTAV Publishing House in association with the ] |isbn=0-88125-345-6 |lccn=92036917 |oclc=26800167 |ref=Kaplan 1993}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Kauffman |first=Stuart A. |authorlink=Stuart Kauffman |year=2008 |title=Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion |location=New York |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-465-00300-6 |lccn=2007052263 |oclc=191023778 |ref=Kauffman 2008}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last1=Leeming |first1=David Adams |last2=Leeming |first2=Margaret |year=1995 |title=A Dictionary of Creation Myths |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-510275-4 |lccn=95039961 |oclc=33160980 |ref=Leeming & Leeming 1995}} | |||
| *{{cite journal |last1=Primack |first1=Joel R. |authorlink1=Joel Primack |last2=Abrams |first2=Nancy Ellen |date=Jan–Feb 1995 |title=In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah |url=http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/InABeginningTikkun1995.pdf |format=PDF |journal=] |location=Durham, NC |publisher=] |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=66–73 |issn=0887-9982 |accessdate=2014-04-24}} | |||
| *{{cite book |last=Roberts |first=Michael |year=2008 |title=Evangelicals and Science |series=Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion |location=Westport, CT |publisher=Greenwood Press |isbn=978-0-313-33113-8 |lccn=2007041059 |oclc=174138819 |ref=Roberts 2008}} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| <!--======================== {{No more links}} ============================ | |||
| | PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. Misplaced Pages | | |||
| | is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising. | | |||
| | | | |||
| | Excessive or inappropriate links WILL BE DELETED. | | |||
| | See ] & ] for details. | | |||
| | | | |||
| | If there are already plentiful links, please propose additions or | | |||
| | replacements on this article's discussion page, or submit your link | | |||
| | to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) | | |||
| | and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template. | | |||
| ======================= {{No more links}} =============================--> | |||
| {{Commons|Creationism}}{{Wikiquote}} | |||
| <!-- overviews of creationism, i.e. all these links are similar because they describe the variety of viewpoints that have been described as creationist. --> | |||
| * at the ] by ] | |||
| * at ] by Julia Layton | |||
| * {{snd}} Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate | |||
| * {{cite web|url= http://images.derstandard.at/20051012/Evolution-and-Creationism.pdf |title="Evolution and Creationism: A Guide for Museum Docents" }} {{small|(204 KB)}} by Warren D. Allmon, Director of the ] | |||
| * at ] by Mark Isaak | |||
| * by ] | |||
| * by ], editor in chief of '']'' magazine | |||
| * {{snd}} ], ] (August 2016). | |||
| {{Philosophy of religion}} | |||
| {{Authority control}} | |||
| {{Portal bar|Creationism|Evolutionary biology|Science}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 00:09, 16 November 2017
Creationism was founded by George Washington s. bush. He looked at the bible at said no. This is all fake. John Marlow made the bible in the testament. Sorry, it was the drunk Christopher Marlow. He was playing cards when he stood up an said" boy get on the ground and slap yourself!" Oh wow, it is Asian month. There was a joke for you guys that Christopher Columbus said a lot. How do you blindfold an asian? by putting floss over their eyes! That is what james s bush said