» 
Arabic Bulgarian Chinese Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Finnish French German Greek Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Italian Japanese Korean Latvian Lithuanian Malagasy Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swedish Thai Turkish Vietnamese
Arabic Bulgarian Chinese Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Finnish French German Greek Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Italian Japanese Korean Latvian Lithuanian Malagasy Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swedish Thai Turkish Vietnamese

definitions - Creationism

creationism (n.)

1.the literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis"creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"

   Advertizing ▼

Merriam Webster

CreationismCre*a"tion*ism (-?z'm), n. The doctrine that a soul is specially created for each human being as soon as it is formed in the womb; -- opposed to traducianism.

   Advertizing ▼

definition (more)

definition of Wikipedia

phrases

analogical dictionary

Wikipedia

Creationism

                   
"Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. For the movement in Spanish literature, see Creacionismo.
Part of a series on
Creationism
The Creation of Adam.jpg

History of creationism
Neo-creationism

Types of creationism

Young Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-age creationism
Progressive creationism
Intelligent design

Theology

Genesis creation narrative
Framework interpretation
Genesis as an allegory
Omphalos hypothesis

Creation science

Baraminology
Flood geology
Creation geophysics
Creationist cosmologies
Intelligent design

Controversy

Creation myth
History
Public education
Teach the Controversy

Particular religious views

Deist · Hindu · Islamic · Jewish
Pandeist

Wikipedia book Book · Category Category · PortalPortal

Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God. As science developed from the 18th century onwards, various views developed which aimed to reconcile science with the Genesis creation narrative.[2] At this time those holding that species had been separately created (such as Philip Gosse in 1847) were generally called "advocates of creation" but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term "anti-evolutionists" became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term "creationism" first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist disbelief in human evolution and belief in a young Earth, though its usage was contested by other groups, such as theistic evolutionists, who believed in various concepts of creation.[3]

Today, the American Scientific Affiliation and the UK-based Christians in Science recognize that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Christian belief that God "created the universe."[4][5][6] Since the 1920s, literalist creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution,[7][8][9] which derive from natural observations of the universe and life. Literalist creationists[10] believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[11] Fundamentalist creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative.[10][12] Other religions have different deity-led creation myths,[note 1][13][14][15] while different members of individual faiths vary in their acceptance of scientific findings.

When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, young earth creationists often reject the conclusions of the research[16] or its underlying scientific theories[17] or its methodology.[18] The rejection of scientific findings has sparked political and theological controversy.[7] Two offshoots of creationism—creation science and intelligent design—have been characterized as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[19] The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.[20][21][22][23] However, the beliefs of evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution), a form of old earth creationism, embrace the findings of modern science and uphold classical religious teachings about God and creation.[24][25][26]

History

The history of creationism is part of the history of religions, though the term itself is modern. In the 1920s the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist movements that insisted on a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and likewise opposed the idea of human evolution. These groups succeeded in getting teaching of evolution banned in United States public schools, then from the mid-1960s the young Earth creationists promoted the teaching of "scientific creationism" using "Flood geology" in public school science classes as support for a purely literal reading of Genesis.[27] After the legal judgment of the case Daniel v. Waters (1975) ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.[28]

Judaism and early and medieval Christianity

The Genesis creation narrative appears in the Jewish Torah. Early Jewish teachers believed that the biblical text contained layers of meaning, with the spiritual and allegorical interpretations of Genesis often being seen as more important than the literal. The first century Jewish writer Philo admired the literal narrative of passages concerning the Patriarchs, but in other passages viewed the literal interpretation as being for those unable to see an underlying deeper meaning. For example, he noted that Moses said the world was created in six days, but did not consider this as a length of time as "we must think of God as doing all things simultaneously" and the six days were mentioned because of a need for order and according with a perfect number. Genesis was about real events, but God through Moses described them in figurative or allegorical language. The tradition of such writers as Abraham ibn Ezra consistently rejected overly literal understandings of Genesis.[29]

To a large extent, the early Christian Church Fathers read creation history as an allegory, and followed Philo's ideas of time beginning with an instantaneous creation, with days not meant literally. Christian orthodoxy rejected the second century Gnostic belief that Genesis was purely allegorical, but without taking a purely literal view of the texts. Thus Origen believed that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation of God, but did not take the chronology or the days as ‘literal’. Similarly, Saint Basil in the fourth century while literal in many ways, described creation as instantaneous and timeless, being immeasurable and indivisible.[30]

Augustine of Hippo in The Literal Meaning of Genesis was insistent that Genesis describes the creation of physical objects, but also shows creation occurring simultaneously, with the days of creation being categories for didactic reasons, a logical framework which has nothing to do with time. For him, light was the illumination of angels rather than visible light, and spiritual light was just as literal as physical light. Augustine emphasized that the text was difficult to understand and should be reinterpreted as new knowledge became available. In particular, Christians should not make absurd dogmatic interpretations of scripture which contradict what people know from physical evidence.[31]

In the 13th century Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering while cautioning "that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."[30]

Natural theology

From 1517 the Protestant Reformation brought a new emphasis on lay literacy, with Martin Luther advocating the idea that creation took six literal days about 6000 years ago, and claiming that "Moses wrote that uneducated men might have clear accounts of creation", though a German peasant listening to a translation would have different perceptions from a Jew familiar with early Jewish language and culture, and Luther still had to refer to allegorical understandings such as the meaning of the serpent. John Calvin also rejected instantaneous creation, but criticised those who, contradicting the contemporary understanding of nature, asserted that there are "waters above the heavens".[30]

Discoveries of new lands brought knowledge of a huge diversity of life, and a new belief developed that each of these biological species had been individually created by God. In 1605 Francis Bacon emphasized that the works of God in nature teach us how to interpret the word of God in the Bible, and his Baconian method introduced the empirical approach which became central to modern science.[32] Natural theology developed the study of nature with the expectation of finding evidence supporting Christianity, and numerous attempts were made to reconcile new knowledge with the biblical Deluge myth and story of Noah's Ark.[33]

In 1650 the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, published the Ussher chronology based on Bible history giving a date for Creation of 4004 BC. This was generally accepted, but the development of modern geology in the 18th and 19th centuries found geological strata and fossil sequences indicating an ancient Earth. Catastrophism was favoured in England as supporting the biblical flood, but this was found to be untenable[33] and by 1850 all geologists and most Evangelical Christians had adopted various forms of old Earth creationism, while continuing to firmly reject evolution.[30][not in citation given]

Growing evidence for evolution

From around the start of the 19th century, ideas such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's concept of transmutation of species had gained a small number of supporters in Paris and Edinburgh, mostly amongst anatomists.[30] Charles Darwin's development of his theory of natural selection in the 1830s and the anonymous publication of Vestiges of Creation in 1844 aroused wide public interest with support from Quakers and Unitarians, but was strongly criticised by the scientific community, which emphasized the need for solidly backed science. In 1859 Darwin's On the Origin of Species provided that evidence from an authoritative and respected source, and gradually convinced scientists that evolution occurs. This acceptance was resisted by conservative evangelicals in the Church of England, but their attention quickly turned to the much greater uproar about Essays and Reviews by liberal Anglican theologians, which introduced into the controversy "the higher criticism" begun by Erasmus centuries earlier. This book re-examined the Bible and cast doubt on a literal interpretation.[34] By 1875 most American naturalists supported ideas of theistic evolution, often involving special creation of human beings.[27]

At this time those holding that species had been separately created were generally called "advocates of creation", but they were occasionally called "creationists" in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends.[3] The term appears in letters Darwin wrote between 1856 and 1863,[35] and was also used in a response by Charles Lyell.[36]

Creationism internationally

Creationism is widely accepted and taught throughout the Middle East. Although it has been prominent in the United States but not widely accepted in academia, it has been making a resurgence in other countries as well.[37][38][39]

Europe

In recent years the controversy has become an issue in a variety of countries including Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Serbia.[38][39][40][41]

Creation science has been heavily promoted in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by Adnan Oktar (also known as Harun Yahya).[39] On 17 September 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted The dangers of creationism in education, a resolution on the attempt by American-inspired creationists to promote creationism in European schools. It concludes "The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements... some advocates of creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy... If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists".[42]

Germany

In 1978, British Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who came to Germany after World War II and lectured at Marburg and other cities, published published a book arguing against evolution with a secular, well known publishing house, titled "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution."[43] At the end of the year Horst W. Beck became a creationist. Both an engineer and theologian, he was a leading figure in the already mentioned "Karl-Heim-Gesellschaft" and had previously published articles and books defending theistic evolution. Together with other members of the society, which they soon left, he followed the arguments of Willem Ouweneel, a Dutch biologist lecturing in Germany. Beck soon found other scientists who had changed their view or were "hidden" creationists. Under his leadership, the first creationist society was founded ("Wort und Wissen"—Word and Knowledge). Three book series were soon published, an independent creationist monthly journal started ("Factum"), and the first German article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly was published.[44]

In 2006, a documentary on the Arte television network, Von Göttern und Designern ("Genesis vs. Darwin") by filmmaker Frank Papenbroock demonstrated that creationism had already been taught in biology classes in at least two schools in Gießen, Hessen, without this being noticed. This raised public discussion about creationism in Germany.[45] During this, the Education Minister of Hessen, Karin Wolff, said she believed creationism should be taught in biology class as a theory, like the theory of evolution: "I think it makes sense to bring up multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary problems for discussion".[46] " Approximately 20% of people disbelieve evolutionary theory in Germany[47]

Netherlands

A recent study of Muslim university students in the Netherlands showed that most rejected evolution.[48]

Romania

In Romania, in 2002, the Ministry of Education approved the use of a biology book endorsing creationism, entitled Divine Mastery and Light in the Biosphere, in public high schools. Following a protest of the Romanian Humanist Association the Romanian Ministry of Education replied that the book is not a "textbook" but merely an "accessory." The president of the Association labeled the reply as "disappointing" since, whether a textbook or an accessory, the book remains available for usage in schools. Reports indicate that at least one teacher, in Oradea did use the book.[49]

Russia

Russia is home to the Moscow Creation Society.[50] The department of extracurricular and alternative education of the Russian ministry of education has cosponsored numerous creationist conferences. Since 1994 Alexander Asmolov, the previous deputy minister of education, has urged that creationism be taught to help restore academic freedom in Russia after years of state-enforced scientific orthodoxy.[51] In Russia, a 16-year-old girl launched a court case against the Ministry of Education, backed by the Russian Orthodox Church, challenging the teaching of just one "theory" of biology in school textbooks as a breach of her human rights.[52]

A 2005 poll reportedly found 26% of Russians accepting evolution and 49% accepting creationism.[53] But a 2003 poll reported that 44% agreed with "Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals"),[54] and a 2009 poll reported (PDF) that 48% of Russians who "know something about Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution" agreed that there was sufficient evidence for the theory. (In comparison, only 41% of Americans agreed.)[55] The 2009 poll indicated that 53% of Russians agreed with "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism," with 13% preferring that such perspectives be taught instead of evolution; only 10% agreed with "Evolutionary theories alone should be taught in science lessons in schools."[55]

Serbia

On 7 September 2004 the Serbian Minister of education Ljiljana Colic temporarily banned evolution from being taught. After state-wide outcry she resigned on 16 September 2004 from her post.[56]

Switzerland

A 2006 international survey found that 30% of the Swiss reject evolution, one of the highest national percentages in Europe.[57] Another survey in 2007, commissioned by the fringe Christian organization Pro Genesis, controversially claims 80%. This resulted in schools in canton Bern printing science textbooks that presented creationism as a valid alternative theory to evolution. Scientists and education experts harshly criticized the move, which quickly prompted school authorities to revise the books.[58]

United Kingdom

Since the development of evolutionary theory by Charles Darwin in England, where his portrait appears on the back of the £10 note, significant shifts in British public opinion have occurred. A 2006 a survey for the BBC showed that "more than a fifth of those polled were convinced by the creationist argument,"[59] a massive decrease from the almost total acceptance of creationism before Darwin published his theory. A 2010 Angus Reid poll found that "In Britain, two-thirds of respondents (68%) side with evolution while less than one-in-five (16%) choose creationism. At least seven-in-ten respondents in the South of England (70%) and Scotland (75%) believe human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years."[60] A subsequent 2010 YouGov poll on the Origin of Humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% didn't know.[61]

Speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool last year, Professor Reiss estimated that about only 10% of children were from a family that supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.[62] Richard Dawkins has been quoted saying "I have spoken to a lot of science teachers in schools here in Britain who are finding an increasing number of students coming to them and saying they are Young Earth creationists."

The director of education at the Royal Society has said that creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than be excluded, to explain why creationism had no scientific basis.[63] Wales has the largest proportion of theistic evolutionists - the belief that evolution is part of God's plan (38%). Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of people who believe in 'intelligent design' (16%), which holds 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.[64] Some private religious schools in the UK teach creationism rather than evolution.[65] However the teaching of creationism is illegal in any school that receives state funding.

Islamic countries

A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 16% of Indonesians, and 22% of Turks agree that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true, and a 2006 survey reported that about a quarter of Turkish adults agreed that human beings evolved from earlier animal species.[66] Surveys carried out by researchers affiliated with McGill University’s Evolution Education Research Centre found that in Egypt and Pakistan, while the official high school curriculum does include evolution, many of the teachers there don’t believe in it themselves, and will often tell their students so.[67]

Currently in Egypt, evolution is taught in schools but Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.[37] In recent times, creationism has become more widespread in other Islamic countries.[68]

In 2008 during the XIII IOSTE Symposium in Izmir (Turkey), a survey was undertaken of the adherence to creation science of 5,700 teachers from 14 countries. Lebanon, Senegal, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria had 62% to 81% of creationist teachers (with no difference between biologists and others). Romania and Burkina Faso had 45% to 48% of creationist teachers in Romania and Burkina Faso, with no difference between biologists and other in Romania, but a clear difference (p<0.001) in Burkina Faso (with 61% of creationists for the not biology teachers). Portugal and Cyprus had 15% to 30% of creationist teachers, with no significant difference between biologists, but a significant difference in Portugal (p=0.004, 17% and 26%).

Iran

The Iranian clerical establishment’s vision of evolution, in which a divine hand guides the process, is closer to intelligent design than to the mainstream version of evolution.[67]

Lebanon

In Lebanon, the government excised the teaching of evolution from the public school curriculum in the mid-1990s.

Turkey

Since the 1980s Creationism in Turkey has grown significantly and is now the government's official position on origins.[67] In 1985 the conservative political party then in control of the country’s education ministry added creationist explanations alongside the passages on evolution in the standard high school biology textbook. (In Turkey, unlike in the United States, the public school curriculum is set by the national government). In 2008 Richard Dawkins website was banned in Turkey.[69] Since July 2011 it is back online again.[70]

Australia

In the late 1970s, Answers in Genesis, a creationist research organization, was founded in Australia. In 1994, Answers in Genesis expanded from Australia and New Zealand to the United States.[71] It subsequently expanded into the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. Creationists in Australia have been the leading influence on the development of creation science in the USA for the last 20 years. Two of the 3 main international creation science organizations all have original roots within Australia - Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries. Ken Ham,[72] geologist Dr Andrew Snelling,[73] astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle,[74] chemical engineer Dr Jonathan Sarfati[75] and geologist Dr Tasman Bruce Walker [76] have all had significant impact on the development of creationism in Australia, and have brought their teaching to the USA.

In 1980 the Queensland state government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen allowed the teaching of creationism as science to school children. On 29 May 2010 it was announced that creationism and intelligent design will be discussed in history classes as part of the new national curriculum. It will be placed in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies".[77] One Australian scientist who adheres to creation science is Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström.[78]

The teaching professor Ian Plimer, an anti-creationist geologist, reported being attacked by creationists [79] A few public lectures have been given in rented rooms at Universities, by visiting American speakers, and speakers with doctorates purchased by mail from Florida sites.[80] A court case taken by Plimer against prominent creationists found "that the creationists had stolen the work of others for financial profit, that the creationists told lies under oath and that the creationists were engaged in fraud."[81] The debate was featured on the science television program Quantum.[82] In 1989, Plimer debated American creationist Duane Gish.

South Korea

Since 1981, the Korean Association for Creation Research has grown to 16 branches, with 1000 members and 500 Ph.Ds. On August 22–24, 1991, recognizing the 10th anniversary of KACR, an International Symposium on Creation Science was held with 4,000 in attendance.[83][84] In 1990, the book The Natural Sciences was written by Dr. Young-gil Kim and 26 other fellow scientists in Korea with a creationist viewpoint. The textbook drew the interest of college communities, and today, many South Korean universities are using it.

Since 1991, Creation Science has become a regular university course at Myongji University, which has a centre for creation research. Since that time, other universities have begun to offer Creation Science courses. At Handong Global University, creationist Dr. Young-gil Kim was inaugurated as president in March 1995. At Myongji University, creationist Dr. Woongsang Lee is a biology professor. The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology is where the Research Association of Creation Science was founded and many graduate students are actively involved.[83] In 2008 a survey found that 36% of South Koreans disagreed with the statement that "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.". In May 2012, references to evolution were removed from South Korean science textbooks.[85][86]

Americas

Brazil

Brazil has had two creationist societies since the 1970s - the Brazilian Association for Creation Research and the Brazilian Creation Society. According to a 2004 survey, 31% of Brazil believe that "the first humans were created no more than 10,000 years ago."[87]

United States

In the United States some religious communities have refused to accept, as theistic evolutionists have accepted, naturalistic explanations and tried instead to counter them. The term started to become associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth in 1929.[3] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgments.[28] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[3]

Such beliefs include Young Earth creationism, proponents of which believe that the Earth is thousands rather than billions of years old, and typically believe that the days in chapter one of Genesis are 24 hours in length. While Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and believes that these findings do not contradict Genesis, but reject evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creationism which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth. Alternatively, there are other religious people who support creationism, but in terms of allegorical interpretations of Genesis.

By the start of the twentieth century, evolution was widely accepted and was beginning to be taught in U.S. public schools. After World War I, popular belief that German aggression resulted from a Darwinian doctrine of "survival of the fittest" inspired William Jennings Bryan to campaign against the teaching of Darwinian ideas of human evolution.[27] In the 1920s, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy led to an upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor in which schools were prevented from teaching evolution through state laws such as Tennessee’s 1925 Butler Act,[88][89] and by getting evolution removed from biology textbooks nationwide. Creationism became associated in common usage with opposition to evolution.[90]

In 1961 in the United States, an attempt to repeal the Butler Act failed.[28] The Genesis Flood by the Baptist engineer Henry M. Morris brought the Seventh-day Adventist biblically literal flood geology of George McCready Price to a wider audience, popularizing a novel idea of Young Earth creationism,[30] and by 1965 the term "scientific creationism" had gained currency.[91] The 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas judgment ruled that state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion.[92] and when in 1975 Daniel v. Waters ruled that a state law requiring biology textbooks discussing "origins or creation of man and his world" to give equal treatment to creation as per Book of Genesis was unconstitutional, a new group identifying themselves as creationists promoted a "Creation science" which omitted explicit biblical references.[28]

In 1981 the state of Arkansas passed a law, Act 590, mandating that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution, and defining creation science as positing the "creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing," as well as explaining the earth’s geology by "the occurrence of a worldwide flood".[91] This was ruled unconstitutional at McLean v. Arkansas in January 1982 as the creationists' methods were not scientific but took the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempted to find scientific support for it.[91] Undaunted, Louisiana introduced similar legislation that year. A series of judgments and appeals led to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that it too violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[89]

"Creation science" could no longer be taught in public schools, and in drafts of the creation science school textbook Of Pandas and People all references to creation or creationism were changed to refer to intelligent design.[89] Proponents of the intelligent design movement organised widespread campaigning to considerable effect. They officially denied any links to creation or to religion, and indeed claimed that "creationism" only referred to young Earth creationism with flood geology;[93] but in Kitzmiller v. Dover the court found intelligent design to be essentially religious, and unable to dissociate itself from its creationist roots, as part of the ruling that teaching intelligent design in public school science classes was unconstitutional.[89]

However, the percentage of people in the USA who accept the idea of evolution declined from 45% in 1985, to 40% in 2005.[94] A Gallup poll reported that percentage of people in the US that believe in a strict interpretation of creationism had fallen to 40% in 2010 after a high of 46% in 2006. The highest the percentage has risen between 1982 and 2010 was 47% in 1994 and 2000 according to the report. The report found that Americans who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view while those with a college education are more likely to hold a view involving evolution. 47% of those with no more than a high school education believe in creationism while 22% of those with a post graduate education hold that view. The poll also found that church attendance dramatically increased adherence to a strict creationist view (22% for those who do not attend church, 60% for those who attend weekly).[95] The higher percentage of Republicans who identified with a creationist view is described as evidence of the strong relationship between religion and politics the United States. Republicans also attend church weekly more than Democratic or independent voters. Non-Republican voters are twice as likely to hold a non-theistic view of evolution than Republican voters.[95]

Movements

Creationist movements exist among peoples with various religious perspectives such as Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam.

Christianity

As of 2006 most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation narrative.[94] The United States is the exception where belief in religious fundamentalism is much more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution[94] than it is for believers elsewhere. Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because whilst political partisanship in the U.S. is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, this is not so in Europe.[94]

Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,[96] such as Anglicans[97] and Lutherans,[98] consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, "...for most of the history of Christianity (and I think this is fair enough) 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."[99]

Leaders of the Anglican[100] and Roman Catholic[101][102] churches have made statements in favor of evolutionary theory, as have scholars such as the physicist John Polkinghorne, who argues that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier supporters of evolutionary theory include Frederick Temple, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories upon their publication,[103] and the French Jesuit priest and geologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for his more speculative theories. Another example is that of Liberal theology, not providing any creation models, but instead focusing on the symbolism in beliefs of the time of authoring Genesis and the cultural environment. In fact, many Christians and Jews had been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of a historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. For example, the first century Jewish neoplatonic philosopher Philo of Alexandria, 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.[104][105] Saint 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 Genesis would seem to require);[106] 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, Pope Pius XII stated limited support for the idea in his encyclical Humani Generis, 36.[107] In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that, "New findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis," but, referring to previous papal writings, he concluded that "If the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God."[108]

However, in the United States, an inversion has happened. Evangelical Christians have continued to believe the literal claims of Genesis. Members of Protestant (70%), Mormon (76%) and Jehovah's Witnesses (90%) denominations are those most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.[109]

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.[110][111] They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in American schools (see Young Earth Creationism, for example). Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific.

Many religious sects teach that God created the Cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of Genesis as well as literal aspects.[30]

Christian Science, a system of thought and practice derived from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, interprets 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. In fact, in regard to material theories of creation, Mary Baker Eddy (the founder of the Christian Science movement) showed a preference for Darwin's Theory of Evolution over others.[112]

Hinduism

According to Hindu creationism all species on earth including humans have "devolved" or come down from a highly state of pure consciousness. Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.[113] Ronald Numbers 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."[114] 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 Vedas which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the earth.[115][116]

Islam

Islamic creationism is the belief that the universe (including humanity) was directly created by God as explained in the Qur'an. It usually views 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. Most Muslims accept the scientific positions on the age of the earth and the age of the universe.

Islam also has its own school of Evolutionary creation/Theistic evolutionism, which holds that mainstream scientific analysis of the origin of the universe is supported by the Qur'an. Some Muslims believe in evolutionary creation, especially among Liberal movements within Islam.

Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, at a conference called 'Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools', made points including the following:[117] There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Qur'an and natural selection and survival of the fittest. However, some Muslims, such as Adnan Oktar, do not agree that one species can develop from another.[118]

But there is also a growing movement of Islamic creationism. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived conflicts between the Qur'an and the main points of evolutionary theory. The main location for this has been in Turkey, where fewer than 25% of people believe in evolution.[119]

There are several verses in the Qur'an which some modern writers have interpreted as being compatible with the expansion of the universe, Big Bang and Big Crunch theories:[120][121][122]

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the skies (space) and the earth were joined together, then We (Allah) clove them asunder and We (Allah) created every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"[Quran 21:30]

"Then turned He to the sky (space) when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient."[Quran 41:11]

"And it is We (Allah) Who have constructed the sky (space) with might, and it is We (Allah) Who are steadily expanding it."[Quran 51:47]

"On the day when We (Allah) will roll up the sky (space) like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We (Allah) originated the first creation, (so) We (Allah) shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about."[Quran 21:104]

The Ahmadiyya Movement is perhaps the only denomination in Islam that actively promotes evolutionary theory.[123] Ahmadis interpret scripture from the Qur'an to support the concept of macroevolution and give precedence to scientific theories. Furthermore, unlike more orthodox Muslims, Ahmadis believe that mankind has gradually evolved from different species. Ahmadis regard Adam as being the first Prophet of God – as opposed to him being the first man on Earth.[124] 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.[125] Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has stated in his magnum opus Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth 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

Judaism has a continuum of views about creation, the origin of life and the role of evolution in the formation of species. The major Jewish denominations, including many Orthodox Jewish groups, accept evolutionary creation or theistic evolution. Many Conservative Rabbis follow theistic evolution, although Conservative Judaism does not have an official view on the subject. Conservative Judaism however, does generally embrace science and therefore finds it a "challenge to traditional Jewish theology."[126] Reform Judaism does not take the Torah as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work. For Orthodox Jews who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, our own epistemological limits are to blame for any apparent irreconcilable point. They point to various discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear. They point out the fact that the even root word for "world" in the Hebrew language — עולם (Olam) — means hidden — נעלם (Neh-Eh-Lahm). Just as they believe God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their adult state, so too can they believe that the world was created in its "adult" state, with the understanding that there are, and can be, no physical ways to verify it. This belief has been advanced by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, former philosophy professor at Johns Hopkins University. Also, relatively old Kabbalistic sources from well before the scientifically apparent age of the universe was first determined are in close concord with modern scientific estimates of the age of the universe, according to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, and based on Sefer Temunah, an early kabbalistic work attributed to the 1st century Tanna Nehunya ben ha-Kanah. Many kabbalists accepted the teachings of the Sefer Temunah, including the Ramban, his close student Yitzhak of Akko, and the RADBAZ. Other interesting parallels are derived, among other sources, from Nachmanides, who expounds that there was a Neanderthal-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).[127][128][129][130]

Types of biblical creationism

Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "taxonomy" of creationists.[131][132][133] Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the broad types listed below. As a matter of popular belief and characterizations by the media, most people labeled "creationists" are those who object to specific parts of science for religious reasons; however many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science.[citation needed]

Comparison of major creationist views
Acceptance Humanity Biological species Earth Age of Universe
Young Earth creationism 40% (US)[95] Directly created by God. Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. Less than 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. Less than 10,000 years old (some hold this view only for our solar system).
Gap creationism Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
Progressive creationism 38% (US)[95] Directly created by God (based on primate anatomy). Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
Intelligent design Proponents hold various beliefs. for example, Behe accepts evolution from primates Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by what intelligent-design creationists call "irreducible complexity" Some adherents accept common descent, others not. Some claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention Scientifically accepted age
Theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) Evolution from primates. Evolution from single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.

Young Earth creationism

Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by God within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). 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. Creationist cosmologies are attempts by some creationist thinkers to 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 timelines.

The Christian organizations Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society (CRS) both promote Young Earth Creationism in the USA. Another organization with similar views, Answers in Genesis (AIG) Ministries based in both the US and United Kingdom, has opened a Creation Museum to promote Young Earth Creationism. Creation Ministries International promotes Young Earth views in Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Among Catholics, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation promotes similar ideas.

Old Earth creationism

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

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

Gap creationism

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

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Original act of creation.)
"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 creation according to Genesis, (when present biological species and humanity were created). Gap theorists can therefore agree with the scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text.

Some gap theorists expand the basic theory by proposing a "primordial creation" of biological life within the "gap" of time. This is thought to be "the world that then was" mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3-7.[134] Discoveries of fossils and archaeological ruins older than 10,000 years are generally ascribed to this "world that then was", which may also be associated with Lucifer's rebellion. These views became popular with publications of Hebrew Lexicons such as the Strong's Concordance, and Bible commentaries such as the Scofield Reference Bible and the Companion Bible.

Day-Age creationism

Day-Age creationism states that the "six days" of 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). This theory often states that the Hebrew word "yôm", in the context of Genesis 1, can be properly interpreted as "age." Some adherents claim we are still living in the seventh age ("seventh day").

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

Progressive creationism

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

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

Neo-Creationism

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

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

The Intelligent Design movement arguably represents the most recognized form of Neo-Creationism in the United States. 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 literal interpretation of the Bible. Common to all forms of Neo-Creationism is a rejection of naturalism[citation needed], usually made together with a tacit admission of supernaturalism, and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism", which generally is meant to refer to evolution.

Intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".[135] All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute,[136] a think tank whose Wedge strategy aims to replace the scientific method with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" which accepts supernatural explanations.[89][137] It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,[138][132][133][139] and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".[140][141][142]

ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to get round a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism in U.S. public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run a series of campaigns to change school curricula.[28] In Australia, where curricula are under the control of State governments rather than local school boards, there was a public outcry when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson; the minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.[143]

In the United States, teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a Federal District court to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.", and hence cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a persuasive precedent, based on previous Supreme Court decisions in Edwards v. Aguillard and Epperson v. Arkansas, and by the application of the Lemon test, that creates a legal hurdle to teaching Intelligent Design in public school districts in other Federal court jurisdictions.[89][144]

Creation science

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

Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation)

Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, asserts that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."[145] According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — 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 — 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) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.[146]

Through the 19th century the term creationism most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. Following the publication of Vestiges there was interest in ideas of Creation by divine law. In particular, the liberal theologian Baden Powell argued that this illustrated the Creator's power better than the idea of miraculous creation, which he thought ridiculous.[147] When On the Origin of Species was published, the cleric Charles Kingsley wrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity".[148][149] Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature,[150][151] and the book makes several references to "creation", though he later regretted using the term rather than calling it an unknown process.[152] In America, Asa Gray argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or modus operandi, of the first cause, design,[153] and published a pamphlet defending the book in theistic terms, Natural Selection is not inconsistent with Natural Theology.[148][154][155] Theistic evolution, also called, evolutionary creation, became a popular compromise, and St. George Jackson Mivart 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 neo-Lamarckism were favoured as being more compatible with purpose than natural selection.[156]

Some theists took the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about Christian God 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, Eugenie Scott and Niles Eldredge state that it is in fact a type of evolution.[157]

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

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 stellar evolution, life forms developed in biological evolution, and in the same way the origin of life by natural causes has resulted from these laws.[158]

In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries[159] For Catholics, human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are not in conflict. The Catechism of the Catholic Church comments positively on the theory of evolution, which is neither precluded nor required by the sources of faith, stating that scientific studies "have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man."[160] Roman Catholic schools teach evolution without controversy on the basis that scientific knowledge does not extend beyond the physical, and scientific truth and religious truth cannot be in conflict.[161] Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, though many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all. In the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. George Coyne, (Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):

...in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.[162]

While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some atheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,[163] including atheists,[164] refer to the long standing convention in the scientific method that observable events in nature should be explained by natural causes, with the distinction that it does not assume the actual existence or non-existence of the supernatural.

Modern geocentrism

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

Omphalos hypothesis

The Omphalos hypothesis argues that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created a mature Earth with mountains and canyons, rock strata, trees with growth rings, and so on; therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.[165] The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that originates in far-off stars and galaxies (see Starlight problem).

Prevalence

  Views on human evolution in various countries.[166][167]

Most vocal literalist creationists are from the United States, and strict creationist views are much less common in other developed countries. According to a study published in Science, a survey of the United States, Turkey, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[94]

Australia

A 2009 Nielsen poll showed that almost a quarter of Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins" rather than the Darwinian account. 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".[168]

Canada

A 2008 Canadian poll revealed that "58 percent accept evolution, while 22 percent think that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years."[169]

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, papal acceptance of evolutionary creationism as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people.

In the United Kingdom, 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.[170][171] A subsequent 2010 YouGov 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.[61] The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.[172]

In Italy, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.[173]

There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious groups throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.[174] In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has released a draft report entitled The dangers of creationism in education on June 8, 2007,[175] reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4, 2007.[176]

Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in September 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Čolić, only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.[177] "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.[178] Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."[179]

Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006 when the deputy education minister, Mirosław Orzechowski, denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education Roman Giertych, has stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory." Giertych's father, Member of the European Parliament Maciej Giertych, has opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.[180]

United States

  Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia

According to a 2001 Gallup poll,[181] about 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 37% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process",[182] and 14% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process".[181]

Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept evolution.[183][184] In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'"[185][186]

A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the United States public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[187]

According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult North Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).[94]

According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in Creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.[188] 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).[188]

Education controversies

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

In the United States, creationism has become centered in the political controversy over creation and evolution in public education, and whether teaching creationism in science classes conflicts with the separation of church and state. Currently, the controversy comes in the form of whether advocates of the Intelligent Design movement who wish to "Teach the Controversy" in science classes have conflated science with religion.[144]

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

Americans believe that:[187]
Public schools should teach evolution only
  
20%
Only evolution should be taught in science classes, religious explanations can be discussed in another class
  
17%
Creationism can be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory
  
29%
Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class
  
13%
Only Creationism should be taught
  
16%
Teach both evolution and Creationism, but unsure how to do so
  
4%
No opinion
  
1%

In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously based origin belief is superior to those of other belief systems, in particular those made through secular or scientific rationale. Political creationists are opposed by many individuals and organizations who have made detailed critiques and given testimony in various court cases that the alternatives to scientific reasoning offered by creationists are opposed by the consensus of the scientific community.[189][190]

Criticism

Christian criticism

Many Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism. Several religious organizations, among them the Catholic Church, hold that their faith does not conflict with the scientific consensus regarding evolution.[191] The Clergy Letter Project, which has collected more than 13,000 signatures, is an "endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible".

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

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

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

Murphy concludes that,

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

For Murphy, a theology of the cross requires that Christians accept a methodological naturalism, meaning that one cannot invoke God to explain natural phenomena, while recognizing that such acceptance does not require one to accept a metaphysical naturalism, which proposes that nature is all that there is.[192]

Other Christians have expressed qualms about teaching creationism. In March 2006, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories". He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." The views of the Episcopal Church - a major American-based branch of the Anglican Communion - on teaching creationism resemble those of Williams.[193]

In April 2010 the American Academy of Religion issued Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K‐12 Public Schools in the United States which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, they, as well as other "worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."[194]

Scientific criticism

Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence and testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts. Some creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and often do not allow predictions at all. Therefore, these can neither be confirmed nor disproved by scientists.[195] However, many creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its geological history and the origins, distributions and relationships of living organisms found on it. Early science incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually falsified and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence that often allows the accurate prediction of future results.[196][197] Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould,[198] consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called non-overlapping magisteria.[199] This view is also held by many theologians, who believe that ultimate origins and meaning are addressed by religion, but favour verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as Richard Dawkins,[200] 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.[201][202][203]

Organizations

Creationism (in general)

Young Earth Creationism

Old Earth Creationism

  • Reasons to Believe led by Hugh Ross
  • Answers In Creation led by Greg Neyman[204]

Intelligent design

Evolutionary creationism

Evolution

See also

Notes on terminology

  1. ^ While the term myth 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" (Dundes A, 1996. "Madness in method plus a plea for projective inversion in myth". In LL Patton & W Doniger (Eds.), Myth & method. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia pp. 147-162).

Notes

  1. ^ Eugenie C. Scott (with forward by Niles Eldredge) (2004). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkley & Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. p. 114. ISBN 0-520-24650-0. http://books.google.com/?id=03b_a0monNYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=evolution+vs.+creationism&q. Retrieved 16 June 2010  Also: Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32122-1
  2. ^ Ronald L. Numbers. "The ‘Ordinary’ View of Creation". Counterbalance Meta-Library. http://www.counterbalance.net/history/ordcreat-frame.html. Retrieved 2010-08-11. 
  3. ^ a b c d Ronald L. Numbers. "Antievolutionists and Creationists". Creationism History. Counterbalance Meta-Library. http://www.counterbalance.net/history/anticreat-frame.html. Retrieved 2007-08-15. 
  4. ^ "A Spectrum of Creation Views held by Evangelicals". American Scientific Affiliation. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html. Retrieved 2007–10–18. "All Christians in the sciences affirm the central role of the Logos in creating and maintaining the universe. In seeking to describe how the incredible universe has come to be, a variety of views has emerged in the last two hundred years as continuing biblical and scientific scholarship have enabled deeper understanding of God's word and world." 
  5. ^ Ronald L. Numbers (1998). Darwinism Comes to America. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-19312-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=drk3zykoEy4C&pg=PA55&dq=definition+of+creationism#v=onepage&q=definition%20of%20creationism&f=false. Retrieved 2007–10–18. "Creationists of today are not in agreement concerning what was created according to Genesis." 
  6. ^ Ruth Bancewicz. "Making your mind up about the HOW of creation". Christians in Science. http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/articles/making-your-mind-up-about-the-how-of-creation. Retrieved 2007–10–18. "But Christians often disagree on the HOW. There are three main viewpoints held by evangelical Christians who hold to a high view of Scripture. Theistic evolutionism is an acceptance of evolution as the best current scientific description of the way that God made the world. It is the dominant viewpoint amongst Christians active in academic science or theology (see refs 1,2,3). Young Earth Creationism is a rejection of mainstream science in favour of an interpretation of the Genesis account that takes the 6 days of creation literally (see refs 4,5). Intelligent Design represents a range of views. In contrast to Theistic evolution or Young Earth Creationism, it is not concerned with Biblical interpretation (see refs 6,7,8). This is often viewed as middle ground for Christians, but is very controversial, for a mixture of theological, philosophical and scientific reasons. Most proponents of intelligent design would accept an old earth (c. 4.5 billion years), but reject the theory of evolution on two grounds: 1) that there is not enough evidence for evolution, and 2) complex biological systems are evidence for a designer. The Intelligent Design movement also use the evidence for fine tuning in cosmology that many theistic evolutionists talk about, so there is some common ground here." 
  7. ^ a b "NCSE : National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools.". Creationism. 2008. http://ncse.com/creationism. Retrieved 2009-06-22. 
  8. ^ For example, the Scopes Trial of 1925 brought creationism and evolution into the adversarial environment of the American justice system. The trial was well-publicized, and served as a catalyst for the wider creation–evolution controversy; Giberson & Yerxa (2002), pp. 3-4.
  9. ^ Evolution's status as a "theory" has played a prominent role in the creation–evolution controversy. In scientific terminology, "theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts". It is understood, therefore, that evolution is a scientific fact and a theory. In contrast, when literalists creationists refer to evolution as a theory, they often mean to characterize evolution as an "imperfect fact", drawing upon the vernacular conception of "theory" as "part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess"; Gould SJ (May 1981). Evolution as fact and theory. Retrieved 12 April 2010; Moran L (2002). Evolution is a fact and a theory. Retrieved 12 April 2010. Original work published 1993.
  10. ^ a b Campbell D (2006, 21 February). "Academics fight rise of creationism at universities". The Guardian. Retrieved 07 April, 2010.
  11. ^ For the biological understanding of complexity, see Evolution of complexity. For a creationist perspective, see Irreducible complexity.
  12. ^ Ronald L. Numbers. "Creationism History: Topic Index". Counterbalance Meta-Library. http://www.counterbalance.net/history/intro-frame.html. Retrieved 2009-06-22. 
  13. ^ Dundes, Alan (Winter, 1997). "Binary Opposition in Myth: The Propp/Levi-Strauss Debate in Retrospect". Western Folklore (56): 39–50. 
  14. ^ Dundes, Alan (1984). Introduction. Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dunes.. University of California Press. 
  15. ^ Dundes, Alan (1996). "Madness in Method Plus a Plea for Projective Inversion in Myth". Myth and Method. Ed. Laurie Patton and Wendy Doniger.. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. 
  16. ^ Wallace, T. (2007). "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution". The True Origin Archive. TrueOrigin Archive. http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp. Retrieved 2011–04-25. 
  17. ^ Isaak, Mark (2005). "CA215: Practical uses of evolution.". Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html. Retrieved 2009–08-20. 
    Isaak, Mark (2005). "CH100.1: Science in light of Scripture". Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH100_1.html. Retrieved 2009–08-20. 
  18. ^ Isaak, Mark (2004). "CA301: Science and naturalism". Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html. Retrieved 2009–08-20. 
  19. ^ "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/media/voices/science. Retrieved 2008-08-28. 
  20. ^ "Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design". Royalsoc.ac.uk. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  21. ^ National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
  22. ^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
  23. ^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of EvolutionPDF (44.8 KB), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
  24. ^ Rajbir Singh, Radhey Shyam, Shyodan Singh (1 January 2009). Psychoneuroimmunology: A Behavioural Approach. Global Vision Publishing House. http://books.google.com/books?id=mEaNituqTZMC&pg=PA135&dq=theistic+evolution+compatible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=88eWT9GHEuLp0gH2uLmyDg&ved=0CGcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=theistic%20evolution%20compatible&f=false. Retrieved 24 April 2012. "Theistic evolution is the general opinion that classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution." 
  25. ^ Francis Collins (17 July 2007). The Language of God. Simon & Schuster. http://books.google.com/books?id=zEi09x2AX9sC&pg=PA201&dq=theistic+evolution+compatible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IciWT7TgE8PY0QHCo9nNDg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=theistic%20evolution%20compatible&f=false. Retrieved 24 April 2012. "This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teachings us about the natural world." 
  26. ^ Greg Neyman (2011). "Theistic Evolution". Answers in Creation. http://www.answersincreation.org/theistic_evolution.htm. Retrieved 24 April 2012. "Theistic Evolution is the old earth creationist belief that God used the process of evolution to create life on earth. The modern scientific understanding of biological evolution is considered to be compatible with the Bible." 
  27. ^ a b c "Creationism" Contributed By: Ronald L. Numbers, William Coleman: Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2007. Archived 2009-10-31.
  28. ^ a b c d e Creationism/ID, A Short Legal History By Lenny Flank, Talk Reason
  29. ^ The Works of Philo Judaeus, translated from the Greek by Charles Duke Yonge:
    Philo: Allegorical Interpretation, I
  30. ^ a b c d e f g Forster, Roger; Marston, Dr Paul (2001). "Chapter 7 - Genesis Through History". Reason Science and Faith. Chester, England: Monarch Books. ISBN 1-85424-441-8. 
  31. ^ Davis A. Young (1988). "The contemporary relevance of Augustine". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html. Retrieved 2008-08-18. 
  32. ^ Moore, James. "Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin". Speaking of Faith (Radio Program). American Public Media. http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml. Retrieved 2007-06-27. 
  33. ^ a b History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth, adapted from The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (Eerdmans, 1995) by Davis A. Young. Retrieved 2007-06-30.
  34. ^ Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. ISBN 0-7181-3430-3. 
  35. ^ "Letter 1919 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., 5 (July 1856)". Darwin Correspondence Project. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-1919. Retrieved 2010-08-11. 
    "Letter 4196 — Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 31 May (1863)". Darwin Correspondence Project. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-4196. Retrieved 2010-08-11. 
  36. ^ "Letter 4041 — Lyell, Charles to Darwin, C. R., 15 March 1863". Darwin Correspondence Project. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-4041. Retrieved 2010-08-11. 
  37. ^ a b Pitock, Todd (June 2007). "Science and Islam". Discover: 36–45. 
  38. ^ a b Gregory Katz (2008-02-16). "Clash Over Creationism Is Evolving In Europe's Schools". Associated Press. http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/16/na-clash-over-creationism-is-evolving-in-europes-s. Retrieved 2008-02-17. /
  39. ^ a b c Taner Edis. "Cloning Creationism in Turkey". RNCSE 19 (6): 30-35. National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/cloning-creationism-turkey. Retrieved 2008-02-17. 
  40. ^ "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension". BBC. 2004-09-09. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3642460.stm. Retrieved 2008-02-17. 
  41. ^ Roger Highfield (2007-02-10). "Creationists rewrite natural history". London: The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/10/02/scihist102.xml. Retrieved 2008-02-17. [dead link]
  42. ^ Resolution 1580 (2007) The dangers of creationism in education Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, paras. 13, 18
  43. ^ A.E. Wilder-Smith, Die Naturwissenschaften kennen keine Evolution, 1978, Schwabe Verlag, Basel.
  44. ^ Factum. "Schwengeler Verlag, Postfach 263, CH-9435 Heerbrugg."
  45. ^ "Hessische Schulen: "Kultusministerin fällt auf Kreationisten herein" - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - SchulSPIEGEL". Spiegel.de. http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/0,1518,445487,00.html. Retrieved 2011-11-08. 
  46. ^ "German Scientists Concerned About Rise in Creationist Belief | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 02.11.2006". Dw-world.de. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2222454,00.html. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  47. ^ "Contesting Evolution: European Creationists Take On Darwin - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International". Spiegel.de. http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,609712,00.html. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  48. ^ Bennett, Drake (2009-10-25). "Islam's Darwin problem". The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/. 
  49. ^ Carte creaţionistă pentru biologie, avizată de minister, Evenimentul Zilei, March 20, 2009|http://www.evz.ro/articole/detalii-articol/844190/Carte-creationista-pentru-biologie-avizata-de-minister/
  50. ^ by John and Svetlana Doughty. "Creationism in Russia". Icr.org. http://www.icr.org/article/creationism-russia/. Retrieved 2011-11-08. 
  51. ^ The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design (Ronald L. Numbers)
  52. ^ "Peter C Kjaergaard - Western front". New Humanist. http://newhumanist.org.uk/1783/western-front. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  53. ^ Bigg, Claire (2006-03-10). "Russia: Creationism Finds Support Among Young - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2010". Rferl.org. http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1066577.html. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  54. ^ "Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 - Figure 7-7: Correct answers to specific literacy questions, by country/region: Most recent year - US National Science Foundation (NSF)". nsf.gov. 2006-02-23. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/fig07-07.htm. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  55. ^ a b http://www.britishcouncil.org/darwin_now_survey_global.pdf
  56. ^ Harry de Quetteville (2004-09-09). "Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools". The Daily Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1471367/Darwin-is-off-the-curriculum-for-Serbian-schools.html. Retrieved 24 January 2012. 
  57. ^ Thomas Stephens (October 9, 2006). "Swiss drag knuckles accepting evolution". swissinfo.ch. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Swiss_drag_knuckles_accepting_evolution.html?cid=70292. Retrieved December 4, 2011. 
  58. ^ Dale Bechtel (November 28, 2007). "Creationism controversy evolves". swissinfo.ch. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Creationism_controversy_evolves.html?cid=6283640. Retrieved December 4, 2011. 
  59. ^ "Who are the British creationists?". BBC News. 2008-09-15. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7613403.stm. 
  60. ^ "Americans are creationists; Britons and Canadians side with evolution.". Angus Reid Public Opinion. 2010-07-15. http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2010.07.15_Origin.pdf. Retrieved 2012-06-02. "Poll question: ...whether their own point of view is closest to the notion that human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, or the idea that God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Results (Britain): Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years (68%); God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years (16%); Not sure (15%)" 
  61. ^ a b YouGov / Prospect Survey Results YouGov.co.uk.
  62. ^ Wynne-Jones, Jonathan (2009-01-31). "Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution". The Daily Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4410927/Poll-reveals-public-doubts-over-Charles-Darwins-theory-of-evolution.html. 
  63. ^ "Call for creationism in science". BBC News. 2008-09-13. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm. 
  64. ^ "Four out of five Britons do not believe in creationism". The Daily Telegraph (London). 2009-03-02. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4926271/Four-out-of-five-Britons-do-not-believe-in-creationism.html. 
  65. ^ "Who are the British creationists?". BBC. 2008-09-15. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7613403.stm. 
  66. ^ Hameed, S (2008). "Bracing for Islamic creationism". Science 322 (5908): 1637–8. DOI:10.1126/science.1163672. PMID 19074331. 
  67. ^ a b c Bennett, Drake (2009-10-25). "Islam's Darwin problem". The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=4. 
  68. ^ "Evolution and religion: In the beginning". The Economist. 2007-04-19. http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9036706. Retrieved 2007-04-25. This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.
  69. ^ Salter, Jessica (2008-09-19). "Richard Dawkins website banned in Turkey". The Daily Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/2987807/Richard-Dawkins-website-banned-in-Turkey.html. 
  70. ^ "RD.net no longer banned in Turkey! - RDFRS UK - www.richarddawkins.net". RichardDawkins.net. 2011-07-08. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642074-rd-net-no-longer-banned-in-turkey. Retrieved 2011-11-08. 
  71. ^ [1][dead link]
  72. ^ "Ken Ham: Biblical Literalist." PBS. 2001. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_04.html. Retrieved 2008-12-17.
  73. ^ "Answers Research Journal - Creation, Evolution, Scientific Research - Answers Research Journal". Answersingenesis.org. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  74. ^ "Dr Jason Lisle". Creation.com. 2004-08-11. http://creation.com/dr-jason-lisle. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  75. ^ "Dr Jonathan Sarfati". Creation.com. http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-sarfati. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  76. ^ "Dr Tasman Bruce Walker". Creation.com. 1999-01-18. http://creation.com/dr-tasman-bruce-walker. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  77. ^ CREATIONISM and intelligent design will be taught in Queensland state schools for the first time as part of the new national curriculum. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/intelligent-design-to-be-taught-in-queensland-schools-under-national-curriculum/story-e6freoof-1225872896736
  78. ^ "Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlstrom". Creation.com. http://creation.com/dr-pierre-gunnar-jerlstrom. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  79. ^ "Skeptic Mag Hotline - EVOLUTION V. CREATION DOWN UNDER". Skeptictank.org. 1998-12-12. http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/aevdnun.htm. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  80. ^ Plimer, Ian "Telling lies for God- Reason versus Creationism," (Random House)
  81. ^ Ian Plimer. "Skeptic Mag Hotline - EVOLUTION V. CREATION DOWN UNDER". skeptictank.org. http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/aevdnun.htm. Retrieved 2008-02-05. 
  82. ^ "Telling Lies for God? - One Man's Crusade". Abc.net.au. http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/97lies.htm. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  83. ^ a b by Chon-Ho Hyon. "The Creation Science Movement in Korea". Icr.org. http://www.icr.org/article/creation-science-movement-korea/. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  84. ^ "한국창조과학회". Creation.or.kr. http://www.creation.or.kr/. Retrieved 2010-10-29. 
  85. ^ http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773
  86. ^ http://ncse.com/news/2012/06/creationist-success-south-korea-007434
  87. ^ The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Ronald L. Numbers). Harvard University Press (November 30, 2006)
  88. ^ s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 19 of 139
  89. ^ a b c d e f Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals.PDF (413 KB) A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
  90. ^ TalkOrigins Archive: Post of the Month: March 2006, The History of Creationism by Lenny Flank.
  91. ^ a b c McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Decision January 5, 1982.
  92. ^ "Edwards v. Aguillard". Talkorigins.org. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  93. ^ Evolution News & Views: Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design, Discovery Institute, Posted by Jonathan Witt on December 20, 2005 4:43 PM. Retrieved 2007-07-01
  94. ^ a b c d e f Miller JD, Scott EC, Okamoto S (August 2006). "Science communication. Public acceptance of evolution". Science 313 (5788): 765–6. DOI:10.1126/science.1126746. PMID 16902112. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/706. 
  95. ^ a b c d "Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism". Gallup. December 17, 2010. http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx. 
  96. ^ "Denominational Views". National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. http://ncse.com/religion/denominational-views. Retrieved 2010-05-17. 
  97. ^ "Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006)". National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/media/voices/episcopal-church-general-convention-2006. Retrieved 2010-05-17. 
  98. ^ Edwin A. Schick (1965). "Lutheran World Federation". "Evolution", in The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church. National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/media/voices/lutheran-world-federation. Retrieved 2010-05-17. 
    Allen R. Utke; Patrick Russell (October 2006). "'God allows the universe to create itself and evolve'". The Lutheran. http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article_buy.cfm?article_id=6093. Retrieved 2010-05-17. "The Lutheran is the magazine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America" 
  99. ^ "Archbishop of Canterbury, Transcript of interview with the Guardian". Archbishopofcanterbury.org. 2006-03-21. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/354. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  100. ^ Williams, Chris (2006-03-21). "''Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution: Well, he is a Primate,'' Chris Williams, The Register, Tuesday 21 March 2006". Theregister.co.uk. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/archbishop_backs_evolution/. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  101. ^ What Catholics Think of Evolution? They don't not believe in it, Keelin McDonell, Explainer, Slate Magazine, July 12, 2005.
  102. ^ See also the article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church.
  103. ^ see eg John Polkinghorne's Science and Theology pp6-7
  104. ^ Bradshaw, Rob. "Philo of Alexandria (c.20 BC - c. AD 50)". Early Church.org.uk. http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/philo.php. Retrieved 21 December 2011. 
  105. ^ "''The Works of Philo Judaeus'', Chapter 2, translated by Charles Duke Yonge". Earlychristianwritings.com. 2006-02-02. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  106. ^ ASA3.org, Davis A. Young, "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation" (From: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40.1:42-45 (3/1988)), The American Scientific Affiliation
  107. ^ Pius XII. "Humani Generis". Vatican.va. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html. Retrieved 2011-11-08. 
  108. ^ "Catholic Information Network, "Question of Evolution." October 22, 1996". Cin.org. http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html. Retrieved 2011-11-08. 
  109. ^ "Pugh Forum findings Page 95" (PDF). http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  110. ^ Wayne Jackson. "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?". http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194. Retrieved 2007-05-23. 
  111. ^ "The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties". Archived from the original on 2008-07-15. http://web.archive.org/web/20080715071138/http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/creationint.html. Retrieved 2007-05-23. 
  112. ^ Eddy, Mary Baker (1934 [1875]). Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. United States of America: The Christian Science Board of Directors. p. 547. 
  113. ^ Science & Religion: A New Introduction, Alister E. McGrath, 2009, p. 140
  114. ^ The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design, Ronald L. Numbers, 2006, p. 420
  115. ^ James C. Carper, Thomas C. Hunt, The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States: A-L, 2009, p. 167
  116. ^ A history of Indian philosophy, Volume 1, Surendranath Dasgupta, 1992, p. 10
  117. ^ Papineau, David (2004-01-07). "Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools". Guardian (London). http://education.guardian.co.uk/conferences/story/0,,1117752,00.html. Retrieved 2008-07-18. 
  118. ^ Green, Toby (29 September 2008). "Creationist offers prize for fossil proof of evolution". London: The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/creationist-offers-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution-945289.html. Retrieved 2007-05-17. 
  119. ^ "Templeton-Cambridge.org". Templeton-Cambridge.org. http://www.templeton-cambridge.org/fellows/showfellow.php?fellow=36. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  120. ^ Harun Yahya, The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy
  121. ^ Maurice Bucaille (1990), The Bible the Qur'an and Science, "The Quran and Modern Science", ISBN 81-7101-132-2.
  122. ^ A. Abd-Allah, The Qur'an, Knowledge, and Science, University of Southern California.
  123. ^ ITL: Jesus and the Indian Messiah - Every Wind of Doctrine[dead link]
  124. ^ "Internet Archive Wayback Machine". Replay.waybackmachine.org. 2009-01-30. http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090130070102/http://textonly.itl-usa.org/ahmadi/ahmadi13.html. Retrieved 2011-11-08. 
  125. ^ http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Guided_evolution_and_punctuated_equilibrium-20081104MN.pdf
  126. ^ Judaism and Evolution, Jewish Virtual Library
  127. ^ Aviezer, Nathan. In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science. Ktav, 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0-88125-328-6
  128. ^ Carmell, Aryeh and Domb, Cyril, eds. Challenge: Torah Views on Science New York: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists/Feldheim Publishers, 1976. ISBN 0-87306-174-8
  129. ^ Schroeder, Gerald L. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom Broadway Books, 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X
  130. ^ Jeffrey H. Tigay, Genesis, Science, and "Scientific Creationism", Conservative Judaism, Vol. 40(2), Winter 1987/1988, p.20-27, The Rabbinical Assembly
  131. ^ The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.
  132. ^ a b Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.
  133. ^ a b Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323
  134. ^ "The Holy Bible, King James Version". http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=3&version=9. Retrieved 2006-12-31. 
  135. ^ "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?". Discovery Institute. http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign. Retrieved 2007-05-13. 
  136. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Testimony, Barbara Forrest, 2005.
  137. ^ Wedge Strategy, Discovery Institute, 1999.
  138. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
    Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling
  139. ^ The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0-674-02339-0.
  140. ^ Forrest, Barbara (May,2007) (PDF). Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc.. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf. Retrieved 2007-08-22. ; Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 224 p., ISBN 0-19-515742-7
  141. ^ "Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism." He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops". (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability...", from Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski, Robert T. Pennock, p. 645-667 of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Robert T. Pennock (editor), Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0-262-66124-1; Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism, Cambridge, MIT Press, 440 p.
  142. ^ The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.; Scott, E.C., 2004, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p, ISBN 0-520-24650-0
  143. ^ Intelligent design not science: experts, Deborah Smith Science Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, October 21, 2005.
  144. ^ a b Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005
  145. ^ Feist, Richard; Sweet, William (2007). Religion and the Challenges of Science. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. http://books.google.com/books?id=qwaRUNj6S34C&pg=PA48&dq=theistic+evolution+evolutionary+creation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jTOWT-_VGKTh0QGprpjjDg&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=theistic%20evolution%20evolutionary%20creation&f=false. "Evolutionary Creation (or Theistic Evolution) asserts that the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes." 
  146. ^ Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. (1998). "Evolutionary Creation". American Scientific Affiliation. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te2-cr.htm. "A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation * — 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 — 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) — but it can refer only to biological evolution." 
  147. ^ Bowler 2003, p. 139
  148. ^ a b Darwin and design: historical essay. Darwin Correspondence Project. 2007. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-and-design-article. Retrieved 2012-04-18. 
  149. ^ "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 2534 — Kingsley, Charles to Darwin, C. R., 18 November 1859". http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-2534.html. Retrieved 2009-04-11. 
  150. ^ Quammen 2006, p. 119
  151. ^ Moore 2006
  152. ^ Barlow 1963, p. 207.
  153. ^ Dewey 1994, p. 27
  154. ^ Miles 2001
  155. ^ Gray, Asa (1860). "Natural Selection is not inconsistent with Natural Theology". Atlantic Monthly (Darwin Correspondence Project - Essay: Natural selection & natural theology). Archived from the original on 2009-02-20. http://web.archive.org/web/20090220124011/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/84/69/. Retrieved 2009-04-11. 
  156. ^ Bowler 2003, pp. 202–208
  157. ^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p62-63
  158. ^ Albrecht Moritz (October 31, 2006). "The Origin of Life". TalkOrigins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#intro. Retrieved 2008-11-22. 
  159. ^ Science, Religion, and Evolution by Eugenie Scott (accessed at 2007-07-09).
  160. ^ Akin, Jimmy (January 2004). "Evolution and the Magisterium". This Rock. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp. Retrieved 2007-08-15. 
  161. ^ Jeff Severns Guntzel (2005). "National Catholic Reporter: Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias". National Catholic Reporter. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_21_41/ai_n13592804/print. Retrieved 2007-08-15. 
  162. ^ Catholic Online. "Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on ‘Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution’ - Catholic Online". Catholic.org. http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  163. ^ The Tower of Babel by Robert T. Pennock, Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry by Steven D. Schafersman, The Leiter Reports, Report on "Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise" conference, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, 11: God, Science, and Naturalism by Paul R. Draper, Philosophy Now: The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory, Statement on Intelligent Design, Science and fundamentalism by Massimo Pigliucci, Justifying Methodological Naturalism by Michael Martin (philosopher)
  164. ^ Butterflies and wheels article by Raymond D. Bradley, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the Simon Fraser University (New Zealand).
  165. ^ Gosse, Henry Philip, 1857. Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. J. Van Voorst, London
  166. ^ Michael Le Page (19 April 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist 198 (2652): 31. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826523.000-evolution-myths-it-doesnt-matter-if-people-dont-grasp-evolution.html. 
  167. ^ Jeff Hecht (19 August 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?". New Scientist 191 (2565): 11. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html. 
  168. ^ Jacqueline Maley (2009-12-19). God is still tops but angels rate well. The Age. http://www.theage.com.au/national/god-is-still-tops-but-angels-rate-well-20091218-l5v9.html 
  169. ^ "Polling creationism in Canada". National Center for Science Education. August 8, 2008. http://ncse.com/news/2008/08/polling-creationism-canada-001375. Retrieved 2008-08-10. 
  170. ^ "Britons unconvinced on evolution", BBC News, 26 January 2006
  171. ^ "BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life", Ipsos MORI for BBC Horizon, 30 January 2006
  172. ^ Archbishop: stop teaching creationism-Williams backs science over Bible, Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent, The Guardian, Tuesday March 21, 2006.
  173. ^ Italy Keeps Darwin in its Classrooms, Deutsche Welle, 3 May 2004
  174. ^ In the beginning: The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global, ISTANBUL, MOSCOW AND ROME, Evolution and religion, The Economist, April 19th 2007.
  175. ^ The dangers of creationism in education, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, June 8, 2007.
  176. ^ The dangers of creationism in education - Resolution 1580, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Doc. 11297, Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe, October 4, 2007.
  177. ^ "Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools", telegraph.co.uk, 9 September 2004
  178. ^ "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension", BBC News, 9 September 2004
  179. ^ "'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits", BBC News, 16 September 2004
  180. ^ "And finally...", Warsaw Business Journal, 18 December 2006
  181. ^ a b "Majority of Americans Doubt Theory of Evolution". Gallup.com. 2004-11-19. http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  182. ^ "Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans". Unl.edu. 2001-03-05. http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  183. ^ Frank Newport, "Evolution Beliefs." Gallup Organization, June 11, 2007.
  184. ^ "Public beliefs about evolution and creation." From: religioustolerance.org. Retrieved on November 11, 2007.
  185. ^ "Keeping God Out of the Classroom". Newsweek. June 29, 1987. p. 23. 
  186. ^ "US poll results - "Public beliefs about evolution and creation"". Religioustolerance.org. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  187. ^ a b Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public OpinionPDF (481 KB)
  188. ^ a b "Fox News Poll: Creationism". Fox News (New Corporation). 7 September 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/07/fox-news-poll-creationism/. Retrieved 22 September 2011. 
  189. ^ "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2006. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf. Retrieved 2007-03-20. 
  190. ^ "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" Finding the Evolution in Medicine National Institutes of Health
  191. ^ "National Center for Science Education: Statements from Religious Organizations". Ncse.com. 2003-10-14. http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 
  192. ^ Murphy, George L., 2002, "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem," in Covalence: the Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science, and Technology
  193. ^ publisher=The Guardian "Archbishop: Stop teaching creationism, Williams backs science over Bible (See transcript of Guardian interview for primary source)". http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html publisher=The Guardian. 
  194. ^ "American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism". National Center for Science Education. July 23, 2010. http://ncse.com/news/2010/07/american-academy-religion-teaching-creationism-005712. Retrieved 2010-08-09. 
  195. ^ Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism (free pdf download ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. pp. 10–12. ISBN 0-309-10586-2. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11876.html. Retrieved 2008-10-27. "In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations." 
  196. ^ "An Index to Creationist Claims". http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html. Retrieved 2008-08-12. 
  197. ^ Futuyma, Douglas J.. "Evolutionary Science, Creationism, and Society" (PDF). "Evolution" (2005). http://www.biologi.kva.se/arkiv/FutuymaCh22final.pdf. Retrieved 2008-08-12. 
  198. ^ Gould, S. J. (2002). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books.
  199. ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (1997). "Nonoverlapping Magisteria". Natural History 106 (3): 16–22. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html. 
  200. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Transworld Publishers. p. 5. ISBN 0-593-05548-9. 
  201. ^ "Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design". The Royal Society. 2006-04-11. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298. Retrieved 2007-04-23. 
  202. ^ Matsumura, Molleen; Mead, Louise (2007-07-31). "10 Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creationism". National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism. Retrieved 2008-11-04. 
  203. ^ Myers, PZ (2006-02-15). "Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?". Pharyngula (ScienceBlogs). http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php. Retrieved 2007-09-12. 
  204. ^ "Answers In Creation". Answers In Creation. http://www.answersincreation.org. Retrieved 2011-03-10. 

References

Further reading

  • Adams Leeming, David (1996). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. OUP. ISBN 978-0-19-510275-8. 
  • Anderson, Bernhard W. (editor) Creation in the Old Testament (ISBN 0-8006-1768-1)
  • Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible (ISBN 1-59752-042-X)
  • Ian Barbour When Science Meets Religion, 2000, Harper SanFrancisco
  • Ian Barbour Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, 1997, Harper SanFrancisco.
  • Stephen Jay Gould Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life, Ballantine Books, 1999
  • Aryeh Kaplan, Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View, Ktav, NJ, in association with the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, NY, 1993
  • Stuart Kauffman Reinventing the Sacred, 2008
  • Michael Roberts, Evangelicals and Science (Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion). Greenwood Press, London, 2008
  • Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0. 
  • Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah, Tikkun, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 66–73

External links

   
               

 

All translations of Creationism


sensagent's content

  • definitions
  • synonyms
  • antonyms
  • encyclopedia

Dictionary and translator for handheld

⇨ New : sensagent is now available on your handheld

   Advertising ▼

sensagent's office

Shortkey or widget. Free.

Windows Shortkey: sensagent. Free.

Vista Widget : sensagent. Free.

Webmaster Solution

Alexandria

A windows (pop-into) of information (full-content of Sensagent) triggered by double-clicking any word on your webpage. Give contextual explanation and translation from your sites !

Try here  or   get the code

SensagentBox

With a SensagentBox, visitors to your site can access reliable information on over 5 million pages provided by Sensagent.com. Choose the design that fits your site.

Business solution

Improve your site content

Add new content to your site from Sensagent by XML.

Crawl products or adds

Get XML access to reach the best products.

Index images and define metadata

Get XML access to fix the meaning of your metadata.


Please, email us to describe your idea.

WordGame

The English word games are:
○   Anagrams
○   Wildcard, crossword
○   Lettris
○   Boggle.

Lettris

Lettris is a curious tetris-clone game where all the bricks have the same square shape but different content. Each square carries a letter. To make squares disappear and save space for other squares you have to assemble English words (left, right, up, down) from the falling squares.

boggle

Boggle gives you 3 minutes to find as many words (3 letters or more) as you can in a grid of 16 letters. You can also try the grid of 16 letters. Letters must be adjacent and longer words score better. See if you can get into the grid Hall of Fame !

English dictionary
Main references

Most English definitions are provided by WordNet .
English thesaurus is mainly derived from The Integral Dictionary (TID).
English Encyclopedia is licensed by Wikipedia (GNU).

Copyrights

The wordgames anagrams, crossword, Lettris and Boggle are provided by Memodata.
The web service Alexandria is granted from Memodata for the Ebay search.
The SensagentBox are offered by sensAgent.

Translation

Change the target language to find translations.
Tips: browse the semantic fields (see From ideas to words) in two languages to learn more.

last searches on the dictionary :

5556 online visitors

computed in 0.936s

   Advertising ▼

I would like to report:
section :
a spelling or a grammatical mistake
an offensive content(racist, pornographic, injurious, etc.)
a copyright violation
an error
a missing statement
other
please precise:

Advertize

Partnership

Company informations

My account

login

registration

   Advertising ▼

Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Scott, Eugenie C., Acceptable Book (14.65 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Scientists Confront Creationism (3.97 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (8.79 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism from Antiquity to (10.15 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Darwin Evolution Creationism Bumper Stickers (2.0 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and (2.19 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity, Sedley, David, Good Book (12.45 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Forrest, Barbar (2.75 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism (4.23 USD)

Commercial use of this term

The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Isaak, Mark (6.99 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction by Eugenie C. Scott (2nd Edition) (5.96 USD)

Commercial use of this term

From Genesis to Genetics: The Case of Evolution and Creationism (3.97 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Biblical Creationism : What Each Book of the Bible Teaches about Creation and th (14.99 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity (Sather Classical Lectures) (20.81 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Evolution and Creationism: A Documentary and Reference Guide (10.04 USD)

Commercial use of this term

The monkey business: A scientist looks at creationism by Niles Eldredge (1.25 USD)

Commercial use of this term

Evolution, Creationism, and Other Modern Myths: A Critical Inquiry (5.36 USD)

Commercial use of this term