Dee Finney's blog

start date July 20, 2011

Today's date December 13, 2013

page 609




The origins debate, which is shorthand for the evolution versus creationism debate, is the controversy that arose when discoveries in palaeontology, geology and calculations in cosmology pointed to an age of the Earth in billions of years. This was in opposition to the mere thousands of years literal readings of the Bible that dominated pre-19th Century knowledge of ancient history, the most famous widely used of which is James Ussher's chronology that said the world began in 4004 BC.

Throughout the 20th Century and into the current one,[1] the "debate" has raged, but hasn't really gone anywhere. The "old Earth" side, backed by science, gained new knowledge and information while the "young Earth" side, backed by fundamentalist dogma, merely repeated what they already had. Throughout the origins debate, arguments in favor of evolution and creationism are traded back and forth in public debates, in (school) board meetings and in the office. Most recently, the debate has become prolific online, where entire forums and newsgroups have enabled practically everyone to express an opinion on the subject.



A public debate would seem like a practical venue for determining which side of the evolution/creation controversy has the most convincing arguments. In debates creationists often claim victory, and evolution proponents concede that this is the case much of the time. However, this is not due to the scientific position being indefensible but rather to limitations in the debate format. "Debate" implies sides, and an eventual winner declared as such by providing the most widely convincing argument - often a politician is said to have "won" a debate. Science, however, takes a subtly different track where there's only really one "side", that's science, and it takes the route best suggested by reality. As a result of this, science tends to do poorly if presented in a debate format. That's not to say debates never happen in science, but rarely (if ever) in political debates does the losing side concede that they're wrong and change their views accordingly.

Perhaps because of its great explanatory power, evolution is a broad and complex theory, and at times aspects of it are counterintuitive. In order to fully appreciate all that evolution explains it is necessary to have a reasonable level of science education as well as knowledge of how science works. Features of creationism on the other hand tend to appeal to emotions and are quickly grasped at any education level. While science takes this into account and seeks to better itself despite human failings, skilled debaters take advantage of this. Science with its cold, hard facts and frightening figures holds up poorly in a straight debate with salient anecdotes. This problem isn't exclusive to the origins debate, as many health scares (vaccines in particular) suffer the same thing: a doctor with a comprehensive meta-study showing a medicine to be statistically safe will "lose" to a parent who has an autistic child. Similarly, science can show many things to demonstrate evolution but that isn't worth a damn if the people judging a debate will happily fall for something like how come there are still monkeys?

For these reasons a debate often consists of the evolution advocate spending his brief allotment of time hopelessly attempting to educate the audience to the misinformation and logical fallacies presented by the creationism advocate. It's often impossible to cover all of these points and get across the facts of evolution in a sensible amount of time, is an entire archive dedicated to such things and would take days to read through. Often this is an intentional tactic, and creationist Duane Gish's chaotic debating style has lead to this being named the Gish Gallop.

Political debate

The degree of public support for creationism can give decision-makers the erroneous impression that mainstream scientists (more specifically, experienced biologists) actually doubt evolution. In fact there is overwhelming support for evolution in the scientific community, and scientific organizations have issued position statements to this effect. The controversy over evolution exists solely in the sphere of politics. As discussed above, politics is the realm of debate where either side can "win" - whereas science is the realm of, well, science, where the winning side is determined by reality and the losers change their minds to agree. So it's not entirely unexpected that the political field gives rise to mantras such as "Teach the Controversy" or "let the children decide for themselves" because such things are perfectly acceptable ideals when discussing what party policies to vote for. They're not acceptable, however, when there is an arbiter (reality) to say what is actually true.

In the realm of science, theories are simply supplanted by better ones based on how successfully they explain observations and predict future observations. On the creation side there is no data, other than endless tables of who begat who, and there are no explanatory models, only critiques of those models which are proposed by the evolution side.


The debate becomes more than merely academic when school boards are asked to decide if creationism is as sound a theory of the origin of species as evolution. Fundamentalists, in an effort to advance their version of Christianity, have attempted to get Bible-based creationism taught in science classes inpublic school.

Scopes "Monkey" trial

See the main article on this topic: Scopes trial

The political power of the creation side reached a high point in 1925 when a Tennessee teacher was put on trial for teaching Darwinism. The ultimate finding was for the prosecution, and the teacher was fined $100, but during the proceedings the creation side was made to look ridiculous during a nationally covered trial which was the "OJ trial" of its day.

Creation science

See the main article on this topic: Creation science

Fundamentalism beat a hasty retreat and did not make a serious impact again until the 1960s, when creation science was rolled out, with demands to teach it side-by-side with orthodox biology in the public schools. Creation "science" was taken straight from the bible, teaching a six-day creation and grouping animals into "kinds" which were created by God. In the 1980s in court decisions such as McLean v. Arkansas (1981) and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) the creation science curriculum was thrown out of schools on the grounds that it taught the origin story from a specific religion, namely Christianity, and therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Intelligent design

See the main article on this topic: Intelligent design

Ironically, fundamentalism continued to evolve. In the 1990s, they rolled out their new model, called "intelligent design", which made two "advances" over creation science. One, it avoided mentioning the identity of the being (or beings) who are alleged to have made the blueprints for the universe. Two, it put forward a case that certain organs (such as the eye, or a bird's wing, or the rotating flagellum of a bacteria) could not have evolved in gradual stages because the incomplete version of the organ would hinder the reproductive strategies of the creature in question. Current efforts to promote ID within society, termed the wedge strategy, are described in a 1996 Discovery Institute document. In 2005, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision, intelligent design was also declared unconstitutional (i.e., religion imposing on the state) so, for the angry fundamentalists, it's back to the drawing board.

So what difference does it make?

Why does it matter who is right concerning the cause of the origin of species? It would not matter much if people merely used their religious views to make personal decisions on moral issues, however fundamentalists have made it clear that they wish to change society to reflect their worldview and that this change includes having creationism taught in science class.

While evolution is "good" science, creationism is not, and teaching creationism as science does not demonstrate to students how to properly "do" science. Even if evolution were wrong, which it is not, it would still have value as it teaches the scientific method. Since learning proper science develops scientific literacy and scientific literacy is essential for creating and using the technology that benefits society, it should be everyone's concern that the origins debate be settled in favor of science.

See also

External links

Further reading







Icon creationism alt.svg
Key claims

Truth fish transparent.png

Random articles
Creationists believe that man was instantaneously created by God, based on an account in a book called the Bible.

Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, the stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively.

The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject.
Science Made Stupid [1985]

Creationism refers to the belief that the universe and everything in it were specially created by God through magic, rather than naturalistic means. Creationism implicitly relies on the claim that there is a "purpose" to all creation known only to the creator. To some extent, Creationists believe that this purpose is revealed in scripture or holy writings. However, intelligent design is increasingly being touted as an additional means of detecting "design," and therefore purpose, in nature. As no person has made direct empirical observation of the results of a supernatural creator's work, we are incapable of discerning what was specially created and what was not. Design becomes indistinguishable from nature, and Intelligent design indistinguishable from guessing.

Belief in a literal reading of holy texts, such as Genesis in Abrahamic religions, is the foundation of creationism. Literalism is a tenet shared by fundamentalists of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and is strongly espoused in the West by the American Christian fundamentalist movement.

In recent years, fundamentalist Christians attempt to reconcile inconsistencies between a literal reading of the Bible and science.Creation science is a direct response to the concerns of believers that their faith is indefensible as being completely at odds with science. Biblical literalists face the additional difficulty of massaging their exegesis to mind their prejudices: if the Bible is the inerrant word of God and one bit of it is wrong, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Intelligent design advocates claim that intelligent does not depend on special creation by the fiat of any god, and therefore is a scientific theory like any other. The claim is apparently false, as the Discovery Institute, currently the leading promoter of intelligent design in the United States, was remarkably candid in admitting in the wedge strategy document that its purpose is to advocate creationism on purely religious grounds.

The term "creationism" is often used as a synonym for the specific ideology of "young Earth creationism". Young Earth creationism is the belief that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are God's historical account of his creation, given to Moses during the Exodus. Based on Bishop James Ussher's Biblical genealogies, young Earth creationists believe that God created the universe and everything in it over the course of six, 24-hour, solar days approximately 6,000 years ago - although some are prepared to go as far as 10,000 years.

Other varieties of creationism are sometimes less in conflict with empirical observations; and those, such as deist beliefs, which have the least divine intervention are the least in conflict.


Creationists can be categorized in a number of ways according to the specifics of the creationist belief. These include:

Old Earth creationism

A wise man once said...
See the main article on this topic: Old Earth creationism

"Old Earth" creationists accept a conventional age of the Earth of 4.5 billion years (known as deep time) as has been known since the 19th Century. Similarly, they accept the dating methods used to reach this figure, including radiometric dating and ice-core dating. Nevertheless, they believe that life was deliberately created and possibly mucked about with by a religious deity — thus "Old Earth" creationists mostly differ in their attitude towards evolution, rather than other branches of established science such as geology. Evolutionary Creationists believe the creation event took place, and life subsequently developed through the process of evolution. Day Age Creationism is a literal interpretation of Genesis concluding that creation took place as claimed in Genesis, but that each of the "days" represents a vast period of time. The framework interpretation of Genesis, advanced by Biblical scholar Meredith Kline, is a literal interpretation of Genesis that posits that the Genesis account is not to be taken as a historical or scientific description of creation, but as an allegorical and theological one. Progressive creationism is predicated on accepting mainstream scientific findings regarding the age of the Earth, but positing that God progressively created new creatures over the course of millions of years. Gap creationists believe that the Earth was created millions of years ago, but then laid waste and remade as described in Genesis 1:2 over the course of six, 24 solar hour days.

Young Earth creationism

See the main article on this topic: Young Earth creationism

"Young Earth" creationists reject the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth in favour of dating creation based on the Bible, usually by referring to Bishop James Ussher's Biblical genealogies. As their faith is based on accepting Genesis as history, it is wholly inconsistent with the nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth is far older than young earthers accept. In order to justify their literalist dogma, young earth creationists must reject numerous branches of science. Young earth creationists created "creation science" to bolster their Biblical claims regarding the age of the earth and their opposition to the theory of evolution.

Young Earth creationists typically acknowledge parts of evolution when denial would be too much, terming it microevolution, but continue to reject any theory of naturalistic abiogenesis and common descent. Instead, they believe that God created various lifeforms in something resembling their present forms, and that microevolution subsequently led to a degree of diversification among species - a branch of creation science known as baraminology has developed to try and explain this. This has led to a bit of an inconsistent position on creationists' part, in which they deny that millions of years of evolution could possibly produce speciation, but at the same time argue that thousands of years of microevolution was enough to give rise to the great diversity of life we see on Earth today solely from the pairs of animals that survived the flood on Noah's ark some 4,000 years ago.[1]

Some young Earth beliefs even go as far as to state that the universe itself is only 6,000 years old, and that their creator god created space and time at the same instant as our planet. This is again in conflict with even more fields of tested science. In the case of a young universe beliefs, physical constants such as the speed of light are often reinterpreted as "inconstant" to explain phenomena such as distant starlight.


You saw it here first![2]

Particularly in the United States, the most prevalent young Earth belief is based on the Judeo-Christian mythology laid out in the Old Testament. This includes interpreting the various stories scattered throughout the book as historically accurate — the Tower of Babel and the global flood, for example. One of the additional issues with a literal interpretation of some holy texts is that they conflict, sometimes with themselves; this is especially true of Genesis. According toGenesis 1, God created the world in six days, resting on the seventh, with Man and Woman being created simultaneously, after the plants and animals. However, according to Genesis 2, God creates Man, then the plants and animals, then Woman as company for Adam. There have been several attempts to skirt this issue, but none of them produce a completely literal yet consistent reading — they are flat-out contradictions.

Though they would love to keep this out of the public sphere and make it seem as if they were just scientists, Creationist thought is not based just on Genesis 1 and 2. They also insist stories like that of Noah's Ark are historically accurate. Of course, this therefore leads to a valid question: what do they think about Cain and Abel? For generations, Southern Protestants that believed the earth was only several thousand years old also insisted that dark skin pigmentation was in fact 'The Mark of Cain', a blood curse making them inferior to humans and worthy of enslavement.


Although creationism in the West is more usually associated with fundamentalist Christianity, the Muslim world has its own brand of crazies — and creationist beliefs are often more prevalent in Muslim countries than America's Bible Belt.[3] Unlike the young Earth creationist movements within Christianity, few, if any, Muslim creationists insist that the world was created in a matter of days a few thousand years ago as most accept the Koran as a metaphorical and contemplative document. Translations of six "days" are also far more ambiguous than their explicitly Christian counterpart.[4] However, they do reject evolution, and especially the notion that humans evolved from animals, they accept that the Earth and Universe are old.Even though in chapter 2 verse 29 of the quran it clearly says that the earth,and every thing in it is older than the universe and every thing else in it.

Within Islam, perhaps the most notorious proponent is the Turkish creationist Harun Yahya, who has been heavily influenced by American Christian creationism. In recent years, he has become one of the more vocal creationists and some of his publicity stunts and ramblings would make even Ted Haggard blush. He has repeatedly been shown to not know what he is talking about, such as with his Ask Darwinists question sheet (which even an amateur could answer easily) and mistaking a fishing lure for a live animal in one of his books. In line with Gish Gallop tactics, Yahya is probably there just to waste people's time and try to keep the "controversy" in the public eye in order to bilk more money out of the faithful, rather than make any real contribution.


See the main article on this topic: Hindu creationism

Hindu creationism has been embraced by some writers such as Michael Cremo. They say that mankind has existed for two billion years and has not evolved and point to supposed "out of place artifacts" and paranormal reports for evidence. The claims of the Hindu creationists have been dismissed by the scientific community as pseudoscience.


A 2012 Gallup poll[5] reveals that 15% of Americans agree with the statement: "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." 46% believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so." 38% fall somewhere in the middle and think that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." Thus, 51% of Americans accept the theory of evolution in some form, whether theistic evolution or more the purely scientific theory of evolution.

Intelligent design

Who made the maker?
See the main article on this topic: Intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is an idea fundamental to the attempted "mainstreaming" of creationism; it has been "politely" referred to as creationism in a cheap suit. It is a teleological argument or belief that complexity requires design, but it is also an argument from personal incredulity that natural causes are behind life, indeed, most "research" into intelligent design focuses on attempting to pick holes in known evolutionary theories, rather than attempting to establish any positive evidence in favour of a designer. Principles such as emergence and complexity theory are inherently incompatible with ID as these can explain apparent complexity using naturalistic means. One of the main proposals by intelligent design advocates is that it is not creationism, as the hypothesis doesn't specifically state what the identity of the creator is. However, the vast majority of intelligent design proponents, and especially the ones following the wedge strategy are Christian fundamentalists and don't hide it very well; consequently, they are often hostile to secular or atheistic forms of intelligent design such as directed panspermia.

Ethical objections to creationism

Apart from almost every field of science, creationism based on Biblical literalism also has some ethical criticism to face. One main objection is that, in the ever so lauded KJV version of Genesis 1:28, God says to the first humans,"God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Implying humans can do what they wish to all animals. See here for more details.

In a nutshell

The creation must have happened, as it is in the Bible and therefore must be true. Believe in it, or you are an evilutionist and will go to hell.

See also

External links


  1.  For an example, see our side-by-side response to the CMI article, Snake Carnivory Origin.
  2.  Appelbaum, Stanley, selection, translation and text, Simplicissimus: 180 Satirical Drawings from the Famous German Weekly, Dover Publications, New York, 1975
  3.  International Humanist News
  4. Islam - Six "Days" or Long Periods of Time
  5.  In US, 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins, Highly religions Americans most likely to believe in creationism [1]

Answers in Genesis



Icon creationism alt.svg
Key claims

Truth fish transparent.png

Random articles
If you're looking for the insurance company, see Great Recession.

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is an organization which pushes "creation science." They run (into the ground it would seem[1]) theCreation Museum and publish the Answers Research Journal.[2] Considered the leaders of creationist "research" online, Answers in Genesis will invariably be linked to by creationists to prove points. If you have a perceived fallacy in creationism, AiG will have the answer, Talk Origins will have the refutation, and AiG will have the refutation of the refutation (which is probably just a restatement of the original piece).[3]

The head of Answers in Genesis is Ken Ham.

  • History

    In 1993, after 7 years in the US working with the Institute for Creation Research, former Australian high-school teacher Ken Ham decided to start a creation science ministry similar to the Creation Science Foundation (now Creation Ministries International) he had founded back in Australia, because he felt that the ICR were too "intellectual" and what was needed was a more layman's approach to teaching creation science. Also, he wanted to sell his magazines, but the ICR would not help him.

    The first snag in the road is that in the US a foundation has to give away money, so he called it the Creation Science Ministries. The second snag was he had no money. According to CMI they gave significant financial support to Ham to start his new US ministry,[4] while AiG say they needed no such thing and had plenty of money thank you.[5] In 1995, both of Ham's ministries changed their names to become Answers in Genesis-US and Answers in Genesis-Australia. For many years they were pretty much the same organisation even generating a common Statement of Faith that was supposed to bind the two.

    By 2005 a huge split occurred between the two, with the Australian organisation's view that Ham was out of control and egotistical.[6] The US branch withdrew along with the UK office, taking the naming rights and branding rights with them. AiG-Australia became Creation Ministries International, taking with it all the other non-US offices in Canada, New Zealand and South Africa.

    In 2007 AiG opened its now infamous Creation Museum and in 2008, having lost Creation magazine and The Journal of Creationin the split, it started its own creation research journal Answers Research Journal.

    A representative argument from AiG

    Don't look at sane science or Cthulhu will eat you and your Bible!

    The AiG-commissioned comic pictured at right is representative of their approach to science, their method of scientific analysis going something like this:

    1. Look at the evidence.
    2. See if it jibes with the Bible.
    3. If it does, go nuts over it.
    4. If it does not, it is like Cthulhu, capable of eating people and Bibles; ignore it.

    Bad arguments even AiG recognize

    See also PRATT

    Many creationists seem stuck with hundreds of really stupid arguments as to why the world is 6000 years old, the Bible is literally true and "we didn't evolve from no monkey." Most of these arguments are, of course, utter crap and for the true connoisseur of Young Earth Creationism, it is some of the material developed by Answers in Genesis that is most worthwhile. AiG isn't considered as having some of the best of creationist research for nothing. They do employ people, such as Jason Lisle, who have real qualifications and have genuinely thought this through - although in most cases, not enough. Their"Arguments we think creationists should NOT use", for example, makes interesting - indeed surprising - reading. Their examples of bad creationist arguments include:[7]

    • Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
    • Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon. (This one was so bad, that AiG later recanted it themselves.)
    • The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand.
    • Archaeopteryx is a fraud.
    • Darwin mentioned the absurdity of eye evolution in The Origin of Species.
    • Evolution is Just a theory.
    • Supposed "information loss" in DNA is caused by mutations: a completely made-up argument.

    Many of these Young Earth proofs and arguments have been refuted so often and so easily that AiG really had no choice but to issue an article like this. But you can still find people using such silly and unconvincing arguments; the owners and contributors of most other creationist websites and blogs might do well to read some of these. With their "arguments we don't use" page being one of the more famous ones, they followed it up with 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid. This page isn't as good as the creationist one, as while evolutionists certainly shouldn't use them, you rarely find scientists actually using them at all. Indeed, things like "evolution is a fact like gravity" aren't actually arguments, but rhetoric.[8]

    Answers in WTF?

    Believe in god or this extra from American History X will shoot you.[9]

    In spring 2009, AiG managed to get itself into a small(ish) controversy by shifting its publicity focus from creationism to the denigration of atheism in general. This resulted in a billboard and TV advertising campaign featuring a young boy pointing a gun straight at the viewer, stating "If God doesn't matter to him, do you?", thus implying that atheists, agnostics, or basically any non-Christian would be prone to murder.[9] AiG claim that this was to highlight school shootings and their so-called links with Darwinism, but it's quite clear that they were just pissed off after atheists decided to get their own billboard.

    This attitude of comparing atheism with school shootings is not isolated to their campaign. Their resident cartoonist Dan Lietha has produced a cartoon with very similar content. This indicates that this campaign was a sincere statement of AiG's belief, rather than an intentionally controversial, shock-value publicity stunt.

    Answers in Genesis on Science

    Apparently plush animals made it on to the ark.

    In an online publication called "Evolution Exposed", AiG managed to illustrate both their contempt for mainstream science, as well as their innate bias in their "research" in one simple paragraph:

    Science has been hijacked by those with a materialistic worldview and exalted as the ultimate means of obtaining knowledge about the world. Proverbs tells us that the fear of God, not science, is the beginning of knowledge. In a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected. The same thing happens in naturalistic science. Any conclusion that does not have a naturalistic explanation is rejected.[10]Our emphasis

    ee also

    embers of Answers in Genesis

    External links


    1.  AiG begs for the cash needed to keep the Creation Museum open.
    2.  Answers Research Journal
    3.  Online debates on the subject are just reduced to Answers in Genesis vs Talk.Origins.
    4.  CMI's about us.
    5.  AiG's history page.
    6.  Lord of the Ring - The Australian, June 05, 2007
    7.  AIG - Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.
    8.  AiG - 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid
    9.  9.0 9.1 Christianist (sic) Group's Billboard Compares Atheism To Murder
    10.  Evolution Exposed. Chap 1 - What is Science?


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on
The Creation of Adam.jpg

History of creationism

Types of creationism

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


Genesis creation narrative
Framework interpretation
Genesis as an allegory
Omphalos hypothesis

Creation science

Flood geology
Creation geophysics
Creationist cosmologies
Intelligent design


Creation myth
Public education
Teach the Controversy

Particular religious views

Hindu · Islamic · Jewish

Wikipedia book Book · Category Category · PortalPortal

Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. As science developed during the 18th century and forward, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic andGenesis creation narratives with science developed in Western societies.[1] Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1847) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists", as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed over time, the term "anti-evolutionists" became common. In 1929 in the United States, the term "creationism" first became associated with Christian fundamentalists, specifically with their rejection of human evolution and belief in a young Earth—although this usage was contested by other groups, such as old Earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who hold different concepts of creation.[2][3][4]

Today, the American Scientific Affiliation, a prominent religious organisation in the United States, recognizes that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Abrahamic belief that God "created the universe."[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] This tendency has led to political and theologicalcontroversy.[7] Two disciplines somewhat allied with creationism—creation science and intelligent design—have been labelled "pseudoscience" by opponents (who assume that their own theories constitute real science).[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]

Theistic evolution reconciles theistic religious beliefs with scientific findings on the age of the Earth and the process of evolution. It includes a range of beliefs, including views described as evolutionary creationism and some forms of old earth creationism, all of which embrace the findings of modern science and uphold classical religious teachings about God and creation.[24][25]


The history of creationism is part of the history of religions, though the term itself is modern. The term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism was first used by Charles Darwin in 1856.[26] 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 tointelligent design, which was presented by creationists as 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] In September 2012, Bill Nye("The Science Guy") expressed his scientific concern that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in The United States.[29][30](video)

Early and medieval times

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.[31]

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.[32]

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.[33]

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."[32]

Impact of the Reformation

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".[John Calvin also rejected instantaneous creation, but criticised those who, contradicting the contemporary understanding of nature, asserted that there are "waters above the heavens".[32]

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.[34] 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 biblicalDeluge myth and story of Noah's Ark.[35]

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[35] and by 1850 all geologists and most Evangelical Christians had adopted various forms of old Earth creationism, while continuing to firmly rejectevolution.[32][ 

Modern science

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.[32] 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 called for solidly backed science. In 1859 Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species provided that evidence from an authoritative and respected source, and within a decade or so convinced scientists that evolution occurs. This view clashed with that of 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.[36] By 1875 most Americannaturalists 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 Darwin and his friends.[4] The term appears in letters Darwin wrote between 1856 and 1863,[37] and was also used in a response by Charles Lyell.[38]

Creationism by country

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.[39][40][41]


In recent years the teaching of creationism has become a minor issue in a variety of countries including Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, theNetherlands, Poland and Serbia.[40][41][42][43]

Creation science has been heavily promoted in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by Adnan Oktar (also known as Harun Yahya).[41]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".[44]


In 1978, British Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, who came to Germany after World War II and lectured at Marburg and other cities, published a book arguing against evolution with a secular, well known publishing house, titled "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution."[45] 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.[46]

In 2006, a documentary on the Arte television network, Von Göttern und Designern ("Genesis vs. Darwin") by filmmaker Frank Papenbroockdemonstrated that creationism had already been taught in biology classes in at least two schools in Gießen, Hessen, without this being noticed.[47]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".[48] " Approximately 20% of people disbelieve evolutionary theory in Germany.[49]


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.[50]


Russia is home to the Moscow Creation Society.[51] 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.[52] 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.[53]

A 2005 poll reportedly found 26% of Russians accepting evolution and 49% accepting creationism.[54] But a 2003 poll reported that 44% agreed with "Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals",[55] 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).[56]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."[56]


On 7 September 2004 the Serbian Minister of education Ljiljana Čolić temporarily banned evolution from being taught in the country. After state-wide outcry she resigned on 16 September 2004 from her post.[57]


A 2006 international survey found that 30% of the Swiss reject evolution, one of the highest national percentages in Europe.[58] 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.[59]

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 survey for the BBC showed that "more than a fifth of those polled were convinced by the creationist argument,"[60] 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."[61]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.[62]

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.[63] 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.[64] 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.[65] Some private religious schools in the UK teach creationism rather than evolution.[66] However the teaching of creationism is illegal in any school that receives state funding.

Muslim world

A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 16% of Indonesians, and 22% of Turksagree 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.[67] 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.[68]

Currently in Egypt, evolution is taught in schools but Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.[39] In recent times, creationism has become more widespread in other Islamic countries.[69]

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%).


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.[68]


Since the 1980s, creationism in Turkey has grown significantly and is now the government's official position on origins.[68] 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.[70] Since July 2011 it is back online again.[71] In 2009 a portrait of Charles Darwin was taken off the cover of a popular science magazine after the editor was fired.[72][73][74] Most of the Turkish population expressed support for the censorship.[75] In 2012 it was found that the government's internet content filter, designed to prevent the public having access to pornographic websites, also blocked the words 'evolution' and 'Darwin' on one mode of the filter.[76]


In the late 1970s, Answers in Genesis, a creationist research organization, was founded in Australia. In 1994, Answers in Genesis expanded fromAustralia and New Zealand to the United States.[77] 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,[78]geologist Dr Andrew Snelling,[79] astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle,[80] chemical engineer Dr Jonathan Sarfati[81] and geologist Dr Tasman Bruce Walker[82] 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".[83] One Australian scientist who adheres to creation science is Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström.[84]

The teaching professor Ian Plimer, an anti-creationist geologist, reported being attacked by creationists.[85] 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.[86] 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."[87] The debate was featured on the science television program Quantum.[88] 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.[89][90] 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.[89] 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, publishers of high school science textbooks decided to remove references to evolution following a petition by a creationist group.[91][92] However, the ensuing controversy prompted the government to appoint a panel of scientists to look into the matter, and the government urged the publishers to keep the references to evolution following the recommendation of the panel.[93]



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."[94]

United States

In the United States some religious communities have refused to accept naturalistic explanations and tried to counter them. The term started to become associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth in 1929.[4] 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 most 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.[4]

Most of the anti-evolutionists of the 1920s believed in forms of Old Earth creationism, which accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and believes that these findings do not contradict Genesis, but rejects evolution. At that time only a minority held to 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. In the 1960s this became the most prominent form of anti-evolution. From the 1860s forms of theistic evolution had developed; this term refers to beliefs in creation which are compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth, as held by mainstream Christian denominations. There are other religious people who support creationism, but in terms of allegorical interpretations of Genesis.

By the start of the 20th 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,[95][96] and by getting evolution removed from biology textbooks nationwide. Creationism became associated in common usage with opposition to evolution.[97]

In 1961 in the United States, an attempt to repeal the Butler Act failed.[28] The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris brought the Seventh-day Adventistbiblically literal flood geology of George McCready Price to a wider audience, popularizing the idea of Young Earth creationism,[32] and by 1965 the term "scientific creationism" had gained currency.[98] 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.[99] and when in 1975Daniel 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 "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".[98] 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.[98] 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.[96]

"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.[96] Proponents of the intelligent design movement organised widespread campaigning to considerable effect. They officially denied any links to creation or religion, and claimed that "creationism" only referred to young Earth creationism with flood geology;[100] but in Kitzmiller v. Dover the court found intelligent design to be 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.[96]

The percentage of people in the U.S. who accept the idea of human evolution declined from 45% in 1985 to 40% in 2005.[101] A Gallup poll reported that the percentage of people in the U.S. who 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).[102] The higher percentage of Republicans who identified with a creationist view is described as evidence of the strong relationship between religion and politics in the United States. Republicans also attend church weekly more than Democratic or independent voters. Non-Republican voters are twice as likely to hold a nontheistic view of evolution than Republican voters.[102]

Among US states, acceptance of evolution has a strong negative correlation with religiosity and a strong positive relationship with science degrees awarded, bachelor degree attainment, advanced degree attainment, average teacher salary, and GDP per capita. In other words, states in which more people say that religion is very important to their lives tend to show less acceptance of evolution. The better the education of individuals, their educational system, or the higher their income, the more they accept evolution, though the US as a country has a comparatively well educated population but lower acceptance of evolution than other countries.[103]


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


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.[101] The United States is an exception where belief in religious fundamentalism is much more likely to affect attitudes towards evolution than it is for believers elsewhere.[101] Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because whilst political partisanship in the U.S. is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike in Europe.[101]

Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,[104] such as Anglicans[105] and Lutherans,[106] consider that there is no conflict between the spiritual meaning of creation and the science of evolution. According to the former 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."[107]

Leaders of the Anglican[108] and Roman Catholic[109][110] 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,[111] 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.

Many Christians and Jews had been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of historical) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. For example, 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.[112][113] 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);[114] 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.[115] 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."[116]

In the United States, Evangelical Christians have continued to believe in a literal Genesis. Members of Protestant (70%), Mormon (76%) and Jehovah's Witnesses (90%) denominations are the most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.[117] 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.[118][119] They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in American schools. Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific. Many religious groups teach that God created the Cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of Genesis as well as literal aspects.[32]

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 regards to material theories of creation, Mary Baker Eddy showed a preference for Darwin's Theory of Evolution over others.[120]


According to Hindu creationism all species on earth including humans have "devolved" or come down from a highly state of pureconsciousness. 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.[121] 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."[122] 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.[123][124]


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 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:[125] There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Qur'an and natural selection and survival of the fittest. "Without a Book of Genesis to account for ... Muslim creationists have little interest in proving that the age of the Earth is measured in the thousands rather than the billions of years, nor do they show much interest in the problem of the dinosaurs. And the idea that animals might evolve into other animals also tends to be less controversial, in part because there are passages of the Koran that seem to support it. But the issue of whether human beings are the product of evolution is just as fraught among Muslims."[126] However, some Muslims, such as Adnan Oktar, do not agree that one species can develop from another.[127]

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.[128]

There are several verses in the Qur'an which some modern writers have interpreted as being compatible with the expansion of the universe, Big Bangand Big Crunch theories:[129][130][131]

"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.[132] 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.[133] 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.[134] 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.


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 Adammated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).[135][136][137][138]


Bahaullah, the Baha'i faith Founder, taught that the universe has "neither beginning nor ending", and that the component elements of the material world have always existed and will always exist.[139] In regards to evolution and the origin of human beings, `Abdu'l-Bahá gave extensive comments on the subject when he addressed western audiences in the beginning of the 20th century. Transcripts of these comments can be found in Some Answered Questions, Paris Talks and the Promulgation of Universal Peace. `Abdu'l-Bahá described the human species as having evolved from a primitive form to modern man, but that the capacity to form human intelligence was always in existence.

Types of creationism

Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "taxonomy" of creationists.[140][141][142] Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the broad types listed below.

Comparison of major creationist views
Acceptance Humanity Biological species Earth Age of Universe
Young Earth creationism 40% (US)[102] 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)[102] Directly created by God (based on primateanatomy). 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 fosters the belief that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the 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. Some creationist thinkers attempt with Creationist cosmologies 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 longertimelines. However, this view has theological implications - an intentional appearance of age is form of false evidence and so a form of deception.

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 aCreation 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.

Creation science

Creation science, or initially scientific creationism, emerged in the 1960s with proponents aiming to have young Earth creationist beliefs taught in school science classes as a counter to teaching of evolution. It 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.

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 ofmodern 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.[143] 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 thatevolution by natural selection alone is incorrect. Organizations such as Reasons To Believe, founded by Hugh Ross, promote this theory.

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


Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Neo-Creationism aims to re-state 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.

Neo-Creationism sees ostensibly objective orthodox science as a dogmatically atheistic religion. Neo-Creationists argue that the scientific methodexcludes 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", lies 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 dogmaticallyliteral interpretation of the Bible. Common to all forms of Neo-Creationism is a rejection of naturalism , usually made together with a tacit admission of supernaturalism, and an open and often hostile opposition to what they term "Darwinism", meaning 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".[144] All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute,[145] 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.[96][146] It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,[147][141][142][148]and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".[149][150][151]

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.[152]

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.[96][153]

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."[154] 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.[155]

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.[156] When On the Origin of Species was published, the cleric Charles Kingsley wrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity".[157][158] Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature,[159][160] and the book makes several references to "creation", though he later regretted using the term rather than calling it an unknown process.[161] In America, Asa Gray argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or modus operandi, of the first cause, design,[162] and published a pamphlet defending the book in theistic terms, Natural Selection is not inconsistent with Natural Theology.[157][163][164] 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.[165]

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.[166]

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 theGenesis 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.[167]

In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries[168] 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."[169] 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.[170] 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): 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.[171]

While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by someatheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,[172] including atheists,[173] 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.

Obscure and largely discounted beliefs

The 17th century position of the Roman Catholic Church was that God recently created a spherical world, and placed it as an immobile location in the center of the universe.[citation needed] The Sun, planets and everything else in the universe revolve around it once per day. The members of the Flat Earth Society hold that a literal interpretation of the Bible demands that the Earth is a disk with the North Pole at the center and a wall of ice at the Antarctic rim.[citation needed] The famous pictures of a spherical Earth taken from space are claimed by members to be either hoaxes or illusions.

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.[174] 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).


Views on human evolution in various countries.[175][176]

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.[101]


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".[177]


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."[178]


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 creationismas 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.[179][180] 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.[62] The former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.[181]

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.[182]

There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious groups throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.[183] 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,[184] reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4, 2007.[185]

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.[186] "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.[187] Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."[188]

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.[189]

United States

Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia

According to a 2001 Gallup poll,[190] 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",[191] 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".[190]

Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept evolution.[192][193] 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.'"[194][195]

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.[196]

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%).[101]

According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in Creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.[197] 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).[197]

In September 2012, educator and television personality Bill Nye of Bill Nye the Science Guy fame spoke with the Associated Press and aired his fears about acceptance of creationist theory, believing that teaching children that creationism is the only true answer and without letting them understand the way science works will prevent any future innovation in the world of science.[29][30](video)

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.[153]

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:[196]
Public schools should teach evolution only
Only evolution should be taught in science classes, religious explanations can be discussed in another class
Creationism can be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory
Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class
Only Creationism should be taught
Teach both evolution and Creationism, but unsure how to do so
No opinion

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 consensusof the scientific community.[198][199]


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.[200] 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.[201]

Teaching of creationism

Other Christians have expressed qualms about teaching creationism. In March 2006, then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of 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.[202]

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."[203]

Moore and Cotner, from the biology program at the University of Minnesota, reflect on the relevance of teaching creationism in the article The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism? They conclude that "despite decades of science education reform, numerous legal decisions declaring the teaching of creationism in public-school science classes to be unconstitutional, overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, and the many denunciations of creationism as nonscientific by professional scientific societies, creationism remains popular throughout the United States."[204]

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.[205] 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.[206][207] Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould,[208] consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called non-overlapping magisteria.[209] 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,[210] 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.[211][212][213]


Creationism (in general)

Young Earth Creationism

Old Earth Creationism

  • Reasons To Believe led by Hugh Ross
  • Answers In Creation led by Greg Neyman[214]

Intelligent design

Evolutionary creationism


See also

Notes on terminology

  1. Jump up^ 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).


  1. Jump up^ Ronald L. Numbers. "The ‘Ordinary’ View of Creation". Counterbalance Meta-Library. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
  2. Jump up^ Johnson, Phillip E.; Lamoureux, Denis Oswald (1 June 1999). The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins. Regent College Publishing. ISBN 1573831336. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
  3. Jump up^ Rainey, David (30 July 2008). A Selective Guide to Christian Nonfiction. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1591588472. "Thus, there is diversity within the Christian community, and a continuum of ideas that begins with young earth creationists. There are four main Christian schools of thought: young-earth creation science, old-earth creation science, intelligent design, and theistic evolution."
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Ronald L. Numbers. "Antievolutionists and Creationists".Creationism History. Counterbalance Meta-Library. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
  5. Jump up^ "A Spectrum of Creation Views held by Evangelicals". American Scientific Affiliation. 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."
  6. Jump up^ Ronald L. Numbers (1998). Darwinism Comes to America. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-19312-3. Retrieved 2007–10–18. "Creationists of today are not in agreement concerning what was created according to Genesis."
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b "NCSE : National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools.". Creationism. 2008. Retrieved 2009-06-22.
  8. Jump up^ 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. Jump up^ 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". Evolutionists utilise this definition to characterise evolution as a scientific fact and a theory.In contrast, creationists use the term "theory" 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. ^ Jump up to:a b Campbell D (2006, 21 February). "Academics fight rise of creationism at universities". The Guardian. Retrieved 07 April, 2010.
  11. Jump up^ For the biological understanding of complexity, see Evolution of complexity. For a creationist perspective, see Irreducible complexity.
  12. Jump up^ Ronald L. Numbers. "Creationism History: Topic Index". Counterbalance Meta-Library. Retrieved 2009-06-22.
  13. Jump up^ Dundes, Alan (Winter, 1997). "Binary Opposition in Myth: The Propp/Levi-Strauss Debate in Retrospect". Western Folklore (56): 39–50.
  14. Jump up^ Dundes, Alan (1984). Introduction. Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Ed. Alan Dunes. University of California Press.
  15. Jump up^ 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. Jump up^ Wallace, T. (2007). "Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution". The True Origin Archive. TrueOrigin Archive. Retrieved 2011–04-25.
  17. Jump up^ Isaak, Mark (2005). "CA215: Practical uses of evolution.". Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2009–08-20. 
    Isaak, Mark (2005). "CH100.1: Science in light of Scripture". Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2009–08-20.
  18. Jump up^ Isaak, Mark (2004). "CA301: Science and naturalism". Index to Creationist Claims. TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2009–08-20.
  19. Jump up^ "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2008-08-28.
  20. Jump up^ "Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design". Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  21. Jump up^ National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
  22. Jump up^ 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. Jump up^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution PDF (44.8 KB), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
  24. Jump up^ Francis Collins (17 July 2007). The Language of God. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780743293570. Retrieved 24 April 2012. "This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teachings us about the natural world."
  25. Jump up^ Greg Neyman (2011). "Theistic Evolution". Answers in Creation. 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."
  26. Jump up^ Oxford English Dictionary.
  27. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Creationism" Contributed By: Ronald L. Numbers, William Coleman: Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2007. Archived2009-10-31.
  28. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Creationism/ID, A Short Legal History By Lenny Flank, Talk Reason
  29. ^ Jump up to:a b Luvan, Dylan (September 24. 2012). "Bill Nye Warns: Creation Views Threaten U.S. Science". AP News. Retrieved September 24, 2012.
  30. ^ Jump up to:a b Fowler, Jonathan; Rodd, Elizabeth (August 23, 2012). "Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children". YouTube. Retrieved September 24, 2012.
  31. Jump up^ The Works of Philo Judaeus, translated from the Greek by Charles Duke Yonge:
    Philo: Allegorical Interpretation, I
  32. ^ Jump up to: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.
  33. Jump up^ Davis A. Young (1988). "The contemporary relevance of Augustine".Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Retrieved 2008-08-18.
  34. Jump up^ Moore, James. "Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin". Speaking of Faith (Radio Program). American Public Media. Retrieved 2007-06-27.
  35. ^ Jump up to: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.
  36. Jump up^ Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. ISBN 0-7181-3430-3.
  37. Jump up^ "Letter 1919 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., 5 (July 1856)". Darwin Correspondence Project. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
    "Letter 4196 — Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 31 May (1863)". Darwin Correspondence Project. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
  38. Jump up^ "Letter 4041 — Lyell, Charles to Darwin, C. R., 15 March 1863". Darwin Correspondence Project. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
  39. ^ Jump up to:a b Pitock, Todd (June 2007). "Science and Islam". Discover: 36–45.
  40. ^ Jump up to:a b Gregory Katz (2008-02-16). "Clash Over Creationism Is Evolving In Europe's Schools". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-02-17./
  41. ^ Jump up to:a b c Taner Edis. "Cloning Creationism in Turkey". RNCSE 19 (6): 30-35. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
  42. Jump up^ "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension". BBC. 2004-09-09. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
  43. Jump up^ Roger Highfield (2007-02-10). "Creationists rewrite natural history". London: The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2007-10-08. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
  44. Jump up^ Resolution 1580 (2007) The dangers of creationism in educationParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, paras. 13, 18
  45. Jump up^ A.E. Wilder-Smith, Die Naturwissenschaften kennen keine Evolution, 1978, Schwabe Verlag, Basel.
  46. Jump up^ Factum. "Schwengeler Verlag, Postfach 263, CH-9435 Heerbrugg."
  47. Jump up^ "Hessische Schulen: "Kultusministerin fällt auf Kreationisten herein" - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - SchulSPIEGEL". Retrieved 2011-11-08.
  48. Jump up^ "German Scientists Concerned About Rise in Creationist Belief | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 02.11.2006". Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  49. Jump up^ "Contesting Evolution: European Creationists Take On Darwin - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International". Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  50. Jump up^ "Carte creaţionistă pentru biologie, avizată de minister". March 20, 2009.
  51. Jump up^ by John and Svetlana Doughty. "Creationism in Russia". Retrieved 2011-11-08.
  52. Jump up^ The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design (Ronald L. Numbers)
  53. Jump up^ "Peter C Kjaergaard - Western front". New Humanist. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  54. Jump up^ Bigg, Claire (2006-03-10). "Russia: Creationism Finds Support Among Young - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2010". Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  55. Jump up^ "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)". 2006-02-23. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  56. ^ Jump up to:a b
  57. Jump up^ Harry de Quetteville (2004-09-09). "Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools". The Daily Telegraph (London). Retrieved 24 January 2012.
  58. Jump up^ Thomas Stephens (October 9, 2006). "Swiss drag knuckles accepting evolution". Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  59. Jump up^ Dale Bechtel (November 28, 2007). "Creationism controversy evolves". Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  60. Jump up^ "Who are the British creationists?". BBC News. 2008-09-15.
  61. Jump up^ "Americans are creationists; Britons and Canadians side with evolution.". Angus Reid Public Opinion. 2010-07-15. 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%)"
  62. ^ Jump up to:a b / Prospect Survey Results
  63. Jump up^ Wynne-Jones, Jonathan (2009-01-31). "Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution". The Daily Telegraph(London).
  64. Jump up^ "Call for creationism in science". BBC News. 2008-09-13.
  65. Jump up^ "Four out of five Britons do not believe in creationism". The Daily Telegraph (London). 2009-03-02.
  66. Jump up^ "Who are the British creationists?". BBC. 2008-09-15.
  67. Jump up^ Hameed, S (2008). "Bracing for Islamic creationism". Science 322(5908): 1637–8. doi:10.1126/science.1163672. PMID 19074331.
  68. ^ Jump up to:a b c Bennett, Drake (2009-10-25). "Islam's Darwin problem". The Boston Globe. Unknown parameter |arvhiveurl= ignored (help);
  69. Jump up^ "Evolution and religion: In the beginning". The Economist. 2007-04-19. Retrieved 2007-04-25.This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.
  70. Jump up^ Salter, Jessica (2008-09-19). "Richard Dawkins website banned in Turkey". The Daily Telegraph (London).
  71. Jump up^ " no longer banned in Turkey! - RDFRS UK -". 2011-07-08. Retrieved 2011-11-08.
  72. Jump up^ Alison Abbott (Turkish scientists claim Darwin censorship). "Turkish scientists claim Darwin censorship". Nature.
  73. Jump up^ "Turkey censors evolution". Nature. 19 March 2009.
  74. Jump up^ "Evolution Stirs Tempest in Turkish Teapot". APS News. American Physical Society. May 2009.
  75. Jump up^ Daniel Steinvorth (March 17, 2009). "Darwin in Turkey: 'Most Express Sympathy for the Censorship'". Spiegel Online.
  76. Jump up^ Tom Chivers (December 10, 2011). "Darwin censored by the Turkish government's porn filter". Telegraph Blogs.
  77. Jump up^ "A Brief History Of Answers in Genesis–USA". AnswersOnline. Archived from the original on 2000-08-16.
  78. Jump up^ "Ken Ham: Biblical Literalist". 2001. Retrieved December 17, 2008.
  79. Jump up^ "Answers Research Journal - Creation, Evolution, Scientific Research - Answers Research Journal". Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  80. Jump up^ "Dr Jason Lisle". 2004-08-11. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  81. Jump up^ "Dr Jonathan Sarfati". Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  82. Jump up^ "Dr Tasman Bruce Walker". 1999-01-18. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  83. Jump up^ "CREATIONISM and intelligent design will be taught in Queensland state schools for the first time as part of the new national curriculum".
  84. Jump up^ "Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlstrom". Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  85. Jump up^ "Skeptic Mag Hotline - EVOLUTION V. CREATION DOWN UNDER". 1998-12-12. Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  86. Jump up^ Plimer, Ian "Telling lies for God- Reason versus Creationism," (Random House)
  87. Jump up^ Ian Plimer. "Skeptic Mag Hotline - EVOLUTION V. CREATION DOWN UNDER". Retrieved 2008-02-05.
  88. Jump up^ "Telling Lies for God? - One Man's Crusade". Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  89. ^ Jump up to:a b by Chon-Ho Hyon. "The Creation Science Movement in Korea". Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  90. Jump up^ "한국창조과학회". Retrieved 2010-10-29.
  91. Jump up^ jobs (2012-06-05). "South Korea surrenders to creationist demands : Nature News & Comment". Retrieved 2012-07-03.
  92. Jump up^ "Creationist success in South Korea?". NCSE. Retrieved 2012-07-03.
  93. Jump up^ jobs (2012-09-06). "Science wins over creationism in South Korea : Nature News & Comment". Retrieved 2013-06-18.
  94. Jump up^ The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Ronald L. Numbers). Harvard University Press (November 30, 2006)
  95. Jump up^ s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 19 of 139
  96. ^ Jump up to: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.
  97. Jump up^ TalkOrigins Archive: Post of the Month: March 2006, The History of Creationism by Lenny Flank.
  98. ^ Jump up to:a b c McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Decision January 5, 1982.
  99. Jump up^ "Edwards v. Aguillard". Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  100. Jump up^ 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
  101. ^ Jump up to: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.
  102. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Newport, Frank (December 17, 2010). "Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism". Gallup.
  103. Jump up^ Heddy, B.C.; Nadelson, L.S. (2013). "The variables related to public acceptance of evolution in the United States". Evolution: Education and Outreach 6 (3): 1–14. doi:10.1186/1936-6434-6-3. Retrieved 28 March 2013.
  104. Jump up^ "Denominational Views". National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
  105. Jump up^ "Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006)". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
  106. Jump up^ Edwin A. Schick (1965). "Lutheran World Federation". "Evolution", in The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
    Allen R. Utke; Patrick Russell (October 2006). "'God allows the universe to create itself and evolve'". The Lutheran. Retrieved 2010-05-17. "The Lutheran is the magazine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America"
  107. Jump up^ "Archbishop of Canterbury, Transcript of interview with the Guardian". 2006-03-21. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  108. Jump up^ Williams, Chris (2006-03-21). "''Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution: Well, he is a Primate,'' Chris Williams, The Register, Tuesday 21 March 2006". Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  109. Jump up^ What Catholics Think of Evolution? They don't not believe in it, Keelin McDonell, Explainer, Slate Magazine, July 12, 2005.
  110. Jump up^ See also the article Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church.
  111. Jump up^ see e.g. John Polkinghorne's Science and Theology pp6-7
  112. Jump up^ Bradshaw, Rob. "Philo of Alexandria (c.20 BC - c. AD 50)". Early Retrieved 21 December 2011.
  113. Jump up^ "The Works of Philo Judaeus, Chapter 2, translated by Charles Duke Yonge". 2006-02-02. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  114. Jump up^, 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
  115. Jump up^ Pius XII. "Humani Generis". Retrieved 2011-11-08.
  116. Jump up^ "Catholic Information Network, "Question of Evolution." October 22, 1996". Retrieved 2011-11-08.
  117. Jump up^ "Pugh Forum findings Page 95" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  118. Jump up^ Wayne Jackson. "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?". Retrieved 2007-05-23.
  119. Jump up^ "The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties". Archived from the original on 2008-07-15. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
  120. Jump up^ 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.
  121. Jump up^ Science & Religion: A New Introduction, Alister E. McGrath, 2009, p. 140
  122. Jump up^ The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design, Ronald L. Numbers, 2006, p. 420
  123. Jump up^ James C. Carper, Thomas C. Hunt, The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States: A-L, 2009, p. 167
  124. Jump up^ A history of Indian philosophy, Volume 1, Surendranath Dasgupta, 1992, p. 10
  125. Jump up^ Papineau, David (2004-01-07). "Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools". Guardian (London). Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  126. Jump up^ Bennett 2009
  127. Jump up^ Green, Toby (29 September 2008). "Creationist offers prize for fossil proof of evolution". London: The Independent. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
  128. Jump up^ "". Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  129. Jump up^ Harun Yahya, The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy
  130. Jump up^ Maurice Bucaille (1990), The Bible the Qur'an and Science, "The Quran and Modern Science", ISBN 81-7101-132-2.
  131. Jump up^ A. Abd-Allah, The Qur'an, Knowledge, and Science, University of Southern California.
  132. Jump up^ "Jesus and the Indian Messiah 13.Every Wind of Doctrine". Into The Light. Archived from the original on 2007-10-09.
  133. Jump up^ "Internet Archive Wayback Machine". 2009-01-30. Retrieved 2011-11-08.
  134. Jump up^
  135. Jump up^ Aviezer, Nathan. In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science. Ktav, 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0-88125-328-6
  136. Jump up^ 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
  137. Jump up^ Schroeder, Gerald L. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom Broadway Books, 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X
  138. Jump up^ Jeffrey H. Tigay, Genesis, Science, and "Scientific Creationism", Conservative Judaism, Vol. 40(2), Winter 1987/1988, p.20-27, TheRabbinical Assembly
  139. Jump up^ Effendi 1912, p. 220
  140. Jump up^ The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.
  141. ^ Jump up to: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.
  142. ^ Jump up to: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
  143. Jump up^ "The Holy Bible, King James Version". Retrieved 2006-12-31.
  144. Jump up^ "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?".Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
  145. Jump up^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Testimony, Barbara Forrest, 2005.
  146. Jump up^ Wedge Strategy, Discovery Institute, 1999.
  147. Jump up^ "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
  148. Jump up^ 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.
  149. Jump up^ Forrest, Barbara (May,2007). Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc. 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
  150. Jump up^ "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.
  151. Jump up^ 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
  152. Jump up^ Intelligent design not science: experts, Deborah Smith Science Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, October 21, 2005.
  153. ^ Jump up to:a b Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005
  154. Jump up^ Feist, Richard; Sweet, William (2007). Religion and the Challenges of Science. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 9780754687443. "Evolutionary Creation (or Theistic Evolution) asserts that the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."
  155. Jump up^ Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. (1998). "Evolutionary Creation". 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."
  156. Jump up^ Bowler 2003, p. 139
  157. ^ Jump up to:a b Darwin and design: historical essay. Darwin Correspondence Project. 2007. Retrieved 2012-04-18.
  158. Jump up^ "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 2534 — Kingsley, Charles to Darwin, C. R., 18 November 1859". Retrieved 2009-04-11.
  159. Jump up^ Quammen 2006, p. 119
  160. Jump up^ Moore 2006
  161. Jump up^ Barlow 1963, p. 207.
  162. Jump up^ Dewey 1994, p. 27
  163. Jump up^ Miles 2001
  164. Jump up^ 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. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
  165. Jump up^ Bowler 2003, pp. 202–208
  166. Jump up^ Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p62-63
  167. Jump up^ Albrecht Moritz (October 31, 2006). "The Origin of Life". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
  168. Jump up^ Science, Religion, and Evolution by Eugenie Scott (accessed at 2007-07-09).
  169. Jump up^ Akin, Jimmy (January 2004). "Evolution and the Magisterium". This Rock. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
  170. Jump up^ Jeff Severns Guntzel (2005). "National Catholic Reporter: Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias". National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
  171. Jump up^ 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". Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  172. Jump up^ 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)
  173. Jump up^ Butterflies and wheels article by Raymond D. Bradley, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the Simon Fraser University (New Zealand).
  174. Jump up^ Gosse, Henry Philip, 1857. Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. J. Van Voorst, London
  175. Jump up^ Michael Le Page (19 April 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist 198 (2652): 31.doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7.
  176. Jump up^ Jeff Hecht (19 August 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?". New Scientist 191 (2565): 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X.
  177. Jump up^ Jacqueline Maley (2009-12-19). God is still tops but angels rate well.The Age
  178. Jump up^ "Polling creationism in Canada". National Center for Science Education. August 8, 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-10.
  179. Jump up^ "Britons unconvinced on evolution", BBC News, 26 January 2006
  180. Jump up^ "BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life", Ipsos MORI for BBC Horizon, 30 January 2006