"Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. Creation science refers to the pseudoscientific movement in the United States.[1]
For the movement in Spanish literature, see Creacionismo.

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation,"[2][3] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.[4] The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of Charles Darwin describing those who objected on religious grounds to the emerging science of evolution.[5]

Creationists base their beliefs on a literal reading of religious texts, including the biblical Genesis creation myth and Islamic mythology from the Quran.[6][7][8] For young Earth creationists, this includes a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.[9] Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[8] Pseudoscientific branches of creationism include creation science,[10] flood geology,[11] and intelligent design,[12][13] as well as subsets of pseudoarchaeology,[14][15] pseudohistory, and even pseudolinguistics.[16]

Biblical basis

The basis for many creationists' beliefs is a literal or quasi-literal interpretation of the Old Testament, especially from stories from the book of Genesis:

A further important element is the interpretation of the Biblical chronology, the elaborate system of life-spans, "generations," and other means by which the Bible measures the passage of events from the Creation (Genesis 1:1) to the Book of Daniel, the last biblical book in which it appears. Recent decades have seen attempts to de-link Creationism from the Bible and recast it as science: these include creation science and intelligent design[17] There are also non-Christian forms of Creationism, notably Islamic Creationism and Hindu Creationism.

Types of creationism

Several attempts have been made to categorize the different types of creationism, and create a "taxonomy" of creationists.[18][19][20] Creationism (broadly construed) covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the general types listed below.

Comparison of major creationist views
Acceptance in the US Humanity Biological species Earth Age of Universe
Young Earth creationism 40%[21] 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, but some hold this view only for our Solar System.
Gap creationism Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
Progressive creationism 38%[21] Directly created by God, based on primate anatomy. Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.
Intelligent design Proponents hold various beliefs. (For example, Michael 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

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a young-Earth creationist organization.

Young Earth creationists believe that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Most young Earth creationists believe that the universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assign a much older age to the universe than to Earth. Creationist cosmologies give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other young Earth time frames. Other young Earth creationists believe that the Earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, so that the world appears to be much older than it is, and that this appearance is what gives the geological findings and other methods of dating the Earth and the universe their much longer timelines.

The Christian organizations Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society (CRS) both promote young Earth creationism in the US. Another organization with similar views, Answers in Genesis (AiG)—based in both the US and the United Kingdom—has opened the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, to promote young Earth creationism. Creation Ministries International promotes young Earth views in Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, the US, and the UK. Among Roman Catholics, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation promotes similar ideas.

Old Earth creationism

Main article: Old Earth creationism

Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event described in the Book of Genesis is to be taken figuratively. This group generally believes that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of modern evolutionary theory are questionable.[18]

Old Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:[18]

Gap creationism

Main article: Gap creationism

Gap creationism, also called "restoration creationism," holds that life was recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. This version of creationism relies on a particular interpretation of 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 heaven and the earth." (Original act of creation.)
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start sometime after the Earth was "without form and void." This allows an indefinite "gap" of time to be inserted after the original creation of the universe, but prior to the 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 creationists expand the basic version of creationism by proposing a "primordial creation" of biological life within the "gap" of time. This is thought to be "the world that then was" mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3–7.[22] 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 Strong's Concordance, and Bible commentaries such as the Scofield Reference Bible and The Companion Bible.

Day-age creationism

Main article: Day-age creationism

Day-age creationism states that the "six days" of the Book of Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each "day" could be the equivalent of millions, or billions of years of human time). Physicist Gerald Schroeder is one such proponent of this view. This version of creationism 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 version of creationism as a hermeneutic option which may be combined with other versions of creationism 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 history. This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the Earth, but rejects much of modern evolutionary biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection alone is incorrect. Organizations such as Reasons To Believe, founded by Hugh Ross, promote this version of creationism.

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

Philosophic and scientific creationism

Creation science

Main article: Creation science

Creation science, or initially scientific creationism, is a pseudoscience[23][24][25][26] that emerged in the 1960s with proponents aiming to have young Earth creationist beliefs taught in school science classes as a counter to teaching of evolution. Common features of Creation science argument include: creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, criticism of radiometric dating through a technical argument about radiohalos, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the Genesis flood narrative (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 creationist biology) due to mutations.


Main article: Neo-creationism

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 restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators 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 mainstream science as a dogmatically atheistic religion. Neo-creationists argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements. They argue that this effectively excludes any possible religious insight from contributing to a scientific understanding of the universe. Neo-creationists also argue that science, as an "atheistic enterprise," 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 US. Unlike their philosophical forebears, neo-creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such as a young Earth, or in a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible. Common to all forms of neo-creationism is a rejection of naturalism, 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

Main article: Intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[27][28] 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."[29] All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute,[30] 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.[31][32] It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,[19][20][33][34] and is sometimes referred to as "intelligent design creationism."[18][31][35][36][37][38]

ID originated as a re-branding of creation science in an attempt to avoid a series of court decisions ruling out the teaching of creationism in American public schools, and the Discovery Institute has run a series of campaigns to change school curricula.[39] 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.[40]

In the US, 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, the court found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,"[41] 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 US Supreme Court decisions in Edwards v. Aguillard and Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), 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.[31][42]

Obscure and largely discounted beliefs

Main article: Geocentric model

In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is a description of the Cosmos where Earth is at the orbital center of all celestial bodies. This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece. As such, they assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circled Earth, including the noteworthy systems of Aristotle (see Aristotelian physics) and Ptolemy.

Articles arguing that geocentrism was the biblical perspective appeared in some early creation science newsletters associated with the Creation Research Society pointing to some passages in the Bible, which, when taken literally, indicate that the daily apparent motions of the Sun and the Moon are due to their actual motions around the Earth rather than due to the rotation of the Earth about its axis for example, Joshua 10:12 where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky, and Psalms 93:1 where the world is described as immobile.[43] Contemporary advocates for such religious beliefs include Robert Sungenis, co-author of the self-published Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right (2006).[44] These people subscribe to the view that a plain reading of the Bible contains an accurate account of the manner in which the universe was created and requires a geocentric worldview. Most contemporary creationist organizations reject such perspectives.[note 1]

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 age of the universe can be taken as reliable.[46] The idea has seen some revival in the 20th century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to address the "starlight problem". The idea has been criticised as Last Thursdayism, and on the grounds that it requires a deliberately deceptive creator.

Theistic evolution

Main article: Theistic evolution

Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, is a belief that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."[47] 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.[48]

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 of the Natural History of Creation, 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.[49] When On the Origin of Species was published, the cleric Charles Kingsley wrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity."[50][51] Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature,[52][53] and the book makes several references to "creation," though he later regretted using the term rather than calling it an unknown process.[54] In America, Asa Gray argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or modus operandi, of the first cause, design,[55] and published a pamphlet defending the book in theistic terms, Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology.[50][56][57] 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.[58]

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.[59]

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 creationist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of the Book of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a 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.[60]

In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries.[61] For Roman 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."[62] 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.[63] 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 controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. George Coyne, (the 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.[64]

While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some atheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism. In fact, many modern philosophers of science,[65] including atheists,[66] 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.

Religious views


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 myth. 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. Political partisanship affecting religious belief may be a factor because political partisanship in the US is highly correlated with fundamentalist thinking, unlike in Europe.[67]

Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,[68] such as Anglicans[69] and Lutherans,[70] 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, most of the history of the Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time."[71]

Leaders of the Anglican[72] and Roman Catholic[73][74] 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,[75] 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, Philo, whose works were taken up by early Church writers, wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time.[76][77] Augustine of the late fourth century who was also a former neoplatonist argued that everything in the universe was created by God at the same moment in time (and not in six days as a literal reading of the Book of Genesis would seem to require);[78] 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.[79] In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that "new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis," but, referring to previous papal writings, he concluded that "if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God."[80]

In the US, Evangelical Christians have continued to believe in a literal Genesis. Members of evangelical Protestant (70%), Mormon (76%) and Jehovah's Witnesses (90%) denominations are the most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.[81] However, the official website of the Jehovah's Witnesses states that while Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God created everything, they do not accept creationism, believing that some creationist views conflict with the Bible.[82]

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.[83][84] They sometimes seek to ensure that their belief is taught in science classes, mainly in American schools. Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific. Many religious groups teach that God created the Cosmos. From the days of the early Christian Church Fathers there were allegorical interpretations of the Book of Genesis as well as literal aspects.[85]

Christian Science, a system of thought and practice derived from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, interprets the Book of Genesis figuratively rather than literally. It holds that the material world is an illusion, and consequently not created by God: the only real creation is the spiritual realm, of which the material world is a distorted version. Christian Scientists regard the story of the creation in the Book of Genesis as having symbolic rather than literal meaning. According to Christian Science, both creationism and evolution are false from an absolute or "spiritual" point of view, as they both proceed from a (false) belief in the reality of a material universe. However, Christian Scientists do not oppose the teaching of evolution in schools, nor do they demand that alternative accounts be taught: they believe that both material science and literalist theology are concerned with the illusory, mortal and material, rather than the real, immortal and spiritual. With regard to material theories of creation, Eddy showed a preference for Darwin's theory of evolution over others.[86]


According to Hindu creationism all species on Earth including humans have "devolved" or come down from a high state of pure consciousness. Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.[87] 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."[88] 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, the creation myths of which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the Earth.[89][90]


Islamic creationism is the belief that the universe (including humanity) was directly created by God as explained in the Qur'an. It usually views the Book of Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation myths in the Qur'an are vaguer and allow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions.[91]

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.[7]

Writing for The Boston Globe, Drake Bennett noted: "Without a Book of Genesis to account for ... Muslim creationists have little interest in proving that the age of the Earth is measured in the thousands rather than the billions of years, nor do they show much interest in the problem of the dinosaurs. And the idea that animals might evolve into other animals also tends to be less controversial, in part because there are passages of the Koran that seem to support it. But the issue of whether human beings are the product of evolution is just as fraught among Muslims."[92] However, some Muslims, such as Adnan Oktar (also known as Harun Yahya), do not agree that one species can develop from another.[93][94]

Since the 1980s, Turkey has been a site of strong advocacy for creationism, supported by American adherents.[95][96]

There are several verses in the Qur'an which some modern writers have interpreted as being compatible with the expansion of the universe, Big Bang and Big Crunch theories:[97][98][99]

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"[Quran 21:30 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]
"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come (together), in willing obedience.'"[Quran 41:11 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]
"With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space."[Quran 51:47 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]
"The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it."[Quran 21:104 (Translated by Yusuf Ali)]


The Ahmadiyya movement activey promotes evolutionary theory.[100] Ahmadis interpret scripture from the Qur'an to support the concept of macroevolution and give precedence to scientific theories. Furthermore, unlike 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.[100] 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.[101] Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has stated in his magnum opus Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth (1998) that evolution did occur but only through God being the One who brings it about. It does not occur itself, according to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.


For Orthodox Jews who seek to reconcile discrepancies between science and the creation myths in the Bible, the notion that science and the Bible should even be reconciled through traditional scientific means is questioned. To these groups, science is as true as the Torah and if there seems to be a problem, epistemological limits are to blame for apparently irreconcilable points. They point to discrepancies between what is expected and what actually is to demonstrate that things are not always as they appear. They note that even the root word for "world" in the Hebrew language—עולם (Olam)—means hidden—נעלם (Neh-Eh-Lahm). Just as they know from the Torah that God created man and trees and the light on its way from the stars in their observed state, so too can they know that the world was created in its over the six days of Creation that reflects progression to its currently-observed state, with the understanding that physical ways to verify this may eventually be identified. This knowledge has been advanced by Rabbi 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 first-century Tanna Nehunya ben HaKanah. Many kabbalists accepted the teachings of the Sefer HaTemunah, including the medieval Jewish scholar Nahmanides, his close student Isaac ben Samuel of Acre, and David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra. Other parallels are derived, among other sources, from Nahmanides, who expounds that there was a Neanderthal-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).[102][103][104][105] Reform Judaism does not take the Torah as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic or open-ended work.

Some contemporary writers such as Rabbi Gedalyah Nadel have sought to reconcile the discrepancy between the account in the Torah, and scientific findings by arguing that each day referred to in the Bible was not 24 hours, but billions of years long.[106] Others claim that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, but was deliberately made to look as if it was five billion years old, e.g. by being created with ready made fossils. The best known exponent of this approach being Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson[107] Others state that although the world was physically created in six 24 hour days, the Torah accounts can be interpreted to mean that there was a period of billions of years before the six days of creation.[108]

Bahá'í Faith

In the creation myth taught by Bahá'u'lláh, the Bahá'í Faith founder, the universe has "neither beginning nor ending," and that the component elements of the material world have always existed and will always exist.[109] With regard 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.


Views on human evolution in various countries[110][111]

Most vocal literalist creationists are from the US, and strict creationist views are much less common in other developed countries. According to a study published in Science, a survey of the US, Turkey, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[67] There seems to be no significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.[112][113]


A 2009 Nielsen poll, showed that almost a quarter of Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins." Forty-two percent believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32 percent believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God."[114]


A 2012 survey, by Angus Reid Public Opinion revealed that 61 percent of Canadians believe in evolution. The poll asked "Where did human beings come from  did we start as singular cells millions of year ago and evolve into our present form, or did God create us in his image 10,000 years ago?"[115]


In Europe, literalist creationism is more widely rejected, though regular opinion polls are not available. Most people accept that evolution is the most widely accepted scientific theory as taught in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, papal acceptance of evolutionary creationism as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people.

In the UK, a 2006 poll on the "origin and development of life", asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolutionary theory, and the rest did not know.[116][117] 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.[118] The former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.[119]

In Italy, Education Minister Letizia Moratti wanted to retire evolution from the secondary school level; after one week of massive protests, she reversed her opinion.[120][121]

There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious groups throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.[122] In response, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has released a draft report titled The dangers of creationism in education on June 8, 2007,[123] reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4, 2007.[124]

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.[125] "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.[126] Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."[127]

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.[128]

United States

Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia

According to a 2014 Gallup poll,[129] about 42% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."[129] Another 31% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,"and 19% believe that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."[129]

Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept evolution.[130][131] 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.'"[131][132]

A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the US public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[133]

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 US the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the US was Turkey (25%).[67]

According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in Creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.[134] 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).[134]

In September 2012, educator and television personality Bill Nye spoke with the Associated Press and aired his fears about acceptance of creationism, 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.[135][136][137] In February 2014, Nye defended evolution in the classroom in a debate with creationist Ken Ham on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era.[138][139][140]

Education controversies

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

In the US, 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.[42]

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:[133]
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 consensus of the scientific community.[141][142]


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.[143] 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 E. 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 Christ." The basis of this theology is Isaiah 45:15, "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."

Murphy observes that the execution of a Jewish carpenter by 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 the Apostle wrote, in Philippians 2:5-8:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Murphy concludes that,

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

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.[144]

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.[119]

The National Science Teachers Association is opposed to teaching creationism as a science,[145] as is the Association for Science Teacher Education,[146] the National Association of Biology Teachers,[147] the American Anthropological Association,[148] the American Geosciences Institute,[149] the Geological Society of America,[150] the American Geophysical Union,[151] and numerous other professional teaching and scientific societies.

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."[152]

Randy Moore and Sehoya 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."[153]

Scientific criticism

Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence, and the development of theories that yield testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is often based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts.[154] 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.[155] 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.[156][157] Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould,[158] consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called non-overlapping magisteria.[159] This view is also held by many theologians, who believe that ultimate origins and meaning are addressed by religion, but favor verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as Richard Dawkins,[160] 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.[161][162][163]


Creationism (in general)
Young Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Intelligent design
Evolutionary creationism

See also


  1. Donald B. DeYoung, for example, states that "Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the 'language of appearance,' just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate."[45]


  1. McComas 2002, p. 436
  2. Gunn 2004, p. 9, "The Concise Oxford Dictionary says that creationism is 'the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation.'"
  3. Brosseau, Olivier; Silberstein, Marc (2015), "Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s)", in Heams, Thomas; Huneman, Philippe; Lecointre, Guillaume; Silberstein., Marc, Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 881–96
  4. "creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)". Oxford Dictionaries (Definition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. OCLC 656668849. Retrieved 2014-03-05. The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
  5. Darwin, Charles (July 5, 1856). "Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D.". Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 1919. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
    • Darwin, Charles (May 31, 1863). "Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa". Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 4196. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
  7. 1 2 al-Azami, Usaama. "Muslims and Evolution in the 21st Century: A Galileo Moment?". Huffington Post Religion Blog. Retrieved 19 February 2013.
  8. 1 2 Campbell, Duncan (February 20, 2006). "Academics fight rise of creationism at universities". The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
  9. Haarsma 2010, p. 168, "Some Christians, often called 'Young Earth creationists,' reject evolution in order to maintain a semi-literal interpretation of certain biblical passages. Other Christians, called 'progressive creationists,' accept the scientific evidence for some evolution over a long history of the earth, but also insist that God must have performed some miracles during that history to create new life-forms. Intelligent design, as it is promoted in North America is a form of progressive creation. Still other Christians, called 'theistic evolutionists' or 'evolutionary creationists,' assert that the scientific theory of evolution and the religious beliefs of Christianity can both be true."
  10. Ruse, Michael (1982). "Creation Science Is Not Science" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 7 (40): 72–78.
  11. Montgomery, David R. (2012). The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood. W. W. Norton & Company.
  12. Padian, Kevin (January–April 2006). "The Dover Victory". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 26 (1-2): 49–50. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-05-06.
  13. Alters, Brian (January–April 2006). "'Ties' to Canada". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 26 (1-2): 51–52. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-05-06.
  14. Harold, Francis B.; Eve, Raymond A. (1995). Cult Archaeology and Creationism. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa.
  15. Moshenska, Gabriel. "Alternative archaeologies". In Neil Asher Silberman. The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. 1. Oxford University Press. p. 54.
  16. Pennock, Robert T. (2000). Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism. Bradford Books.
  17. Richard F. Carlson, Tremper Longman III, Science, Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins, p.25
  18. 1 2 3 4 Scott, Eugenie C. (July–August 1999). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 19 (4): 16–17, 23–25. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
  19. 1 2 Wise, Donald U. (January 2001). "Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution". Journal of Geoscience Education. Bellingham, WA: National Association of Geoscience Teachers. 49 (1): 30–35. ISSN 1089-9995. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
  20. 1 2 Ross, Marcus R. (May 2005). "Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism" (PDF). Journal of Geoscience Education. Bellingham, WA: National Association of Geoscience Teachers. 53 (3): 319–323. ISSN 1089-9995. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
  21. 1 2 Newport, Frank (December 17, 2010). "Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism". Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
  22. 2 Peter 3
  23. NAS 1999, p. R9
  24. Amicus Curiae Brief Of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies Of Science, And 7 Other Scientific Organizations at the Wayback Machine (archive index), Edwards v. Aguillard
  25. Sahotra Sarkar; Jessica Pfeifer (2006). The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. A-M. Psychology Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-415-93927-0.
  26. Okasha 2002, p. 127. Okasha's full statement is that "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham  a dishonest and misguided attempt to promote religious beliefs under the guise of science, with extremely harmful educational consequences."
  27. Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience". The Quarterly Review of Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 85 (4): 473–82. doi:10.1086/656904. PMID 21243965. Article available from Universiteit Gent
  28. Pigliucci, Massimo (2010). "Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design" (PDF). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk (PDF). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. pp. 160–86. ISBN 978-0-226-66786-7. LCCN 2009049778. OCLC 457149439.
  29. "Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
  30. "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-03-13.
  31. 1 2 3 Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" (PDF). Center for Inquiry (A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy). Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. Retrieved 2014-03-13.
  32. "The Wedge" (PDF). Seattle, WA: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 1999. Retrieved 2014-03-13.
  33. Mu, David (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Science Review, Inc. 19 (1): 22–25. Retrieved 2014-03-13. ...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.
  34. Numbers 2006
  35. Forrest & Gross 2004
  36. Pennock 2001, "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski," pp. 645–667, "Dembski chides me for never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationism'. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to 'rally the troops'. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..."
  37. Scott 2005
  38. Young, Matt; Edis, Taner (2006). Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rutgers University Press.
  39. Flank, Lenny (April 24, 2006). "Creationism/ID: A Short Legal History". Talk Reason. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
  40. Smith, Deborah (October 21, 2005). "Intelligent design not science: experts". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
  41. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). , Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.
  42. 1 2 Full text of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, dated December 20, 2005.
  43. Numbers, Ronald L. (1993) [Originally published 1992; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p. 237. ISBN 0-5200-8393-8. LCCN 93015804. OCLC 810488078.
  44. Sefton, Dru (March 30, 2006). "In this world view, the sun revolves around the earth". Times-News. Hendersonville, NC: Hendersonville Newspaper Corporation. Religion News Service. p. 5A. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
  45. DeYoung, Donald B. (November 5, 1997). "Astronomy and the Bible: Selected questions and answers excerpted from the book". Answers in Genesis. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis Ministries International. Retrieved 2013-12-01.
  46. Gosse 1857
  47. Sweet & Feist 2007, p. 48, "Evolutionary Creation (or Theistic Evolution) asserts that the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes."
  48. Rusbult, Craig (1998). "Evolutionary Creation". Ipswich, MA: American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
  49. Bowler 2003, p. 139
  50. 1 2 "Darwin and design: historical essay". Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. 2007. Retrieved 2012-04-18.
  51. Kingsley, Charles (November 18, 1859). "Kingsley, Charles to Darwin, C. R.". Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 2534. Retrieved 2010-08-11.
  52. Moore, James (September 20, 2007). "Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin". Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett (Interview). Interview with Krista Tippett. American Public Media. Retrieved 2014-03-09 via NPR.
  53. Quammen 2006, p. 119
  54. Barlow 1963, p. 207
  55. Dewey 1994, p. 27
  56. Miles, Sara Joan (September 2001). "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Ipswich, MA: American Scientific Affiliation. 53: 196–201. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
  57. Gray, Asa (1860). "Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology". The Atlantic Monthly (Reprint). Boston, MA. Archived from the original on 2009-02-20. Retrieved 2009-04-11. "Atlantic Monthly for July, August, and October, 1860, reprinted in 1861."
  58. Bowler 2003, pp. 202–08
  59. Scott 2005, pp. 62–63
  60. Moritz, Albrecht (October 31, 2006). "The Origin of Life". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
  61. Scott 1999
  62. Akin, Jimmy (January 2004). "Evolution and the Magisterium". This Rock. San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, Inc. 15 (1). ISSN 1049-4561. Archived from the original on 2007-08-04. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
  63. Guntzel, Jeff Severns (March 25, 2005). "Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias". National Catholic Reporter. Kansas City, MO: The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company. ISSN 0027-8939. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
  64. Coyne, George V. (January 30, 2006). "Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on 'Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution'". Catholic Online, LLC. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  65. Pennock 1999
  66. Bradley, Raymond (November 23, 2005). "Intelligent Design or Natural Design". Butterflies and Wheels. Seattle, WA: Ophelia Benson. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
  67. 1 2 3 Miller, Jon D.; Scott, Eugenie C.; Okamoto, Shinji (August 2006). "Public acceptance of evolution". Science. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 313 (5788): 765–66. doi:10.1126/science.1126746. PMID 16902112. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
  68. "Denominational Views". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
  69. "Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006)". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
  70. Schick, Edwin A. (1965). "Evolution". In Bodensieck, Julius. The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church. 1. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House. LCCN 64021500. OCLC 947120. Retrieved 2010-05-17. Edited for the Lutheran World Federation.
  71. "Interview: Rowan Williams". The Guardian (Transcript). London: Guardian Media Group. March 21, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
  72. Williams, Christopher (March 21, 2006). "Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution". The Register. London: Situation Publishing Limited. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  73. McDonell, Keelin (July 12, 2005). "What Catholics Think of Evolution". Slate. Washington, D.C.: The Washington Post Company. Archived from the original on 2005-07-16. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
  74. See also the article Catholic Church and evolution.
  75. Polkinghorne 1998, pp. 7–8
  76. Philo
  77. Bradshaw, Rob. "Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC  c. AD 50)". Early West Wickham, England: Steve Bradshaw. Retrieved December 21, 2011.
  78. Young, Davis A. (March 1988). "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Ipswich, MA: American Scientific Affiliation. 40 (1): 42–45. ISSN 0892-2675. Retrieved 2008-08-18.
  79. Pope Pius XII (August 12, 1950). "Humani Generis". Vatican: the Holy See (Papal encyclical). St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City: Holy See. Archived from the original on 2012-04-19. Retrieved 2011-11-08.
  80. Pope John Paul II (October 30, 1996). "Magisterium is concerned with question of evolution, for it involves conception of man". L'Osservatore Romano (Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) (44) (Weekly English ed.). Tipografia Vaticana, Vatican City: Holy See. pp. 3, 7. Retrieved 2014-03-19.
  81. "Social and Political Views". U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. 2008. p. 95. Retrieved 2014-03-19. Report 2: Religious Beliefs & Practices, Chapter 2.
  82. "Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe in Creationism?".
  83. Jackson, Wayne. "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?". Apologetics Press. Montgomery, Al. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
  84. Tobin, Paul N. (2000). "The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties". The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity. Singapore: Paul Tobin. Retrieved 2014-03-19.
  85. Forster & Marston 1999
  86. Eddy 1934, p. 547
  87. McGrath 2010, p. 140
  88. Numbers 2006, p. 420
  89. Carper & Hunt 2009, p. 167
  90. Dasgupta 1922, p. 10
  92. Bennett, Drake (October 25, 2009). "Islam's Darwin problem". The Boston Globe. Boston, MA. Archived from the original on 2009-10-30. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
  93. Irvine, Chris (September 29, 2008). "Creationist Adnan Oktar offers trillion-pound prize for fossil proof of evolution". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
  94. "Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools". The Guardian (Conferences). London: Guardian Media Group. January 7, 2004. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
  95. Edis, Taner (November–December 1999). "Cloning Creationism in Turkey". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 19 (6): 30–35. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
  96. Kaufman, Marc (November 8, 2009). "In Turkey, fertile ground for creationism". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: The Washington Post Company. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
  97. Harun Yahya (June 30, 2005). "The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy". Harun Yahya. Horsham, England: Global Publication Ltd. Co. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
  98. Bucaille 1977
  99. Abd-Allah, A. "The Qur'an, Knowledge, and Science". Compendium of Muslim Texts. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Archived from the original on 2008-11-28. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
  100. 1 2 Masood 1994, Chapter 13, "Every Wind of Doctrine"
  101. Lahaye, Ataul Wahid; Shah, Zia H. "Guided Evolution: Proof From Punctuated Equilibrium" (PDF). Al Islam. London: Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
  102. Aviezer 1990
  103. Carmell & Domb 1976
  104. Schroeder 1998
  105. Tigay, Jeffrey H. (Winter 1987–1988). "Genesis, Science, and 'Scientific Creationism'". Conservative Judaism. New York: Rabbinical Assembly; Jewish Theological Seminary of America. 40 (2): 20–27. ISSN 0010-6542. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
  106. The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006 , p. 129
  107. The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006 , p. 158
  108. The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006 , pp. 169, 170
  109. `Abdu'l-Bahá 1982, p. 220
  110. Le Page, Michael (April 19, 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist. London: Reed Business Information. 198 (2652): 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  111. Hecht, Jeff (August 19, 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?". New Scientist. London: Reed Business Information. 191 (2565): 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  112. Kahan, Dan (May 24, 2014). "Weekend update: You'd have to be science illiterate to think 'belief in evolution' measures science literacy". Cultural Cognition Project (Blog). New Haven, CT: Yale Law School. Retrieved 2015-03-23.
  113. Shtulman, Andrew (March 2006). "Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution". Cognitive Psychology. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. 52 (2): 170–94. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001. ISSN 0010-0285. Retrieved 2015-03-23.
  114. Maley, Jacqueline (December 19, 2009). "God is still tops but angels rate well". The Age. Melbourne, Australia: Fairfax Media. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  115. "Believe In Evolution: Canadians More Likely Than Americans To Endorse Evolution". HuffPost Canada. AOL. September 6, 2012. Retrieved 2012-04-28.
  116. "Britons unconvinced on evolution". BBC News. London: BBC. January 26, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  117. "BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life". Ipsos MORI. London: Ipsos MORI. January 30, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  118. "The origin of humans" (PDF). YouGov Global (Prospect Survey Results). London: YouGov Plc. November 20, 2010. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
  119. 1 2 Bates, Stephen (March 20, 2006). "Archbishop: stop teaching creationism". The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  120. "Italy Keeps Darwin in its Classrooms". Deutsche Welle. Bonn, Germany: ARD. May 3, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  121. Lorenzi, Rossella (April 28, 2004). "No evolution for Italian teens". The Scientist. London: Faculty of 1000. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  122. "In the beginning". The Economist. London: Economist Group. April 19, 2007. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2007-04-25.This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.
  123. "The dangers of creationism in education". Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. June 8, 2007. Doc. 11297. Retrieved 2014-03-22.
  124. "The dangers of creationism in education". Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Resolution). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. October 4, 2007. Resolution 1580. Archived from the original on 2014-03-07. Retrieved 2014-03-22. Paras. 13, 18
  125. de Quetteville, Harry (September 9, 2004). "Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved January 24, 2012.
  126. "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension". BBC News. London: BBC. September 9, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
  127. "'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits". BBC News. London: BBC. September 16, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  128. "And finally...". Warsaw Business Journal. Warsaw, Poland: Valkea Media. December 18, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  129. 1 2 3 Newport, Frank (November 19, 2004). "In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins". Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 2014-05-10.
  130. Newport, Frank (Host) (June 11, 2007). Evolution Beliefs. The Gallup Poll Daily Briefing. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
  131. 1 2 Robinson, Bruce A. (November 1995). "Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation". Kingston, Canada: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 2007-11-11.
  132. Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (June 29, 1987). "Keeping God Out of the Classroom" (PDF). Newsweek. New York: Newsweek LLC: 23–24. ISSN 0028-9604. Retrieved 2015-09-25.
  133. 1 2 "Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public Opinion" (PDF). People For the American Way. Washington, D.C.: People For the American Way. March 2000. Retrieved 2014-03-28.
  134. 1 2 "Fox News Poll: Creationism". Fox News. News Corporation. September 7, 2011. Retrieved 2011-09-22.
  135. Luvan, Dylan (September 24, 2012). "Bill Nye Warns: Creation Views Threaten US Science". Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
  136. Fowler, Jonathan; Rodd, Elizabeth (August 23, 2012). "Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children". YouTube. New York: Big Think. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
  137. Deiviscio, Jeffrey (November 3, 2014). "A Fight for the Young Creationist Mind: In 'Undeniable,' Bill Nye Speaks Evolution Directly to Creationists". New York Times. Retrieved November 4, 2014.
  138. Boyle, Alan (February 5, 2014). "Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate". Retrieved 2014-02-06.
  139. Kopplin, Zack (February 4, 2014). "Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists". The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 2014-02-06.
  140. Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham on YouTube (program begins at 13:14).
  141. "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-02-21. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
  142. Delgado, Cynthia (July 28, 2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record. Bethesda, MD: United States Department of Health and Human Services; National Institutes of Health. ISSN 1057-5871. Retrieved 2014-03-31. "...While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory."  Brian Alters
  143. "Statements from Religious Organizations". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
  144. Murphy, George L. (2002). "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem". Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology. Chicago, IL: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Division for Ministry. IV (2). OCLC 52753579. Retrieved 2014-03-31. Reprinted with permission.
  145. "NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution". National Science Teachers Association. 2013.
  146. "ASTE Position Statement on Teaching Biological Evolution". Association for Science Teacher Education. 2015.
  147. "NABT Position Statement on Teaching Evolution". National Association of Biology Teachers. 2011.
  148. "Statement on Evolution and Creationism". American Anthropological Association. 2000.
  149. "American Geological Institute Position on Teaching Evolution". American Geoscience Institute. 2000.
  150. "Position Statement: Teaching Evolution". Geological Society of America. 2012.
  151. "AGU Position Statement on Teaching Creationism as Science". American Geophysical Institute. 1998.
  152. "American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. July 23, 2010. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
  153. Moore, Randy; Cotner, Sehoya (May 2009). "The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism?". BioScience. Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. 59 (5): 429–35. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.5.10. ISSN 0006-3568. JSTOR 25502451.
  154. NAS 2008, p. 12
  155. NAS 2008, p. 10, "In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations."
  156. Isaak, Mark, ed. (2006). "An Index to Creationist Claims". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2012-12-09.
  157. Futuyma 2005
  158. Gould 1999
  159. Gould, Stephen Jay (March 1997). "Nonoverlapping Magisteria". Natural History. Research Triangle Park, NC: Natural History Magazine, Inc. 106 (3): 16–22. ISSN 0028-0712. Retrieved 2014-03-31.
  160. Dawkins 2006, p. 5
  161. "Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design". Royal Society. London: Royal Society. April 11, 2006. Archived from the original on 2008-06-02. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
  162. Matsumura, Molleen; Mead, Louise (February 14, 2001). "Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2008-11-04. Updated 2007-07-31.
  163. Myers, PZ (June 18, 2006). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula (Blog). ScienceBlogs LLC. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  164. "About Old Earth Ministries?". Old Earth Ministries. Springfield, OH: Old Earth Ministries. Retrieved 2014-03-09.


Further reading

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Creationism.
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Creationism
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/2/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.