Creationism: Difference between revisions
Revert to revision 103278061 dated 2007-01-26 01:21:46 by Orangemarlin using popups |
|||
Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
The views of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion, on teaching creationism are also the same as Williams.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html '''The Guardian''', Archbishop: Stop teaching creationism, Williams backs science over Bible] See transcript of Guardian interview for primary source</ref> |
The views of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion, on teaching creationism are also the same as Williams.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html '''The Guardian''', Archbishop: Stop teaching creationism, Williams backs science over Bible] See transcript of Guardian interview for primary source</ref> |
||
In "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the common 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." This verse inspired [[Blaise Pascal]] to write, "What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals himself." In the ''Heidelberg Disputation'', [[Martin Luther]] referred to the same Biblical verse to propose his "theology of the cross": "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened ... He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross." |
In "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the common 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." This verse inspired [[Blaise Pascal]] to write, "What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals himself." In the ''Heidelberg Disputation'', [[Martin Luther]] referred to the same Biblical verse to propose his "theology of the cross": "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened ... He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross." |
Revision as of 18:09, 26 January 2007
- "Creationism" can also refer to origin beliefs in general, or to an alternative of traducianism.
Creation refers to the concept that all humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was created by a deity (often referred to as God).
Strictly, Creationism is a philosophical perspective that presupposes the existence of a supernatural creator.[1] Biblical creationism is the belief in literal interpretations of Genesis, with the name most often equated with flood geologists.[2] The term "strict creationism" is sometimes used to avoid confusion with the more general concept of creation held by those whose faith accommodates theistic evolution.[3] Similarly to avoid confusion, the term "creationism" is now rarely used in the general sense.[citation needed]
In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be most strongly associated with the brand of Christian fundamentalism in which the books of Genesis are held to provide absolute truths about the creation of kinds of life and often, in more literal faiths, the age of the universe and of the earth. It therefore conflicts with the more allegorical theological interpretations of the mainstream churches. "Creationism" typically connotes a religious, political, and social campaign— for instance, in education—to assert the dominance or widespread acceptance of a spiritual view of nature and of humanity's place in it. Creationism is also separate from, and should not be confused with the separate Christian tradition of "Creation Spirituality" which draws upon the theology of Matthew Fox.
Those who hold strict creationist views reject scientific theories that contradict their understanding of their religious texts. Most notable is the rejection of the scientific consensus[4][5][6][7] on evolution and common descent by most creationists. They often also reject the scientific consensus regarding the geologic history of the Earth, formation of the solar system, and origin of the universe.
Part of a series on | ||||
Creationism | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
History | ||||
Types | ||||
Biblical cosmology | ||||
Creation science | ||||
Rejection of evolution by religious groups | ||||
Religious views | ||||
|
||||
Overview
The term creationism is most often used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the book of Genesis (for both Jews and Christians) or the Qur'an (for Muslims). The terms creationism and creationist have become particularly associated with beliefs about the time frame of creation, conflicting with mainstream churches, and also with scientific understanding of Earth's history, particularly evolution. This conflict is most prevalent in the United States, where there has been sustained creation-evolution controversy in the public arena, centering over the issue of the science curriculum in public schools.
In a Christian context, many creationists adopt a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation narratives, and say that the Bible provides a factual account, given from the perspective of the only one who was there at the time to witness it: God. This literal interpretation requires the harmonisation of the two creation stories, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25, which require interpretation to be consistent [5][6]. They seek to ensure that what is taught in science classes in schools is compatible with what they believe (see Young Earth Creationism, for example). Opponents reject the claim that the literalistic Biblical view meets the criteria required to be considered scientific.
Almost all churches teach that God created the cosmos. Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches, such as Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran, reject reading the Bible as though it could shed light on the physics of creation instead of the spiritual meaning of creation. According to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, "[for] most of the history of 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. "[8]
The Roman Catholic Church now explicitly accepts the theory of Evolution [9], as do Anglican scholars of which Rev Dr John Polkinghorne FRS is a prime example, arguing that evolution is one of the principles through which God created living beings. Earlier examples of this attitude include Frederick Temple, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley who were enthusiastic supporters of Darwin's theories on publication[10], 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, which assumes that Genesis is a poetic work, and that just as human understanding of God increases gradually over time, so does the understanding of His creation. In fact, both Jews and Christians have been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. Two notable examples are Saint Augustine (4th century) that, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, (and not in seven days as a plain account of Genesis would require) [11]; and the 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time. [12]
However, many believers in a literal interpretation argue that once a poetic view of the creation account in Genesis is adopted, one begins to question the historicity of other central topics of that book.
Political context
In the secular sense, "creationism" refers to a political doctrine which asserts the validity and superiority of a particular religiously-based origin belief over those of other belief systems, including those in particular espoused through secular or scientific rationale (see Creation-evolution controversy). The meaning of the term "creationism" depends upon the context wherein it is used, as it refers to a particular origin belief within a particular political culture.
In the United States, more so than in the rest of the world, creationism has become centered in political controversy, in particular over public education, and whether teaching evolution in science classes conflicts with the creationist worldview. Currently, the controversy has come in the form of whether advocates of the Intelligent Design movement who wish to "Teach the Controversy" in science classes have overstepped the boundaries of separation of church and state.[13]
Creation Science is a branch of creationism that aims to reconcile modern science with a creationist worldview. Advocates of Creation Science believe that scientific evidence best supports the Biblical account of creation. The scientific status of Creation Science is disputed by most of the scientific community as pseudoscience because Creation Science begins with a desired answer and attempts to interpret all evidence to fit in with this predetermined conclusion. According to the methodological demarcation principle of the rationalistic falsificationism, justified by Karl Popper as a philosophy of science and broadly supported by scientists, scientific theories need to be falsifiable. Opponents of Creation Science see this as in direct conflict with the assumption that the literal interpretation of the Bible is absolutely true and cannot be refuted even in principle.
The most widely accepted postmodern irrationalistic philosophy of science was proposed by Thomas Kuhn and contrasts this rationalistic view. He held that only such theories are accepted (by paradigm shift) that show a superior ability to solve problems. The scientific consensus is that this is not the case for either creation science or intelligent design[citation needed]. Yet, Kuhn's philosophy was partly welcomed and embraced by creation science and intelligent design proponents, since it lacks universal methodological rules that could rule out their views from science[citation needed]. This intentional and inherent provision has been a frequent cause of attack and criticism on Kuhn's philosophy, especially by those opposing relativism. (See Relevance of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for details.)
History
The history of creationism is tied to the history of religions. Creationism in the West primarily had some of its earliest roots in Judaism. For example, Abraham ibn Ezra's (c. 1089–1164) commentary on Genesis is greatly esteemed in traditional rabbinical circles and he was a creationist.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, naturalists challenged the Biblical account of creation as to be in conflict with empirical observations of natural history from scientific inquiry. Creationists consider their primary source to be the ancient Hebrew text describing creation according to Genesis. While the term creationism was not in common use before the late 19th century they see themselves as being the philosophical and religious offspring of the traditions that held that text sacred.
The biblical account of history, cosmology and natural history was believed by Jews, Christians and Muslims. But, both Jews and Christians have been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of an historical description) long before the beginning of modern history. [14][15] Most people in Europe, the Middle East and other areas of the Islamic world believed that a supreme being had existed and would exist eternally, and that everything else in existence had been created by this supreme being, known variously as God, YHWH, or Allah. This belief was based on the authority of Genesis, the Qur'an, and other ancient histories, which were held to be historically accurate and no systematic or scientific inquiry was made into the validity of the text.
Byzantine-Greek and Islamic scholars preserved ancient Greek texts and developed their ideas, leading to the Renaissance which brought a questioning of Biblical cosmology. With the Enlightenment a variety of scientific and philosophical movements challenged traditional viewpoints in Europe and the Americas. Natural history developed with the aim of understanding God's plan, but found contradictions, which in revolutionary France were interpreted as science supporting evolution. Elsewhere, particularly in England, clerical naturalists sought explanations compatible with interpretations of biblical texts, anticipating many later creationist arguments.
While the concept of an ancient earth became widely accepted, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection directly challenged belief in God's immediate involvement in creating species, and in response Creationism arose as a distinct movement aiming to justify and reassert the literal accuracy of sacred texts, particularly the words of Genesis.
The history of creationism has relevance to the creation-evolution controversy. Proponents of creationism claim that it has a rich heritage grounded in ancient recorded histories and consistent with scientific observation. Opponents describe creationism's offspring, creation science and intelligent design, as pseudosciences and argue that these are reactionary movements against science.
Types of creationism
Creationism covers a spectrum of beliefs which have been categorized into the broad types listed below. As a matter of popular belief and characterizations by the media, most people labeled "creationists" are those who object to specific parts of science for religious reasons, though many (if not most) people who believe in a divine act of creation do not categorically reject those parts of science.
Young Earth creationism
The belief that the Earth was created by God within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in Genesis, within the approximate timeframe of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). (They may or may not believe that the Universe is the same age.) It rejects not only radiometric and isochron dating of the age of the Earth, arguing that they are based on debatable assumptions, but also approaches such as ice core dating and dendrochronology. Instead, it interprets the geologic record largely as a result of a global flood. This view is held by many Protestant Christians in the USA, and by many Haredi Jews. It is also estimated that 47% of Americans hold this view, and a little under 10% of Christian colleges teach it[16]. For Christian groups promoting this view, see the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, California, USA, and the Creation Research Society (CRS), Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA. Answers in Genesis (AIG) Ministries based in the Greater Cincinnati area is currently constructing the first Creation Museum.
Because Young Earth creationists believe in the literal truth of the description in Genesis of divine creation of every "kind" of plant and creature during a week about 6,000 years ago, they dispute parts of evolution (specifically universal common descent) which describes all species developing from a common ancestor, independent of divine intervention, by gene mutation and natural selection, over a much longer time.
Modern geocentrism
The view that God recently created a spherical world, and placed it in the center of the universe. The Sun, planets and everything else in the universe revolve around it.
Omphalos hypothesis
The Omphalos hypothesis argues that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.[17] The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that appears to originate in far-off stars and galaxies.
Creation science
The technical arm of the creationist movement, most adherents to creation science believe that God created the Earth only recently, and the scientific evidence supports their interpretation of scripture. Various claims of these creation scientists include such ideas as creationist cosmologies which accommodate a universe on the order of thousands of years old, explanations for the fossil record as a record of the destruction of the global flood recorded in Genesis (see flood geology), and explanations for the present diversity as a result of rapid degradation of the perfect genomes God placed in "created kinds" (see creation biology).
Old Earth creationism
The view that the physical universe was created by God, but that the creation event of Genesis is not to be taken strictly literally. This group generally believes that the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but that details of the evolutionary theory are questionable.
Old-Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:
Gap creationism
Also called "Restitution creationism" this is the view that life was immediately created on a pre-existing old Earth. This theory is based on letting the Bible translate itself. Taking the English words for formless and void back to the original Hebrew, for example, and studying other places these Hebrew words were used in the old testament, it is found that the original hebrew words denote waste and ruin. Genesis 1:1-2 is consequently interpreted "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Creation in eternity past.) Now the earth became waste and ruin (its end, ruin.), darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Consequently, the six days of creation start sometime after the Earth became waste and ruin, and the time before this was "the world that then was" mentioned in 2Pe3:3-7.Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the help page). Discoveries of Fossils and ruins older than about 6000 years are generally ascribed to have come from this "world that then was." These views became possible 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
The view that the "six days" of Genesis are not ordinary twenty-four-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").
Progressive creationism
The view that species have changed or evolved in a process continuously guided by God, with various ideas as to how the process operates (often leaving room for God's direct intervention at key moments in Earth/life's history). This view accepts most of modern physical science including the age of the earth, but rejects much of modern evolutionary biology or looks to it for evidence that evolution by natural selection alone is incorrect. This view can be, and often is, held in conjunction with other Old-earth views such as Day-age creationism or framework/metaphoric/poetic views.
Theistic evolution
Also known as "evolutionary creationism", this is the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of modern scientific theories, including specifically evolution. It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, and can synthesize with gap or day-age creationism. Most adherents consider that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description. It can still be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, but in the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. George Coyne, (Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):
- ...in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God.[18]
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[19], including atheists,[20] 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. Among other things, it means that science does not deal with the question of the existence of a Creator, and argues neither for nor against it.
Many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all, while on the other hand many scientists support such faiths which allow a voice to their spiritual side.
Neo-Creationism
Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a philosophy. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the debate before the public. One of its principal claims is that ostensibly objective orthodox science is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion. Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements. This effectively excludes religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe. Neo-Creationists also argue that science, as an "atheistic enterprise", is at the root of many of contemporary society's ills (social unrest, family breakdown). The most recognized form of Neo-Creationism in the United States is the Intelligent Design movement. Unlike their philosophical forebears, Neo-Creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such 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", which generally is meant to refer to evolution.
Intelligent design
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that the complex features and characteristics of living things are better explained as having had an intelligent origin rather than being a product of the processes of evolution and natural selection. Its proponents, many of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a literalist Christian think tank, claim that intelligent design is an alternative scientific theory that stands on equal footing with current scientific explanations for the origin of life. ID could be considered a re-branding of creationism in an attempt to get it into U.S. public schools; certainly the Discovery Institute emphasizes changing public curricula. It is worth noting that in Australia, when the notion of ID being taught in science classes was raised by the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson, there was a public outcry. The minister quickly conceded that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes. [21] In the US, public schools are not permitted to provide religious instruction.
Other religious creationist movements
There are other creationist movements rooted in other religious traditions. Islamic creationism is a growing movement, since literal interpretation of the Koran conflicts with evolution. Hindu creationism, which is often connected to Hindu nationalist movements, is another stream of creationism that is striving to make its influence felt in the Western world, as well as in India. Since Judaism uses the same Genesis text as Christianity, it is interesting to examine the Jewish response to evolution.
Jewish creationism
Judaism has a continuum of views about creation, the origin of life and the role of evolution in the formation of species. The major Jewish denominations, including many Orthodox Jewish groups, accept evolutionary creationism or theistic evolution. Reform and Conservative Judaism do 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 to the fact that the even root word for "world" in the Hebrew language — עולם (oh•luhm) — means hidden. 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 this. 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. Other interesting parallels are brought down from, among other sources, Nachmanides, who expounds that there was a Neanderthal-like species with which Adam mated (he did this long before Neanderthals had even been discovered scientifically).[22][23][24][25]
Christian God as absolute origin
Nearly all denominations of Christianity assert that God is the origin, the first cause. The Roman Catholic Church holds as an unchangeable tenet of Christian faith, that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Here, creation is described as an absolute beginning, which includes the assertion that the very existence of the universe is contingent upon a necessary higher being, God, who is not Himself created. Therefore the doctrine of biblical creation places the knowledge of God central in the pursuit of the knowledge of anything, for everything comes from God. Nevertheless, this view does not mandate the concept of separate human creation; it says nothing about the mechanism by which any thing was created.
Prevalence of creationism
United States
According to a 2006 Gallup poll,[26] about 46% of Americans believe in strict creationism, concurring with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," and 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution. Only 13% believe that humans evolved over millions of years, without any supernatural intervention. Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22% believe in strict creationism.[26]
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 ascribed to Biblically literal creationism."[27][28]
In 2000, a poll by the left wing [29] think-tank People For the American Way [30] estimated that:
- 20% of Americans believe public schools should teach evolution only;
- 17% of Americans believe that only evolution should be taught in science classes — religious explanations should be taught in another class;
- 29% of Americans believe that Creationism should be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory;
- 13% of Americans believe that Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class;
- 16% of Americans believe that only Creationism should be taught;
According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult 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 (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). [31] (See the chart)
Less-direct anecdotal evidence of the popularity of creationism is reflected in the response of IMAX theaters to the availability of Volcanoes of the Deep Sea, an IMAX film which makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes. The film's distributor reported that the only U.S. states with theaters which chose not to show the film were Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina:
- "We've got to pick a film that's going to sell in our area. If it's not going to sell, we're not going to take it," said the director of an IMAX theater in Charleston that is not showing the movie. "Many people here believe in creationism, not evolution." [32]
The western world outside the United States
Most vocal strict creationists are from the United States, and strict creationist views are much less common elsewhere in the western world.
According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian Young Earth Creationists claimed that “five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.” The documentary further states that “Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement.” Taking these claims at face value, Young Earth Creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries.
In Europe, strict creationism is a less well-defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available. However, evolution is taught as scientific fact in most schools. In countries with a Roman Catholic majority, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. In the United Kingdom the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (previously the Vardy Foundation), which runs three government-funded 13 to 19 schools in the north of England (out of several thousand in the country) and plans to open several more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid “faith positions”. One exam board (OCR) also specifically mentions and deals with creationism in its biology syllabus [33]. However, this deals with it as a historical belief and addresses hostility towards evolution rather than promoting it as an alternative to naturalistic evolution. Mainstream scientific accounts are still expressed as fact. In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.[34].
According to a study published in Science, a survey over the United States, Japan and Europe showed that public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[31] (See the chart)
Of particular note for Eastern Europe, Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for one week in 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Čolić, only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.[35] "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. [36] Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government." [37] 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 however opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.[38]
In the United Kingdom, it is notable that The Archbishop of Canterbury, and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, Rowan Williams views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake. [39]. 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 evolution theory and the rest did not know. The poll had the effect of reinforcing a culture war false dichotomy on the subject in an attempt by the news organization to demonstrate the extent of the controversy. As the poll lacked nuanced survey techniques and equivocated on origin definitions as well as forced participants to make choices as though there were only three options, its results do not necessarily indicate the views of the general public concerning mainstream science or religious alternatives.[40][41]
Criticism of creationism
The Christian critique of creationism
In March 2006, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the leader of the world's Anglicans, stated his discomfort about teaching creationism, saying that creationism was "a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories." He also said: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."
The views of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion, on teaching creationism are also the same as Williams.[42]
In "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem", George Murphy argues against the common 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." This verse inspired Blaise Pascal to write, "What meets our eyes denotes neither a total absence nor a manifest presence of the divine, but the presence of a God who conceals himself." In the Heidelberg Disputation, Martin Luther referred to the same Biblical verse to propose his "theology of the cross": "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened ... He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross."
Luther opposes his theology of the cross to what he called the "theology of glory":
- A theologian of glory does not recognize, along with the Apostle, the crucified and hidden God alone [I Cor. 2:2]. He sees and speaks of God's glorious manifestation among the heathen, how his invisible nature can be known from the things which are visible [Cf. Rom. 1:20] and how he is present and powerful in all things everywhere.
For Murphy, Creationists are modern-day theologians of glory. Following Luther, Murphy argues that a true Christian cannot discover God from clues in creation, but only from the crucified Christ.
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.[43]
Scientific critique of creationism
Creationism, as religion, is not within the mainstream scope of scholarly scientific comment. Most scientists, by consensus, reject the claim that creationism meets the criteria to be taught as a science[44]. For a discussion of the conflict between the beliefs of Creationists and the consensus of the scientific community see creation-evolution controversy.
See also
Citations
- ^ Hayward 1998, p. 11
- ^ Numbers 1992, p. xi, 299 , Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism by Philip Kitcher
- ^ Hayward 1998, p. 11
- ^ http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298
- ^ National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
- ^ 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)
- ^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
- ^ Archbishop of Canterbury, Transcript of interview with the Guardian
- ^ see eg John Paul II address here [1]
- ^ see eg John Polkinghorne's Science and Theology pp6-7
- ^ http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html 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
- ^ http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html The Works of Philo Judaeus, Chapter 2, translated by Charles Duke Yonge
- ^ Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005
- ^ Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
- ^ Early Christian Writings
- ^ Creation crisis in Christian colleges
- ^ Gosse, Henry Philip, 1857. Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. J. Van Voorst, London
- ^ http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504
- ^ 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)
- ^ Butterflies and wheels article by Raymond Bradley, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy in New Zealand.
- ^ [2]
- ^ Aviezer, Nathan. In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science. Ktav, 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0-88125-328-6
- ^ 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
- ^ Schroeder, Gerald L. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom Broadway Books, 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X
- ^ Jeffrey H. Tigay, Genesis, Science, and "Scientific Creationism", Conservative Judaism, Vol. 40(2), Winter 1987/1988, p.20-27, The Rabbinical Assembly
- ^ a b See Americans Still Hold Faith In Divine Creation.
- ^ "Keeping God Out of the Classroom". Newsweek. June 29, 1987. p. 23.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm US poll results - "Public beliefs about evolution and creation", religioustolerance.org
- ^ See [3].
- ^ Template:PDFlink
- ^ a b "Public Acceptance of Evolution". Science. 313 (5788): 765–766. 11 August 2006. doi:10.1126/science.1126746.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Evolution Reference Hurts Volcano Film
- ^ Exam board brings creationism into science class
- ^ We put the clock back a 1000 years (German language)
- ^ Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools
- ^ Serbia reverses Darwin suspension
- ^ 'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits
- ^ "And finally...", Warsaw Business Journal, 18 December 2006.
- ^ [4]
- ^ Britons unconvinced on evolution
- ^ BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life
- ^ The Guardian, Archbishop: Stop teaching creationism, Williams backs science over Bible See transcript of Guardian interview for primary source
- ^ Murphy, George L., 2002, "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem," in Covalence: the Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science, and Technology
- ^ http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298
References
Additional References
- Ronald L. Numbers: The Creationists (University of California Press, 25. November 1993), 458pp, ISBN 0-520-08393-8
- Anderson, Bernhard W. (editor) Creation in the Old Testament (ISBN 0-8006-1768-1)
- Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible (ISBN 1-59752-042-X)
- Ian Barbour When Science Meets Religion, 2000, Harper SanFrancisco
- Ian Barbour Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, 1997, Harper SanFrancisco.
- Bradshaw, Robert I., "The Early Church & the Age of the Earth"
- Stephen Jay Gould Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the fullness of life, Ballantine Books, 1999
- Scott, Eugenie C., 1999 (Jul/Aug). The creation/evolution continuum. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 19(4): 16-17,21-23.
Further reading
- Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah, Tikkun, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 66-73
- Aryeh Kaplan, Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View, Ktav, NJ, in association with the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, NY, 1993
External links
- CreationOnTheWeb A creation website for Creation Ministries International, an apologetics ministry that supports a 6-day biblical creation worldview
- Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Creationism
- How creationism works
- Muslim viewpoint
- Darwinism Refuted
- Creation and Evolution Both? Examines whether Biblical creation and neo-darwinistic evolution can be reconciled.
- Evolution, Creationism & ID Timeline Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate
- Evolution and Creationism. A Guide for Museum Docents (PDF)
- What is creationism? from talk.origins
- The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie Scott.
- Armies of the Night by Isaac Asimov.
- Workers have stake in defending science a materialist statement on creationism by The Militant, 2005.
- Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham Leading scientists still reject God in Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691 (1998), p. 313. Online at Freethought-web.org
- Creationism: The Hindu View
Organizations
Talk.origins maintains an extensive list of general links relevant to creationism and a full list of creationist websites. The following are links to the main organizations espousing a variety of viewpoints:
Young Earth Creationism
- In the Beginning - Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood By Walt Brown
- Answers in Genesis A group promoting Young-Earth Creationism.
- Creation Ministries International formerly Answers in Genesis. Headquarters in Australia
- The Biblical Calendar of History
- Institute for Creation Research "A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry"
- The Creation Research Society
- The True.Origin Archive
- CreationWiki
Old Earth Creationism
- Reasons to Believe led by Hugh Ross
- Answers In Creation led by Greg Neyman
Intelligent design
Evolutionary creationism
Evolution
- Foundation For Reason And Science
- talk.origins Archive
- National Center for Science Education
- Evolution Sciences versus Doctrines of Creationism and Intelligent Design A pro-evolution or anti-creationism link directory
- The EvoWiki