Creationism

"Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to an unrelated concept about the origin of the soul.

For the movement in Spanish literature, see Creationism (literature movement).

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.^[1][2] In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views,^[3][4] which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena.^[5][6]

The term creationism most often refers to belief in special creation; the claim that the universe and lifeforms were created as they exist today by divine action, and that the only true explanations are those which are compatible with a Christian fundamentalist literal interpretation of the creation myth found in the Bible's Genesis creation narrative.^[7] Since the 1970s, the most common form of this has been Young Earth creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science. From the 18th century onward, Old Earth creationism accepted geological time harmonized with Genesis through gap or day-age theory, while supporting anti-evolution. Modern old-Earth creationists support progressive creationism and continue to reject evolutionary explanations.^[8] Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligent design and neo-creationism.^[9][10]

Mainline Protestants and the Catholic Church reconcile modern science with their faith in Creation through forms of theistic evolution which hold that God purposefully created through the laws of nature, and accept evolution. Some groups call their belief evolutionary creationism.^[5] Less prominently, there are also members of the Islamic^[11][12] and Hindu^[13] faiths who are creationists. Use of the term "creationist" in this context dates back to Charles Darwin's unpublished 1842 sketch draft for what became On the Origin of Species,^[14] and he used the term later in letters to colleagues.^[15] In 1873, Asa Gray published an article in The Nation saying a "special creationist" who held that species "were supernaturally originated just as they are, by the very terms of his doctrine places them out of the reach of scientific explanation."^[16]

Biblical basis

The basis for many creationists' beliefs is a literal or quasi-literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. The Genesis creation narratives (Genesis 1–2) describe how God brings the Universe into being in a series of creative acts over six days and places the first man and woman (Adam and Eve) in the Garden of Eden. This story is the basis of creationist cosmology and biology. The Genesis flood narrative (Genesis 6–9) tells how God destroys the world and all life through a great flood, saving representatives of each form of life by means of Noah's Ark. This forms the basis of creationist geology, better known as flood geology.

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]

Types

To counter the common misunderstanding that the creation–evolution controversy was a simple dichotomy of views, with "creationists" set against "evolutionists", Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education produced a diagram and description of a continuum of religious views as a spectrum ranging from extreme literal biblical creationism to materialist evolution, grouped under main headings. This was used in public presentations, then published in 1999 in Reports of the NCSE.^[18] Other versions of a taxonomy of creationists were produced,^[19] and comparisons made between the different groupings.^[20] In 2009 Scott produced a revised continuum taking account of these issues, emphasizing that intelligent design creationism overlaps other types, and each type is a grouping of various beliefs and positions. The revised diagram is labelled to shows a spectrum relating to positions on the age of the Earth, and the part played by special creation as against evolution. This was published in the book Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction,^[21] and the NCSE website rewritten on the basis of the book version.^[8]

The main general types are listed below.

Comparison of major creationist views

	Humanity	Biological species	Earth	Age of Universe
Young Earth creationism	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	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 do 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

Main article: Young Earth creationism

 

The Creation Museum is a young Earth creationism museum run by Answers in Genesis (AiG) in Petersburg, Kentucky, United States.

 

The ICR Discovery Center for Science & Earth History is a young Earth creationist museum run by Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in Dallas, Texas, United States.

Young Earth creationists such as Ken Ham and Doug Phillips believe that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, with a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies. 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. Young Earth creationism gives 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.^{[citation needed]}

The Christian organizations Answers in Genesis (AiG), Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society (CRS) promote young Earth creationism in the United States. Carl Baugh's Creation Evidence Museum in Texas, United States AiG's Creation Museum and Ark Encounter in Kentucky, United States were opened to promote young Earth creationism. Creation Ministries International promotes young Earth views in Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

Among 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.^[8]

Old Earth creationism itself comes in at least three types:^[8]

Gap creationism

Main article: Gap creationism

Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or the Gap Theory) is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-yom creation period, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. 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 Genesis creation narrative, (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.^[22][23][24]

Some^[which?] 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 3:3–6.^[25] 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.^[26]

Day-age creationism

Main article: Day-age creationism

Day-age creationism, a type of old Earth creationism, is a metaphorical interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (from thousands to billions of years). The Genesis account is then reconciled with the age of the Earth. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists, who accept the scientific consensus on evolution, and progressive creationists, who reject it. The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is also used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day.

The day-age theory attempts to reconcile the Genesis creation narrative and modern science by asserting that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time (as day-age implies, the "days" each lasted an age). According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" may be paralleled to the scientific consensus for the age of the earth and the universe.

Progressive creationism

Main article: Progressive creationism

Progressive creationism is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, some tenets of biology such as microevolution as well as archaeology to make its case. In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed."^[27]

The view rejects macroevolution, claiming it is biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record,^[28] as well as rejects the concept of common descent from a last universal common ancestor. Thus the evidence for macroevolution is claimed to be false, but microevolution is accepted as a genetic parameter designed by the Creator into the fabric of genetics to allow for environmental adaptations and survival. Generally, it is viewed by proponents as a middle ground between literal creationism and evolution. 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^{[29][30][31][32][33][excessive citations]} 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 "baramins" due to mutations.

Neo-creationism

Main article: Neo-creationism

Neo-creationism is a pseudoscientific movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.^[34][35][36]

One of the principal claims of neo-creationism propounds that ostensibly objective orthodox science, with a foundation in naturalism, is actually a dogmatically atheistic religion.^[37] Its proponents argue that the scientific method excludes certain explanations of phenomena, particularly where they point towards supernatural elements, thus effectively excluding religious insight from contributing to understanding the universe. This leads to an open and often hostile opposition to what neo-creationists term "Darwinism", which they generally mean to refer to evolution, but which they may extend to include such concepts as abiogenesis, stellar evolution and the Big Bang theory.

Unlike their philosophical forebears, neo-creationists largely do not believe in many of the traditional cornerstones of creationism such as a young Earth, or in a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible.

Intelligent design

Main article: Intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view^[38][39] 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."^[40] All of its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute,^[41] 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.^[42][43] It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,^{[19][20][44][45][excessive citations]} and is sometimes referred to as "intelligent design creationism."^{[8][42][46][47][48][49][excessive citations]}

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.^[50] 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.^[51]

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,"^[52] 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.^[42][53]

Geocentrism

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 10:12–13 where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky, and Psalms 93:1 where the world is described as immobile.^[54] Contemporary advocates for such religious beliefs include Robert Sungenis, co-author of the self-published Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right (2006).^[55] 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]}

Omphalos hypothesis

Main article: Omphalos hypothesis

The Omphalos hypothesis is one attempt to reconcile the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, which implies that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.^[57] It is based on the religious belief that the universe was created by a divine being, within the past six to ten thousand years (in keeping with flood geology), and that the presence of objective, verifiable evidence that the universe is older than approximately ten millennia is due to the creator introducing false evidence that makes the universe appear significantly older.

The idea was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be functional God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with fully grown hair, fingernails, and navels^[58] (ὀμφαλός omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and all living creatures with fully formed evolutionary features, etc..., and that, therefore, no empirical evidence about the age of the Earth or universe can be taken as reliable.

Various supporters of Young Earth creationism have given different explanations for their belief that the universe is filled with false evidence of the universe's age, including a belief that some things needed to be created at a certain age for the ecosystems to function, or their belief that the creator was deliberately planting deceptive evidence. 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."^[59] 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.^[60]

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.^[61] When On the Origin of Species was published, the cleric Charles Kingsley wrote of evolution as "just as noble a conception of Deity."^[62][63] Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature,^[64][65] and the book makes several references to "creation," though he later regretted using the term rather than calling it an unknown process.^[66] In America, Asa Gray argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or modus operandi, of the first cause, design,^[67] and published a pamphlet defending the book in theistic terms, Natural Selection not inconsistent with Natural Theology.^[62][68][69] 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.^[70]

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.^[71]

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.^[72]

In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries.^[73] 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."^[74] 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.^[75] Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine laws govern formation of species, though many creationists (in the strict sense) would deny that the position is creationism at all. In the creation–evolution controversy, its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. This sentiment was expressed by Fr. George Coyne, (the 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.^[76]

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,^[77] including atheists,^[78] 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

There are also non-Christian forms of creationism,^[79] notably Islamic creationism^[80] and Hindu creationism.^[81]

Baháʼí Faith

Main article: Baháʼí Faith and science § Creation

In the creation myth taught by Bahá'u'lláh, the Baháʼí 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.^[82] 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.

Buddhism

See also: Creator in Buddhism

Buddhism denies a creator deity and posits that mundane deities such as Mahabrahma are sometimes misperceived to be a creator.^[83] While Buddhism includes belief in divine beings called devas, it holds that they are mortal, limited in their power, and that none of them are creators of the universe.^[84] In the Saṃyutta Nikāya, the Buddha also states that the cycle of rebirths stretches back hundreds of thousands of eons, without discernible beginning.^[85]

Major Buddhist Indian philosophers such as Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Dharmakirti and Buddhaghosa, consistently critiqued Creator God views put forth by Hindu thinkers.^[86][87][84]

Christianity

Further information: Genesis creation narrative and creation–evolution controversy

As of 2006^[update], most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation narrative. 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.^[88]

Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,^[89] such as Anglicans^[90] and Lutherans,^[91] 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."^[92]

Leaders of the Anglican^[93] and Roman Catholic^[94][95] 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,^[96] 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.^[97][98] 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);^[99] 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.^[100] 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."^[101]

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.^[102]

Jehovah's Witnesses adhere to a combination of gap creationism and day-age creationism, asserting that scientific evidence about the age of the universe is compatible with the Bible, but that the 'days' after Genesis 1:1 were each thousands of years in length.^[103]

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.^[104][105] 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.^[106]

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.^[107]

Hinduism

Main article: Hindu views on evolution

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.^[108] 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."^[109] 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.^[110][111]

In Hindu cosmology, time cyclically repeats general events of creation and destruction, with many "first man", each known as Manu, the progenitor of mankind. Each Manu successively reigns over a 306.72 million year period known as a manvantara, each ending with the destruction of mankind followed by a sandhya (period of non-activity) before the next manvantara. 120.53 million years have elapsed in the current manvantara (current mankind) according to calculations on Hindu units of time.^{[112][113][114]} The universe is cyclically created at the start and destroyed at the end of a kalpa (day of Brahma), lasting for 4.32 billion years, which is followed by a pralaya (period of dissolution) of equal length. 1.97 billion years have elapsed in the current kalpa (current universe).The universal elements or building blocks (unmanifest matter) exists for a period known as a maha-kalpa, lasting for 311.04 trillion years, which is followed by a maha-pralaya (period of great dissolution) of equal length. 155.52 trillion years have elapsed in the current maha-kalpa.^{[115][116][117]}

Islam

Main article: Islamic views on evolution

Further information: Predestination in Islam

Islamic creationism is the belief that the universe (including humanity) was directly created by God as explained in the Quran. It usually views the Book of Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation myths in the Quran are vaguer and allow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions.^[11]

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 Quran. Some Muslims believe in evolutionary creation, especially among liberal movements within Islam.^[12]

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."^[118] Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, states that Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another.^[119][120]

Since the 1980s, Turkey has been a site of strong advocacy for creationism, supported by American adherents.^[121][122]

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:^{[123][124][125]}

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 -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 -Yusuf Ali]}

With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space.

—  ^{[Quran 51:47 -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 -Yusuf Ali]}

Ahmadiyya

The Ahmadiyya movement actively promotes evolutionary theory.^[126] 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 humans have 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.^[126] 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.^[127] 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.

Judaism

Main article: Jewish views on evolution

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.^{[citation needed]} 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).^{[128][129][130][131]} 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.^[132] 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^[133] 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.^[134]

Prevalence

Main articles: Level of support for evolution and Creationism by country

 

Views on human evolution in various countries 2008^[135][136]

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.^[88] There seems to be no significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.^[137][138]

Australia

A 2009 Nielsen poll showed that 23% of Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins," 42% believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32% believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God".^[139][140]

A 2013 survey conducted by Auspoll and the Australian Academy of Science found that 80% of Australians believe in evolution (70% believe it is currently occurring, 10% believe in evolution but do not think it is currently occurring), 12% were not sure and 9% stated they do not believe in evolution.^[141]

Brazil

A 2011 Ipsos survey found that 47% of responders in Brazil identified themselves as "creationists and believe that human beings were in fact created by a spiritual force such as the God they believe in and do not believe that the origin of man came from evolving from other species such as apes".^[142]

In 2004, IBOPE conducted a poll in Brazil that asked questions about creationism and the teaching of creationism in schools. When asked if creationism should be taught in schools, 89% of people said that creationism should be taught in schools. When asked if the teaching of creationism should replace the teaching of evolution in schools, 75% of people said that the teaching of creationism should replace the teaching of evolution in schools.^[143][144]

Canada

 

Big Valley Creation Science Museum in Big Valley, Alberta, Canada

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?"^[145]

In 2019, a Research Co. poll asked people in Canada if creationism "should be part of the school curriculum in their province". 38% of Canadians said that creationism should be part of the school curriculum, 39% of Canadians said that it should not be part of the school curriculum, and 23% of Canadians were undecided.^[146]

Europe

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

In the 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.^[147][148] 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.^[149] The former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, views the idea of teaching creationism in schools as a mistake.^[150] In 2009, an Ipsos Mori survey in the United Kingdom found that 54% of Britons agreed with the view: "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism."^[151]

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.^[152][153]

There continues to be scattered and possibly mounting efforts on the part of religious groups throughout Europe to introduce creationism into public education.^[154] 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,^[155] reinforced by a further proposal of banning it in schools dated October 4, 2007.^[156]

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.^[157] "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.^[158] Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."^[159]

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.^[160]

A June 2015 - July 2016 Pew poll of Eastern European countries found that 56% of people from Armenia say that humans and other living things have "Existed in present state since the beginning of time". Armenia is followed by 52% from Bosnia, 42% from Moldova, 37% from Lithuania, 34% from Georgia and Ukraine, 33% from Croatia and Romania, 31% from Bulgaria, 29% from Greece and Serbia, 26% from Russia, 25% from Latvia, 23% from Belarus and Poland, 21% from Estonia and Hungary, and 16% from the Czech Republic.^[161]

South Africa

A 2011 Ipsos survey found that 56% of responders in South Africa identified themselves as "creationists and believe that human beings were in fact created by a spiritual force such as the God they believe in and do not believe that the origin of man came from evolving from other species such as apes".^[142]

South Korea

In 2009, an EBS survey in South Korea found that 63% of people believed that creation and evolution should both be taught in schools simultaneously.^[162]

United States

 

The Ark Encounter theme park in Williamstown, Kentucky, United States

 

Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum in Glendive, Montana, United States

 

Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia

A 2017 poll by Pew Research found that 62% of Americans believe humans have evolved over time and 34% of Americans believe humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.^[163] A 2019 Gallup creationism survey found that 40% of adults in the United States inclined to the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings.^[164]

According to a 2014 Gallup poll,^[165] 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."^[165] 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."^[165]

Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with postgraduate degrees, 74% accept evolution.^[166][167] 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.'"^[167][168]

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.^[169]

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%).^[88]

According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.^[170] 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).^[170]

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 without letting them understand the way science works will prevent any future innovation in the world of science.^{[171][172][173]} 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.^{[174][175][176]}

Education controversies

Main article: Creation–evolution controversy

 

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.^[53]

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:^[169] Public schools should teach evolution only   20% Only evolution should be taught in science classes, religious explanations can be discussed in another class   17% Creationism can be discussed in science class as a 'belief,' not a scientific theory   29% Creationism and evolution should be taught as 'scientific theories' in science class   13% Only Creationism should be taught   16% Teach both evolution and Creationism, but unsure how to do so   4% No opinion   1%

In such political contexts, creationists argue that their particular religiously based origin belief is superior to those of other belief systems, in particular those made through secular or scientific rationale. Political creationists are opposed by many individuals and organizations who have made detailed critiques and given testimony in various court cases that the alternatives to scientific reasoning offered by creationists are opposed by the consensus of the scientific community.^[177][178]

Criticism

Christian criticism

Most Christians disagree with the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in schools.^{[179][180][181]} Several religious organizations, among them the Catholic Church, hold that their faith does not conflict with the scientific consensus regarding evolution.^[182] 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.^[183]

The Jesuit priest George Coyne has stated that it is "unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean...some literal interpretation of Genesis." He argues that "...Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in belief that everything depends on God, or better, all is a gift from God."^[184]

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.^[150]

The National Science Teachers Association is opposed to teaching creationism as a science,^[185] as is the Association for Science Teacher Education,^[186] the National Association of Biology Teachers,^[187] the American Anthropological Association,^[188] the American Geosciences Institute,^[189] the Geological Society of America,^[190] the American Geophysical Union,^[191] 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."^[192]

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?", in which they write: "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."^[193]

Scientific criticism

Main article: Creation–evolution controversy

Science is a system of knowledge based on observation, empirical evidence, and the development of theories that yield testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena. By contrast, creationism is often based on literal interpretations of the narratives of particular religious texts.^[194] Creationist beliefs involve purported forces that lie outside of nature, such as supernatural intervention, and often do not allow predictions at all. Therefore, these can neither be confirmed nor disproved by scientists.^[195] However, many creationist beliefs can be framed as testable predictions about phenomena such as the age of the Earth, its geological history and the origins, distributions and relationships of living organisms found on it. Early science incorporated elements of these beliefs, but as science developed these beliefs were gradually falsified and were replaced with understandings based on accumulated and reproducible evidence that often allows the accurate prediction of future results.^[196][197]

Some scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould,^[198] consider science and religion to be two compatible and complementary fields, with authorities in distinct areas of human experience, so-called non-overlapping magisteria.^[199] This view is also held by many theologians, who believe that ultimate origins and meaning are addressed by religion, but favor verifiable scientific explanations of natural phenomena over those of creationist beliefs. Other scientists, such as Richard Dawkins,^[200] reject the non-overlapping magisteria and argue that, in disproving literal interpretations of creationists, the scientific method also undermines religious texts as a source of truth. Irrespective of this diversity in viewpoints, since creationist beliefs are not supported by empirical evidence, the scientific consensus is that any attempt to teach creationism as science should be rejected.^{[201][202][203]}

Organizations

Creationism (in general) American Scientific Affiliation Christians in Science Young Earth creationism Answers in Genesis, a group promoting young Earth creationism Creation Ministries International, an organisation promoting biblical creation Creation Research Society Institute for Creation Research The Way of the Master Old Earth creationism Old Earth Ministries (OEM), formerly Answers In Creation (AIC), led by Greg Neyman^[204] Reasons to Believe, led by Hugh Ross

Intelligent design Access Research Network Centre for Intelligent Design Center for Science and Culture, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute Evolutionary creationism BioLogos Foundation

See also

• Biblical inerrancy
• Biogenesis
• Evolution of complexity
• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• History of creationism
• Religious cosmology

Notes

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."^[56]

References

Citations

1. 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.'"
2. Brosseau, Olivier; Silberstein, Marc (2015). "Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s)". In Heams, Thomas; Huneman, Philippe; Lecointre, Guillaume; Silberstein., Marc (eds.). Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 881–96. ISBN 9789401790147.
3. Brosseau, Olivier; Silberstein, Marc (2015). "Evolutionism(s) and Creationism(s)". In Heams, Thomas; Huneman, Philippe; Lecointre, Guillaume; Silberstein., Marc (eds.). Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 881, 884. ISBN 9789401790147. Creationism is not a single homogenous doctrine ... Evolution, as a process, is a tool God uses to continually create the world. Here we have arrived at another sub-category of creationism called 'evolutionist creationism'
4. 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."
5. Eugenie Scott (13 February 2018). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". NCSE. Retrieved 6 May 2019. creationism comes in many forms, and not all of them reject evolution
6. . Oxford Dictionaries (Definition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. OCLC 656668849. Archived from the original on March 3, 2014. 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.
7. (Scott 2009, pp. 57, 97–98)
8. Eugenie Scott (13 February 2018). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". NCSE. Retrieved 29 April 2019.
9. "What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism?". NCSE. 2008-10-17. Retrieved 2019-04-23.
10. Campbell, Duncan (February 20, 2006). "Academics fight rise of creationism at universities". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2010-04-07.
11. Chang, Kenneth (November 2, 2009). "Creationism, Without a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World". The New York Times.
12. al-Azami, Usaama (2013-02-14). "Muslims and Evolution in the 21st Century: A Galileo Moment?". Huffington Post Religion Blog. Retrieved 19 February 2013.
13. "Creationism: The Hindu View". www.talkorigins.org. Retrieved 2019-04-23.
14. Numbers 1998, p. 50 "Since at least the early 1840s Darwin had occasionally referred to 'creationists' in his unpublished writings, but the epithet acquired little public currency." – sketch written in 1842 – "if this had happened on an island, whence could the new forms have come,—here the geologist calls in creationists."
15. 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.
16. Numbers 1998, p. 50 "In 1873 Asa Gray described a 'special creationist' (a phrase he placed in quotation marks) as one who maintained that species 'were supernaturally originated just as they are'," – The Nation. J.H. Richards. October 16, 1873. p. 260.
17. Richard F. Carlson, Tremper Longman III, Science, Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins, p.25
18. Scott, Eugenie C. (7 December 2000). . Reports of the National Center for Science Education, July–August 1999. 19 (4): 16–17, 23–25. ISSN 2158-818X. Archived from the original on 2008-05-09. (original online version, with link to
19. Wise, Donald U. (January 2001). "Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution". Journal of Geoscience Education. 49 (1): 30–35. Bibcode:2001JGeEd..49...30W. doi:10.5408/1089-9995-49.1.30. ISSN 1089-9995. S2CID 152260926. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
20. Ross, Marcus R. (May 2005). "Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism" (PDF). Journal of Geoscience Education. 53 (3): 319–323. Bibcode:2005JGeEd..53..319R. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.404.1340. doi:10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.319. ISSN 1089-9995. S2CID 14208021. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
21. Scott 2009, pp. 63–75.
22. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Eugenie Scott, pp61-62
23. The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism, Jon P. Alston, p24
24. "What is Creationism?".
25. 2 Peter 3:3-7
26. "Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism | National Center for Science Education". ncse.ngo. Retrieved 2021-10-30.
27. Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton & CO., 1982), page 182.
28. Bocchino, Peter; Geisler, Norman "Unshakable Foundations" (Minneapolis: Bethany House., 2001). Pages 141-188
29. Greener, M (December 2007). "Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?". EMBO Rep. 8 (12): 1107–9. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131. PMC 2267227. PMID 18059309.
30. NAS 1999, p. R9
31. at the Wayback Machine (archive index), Edwards v. Aguillard
32. Sahotra Sarkar; Jessica Pfeifer (2006). The Philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. A-M. Psychology Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-415-93927-0.
33. 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."
34. Morris, Henry M. "Neocreationism". icr.org. Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved Sep 29, 2014.
35. Safire, William (August 21, 2005). "On Language: Neo-Creo". The New York Times. Retrieved Sep 29, 2014.
36. Scott, Eugenie C. (1996). "Creationism, ideology, and science". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The Flight from Science and Reason. Vol. 775. pp. 505–22. Bibcode:1995NYASA.775..505S. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb23167.x. Retrieved 2009-11-12.
37. Johnson, Phillip E. (October 2004). (PDF). DarwinReconsidered.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 25, 2011. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
38. Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience" (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 473–82. doi:10.1086/656904. hdl:1854/LU-952482. PMID 21243965. S2CID 27218269. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Article available from Universiteit Gent
39. Pigliucci, Massimo (2010). "Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design" (PDF). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 160–86. ISBN 978-0-226-66786-7. LCCN 2009049778. OCLC 457149439. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09.
40. "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.
41. "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.
42. Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). (PDF). Center for Inquiry (A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy). Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-05-19. Retrieved 2014-03-13.
43. "The Wedge" (PDF). Seattle, WA: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 1999. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 2014-03-13.
44. Mu, David (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review. 19 (1): 22–25. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 2014-03-13. ...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.
    • Klotzko, Arlene Judith (May 28, 2001). "Cynical Science and Stem Cells". The Scientist. 15 (11): 35. ISSN 0890-3670. Retrieved 2014-03-13. Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudo-science of 'intelligent design theory.'
    • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.
45. Numbers 2006
46. Forrest & Gross 2004
47. 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..."
    • Pennock 1999
48. Scott 2005
49. Young, Matt; Edis, Taner (2006). Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813538723.
50. Flank, Lenny (April 24, 2006). . Talk Reason. Archived from the original on August 23, 2014. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
51. Smith, Deborah (October 21, 2005). "Intelligent design not science: experts". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
52. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.
53. Full text of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, dated December 20, 2005.
54. 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 978-0-5200-8393-6. LCCN 93015804. OCLC 810488078.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Roizen, Ron (1982). . Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 21 (4): 365–369. doi:10.2307/1385525. JSTOR 1385525. Archived from the original on 2007-02-19.
58. Gardner, Martin (2000). Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 7–14. ISBN 9780393322385.
59. 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."
60. Rusbult, Craig (1998). "Evolutionary Creation". Ipswich, MA: American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
61. Bowler 2003, p. 139
62. . Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. 2007. Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2012-04-18.
63. 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.
64. Moore, James (September 20, 2007). . Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett (Interview). Interviewed by Krista Tippett. American Public Media. Archived from the original on 2015-11-18. Retrieved 2014-03-09 – via NPR.
65. Quammen 2006, p. 119
66. Barlow 1963, p. 207
67. Dewey 1994, p. 27
68. Miles, Sara Joan (September 2001). "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 53: 196–201. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
69. Gray, Asa (1860). . The Atlantic Monthly (Reprint). Archived from the original on 2009-02-20. Retrieved 2009-04-11. "Atlantic Monthly for July, August, and October, 1860, reprinted in 1861."
70. Bowler 2003, pp. 202–08
71. Scott 2005, pp. 62–63
72. Moritz, Albrecht (October 31, 2006). "The Origin of Life". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2008-11-22.
73. Scott 1999
74. Akin, Jimmy (January 2004). . This Rock. 15 (1). ISSN 1049-4561. Archived from the original on 2007-08-04. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
75. 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.
76. Coyne, George V. (January 30, 2006). . Catholic Online, LLC. Archived from the original on June 6, 2011. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
77. Pennock 1999
    • Schafersman, Steven D. (May 1997). "Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry". Free Inquiry: The Humanist and Skeptic Website of Steven Schafersman. Steven Schafersman. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
    • Leiter, Brian (April 6, 2004). "On Methodological Naturalism and Intelligent Design (or Why Can't Lawrence VanDyke Leave Well Enough Alone?)". Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog (Blog). Brian Leiter. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
    • Burgeson, John W. (1997). "NTSE: An Intellectual Feast". Origins & Design. 18 (2). Retrieved 2014-03-15.
    • Draper 2005
    • Pigliucci, Massimo; et al. (May–June 2004). "The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory". Philosophy Now (46). ISSN 0961-5970. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
    • . The Department of Biology (Petition). Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa. 2005. Archived from the original on 2010-09-01. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
    • Pigliucci, Massimo (December 2005). "Science and fundamentalism". EMBO Reports. 6 (12): 1106–1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400589. ISSN 1469-3178. PMC 1369219. PMID 16319954.
    • Martin, Michael (2002). "Justifying Methodological Naturalism". The Secular Web. Colorado Springs, CO: Internet Infidels, Inc. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
78. Bradley, Raymond (November 23, 2005). "Intelligent Design or Natural Design". Butterflies and Wheels. Seattle, WA: Ophelia Benson. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
79. "Creationism and intelligent design". BBC. 2 June 2009. Retrieved 2 October 2018.
80. Chang, Kenneth (2 November 2009). "Creationism, Minus a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 October 2018.
81. Butt, Riazat (16 November 2009). "Darwinism, through a Chinese lens". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2 October 2018.
82. `Abdu'l-Bahá 1982, p. 220
83. Harvey, Peter (2013). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pg. 36-8
84. Harvey, Peter (2019). "Buddhism and Monotheism", p. 1. Cambridge University Press.
85. Keown, Damien (2013). "Encyclopedia of Buddhism." p. 162. Routledge.
86. Hsueh-Li Cheng. "Nāgārjuna's Approach to the Problem of the Existence of God" in Religious Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Jun., 1976), pp. 207-216 (10 pages), Cambridge University Press.
87. Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar.).
88. Miller, Jon D.; Scott, Eugenie C.; Okamoto, Shinji (August 2006). "Public acceptance of evolution". Science. 313 (5788): 765–66. doi:10.1126/science.1126746. PMID 16902112. S2CID 152990938.
89. "Denominational Views". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. October 17, 2008. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
90. "Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006)". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 2008-09-09. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
91. Schick, Edwin A. (1965). "Evolution". In Bodensieck, Julius (ed.). The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church. Vol. 1. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House. LCCN 64021500. OCLC 947120. Retrieved 2010-05-17. Edited for the Lutheran World Federation.
    • Hollabaugh, Mark (October 2006). . The Lutheran. ISSN 0024-743X. Archived from the original on 2013-12-31. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
92. "Interview: Rowan Williams". The Guardian (Transcript). London. March 21, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
93. Williams, Christopher (March 21, 2006). "Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution". The Register. London: Situation Publishing Limited. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
94. McDonell, Keelin (July 12, 2005). . Slate. Archived from the original on 2005-07-16. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
95. See also the article Catholic Church and evolution.
96. Polkinghorne 1998, pp. 7–8
97. Philo
98. Bradshaw, Rob. "Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC – c. AD 50)". Early Church.org.uk. West Wickham, England: Steve Bradshaw. Retrieved December 21, 2011.
99. Young, Davis A. (March 1988). "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 40 (1): 42–45. ISSN 0892-2675. Retrieved 2008-08-18.
100. Pope Pius XII (August 12, 1950). . Vatican: the Holy See (Papal encyclical). St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City: Holy See. Archived from the original on April 19, 2012. Retrieved 2011-11-08.
101. Pope John Paul II (October 30, 1996). . L'Osservatore Romano (Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences). No. 44 (Weekly English ed.). Tipografia Vaticana, Vatican City: Holy See. pp. 3, 7. Archived from the original on March 21, 2016. Retrieved March 19, 2014.
102. "Social and Political Views" (PDF). U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (Report). Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. 2008. p. 95. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 2014-03-19. Report 2: Religious Beliefs & Practices, Chapter 2.
103. Chryssides, George D. (2008). Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses. Scarecrow Press. p. 37. ISBN 9780810862692.
104. Jackson, Wayne (31 December 1990). "Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?". Apologetics Press. Montgomery, Al. Retrieved 2007-05-23.
105. Tobin, Paul N. (2000). . The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity. Singapore: Paul Tobin. Archived from the original on 2014-10-08. Retrieved 2014-03-19.
106. Forster & Marston 1999
107. Eddy 1934, p. 547
108. McGrath 2010, p. 140
109. Numbers 2006, p. 420
110. Carper & Hunt 2009, p. 167
111. Dasgupta 1922, p. 10
112. Doniger, Wendy; Hawley, John Stratton, eds. (1999). "Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions". Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. p. 691 (Manu). ISBN 0877790442. a day in the life of Brahma is divided into 14 periods called manvantaras ("Manu intervals"), each of which lasts for 306,720,000 years. In every second cycle [(new kalpa after pralaya)] the world is recreated, and a new Manu appears to become the father of the next human race. The present age is considered to be the seventh Manu cycle.
113. Krishnamurthy, V. (2019). "Ch. 20: The Cosmic Flow of Time as per Scriptures". Meet the Ancient Scriptures of Hinduism. Notion Press. ISBN 9781684669387. Each manvantara is preceded and followed by a period of 1,728,000 (= 4K) years when the entire earthly universe (bhu-loka) will submerge under water. The period of this deluge is known as manvantara-sandhya (sandhya meaning, twilight). ... According to the traditional time-keeping ... Thus in Brahma's calendar the present time may be coded as his 51st year - first month - first day - 7th manvantara - 28th maha-yuga - 4th yuga or kaliyuga.
114. Gupta, S. V. (2010). "Ch. 1.2.4 Time Measurements". In Hull, Robert; Osgood, Richard M. Jr.; Parisi, Jurgen; Warlimont, Hans (eds.). Units of Measurement: Past, Present and Future. International System of Units. Springer Series in Materials Science: 122. Springer. p. 7. ISBN 9783642007378.
115. Gupta 2010, pp. 7–8.
116. Penprase, Bryan E. (2017). The Power of Stars (2nd ed.). Springer. p. 182. ISBN 9783319525976.
117. Johnson, W.J. (2009). A Dictionary of Hinduism. Oxford University Press. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-19-861025-0.
118. Bennett, Drake (October 25, 2009). . The Boston Globe. Boston, MA. Archived from the original on 2009-10-30. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
119. Irvine, Chris (September 29, 2008). "Creationist Adnan Oktar offers trillion-pound prize for fossil proof of evolution". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 2022-01-12. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
120. "Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools". The Guardian (Conferences). London. January 7, 2004. Retrieved 2008-07-18.
121. Edis, Taner (November–December 1999). "Cloning Creationism in Turkey". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 19 (6): 30–35. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
122. Kaufman, Marc (November 8, 2009). "In Turkey, fertile ground for creationism". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
123. 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.
124. Bucaille 1977
     • Bucaille 1976
125. Abd-Allah, A. . Compendium of Muslim Texts. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Archived from the original on 2008-11-28. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
126. Masood 1994, Chapter 13, "Every Wind of Doctrine" 2013-02-08 at the Wayback Machine
127. Lahaye, Ataul Wahid; Shah, Zia H. "Guided Evolution: Proof From Punctuated Equilibrium" (PDF). Al Islam. London: Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
128. Aviezer 1990
129. Carmell & Domb 1976
130. Schroeder 1998
131. Tigay, Jeffrey H. (Winter 1987–1988). "Genesis, Science, and 'Scientific Creationism'". Conservative Judaism. 40 (2): 20–27. ISSN 0010-6542. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
132. The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006, p. 129
133. The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006, p. 158
134. The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, 2006, pp. 169, 170
135. Le Page, Michael (April 19, 2008). "Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution". New Scientist. 198 (2652): 31. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
136. Hecht, Jeff (August 19, 2006). "Why doesn't America believe in evolution?". New Scientist. 191 (2565): 11. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
137. Kahan, Dan (May 24, 2014). . Cultural Cognition Project (Blog). New Haven, CT: Yale Law School. Archived from the original on 2021-02-17. Retrieved 2015-03-23.
138. Shtulman, Andrew (March 2006). "Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution". Cognitive Psychology. 52 (2): 170–94. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001. ISSN 0010-0285. PMID 16337619. S2CID 20274446.
139. Marr, David (December 19, 2009). "Faith: What Australians believe in". The Age. Melbourne, Australia. Archived from the original on December 11, 2018. Retrieved December 11, 2018.
140. Maley, Jacqueline (December 19, 2009). "God is still tops but angels rate well". The Age. Melbourne, Australia. Archived from the original on September 13, 2012. Retrieved December 18, 2009.
141. "Science literacy in Australia" (PDF). Australian Academy of Science. 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09.
142. . Ipsos. Archived from the original on 17 August 2021. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
143. "PESQUISA DE OPINIÃO PÚBLICA SOBRE O CRIACIONISMO" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
144. Massarani, Luisa. "Few in Brazil accept scientific view of human evolution". Retrieved 28 February 2020.
145. "Believe In Evolution: Canadians More Likely Than Americans To Endorse Evolution". HuffPost Canada. AOL. September 6, 2012. Retrieved 2012-04-28.
     • Canseco, Mario (September 5, 2012). (PDF) (Press release). New York: Angus Reid Public Opinion. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 29, 2014. Retrieved 2014-05-11.
146. Canseco, Mario (4 December 2019). "Most Canadians Believe Human Beings on Earth Evolved". Retrieved 28 February 2020.
147. "Britons unconvinced on evolution". BBC News. London: BBC. January 26, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
148. "BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life". Ipsos MORI. London: Ipsos MORI. January 30, 2006. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
149. "The origin of humans" (PDF). YouGov Global (Prospect Survey Results). London: YouGov Plc. November 20, 2010. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 2014-03-24.
150. Bates, Stephen (March 20, 2006). "Archbishop: stop teaching creationism". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
151. Shepherd, Jessica (25 October 2009). "Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons". TheGuardian.com. Retrieved 6 April 2020.
152. "Italy Keeps Darwin in its Classrooms". Deutsche Welle. Bonn, Germany: ARD. May 3, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
153. Lorenzi, Rossella (April 28, 2004). "No evolution for Italian teens". The Scientist. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
154. "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.
155. . Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. June 8, 2007. Doc. 11297. Archived from the original on March 9, 2013. Retrieved 2014-03-22.
156. . Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Resolution). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. October 4, 2007. Resolution 1580. Archived from the original on March 7, 2014. Retrieved 2014-03-22. Paras. 13, 18
157. de Quetteville, Harry (September 9, 2004). "Darwin is off the curriculum for Serbian schools". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 2022-01-12. Retrieved January 24, 2012.
158. "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension". BBC News. London: BBC. September 9, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
159. "'Anti-Darwin' Serb minister quits". BBC News. London: BBC. September 16, 2004. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
160. Warsaw Business Journal. Warsaw, Poland: Valkea Media. December 18, 2006. Archived from the original on 2020-01-12. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
161. "6. Science and religion". Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. 10 May 2017. Retrieved 27 February 2020.
162. Park, Hyung Wook; Cho, Kyuhoon (2018). "Science, state, and spirituality: Stories of four creationists in South Korea". History of Science. 56 (1): 35–71. doi:10.1177/0073275317740268. hdl:10220/44270. PMID 29241363. S2CID 206433157.
163. Masci, David (10 February 2017). "For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate". Pew Research Center.
164. "40% of Americans Believe in Creationism". July 26, 2019.
165. Newport, Frank (November 19, 2004). "In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins". Gallup.com. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 2014-05-10.
166. Newport, Frank (Host) (June 11, 2007). . The Gallup Poll Daily Briefing. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. Archived from the original on April 27, 2014. Retrieved 2014-03-27.
167. Robinson, Bruce A. (November 1995). "Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation". ReligiousTolerance.org. Kingston, Canada: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 2007-11-11.
168. Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (June 29, 1987). "Keeping God Out of the Classroom" (PDF). Newsweek: 23–24. ISSN 0028-9604. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 2015-09-25.
169. "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. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 2014-03-28.
170. "Fox News Poll: Creationism". Fox News. News Corporation. September 7, 2011. Retrieved 2011-09-22.
171. Luvan, Dylan (September 24, 2012). . Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2013-10-14. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
172. Fowler, Jonathan; Rodd, Elizabeth (August 23, 2012). "Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children". YouTube. New York: Big Think. Archived from the original on 2021-10-30. Retrieved 2012-09-24.
173. Deiviscio, Jeffrey (November 3, 2014). "A Fight for the Young Creationist Mind: In 'Undeniable,' Bill Nye Speaks Evolution Directly to Creationists". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-01. Retrieved November 4, 2014.
174. Boyle, Alan (February 5, 2014). "Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate". NBCNews.com. Retrieved 2014-02-06.
175. Kopplin, Zack (February 4, 2014). "Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2014-02-06.
176. Foreman, Tom (Moderator) (February 4, 2014). Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham. YouTube. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis. Archived from the original on 2021-10-30. Retrieved 2014-02-05. (program begins at 13:14).
177. (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.
     • Pinholster, Ginger (February 19, 2006). (Press release). St. Louis, MO: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archived from the original on 2006-04-21. Retrieved 2014-08-05.
178. Delgado, Cynthia (July 28, 2006). . NIH Record. ISSN 1057-5871. Archived from the original on November 22, 2008. 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
179. van Harn, Roger; Ford, David F.; Gunton, Colin E. (2004). Exploring and Proclaiming the Apostles' Creed. A&C Black. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-8192-8116-6. Extract of page 44
180. Ra, Aron (2016). Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. Pitchstone Publishing. p. 182. ISBN 978-1-63431-079-6. Extract of page 182
181. Martin, Joel W. (September 2010). "Compatibility of Major U.S. Christian Denominations with Evolution". Evolution: Education and Outreach. 3 (3): 420–431. doi:10.1007/s12052-010-0221-5. S2CID 272665. Retrieved 2022-11-05.
182. "Statements from Religious Organizations". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 2008-09-08. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
183. Murphy, George L. (2002). . Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology. IV (2). OCLC 52753579. Archived from the original on 2016-04-11. Retrieved 2014-03-31. Reprinted with permission.
184. Purcell, Brendan (2012). From Big Bang to Big Mystery: Human Origins in the Light of Creation and Evolution. New City Press of the Focolare. p. 94. ISBN 978-1565484337.
185. "NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution". National Science Teachers Association. 2013.
186. "ASTE Position Statement on Teaching Biological Evolution". Association for Science Teacher Education. 2015.
187. . National Association of Biology Teachers. 2011. Archived from the original on 2015-09-16.
188. "Statement on Evolution and Creationism". American Anthropological Association. 2000.
189. "American Geological Institute Position on Teaching Evolution". American Geoscience Institute. 2000.
190. "Position Statement: Teaching Evolution". Geological Society of America. 2012.
191. "AGU Position Statement on Teaching Creationism as Science". American Geophysical Institute. 1998.
192. "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.
193. Moore, Randy; Cotner, Sehoya (May 2009). "The Creationist Down the Hall: Does It Matter When Teachers Teach Creationism?". BioScience. 59 (5): 429–35. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.5.10. ISSN 0006-3568. JSTOR 25502451. S2CID 86428123.
194. NAS 2008, p. 12
195. 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."
196. Isaak, Mark, ed. (2006). "An Index to Creationist Claims". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2012-12-09.
197. Futuyma 2005
198. Gould 1999
199. Gould, Stephen Jay (March 1997). . Natural History. 106 (3): 16–22. ISSN 0028-0712. Archived from the original on 2017-01-04. Retrieved 2014-03-31.
200. Dawkins 2006, p. 5
201. . Royal Society. London: Royal Society. April 11, 2006. Archived from the original on 2008-06-02. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
202. 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.
203. Myers, PZ (June 18, 2006). . Pharyngula (Blog). ScienceBlogs LLC. Archived from the original on August 9, 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
204. "About Old Earth Ministries?". Old Earth Ministries. Springfield, OH: Old Earth Ministries. Retrieved 2014-03-09.

Works cited

• `Abdu'l-Bahá (1982) [Originally published 1922–1925]. The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by 'Abdu'l-Bahá during His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912. Compiled by Howard MacNutt (2nd ed.). Wilmette, IL: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. ISBN 978-0-8774-3172-5. LCCN 81021689. OCLC 853066452.
• Aviezer, Nathan (1990). In the Beginning—: Biblical Creation and Science. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House. ISBN 978-0-88125-328-3. LCCN 89049127. OCLC 20800545.
• Barlow, Nora, ed. (1963). "Darwin's Ornithological Notes". Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series. 2 (7): 201–278. doi:10.5962/p.310422. ISSN 0068-2306. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
• Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-23693-6. LCCN 2002007569. OCLC 49824702.
• Bucaille, Maurice (1977) [Original French edition published 1976]. The Bible, The Qur'an and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge. translated from the French by Alastair D. Pannell and the author. Paris: Seghers. LCCN 76488005. OCLC 373529514.
• Bucaille, Maurice (1976). The Qur'an and Modern Science (Booklet). Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Cooperative Offices for Call & Guidance at Al-Badiah & Industrial Area. OCLC 52246825. Retrieved 2014-03-21.
• Carmell, Aryeh; Domb, Cyril, eds. (1976). Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems. Jerusalem; New York: Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists; Feldheim Publishers. ISBN 978-0-87306-174-2. LCCN 77357516. OCLC 609518840.
• Carper, James C.; Hunt, Thomas C., eds. (2009). The Praeger Handbook of Religion and Education in the United States. Vol. 1: A–L. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. ISBN 978-0-275-99228-6. LCCN 2008041156. OCLC 246888936.
• Collins, Francis S. (2006). The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-0-7432-8639-8. LCCN 2006045316. OCLC 65978711.
• Dasgupta, Surendranath (1922). A History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. 1. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. LCCN 22018463. OCLC 4235820.
• Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press. ISBN 978-0-5930-5548-9. LCCN 2006015506. OCLC 70671839.
• Desmond, Adrian (1989). The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London. Science and its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-14346-0. LCCN 89005137. OCLC 828159401.
• Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991). Darwin. London; New York: Michael Joseph; Viking Penguin. ISBN 978-0-7181-3430-3. LCCN 92196964. OCLC 26502431.
• Dewey, John (1994). "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy". In Martin Gardner (ed.). Great Essays in Science. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-0-87975-853-0. LCCN 93035453. OCLC 28846489.
• Draper, Paul R. (2005). "God, Science, and Naturalism". In Wainwright, William J. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 272–303. doi:10.1093/0195138090.003.0012. ISBN 978-0-1951-3809-2. LCCN 2004043890. OCLC 54542845. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
• Dundes, Alan (1984). "Introduction". In Dundes, Alan (ed.). Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-5200-5192-8. LCCN 83017921. OCLC 9944508.
• Dundes, Alan (1996). "Madness in Method, Plus a Plea for Projective Inversion in Myth". In Patton, Laurie L.; Doniger, Wendy (eds.). Myth and Method. Charlottesville; London: University of Virginia Press. ISBN 978-0-8139-1657-6. LCCN 96014672. OCLC 34516050.
• Eddy, Mary Baker (1934) [Originally published 1875 as Science and Health; Christian Scientist Publishing Company: Boston, MA]. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Sunday school ed.). Boston, MA: Christian Science Publishing Society for the Trustees under the will of Mary Baker G. Eddy. LCCN 42044682. OCLC 4579118.
• Forrest, Barbara; Gross, Paul R. (2004). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-515742-0. LCCN 2002192677. OCLC 50913078.
• Forster, Roger; Marston, V. Paul (1999). "Genesis Through History". Reason, Science, and Faith. Crowborough, East Sussex: Monarch Books. ISBN 978-1-85424-441-3. LCCN 99488551. OCLC 41159110.
• Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). "Evolutionary Science, Creationism, and Society". Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 978-0-87893-187-3. LCCN 2004029808. OCLC 57311264.
• Giberson, Karl W.; Yerxa, Donald A. (2002). Species of Origins: America's Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-0764-7. LCCN 2002002365. OCLC 49031109.
• Gosse, Philip Henry (1857). Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. London: J. Van Voorst. LCCN 11004351. OCLC 7631539.
• Gould, Stephen Jay (1999). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. Library of Contemporary Thought (1st ed.). New York: Ballantine Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-345-43009-0. LCCN 98031335. OCLC 39886951.
• Gunn, Angus M. (2004). Evolution and Creationism in the Public Schools: A Handbook for Educators, Parents, and Community Leaders. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-2002-5. LCCN 2004018788. OCLC 56319812.
• Hayward, James L. (1998). The Creation/Evolution Controversy: An Annotated Bibliography. Magill Bibliographies. Lanham, MD; Pasadena, CA: Scarecrow Press; Salem Press. p. 253. ISBN 978-0-8108-3386-9. LCCN 98003138. OCLC 38496519.
• Lamoureux, Denis O. (1999). "Evangelicals Inheriting the Wind: The Phillip E. Johnson Phenomenon". Darwinism Defeated?: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins. Foreword by J. I. Packer. Vancouver, B.C.: Regent College Publishing. ISBN 978-1-57383-133-8. OCLC 40892139.
• Masood, Steven (1994) [Originally published 1986]. Jesus and the Indian Messiah. Oldham, England: Word of Life. ISBN 978-1-898868-00-2. LCCN 94229476. OCLC 491161526.
• McComas, William F. (2002). "Science and Its Myths". In Shermer, Michael (ed.). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8. LCCN 2002009653. OCLC 50155642.
• McGrath, Alister E. (2010). Science and Religion: A New Introduction (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-8790-9. LCCN 2009020180. OCLC 366494307.
• National Academy of Sciences (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN 978-0-309-06406-4. LCCN 99006259. OCLC 43803228. Retrieved 2014-11-22.
• National Academy of Sciences; Institute of Medicine (2008). Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 105. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. pp. 3–4. Bibcode:2008PNAS..105....3A. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711608105. ISBN 978-0-309-10586-6. LCCN 2007015904. OCLC 123539346. PMC 2224205. PMID 18178613. Retrieved 2014-11-22.
• Numbers, Ronald L. (1998). Darwinism Comes to America. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-19312-3. LCCN 98016212. OCLC 38747194.
• Numbers, Ronald L. (2006) [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0. LCCN 2006043675. OCLC 69734583.
• Okasha, Samir (2002). Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. Vol. 67. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280283-5. LCCN 2002510456. OCLC 48932644.
• Pennock, Robert T. (1999). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-16180-0. LCCN 98027286. OCLC 44966044.
• Pennock, Robert T, ed. (2001). Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-66124-9. LCCN 2001031276. OCLC 46729201.
• Philo, of Alexandria (1854–55). "The First Book of the Treatise on The Allegories of the Sacred Laws, after the Work of the Six Days of Creation". The Works of Philo Judaeus. Bohn's Classical Library. Translated from the Greek, by C. D. Yonge. London: H.G. Bohn. LCCN 20007801. OCLC 1429769. Retrieved 2014-03-09.
• Plimer, Ian (1994). Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism. Milsons Point, NSW: Random House Australia. ISBN 978-0-09-182852-3. LCCN 94237744. OCLC 32608689.
• Polkinghorne, John (1998). Science and Theology: An Introduction. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-3153-6. LCCN 98229115. OCLC 40117376.
• Quammen, David (2006). The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution. Great Discoveries. New York: Atlas Books/W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-05981-6. LCCN 2006009864. OCLC 65400177.
• Rainey, David (2008). Faith Reads: A Selective Guide to Christian Nonfiction. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. ISBN 978-1-59158-602-9. LCCN 2008010352. OCLC 213599217.
• Schroeder, Gerald L. (1998) [Originally published 1997; New York: Free Press]. The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (1st Broadway Books trade paperback ed.). New York: Broadway Books. ISBN 978-0-7679-0303-5. LCCN 97014978. OCLC 39162332.
• Scott, Eugenie C. (1999). . In Springer, Dale A.; Scotchmoor, Judy (eds.). Evolution: Investigating the Evidence (Reprint). The Paleontological Society Special Publications. Vol. 9. Pittsburgh, PA: Paleontological Society. LCCN 00274093. OCLC 42725350. Archived from the original on 2003-06-28. "Presented as a Paleontological Society short course at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Denver, Colorado, October 24, 1999."
• Scott, Eugenie C. (2005) [Originally published 2004; Westport, CT: Greenwood Press]. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Foreword by Niles Eldredge (1st paperback ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24650-8. LCCN 2005048649. OCLC 60420899.
• Scott, Eugenie C. (3 August 2009). Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Univ of California Press. pp. i–331. ISBN 978-0-520-26187-7.
• Secord, James A. (2000). Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-74410-0. LCCN 00009124. OCLC 43864195.
• Stewart, Melville Y., ed. (2010). Science and Religion in Dialogue. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-8921-7. LCCN 2009032180. OCLC 430678957.
• Sweet, William; Feist, Richard, eds. (2007). Religion and the Challenges of Science. Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7546-5715-6. LCCN 2006030598. OCLC 71778930.
• Wilder-Smith, A. E. (1978). Die Naturwissenschaften kennen keine Evolution: Empirische und theoretische Einwände gegen die Evolutionstheorie [The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution]. Basel, Switzerland: Schwabe Verlag. ISBN 978-3-7965-0691-8. LCCN 80067425. OCLC 245955034.
• Young, Davis A. (1995). The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-0719-9. LCCN 95001899. OCLC 246813515.

Further reading

• Anderson, Bernard W. (1967). Creation versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible. New York: Association Press. LCCN 67014578. OCLC 671184.
• Anderson, Bernhard W., ed. (1984). Creation in the Old Testament. Issues in Religion and Theology. Vol. 6. Introduction by Bernhard W. Anderson. Philadelphia; London: Fortress Press; Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. ISBN 978-0-8006-1768-4. LCCN 83048910. OCLC 10374840.
• Barbour, Ian G. (1997). Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues (1st HarperCollins revised ed.). San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 978-0-06-060938-2. LCCN 97006294. OCLC 36417827.
• Barbour, Ian G. (2000). When Science Meets Religion (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 978-0-06-060381-6. LCCN 99055579. OCLC 42752713.
• Clark, Kelly James (2014). Religion and the Sciences of Origins: Historical and Contemporary Discussions (1st ed.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-41483-0. LCCN 2014466739. OCLC 889777438.
• Darwin, Charles (1958). Barlow, Nora (ed.). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With original omissions restored; Edited and with Appendix and Notes by his grand-daughter, Nora Barlow. London: Collins. LCCN 93017940. OCLC 869541868. Retrieved 2009-01-09.
• Kaplan, Aryeh (1993). Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View. With an appendix Derush Or ha-Hayyim by Israel Lipschitz; translated and annotated by Yaakov Elman. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House in association with the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. ISBN 978-0-88125-345-0. LCCN 92036917. OCLC 26800167.
• Kauffman, Stuart A. (2008). Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00300-6. LCCN 2007052263. OCLC 191023778.
• Leeming, David Adams; Leeming, Margaret (1995). A Dictionary of Creation Myths. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-510275-8. LCCN 95039961. OCLC 33160980.
• Primack, Joel R.; Abrams, Nancy Ellen (Jan–Feb 1995). "In a Beginning...: Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah" (PDF). Tikkun. 10 (1): 66–73. ISSN 0887-9982. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 2014-04-24.
• Roberts, Michael (2008). Evangelicals and Science. Greenwood Guides to Science and Religion. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-33113-8. LCCN 2007041059. OCLC 174138819.

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Creationism.

 

Wikiquote has quotations related to Creationism.

• "Creationism" at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Michael Ruse
• "How Creationism Works" at HowStuffWorks by Julia Layton
•  – Focuses on major historical and recent events in the scientific and political debate
• "Evolution and Creationism: A Guide for Museum Docents" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. (204 KB) by Warren D. Allmon, Director of the Museum of the Earth
• "What is creationism?" at talk.origins by Mark Isaak
• "The Creation/Evolution Continuum" by Eugenie Scott
• "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" by John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American magazine
• "Race, Evolution and the Science of Human Origins" by Allison Hopper, Scientific American (July 5, 2021).
• Human Timeline (Interactive) – Smithsonian, National Museum of Natural History (August 2016)