Changes

'''Creationism''' is the [[religious belief]] that the [[Universe]] and [[life]] originated "from specific acts of [[Creation myth|divine creation]]."<ref name="Gunn2004">[[#Gunn 2004|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.'"</ref><ref name="OD_creationism">{{cite web |url=/us/definition/american_english/creationism?q=creationism |title=creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US) |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=Oxford Dictionaries |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |location=Oxford |type=Definition |oclc=656668849 |accessdate=2014-03-05 |quote=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.}}</ref> For [[Young Earth creationism|young Earth creationists]], this includes a [[Biblical literalism|biblical literalist]] interpretation of the [[Genesis creation narrative]] and the rejection of the [[scientific theory]] of [[evolution]].<ref name="Stewart2009">[[#Stewart 2010|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. The theory of 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."</ref> As the [[history of evolutionary thought]] developed from the 18th century on, various views aimed at reconciling the [[Abrahamic religions]] and Genesis with [[biology]] and other [[science]]s developed in [[Western culture]].<ref name="Numbers_Ordinary_View">{{cite web |url=/history/ordcreat-frame.html |title=The ‘Ordinary’ View of Creation |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L |authorlink=Ronald Numbers |website=Counterbalance Interactive Library |publisher=Counterbalance Foundation |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2010-08-11}}</ref> Those holding that [[species]] had been created separately (such as [[Omphalos (book)|Philip Gosse]] in 1857) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists," as in private correspondence between [[Charles Darwin]] and his friends. As the [[creation–evolution controversy]] developed over time, the term "anti-evolutionists" became common. In 1929 in the United States, the term "creationism" first became associated with [[Christian fundamentalism|Christian fundamentalists]], specifically with their rejection of [[human evolution]] and belief in a [[Young Earth creationism|young Earth]]—although this usage was contested by other groups, such as [[old Earth creationism|old Earth creationists]] and [[theistic evolution|evolutionary creationists]], who hold different concepts of creation, such as the acceptance of the age of the Earth and biological evolution as understood by the [[scientific community]].<ref name="Stewart2009" /><ref>[[#Lamoureux 1999|Lamoureux 1999]], [http://books.google.com/?id=wTADzz2w5c4C&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=evolutionary+creation+creationism+lamoreux#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20creation%20creationism%20lamoreux&f=false p. 14]</ref><ref>[[#Rainey 2012|Rainey 2012]], p. 263, "Thus, there is diversity within the Christian community, and a continuum of ideas that begins with young-earth creationists. There are four main Christian schools of thought: young-earth [[creation science]], old-earth creation science, intelligent design, and theistic evolution."</ref><ref name="AI-20150428">{{cite web |last=Foster |first=Stephen D. Jr. |title=Geologist Rocks Creationists’ World With Science  

'''Creationism''' is the [[religious belief]] that the [[Universe]] and [[life]] originated "from specific acts of [[Creation myth|divine creation]]."<ref name="Gunn2004">[[#Gunn 2004|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.'"</ref><ref name="OD_creationism">{{cite web |url=/us/definition/american_english/creationism?q=creationism |title=creationism: definition of creationism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US) |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=Oxford Dictionaries |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |location=Oxford |type=Definition |oclc=656668849 |accessdate=2014-03-05 |quote=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.}}</ref> For [[Young Earth creationism|young Earth creationists]], this includes a [[Biblical literalism|biblical literalist]] interpretation of the [[Genesis creation narrative]] and the rejection of the [[scientific theory]] of [[evolution]].<ref name="Stewart2009">[[#Stewart 2010|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. The theory of 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."</ref> As the [[history of evolutionary thought]] developed from the 18th century on, various views aimed at reconciling the [[Abrahamic religions]] and Genesis with [[biology]] and other [[science]]s developed in [[Western culture]].<ref name="Numbers_Ordinary_View">{{cite web |url=/history/ordcreat-frame.html |title=The ‘Ordinary’ View of Creation |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L |authorlink=Ronald Numbers |website=Counterbalance Interactive Library |publisher=Counterbalance Foundation |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2010-08-11}}</ref> Those holding that [[species]] had been created separately (such as [[Omphalos (book)|Philip Gosse]] in 1857) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists," as in private correspondence between [[Charles Darwin]] and his friends. As the [[creation–evolution controversy]] developed over time, the term "anti-evolutionists" became common. In 1929 in the United States, the term "creationism" first became associated with [[Christian fundamentalism|Christian fundamentalists]], specifically with their rejection of [[human evolution]] and belief in a [[Young Earth creationism|young Earth]]—although this usage was contested by other groups, such as [[old Earth creationism|old Earth creationists]] and [[theistic evolution|evolutionary creationists]], who hold different concepts of creation, such as the acceptance of the age of the Earth and biological evolution as understood by the [[scientific community]].<ref name="Stewart2009" /><ref>[[#Lamoureux 1999|Lamoureux 1999]], [http://books.google.com/?id=wTADzz2w5c4C&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=evolutionary+creation+creationism+lamoreux#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20creation%20creationism%20lamoreux&f=false p. 14]</ref><ref>[[#Rainey 2012|Rainey 2012]], p. 263, "Thus, there is diversity within the Christian community, and a continuum of ideas that begins with young-earth creationists. There are four main Christian schools of thought: young-earth [[creation science]], old-earth creation science, intelligent design, and theistic evolution."</ref><ref name="AI-20150428">{{cite web |last=Foster |first=Stephen D. Jr. |title=Geologist Rocks Creationists’ World With Science  

|url=/2015/04/28/geologist-rocks-creationists-world-with-science/ |date=April 28, 2015 |work=Addicting Info |accessdate=November 20, 2015 }}</ref>

|url=/2015/04/28/geologist-rocks-creationists-world-with-science/ |date=April 28, 2015 |work=Addicting Info |accessdate=November 20, 2015 }}</ref>

====Intelligent design====

====Intelligent design====

{{Main|Intelligent design}}

{{Main|Intelligent design}}

Intelligent design (ID) is the [[pseudoscientific]] view<ref name="Boudry%202010">{{cite journal |last1=Boudry |first1=Maarten |authorlink1=Maarten Boudry |last2=Blancke |first2=Stefaan |last3=Braeckman |first3=Johan |authorlink3=Johan Braeckman |date=December 2010 |title=Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience |journal=[[The Quarterly Review of Biology]] |location=Chicago, IL |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |volume=85 |issue=4 |pages=473–482 |doi=10.1086/656904 |pmid=21243965}} Article available from [https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482 Universiteit Gent]</ref><ref>{{cite book  |last1=Pigliucci |first1=Massimo |authorlink=Massimo Pigliucci |year=2010 |chapter=Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design |chapterurl=/files/pub/evolution/Nonsenseonstilts.pdf |title=Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk |format=PDF |location=Chicago, IL |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-66786-7 |lccn=2009049778 |oclc=457149439 |pages=160–186 |ref=Pigliucci 2010}}</ref> 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."<ref name="DIposition">{{cite web |url=/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=CSC - Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? |website=[[Center for Science and Culture]] |publisher=[[Discovery Institute]] |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2007-05-13}}</ref> All of its leading proponents are associated with the [[Discovery Institute]],<ref>{{cite web |url=/faqs/dover/day6pm.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2014-03-13}}</ref> 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.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref>{{cite web |url=/features/wedge.pdf |title=The Wedge |year=1999 |publisher=[[Center for Science and Culture|Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture]] |location=Seattle, WA |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-13}}</ref> It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,<ref name="Wise-p30" /><ref name="nagt-pdf-Ross" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Mu |first=David |date=Fall 2005 |title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design |url=/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf |format=PDF |journal=[[Harvard College#Publications and media|Harvard Science Review]] |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=Harvard Science Review, Inc. |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=22–25 |accessdate=2014-03-13 |ref=Mu 2005 |quote=...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.}}

Intelligent design (ID) is the [[pseudoscientific]] view<ref name="Boudry%2525202010">{{cite journal |last1=Boudry |first1=Maarten |authorlink1=Maarten Boudry |last2=Blancke |first2=Stefaan |last3=Braeckman |first3=Johan |authorlink3=Johan Braeckman |date=December 2010 |title=Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience |journal=[[The Quarterly Review of Biology]] |location=Chicago, IL |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |volume=85 |issue=4 |pages=473–482 |doi=10.1086/656904 |pmid=21243965}} Article available from [https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482 Universiteit Gent]</ref><ref>{{cite book  |last1=Pigliucci |first1=Massimo |authorlink=Massimo Pigliucci |year=2010 |chapter=Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design |chapterurl=/files/pub/evolution/Nonsenseonstilts.pdf |title=Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk |format=PDF |location=Chicago, IL |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-66786-7 |lccn=2009049778 |oclc=457149439 |pages=160–186 |ref=Pigliucci 2010}}</ref> 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."<ref name="DIposition">{{cite web |url=/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=CSC - Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? |website=[[Center for Science and Culture]] |publisher=[[Discovery Institute]] |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2007-05-13}}</ref> All of its leading proponents are associated with the [[Discovery Institute]],<ref>{{cite web |url=/faqs/dover/day6pm.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2014-03-13}}</ref> 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.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref>{{cite web |url=/features/wedge.pdf |title=The Wedge |year=1999 |publisher=[[Center for Science and Culture|Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture]] |location=Seattle, WA |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-13}}</ref> It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism,<ref name="Wise-p30" /><ref name="nagt-pdf-Ross" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Mu |first=David |date=Fall 2005 |title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design |url=/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf |format=PDF |journal=[[Harvard College#Publications and media|Harvard Science Review]] |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=Harvard Science Review, Inc. |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=22–25 |accessdate=2014-03-13 |ref=Mu 2005 |quote=...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.}}

*{{cite journal |last=Klotzko |first=Arlene Judith |date=May 28, 2001 |title=Cynical Science and Stem Cells |url=/?articles.view/articleNo/13410/title/Cynical-Science-and-Stem-Cells/ |journal=[[The Scientist]] |volume=15 |issue=11 |page=35 |issn=0890-3670 |quote=Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudo-science of 'intelligent design theory.' |accessdate=2014-03-13}}

*{{cite journal |last=Klotzko |first=Arlene Judith |date=May 28, 2001 |title=Cynical Science and Stem Cells |url=/?articles.view/articleNo/13410/title/Cynical-Science-and-Stem-Cells/ |journal=[[The Scientist]] |volume=15 |issue=11 |page=35 |issn=0890-3670 |quote=Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudo-science of 'intelligent design theory.' |accessdate=2014-03-13}}

*{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}}, [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 136 of 139|Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136]].</ref><ref name="Numbers%202006">[[#Numbers 2006|Numbers 2006]]</ref> and is sometimes referred to as "intelligent design creationism."<ref name="Scott1999" /><ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref>[[#Forrest & Gross 2004|Forrest & Gross 2004]]</ref><ref>[[#Pennock 2001|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..."

*{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}}, [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion#Page 136 of 139|Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136]].</ref><ref name="Numbers%2525202006">[[#Numbers 2006|Numbers 2006]]</ref> and is sometimes referred to as "intelligent design creationism."<ref name="Scott1999" /><ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref>[[#Forrest & Gross 2004|Forrest & Gross 2004]]</ref><ref>[[#Pennock 2001|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|Pennock 1999]]</ref><ref>[[#Scott 2005|Scott 2005]]</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Young |first1=Matt |last2=Edis |first2=Taner |title=Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism |publisher=Rutgers University Press |year=2006 |url=/books?id=hYLKdtlVeQgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Why+Intelligent+Design+Fails:+A+Scientific+Critique+of+the+New+Creationism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMIg6_llsqkyAIVyjKICh0fcg77#v=onepage&q=Why%20Intelligent%20Design%20Fails%3A%20A%20Scientific%20Critique%20of%20the%20New%20Creationism&f=false}}</ref>

*[[#Pennock 1999|Pennock 1999]]</ref><ref>[[#Scott 2005|Scott 2005]]</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Young |first1=Matt |last2=Edis |first2=Taner |title=Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism |publisher=Rutgers University Press |year=2006 |url=/books?id=hYLKdtlVeQgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Why+Intelligent+Design+Fails:+A+Scientific+Critique+of+the+New+Creationism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMIg6_llsqkyAIVyjKICh0fcg77#v=onepage&q=Why%20Intelligent%20Design%20Fails%3A%20A%20Scientific%20Critique%20of%20the%20New%20Creationism&f=false}}</ref>

It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the [[Unmoved mover#First cause|first cause]] and [[Immanence|immanent]] sustainer/upholder of the Universe; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong [[theism|theistic]] (as opposed to [[deism|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 [[framework view|literary framework]] or allegory.

It generally views evolution as a tool used by God, who is both the [[Unmoved mover#First cause|first cause]] and [[Immanence|immanent]] sustainer/upholder of the Universe; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong [[theism|theistic]] (as opposed to [[deism|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 [[framework view|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 [[Abiogenesis|origin of life by natural causes]] has resulted from these laws.<ref name="The%20Origin%20of%20Life">{{cite web |url=/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#intro |title=The Origin of Life |last=Moritz |first=Albrecht |date=October 31, 2006 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2008-11-22}}</ref>

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 [[Abiogenesis|origin of life by natural causes]] has resulted from these laws.<ref name="The%252520Origin%252520of%252520Life">{{cite web |url=/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#intro |title=The Origin of Life |last=Moritz |first=Albrecht |date=October 31, 2006 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |accessdate=2008-11-22}}</ref>

In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline [[Protestantism|Protestant]] seminaries.<ref>[[#Scott 1999|Scott 1999]]</ref> For Roman Catholics, human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. [[Catholic Church and evolution|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."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Akin |first=Jimmy |date=January 2004 |title=Evolution and the Magisterium |url=/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp |journal=[[Catholic Answers|This Rock]] |location=San Diego, CA |publisher=[[Catholic Answers|Catholic Answers, Inc.]] |volume=15 |issue=1 |issn=1049-4561 |archiveurl=/web/20070804102139/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp |archivedate=2007-08-04 |accessdate=2014-03-14}}</ref> [[Catholic Church|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.<ref>{{cite news |last=Guntzel |first=Jeff Severns |url=/NCR_Online/archives2/2005a/032505/032505ssn.htm |date=March 25, 2005 |title=Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias |newspaper=[[National Catholic Reporter]] |location=Kansas City, MO |publisher=The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company |issn=0027-8939 |accessdate=2007-08-15}}</ref> Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that [[Miracle|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 City|Vatican]]'s chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):<blockquote>...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.<ref>{{cite web |url=/national/national_story.php?id=18504 |title=Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on 'Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution' |last=Coyne |first=George V. |authorlink=George Coyne |date=January 30, 2006 |publisher=Catholic Online, LLC |accessdate=2011-03-10}}</ref></blockquote>

In one form or another, theistic evolution is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline [[Protestantism|Protestant]] seminaries.<ref>[[#Scott 1999|Scott 1999]]</ref> For Roman Catholics, human evolution is not a matter of religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits. [[Catholic Church and evolution|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."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Akin |first=Jimmy |date=January 2004 |title=Evolution and the Magisterium |url=/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp |journal=[[Catholic Answers|This Rock]] |location=San Diego, CA |publisher=[[Catholic Answers|Catholic Answers, Inc.]] |volume=15 |issue=1 |issn=1049-4561 |archiveurl=/web/20070804102139/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp |archivedate=2007-08-04 |accessdate=2014-03-14}}</ref> [[Catholic Church|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.<ref>{{cite news |last=Guntzel |first=Jeff Severns |url=/NCR_Online/archives2/2005a/032505/032505ssn.htm |date=March 25, 2005 |title=Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias |newspaper=[[National Catholic Reporter]] |location=Kansas City, MO |publisher=The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company |issn=0027-8939 |accessdate=2007-08-15}}</ref> Theistic evolution can be described as "creationism" in holding that [[Miracle|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 City|Vatican]]'s chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006):<blockquote>...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.<ref>{{cite web |url=/national/national_story.php?id=18504 |title=Text of talk by Vatican Observatory director on 'Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution' |last=Coyne |first=George V. |authorlink=George Coyne |date=January 30, 2006 |publisher=Catholic Online, LLC |accessdate=2011-03-10}}</ref></blockquote>

===Christianity===

===Christianity===

{{Further|Genesis creation narrative|Creation–evolution controversy}}

{{Further|Genesis creation narrative|Creation–evolution controversy}}

{{As of | 2006}} most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation myth. The US 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.<ref name="Science%20survey">{{cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=Jon D. |last2=Scott |first2=Eugenie C. |authorlink2=Eugenie Scott |last3=Okamoto |first3=Shinji |date=August 2006 |title=Public acceptance of evolution |url=/articles/706 |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |volume=313 |issue=5788 |pages=765–766 |doi=10.1126/science.1126746 |pmid=16902112 |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref>

{{As of | 2006}} most Christians around the world accepted evolution as the most likely explanation for the origins of species, and did not take a literal view of the Genesis creation myth. The US 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.<ref name="Science%252520survey">{{cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=Jon D. |last2=Scott |first2=Eugenie C. |authorlink2=Eugenie Scott |last3=Okamoto |first3=Shinji |date=August 2006 |title=Public acceptance of evolution |url=/articles/706 |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |volume=313 |issue=5788 |pages=765–766 |doi=10.1126/science.1126746 |pmid=16902112 |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref>

Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,<ref name="Denominational%20Views">{{cite web |url=/religion/denominational-views |title=Denominational Views |date=October 17, 2008 |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2010-05-17}}</ref> such as [[Anglicanism|Anglicans]]<ref name="Episcopal%20Church">{{cite web|url=/media/voices/episcopal-church-general-convention-2006 |title=Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006) |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2010-05-17}}</ref> and [[Lutheranism|Lutherans]],<ref name="Lutheran">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Schick |first=Edwin A. |editor-last=Bodensieck |editor-first=Julius |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church |url=/media/voices/lutheran-world-federation |accessdate=2010-05-17 |title=Evolution |year=1965 |publisher=[[Augsburg Fortress|Augsburg Publishing House]] |volume=1 |location=Minneapolis, MN |lccn=64021500 |oclc=947120}} Edited for the [[Lutheran World Federation]].

Most contemporary Christian leaders and scholars from mainstream churches,<ref name="Denominational%252520Views">{{cite web |url=/religion/denominational-views |title=Denominational Views |date=October 17, 2008 |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2010-05-17}}</ref> such as [[Anglicanism|Anglicans]]<ref name="Episcopal%252520Church">{{cite web|url=/media/voices/episcopal-church-general-convention-2006 |title=Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006) |website=National Center for Science Education |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |accessdate=2010-05-17}}</ref> and [[Lutheranism|Lutherans]],<ref name="Lutheran">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Schick |first=Edwin A. |editor-last=Bodensieck |editor-first=Julius |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church |url=/media/voices/lutheran-world-federation |accessdate=2010-05-17 |title=Evolution |year=1965 |publisher=[[Augsburg Fortress|Augsburg Publishing House]] |volume=1 |location=Minneapolis, MN |lccn=64021500 |oclc=947120}} Edited for the [[Lutheran World Federation]].

*{{cite journal |last=Hollabaugh |first=Mark |date=October 2006 |title=God allows the universe to create itself and evolve |url=/article/article.cfm?article_id=6093 |journal=[[The Lutheran]] |location=Minneapolis, MN |publisher=[[Augsburg Fortress]] |issn=0024-743X |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 21, 2006 |title=Interview: Rowan Williams |url=/world/2006/mar/21/religion.uk |newspaper=The Guardian |type=Transcript |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref>

*{{cite journal |last=Hollabaugh |first=Mark |date=October 2006 |title=God allows the universe to create itself and evolve |url=/article/article.cfm?article_id=6093 |journal=[[The Lutheran]] |location=Minneapolis, MN |publisher=[[Augsburg Fortress]] |issn=0024-743X |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 21, 2006 |title=Interview: Rowan Williams |url=/world/2006/mar/21/religion.uk |newspaper=The Guardian |type=Transcript |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-16}}</ref>

</ref> 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,<ref>[[#Polkinghorne 1998|Polkinghorne 1998]], pp. 7–8</ref> 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 Christianity|Liberal theology]], not providing any creation models, but instead focusing on the [[symbol]]ism in beliefs of the time of authoring Genesis and the cultural environment.

</ref> 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,<ref>[[#Polkinghorne 1998|Polkinghorne 1998]], pp. 7–8</ref> 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 Christianity|Liberal theology]], not providing any creation models, but instead focusing on the [[symbol]]ism 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.<ref name="Philo_Chapter2" /><ref name="www%2Eearlychurch%2Eorg%2Euk">{{cite web |url=/philo.php |title=Philo of Alexandria (c.20 BC - c. AD 50) |last=Bradshaw |first=Rob |website=Early Church.org.uk |publisher=Steve Bradshaw |location=West Wickham, England |accessdate=December 21, 2011}}</ref> 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);<ref name="Augustine" /> 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#Catholic usage|encyclical]] ''[[Humani generis]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html |author=Pope Pius XII |authorlink=Pope Pius XII |title=Humani Generis |website=Vatican: the Holy See |publisher=[[Holy See]] |location=St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City |type=[[Encyclical#Catholic usage|Papal encyclical]] |date=August 12, 1950 |accessdate=2011-11-08}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news |author=Pope John Paul II |authorlink=Pope John Paul II |date=October 30, 1996 |title=Magisterium is concerned with question of evolution, for it involves conception of man |url=/~nmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.html |newspaper=[[L'Osservatore Romano]] |type=Message to the [[Pontifical Academy of Sciences]] |edition=Weekly English |location=Tipografia Vaticana, Vatican City |publisher=Holy See |number=44 |pages=3, 7 |accessdate=2014-03-19}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Philo_Chapter2" /><ref name="www%25252Eearlychurch%25252Eorg%25252Euk">{{cite web |url=/philo.php |title=Philo of Alexandria (c.20 BC - c. AD 50) |last=Bradshaw |first=Rob |website=Early Church.org.uk |publisher=Steve Bradshaw |location=West Wickham, England |accessdate=December 21, 2011}}</ref> 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);<ref name="Augustine" /> 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#Catholic usage|encyclical]] ''[[Humani generis]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html |author=Pope Pius XII |authorlink=Pope Pius XII |title=Humani Generis |website=Vatican: the Holy See |publisher=[[Holy See]] |location=St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City |type=[[Encyclical#Catholic usage|Papal encyclical]] |date=August 12, 1950 |accessdate=2011-11-08}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news |author=Pope John Paul II |authorlink=Pope John Paul II |date=October 30, 1996 |title=Magisterium is concerned with question of evolution, for it involves conception of man |url=/~nmcenter/sci-cp/evolution.html |newspaper=[[L'Osservatore Romano]] |type=Message to the [[Pontifical Academy of Sciences]] |edition=Weekly English |location=Tipografia Vaticana, Vatican City |publisher=Holy See |number=44 |pages=3, 7 |accessdate=2014-03-19}}</ref>

In the US, Evangelical Christians have continued to believe in a literal Genesis. Members of evangelical Protestant (70%), [[Mormons|Mormon]] (76%) and [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] (90%) denominations are the most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.<ref>{{cite report |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2008 |title=U.S. Religious Landscape Survey |url=/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf |publisher=[[Pew Research Center]] |location=Washington, D.C. |chapter=Social and Political Views |page=95 |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-19}} Report 2: Religious Beliefs & Practices, Chapter 2.</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=/articles/2194 |title=Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? |last=Jackson |first=Wayne |website=Apologetics Press |location=Montgomery, Al |accessdate=2007-05-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=/creationint.html |last=Tobin |first=Paul N. |year=2000 |title=The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties |website=The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity |publisher=Paul Tobin |location=Singapore |accessdate=2014-03-19}}</ref> 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.<ref name="rsf">[[#Forster & Marston 1999|Forster & Marston 1999]]</ref>

In the US, Evangelical Christians have continued to believe in a literal Genesis. Members of evangelical Protestant (70%), [[Mormons|Mormon]] (76%) and [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] (90%) denominations are the most likely to reject the evolutionary interpretation of the origins of life.<ref>{{cite report |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2008 |title=U.S. Religious Landscape Survey |url=/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf |publisher=[[Pew Research Center]] |location=Washington, D.C. |chapter=Social and Political Views |page=95 |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-19}} Report 2: Religious Beliefs & Practices, Chapter 2.</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=/articles/2194 |title=Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? |last=Jackson |first=Wayne |website=Apologetics Press |location=Montgomery, Al |accessdate=2007-05-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=/creationint.html |last=Tobin |first=Paul N. |year=2000 |title=The Creation Myths: Internal Difficulties |website=The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity |publisher=Paul Tobin |location=Singapore |accessdate=2014-03-19}}</ref> 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.<ref name="rsf">[[#Forster & Marston 1999|Forster & Marston 1999]]</ref>

[[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, Mary Baker Eddy showed a preference for Darwin's theory of evolution over others.<ref name=S%26amp%3BHp547>[[#Eddy 1934|Eddy 1934]], p. 547</ref>

[[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, Mary Baker Eddy showed a preference for Darwin's theory of evolution over others.<ref name=S%252526amp%25253BHp547>[[#Eddy 1934|Eddy 1934]], p. 547</ref>

===Hinduism===

===Hinduism===

Khalid Anees, president of the [[Islamic Society of Britain]], at a conference called 'Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools', made points including the following:<blockquote>There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and [[survival of the fittest]]. However, Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another.<ref name=guardian0104>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 7, 2004 |url=/conferences/story/0,,1117752,00.html |title=Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools |newspaper=The Guardian |type=Conferences |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2008-07-18}}</ref></blockquote>

Khalid Anees, president of the [[Islamic Society of Britain]], at a conference called 'Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools', made points including the following:<blockquote>There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and [[survival of the fittest]]. However, Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another.<ref name=guardian0104>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=January 7, 2004 |url=/conferences/story/0,,1117752,00.html |title=Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools |newspaper=The Guardian |type=Conferences |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2008-07-18}}</ref></blockquote>

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."<ref name="Bennett%204" /> However, some Muslims, such as [[Adnan Oktar]] (also known as Harun Yahya), do not agree that one species can develop from another.<ref name="PrizeforFossil">{{cite news |url=/news/religion/3102103/Creationist-Adnan-Oktar-offers-trillion-pound-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution.html |last=Irvine |first=Chris |date=September 29, 2008 |title=Creationist Adnan Oktar offers trillion-pound prize for fossil proof of evolution |newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |location=London |publisher=[[Telegraph Media Group]] |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref>

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."<ref name="Bennett%2525204" /> However, some Muslims, such as [[Adnan Oktar]] (also known as Harun Yahya), do not agree that one species can develop from another.<ref name="PrizeforFossil">{{cite news |url=/news/religion/3102103/Creationist-Adnan-Oktar-offers-trillion-pound-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution.html |last=Irvine |first=Chris |date=September 29, 2008 |title=Creationist Adnan Oktar offers trillion-pound prize for fossil proof of evolution |newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |location=London |publisher=[[Telegraph Media Group]] |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref>

But there is also a growing movement of Islamic creationism. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived conflicts between the Qur'an and the main points of evolutionary theory. The main location for this has been in Turkey, where fewer than 25% of people believe in evolution.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kaufman |first=Marc |date=November 8, 2009 |url=/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110702233.html |title=In Turkey, fertile ground for creationism |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=The Washington Post Company |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref>

But there is also a growing movement of Islamic creationism. Similar to Christian creationism, there is concern regarding the perceived conflicts between the Qur'an and the main points of evolutionary theory. The main location for this has been in Turkey, where fewer than 25% of people believe in evolution.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kaufman |first=Marc |date=November 8, 2009 |url=/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110702233.html |title=In Turkey, fertile ground for creationism |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=The Washington Post Company |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref>

==Creationism by country==

==Creationism by country==

Creationism is widely accepted and taught throughout the Middle East. Although it has been prominent in the US but not widely accepted in academia, it has been making a resurgence in other countries as well.<ref name="Discover">{{cite journal |last=Pitock |first=Todd |date=July 2007 |title=Science and Islam in Conflict |url=/2007/jul/science-and-islam |journal=Discover |location=Waukesha, WI |publisher=Kalmbach Publishing |volume=28 |issue=7 |pages=36–45 |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref><ref name="Katz_AP">{{cite news |last=Katz |first=Gregory |date=February 9, 2008 |title=Creationists seek foothold in Europe |url=/news/world/2008-02-09-3128465947_x.htm |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |location=Tysons Corner, VA |publisher=[[Gannett Company]] |agency=Associated Press |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref><ref name="NCSE%20Edis">{{cite journal |last=Edis |first=Taner |date=November–December 1999 |title=Cloning Creationism in Turkey |url=/rncse/19/6/cloning-creationism-turkey |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=19 |issue=6 |pages=30–35 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2008-02-17}}</ref>

Creationism is widely accepted and taught throughout the Middle East. Although it has been prominent in the US but not widely accepted in academia, it has been making a resurgence in other countries as well.<ref name="Discover">{{cite journal |last=Pitock |first=Todd |date=July 2007 |title=Science and Islam in Conflict |url=/2007/jul/science-and-islam |journal=Discover |location=Waukesha, WI |publisher=Kalmbach Publishing |volume=28 |issue=7 |pages=36–45 |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref><ref name="Katz_AP">{{cite news |last=Katz |first=Gregory |date=February 9, 2008 |title=Creationists seek foothold in Europe |url=/news/world/2008-02-09-3128465947_x.htm |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |location=Tysons Corner, VA |publisher=[[Gannett Company]] |agency=Associated Press |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref><ref name="NCSE%252520Edis">{{cite journal |last=Edis |first=Taner |date=November–December 1999 |title=Cloning Creationism in Turkey |url=/rncse/19/6/cloning-creationism-turkey |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=19 |issue=6 |pages=30–35 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2008-02-17}}</ref>

===Europe===

===Europe===

In recent years the teaching of creationism has become a subject of debate in a variety of countries including Germany, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Serbia.<ref name="Katz_AP" /><ref name="NCSE%20Edis" /><ref name="Serbia_Darwin">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 9, 2004 |title=Serbia reverses Darwin suspension |url=/2/hi/europe/3642460.stm |work=[[BBC News]] |location=London |publisher=[[BBC]] |accessdate=2014-03-21 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Highfield |first=Roger |authorlink=Roger Highfield |date=October 2, 2007 |title=Creationists rewrite natural history |url=/science/science-news/3309018/Creationists-rewrite-natural-history.html |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref>

In recent years the teaching of creationism has become a subject of debate in a variety of countries including Germany, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Serbia.<ref name="Katz_AP" /><ref name="NCSE%252520Edis" /><ref name="Serbia_Darwin">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 9, 2004 |title=Serbia reverses Darwin suspension |url=/2/hi/europe/3642460.stm |work=[[BBC News]] |location=London |publisher=[[BBC]] |accessdate=2014-03-21 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Highfield |first=Roger |authorlink=Roger Highfield |date=October 2, 2007 |title=Creationists rewrite natural history |url=/science/science-news/3309018/Creationists-rewrite-natural-history.html |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref>

Creation science has been heavily promoted in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by Adnan Oktar.<ref name="NCSE%20Edis" /> On October 4, 2007, the [[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe]] adopted ''[[Creation and evolution in public education#Council of Europe|The dangers of creationism in education]]'', a resolution on the attempt by American-inspired creationists to promote creationism in European schools. It concludes "The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements... some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy... If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists."<ref name="R1580">{{cite web |url=/main.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=October 4, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=[[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe]] |type=Resolution |id=Resolution 1580 |accessdate=2014-03-22}} Paras. 13, 18</ref>

Creation science has been heavily promoted in immigrant communities in Western Europe, primarily by Adnan Oktar.<ref name="NCSE%252520Edis" /> On October 4, 2007, the [[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe]] adopted ''[[Creation and evolution in public education#Council of Europe|The dangers of creationism in education]]'', a resolution on the attempt by American-inspired creationists to promote creationism in European schools. It concludes "The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements... some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy... If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists."<ref name="R1580">{{cite web |url=/main.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=October 4, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=[[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe]] |type=Resolution |id=Resolution 1580 |accessdate=2014-03-22}} Paras. 13, 18</ref>

====Germany====

====Germany====

====Russia====

====Russia====

[[Russians|Russia]] is home to the Moscow Creation Society.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Doughty |first1=John |last2=Doughty |first2=Svetlana |date=June 1997 |title=Creationism in Russia |url=/article/creationism-russia/ |journal=Acts & Facts |location=San Diego, CA |publisher=Institute for Creation Research |volume=26 |issue=6 |issn=1094-8562 |accessdate=2014-03-23}}</ref> The department of extracurricular and alternative education of the [[Ministry of Education and Science (Russia)|Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation]] has cosponsored numerous creationist conferences. Since 1994, Alexander Asmolov, the previous deputy minister of education, has urged that creationism be taught to help restore academic freedom in Russia after years of state-enforced scientific orthodoxy.<ref name="Numbers%202006" /> In February 2007, a 16-year-old girl and her father launched a court case against the Ministry of Education and Science, backed by the [[Russian Orthodox Church]], challenging the teaching of just one "theory" of biology in school textbooks as a breach of her human rights.<ref name="Kj%C3%A6rgaard">{{cite journal |last=Kjærgaard |first=Peter C. |date=May–June 2008 |title=Western front |url=/1783/western-front |journal=[[New Humanist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Rationalist Association]] |volume=123 |issue=3 |pages=39–41 |issn=0306-512X |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=EN |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=September 17, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe |type=Report |id=Doc. 11375 |accessdate=2014-04-24}}</ref>

[[Russians|Russia]] is home to the Moscow Creation Society.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Doughty |first1=John |last2=Doughty |first2=Svetlana |date=June 1997 |title=Creationism in Russia |url=/article/creationism-russia/ |journal=Acts & Facts |location=San Diego, CA |publisher=Institute for Creation Research |volume=26 |issue=6 |issn=1094-8562 |accessdate=2014-03-23}}</ref> The department of extracurricular and alternative education of the [[Ministry of Education and Science (Russia)|Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation]] has cosponsored numerous creationist conferences. Since 1994, Alexander Asmolov, the previous deputy minister of education, has urged that creationism be taught to help restore academic freedom in Russia after years of state-enforced scientific orthodoxy.<ref name="Numbers%2525202006" /> In February 2007, a 16-year-old girl and her father launched a court case against the Ministry of Education and Science, backed by the [[Russian Orthodox Church]], challenging the teaching of just one "theory" of biology in school textbooks as a breach of her human rights.<ref name="Kj%2525C3%2525A6rgaard">{{cite journal |last=Kjærgaard |first=Peter C. |date=May–June 2008 |title=Western front |url=/1783/western-front |journal=[[New Humanist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Rationalist Association]] |volume=123 |issue=3 |pages=39–41 |issn=0306-512X |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=EN |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=September 17, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe |type=Report |id=Doc. 11375 |accessdate=2014-04-24}}</ref>

A 2005 poll reportedly found 26% of Russians accepting evolution and 49% accepting creationism.<ref>{{cite news |last=Bigg |first=Claire |date=March 10, 2006 |title=Russia: Creationism Finds Support Among Young |url=/content/article/1066577.html |work=[[Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[Broadcasting Board of Governors]] |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> But a 2003 poll reported that 44% agreed with "Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals,"<ref name="NSB_06">{{cite book |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=February 23, 2006 |chapter=Figure 7-7: Correct answers to specific science literacy questions, by country/region: Most recent year |chapterurl=/statistics/seind06/c7/fig07-07.htm |title=Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 |url=/statistics/seind06/ |type=Figure |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[National Science Foundation]]; [[National Science Board]] |oclc=71342049 |id=NSB 06-01 |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> and a 2009 poll reported (PDF) that 48% of Russians who "know something about Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution" agreed that there was sufficient evidence for the theory.<ref name="britishcouncil%2Eorg">{{cite press release |last1=Stephenson |first1=Tony |last2=Michael |first2=Adam |last3=Tan |first3=Benjamyn |date=June 30, 2009 |title=Darwin Survey Shows International Consensus on Acceptance of Evolution |url=/darwin_now_survey_global.pdf |format=PDF |location=London |publisher=[[British Council]] |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> The 2009 poll indicated that 53% of Russians agreed with "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism," with 13% preferring that such perspectives be taught instead of evolution; only 10% agreed with "Evolutionary theories alone should be taught in science lessons in schools."<ref name="britishcouncil%2Eorg" />

A 2005 poll reportedly found 26% of Russians accepting evolution and 49% accepting creationism.<ref>{{cite news |last=Bigg |first=Claire |date=March 10, 2006 |title=Russia: Creationism Finds Support Among Young |url=/content/article/1066577.html |work=[[Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[Broadcasting Board of Governors]] |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> But a 2003 poll reported that 44% agreed with "Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals,"<ref name="NSB_06">{{cite book |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=February 23, 2006 |chapter=Figure 7-7: Correct answers to specific science literacy questions, by country/region: Most recent year |chapterurl=/statistics/seind06/c7/fig07-07.htm |title=Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 |url=/statistics/seind06/ |type=Figure |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[National Science Foundation]]; [[National Science Board]] |oclc=71342049 |id=NSB 06-01 |accessdate=2010-10-29}}</ref> and a 2009 poll reported (PDF) that 48% of Russians who "know something about Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution" agreed that there was sufficient evidence for the theory.<ref name="britishcouncil%25252Eorg">{{cite press release |last1=Stephenson |first1=Tony |last2=Michael |first2=Adam |last3=Tan |first3=Benjamyn |date=June 30, 2009 |title=Darwin Survey Shows International Consensus on Acceptance of Evolution |url=/darwin_now_survey_global.pdf |format=PDF |location=London |publisher=[[British Council]] |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> The 2009 poll indicated that 53% of Russians agreed with "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism," with 13% preferring that such perspectives be taught instead of evolution; only 10% agreed with "Evolutionary theories alone should be taught in science lessons in schools."<ref name="britishcouncil%25252Eorg" />

====Serbia====

====Serbia====

===Muslim world===

===Muslim world===

A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of [[Egyptians]], 11% of [[Malaysians]], 14% of [[Pakistanis]], 16% of [[Demographics of Indonesia|Indonesians]], and 22% of [[Turkish citizen|Turks]] agree that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true, and a 2006 survey reported that about a quarter of Turkish adults agreed that human beings evolved from earlier animal species.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hameed |first1=Salman |date=December 12, 2008 |title=Bracing for Islamic creationism |url=/~sahCS/Hameed-Science-Creationism.pdf |format=PDF |journal=Science |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |volume=322 |issue=5908 |pages=1637–1638  |doi=10.1126/science.1163672 |pmid=19074331 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> Surveys carried out by researchers affiliated with McGill University's Evolution Education Research Centre found that in Egypt and Pakistan, while the official high school curriculum does include evolution, many of the teachers there do not believe in it themselves, and will often tell their students so.<ref name="Bennett%204" />

A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of [[Egyptians]], 11% of [[Malaysians]], 14% of [[Pakistanis]], 16% of [[Demographics of Indonesia|Indonesians]], and 22% of [[Turkish citizen|Turks]] agree that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true, and a 2006 survey reported that about a quarter of Turkish adults agreed that human beings evolved from earlier animal species.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hameed |first1=Salman |date=December 12, 2008 |title=Bracing for Islamic creationism |url=/~sahCS/Hameed-Science-Creationism.pdf |format=PDF |journal=Science |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |volume=322 |issue=5908 |pages=1637–1638  |doi=10.1126/science.1163672 |pmid=19074331 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> Surveys carried out by researchers affiliated with McGill University's Evolution Education Research Centre found that in Egypt and Pakistan, while the official high school curriculum does include evolution, many of the teachers there do not believe in it themselves, and will often tell their students so.<ref name="Bennett%2525204" />

Currently in Egypt, evolution is taught in schools but Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.<ref name="Discover" /><ref name="BurtonIRNKSA">{{cite journal |last=Burton |first=Elise K. |date=May–June 2010 |title=Teaching Evolution in Muslim States:Iran and Saudi Arabia Compared |url=/870964/Evolution_Education_in_Muslim_States_Iran_and_Saudi_Arabia_Compared |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=25–29 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2014-01-13}}</ref> In recent times, creationism has become more widespread in other Islamic countries.<ref name="Economist_2007">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 19, 2007 |title=In the beginning |url=/node/9036706 |work=[[The Economist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Economist Group]] |issn=0013-0613 |accessdate=2007-04-25}}This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.</ref>

Currently in Egypt, evolution is taught in schools but Saudi Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.<ref name="Discover" /><ref name="BurtonIRNKSA">{{cite journal |last=Burton |first=Elise K. |date=May–June 2010 |title=Teaching Evolution in Muslim States:Iran and Saudi Arabia Compared |url=/870964/Evolution_Education_in_Muslim_States_Iran_and_Saudi_Arabia_Compared |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=National Center for Science Education |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=25–29 |issn=2158-818X |accessdate=2014-01-13}}</ref> In recent times, creationism has become more widespread in other Islamic countries.<ref name="Economist_2007">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 19, 2007 |title=In the beginning |url=/node/9036706 |work=[[The Economist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Economist Group]] |issn=0013-0613 |accessdate=2007-04-25}}This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.</ref>

====Turkey====

====Turkey====

Since the 1980s, creationism in Turkey has grown significantly and is now the government's official position on origins.<ref name="Bennett%204">{{cite news |last=Bennett |first=Drake |date=October 25, 2009 |title=Islam's Darwin problem |url=/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full |newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]] |location=Boston, MA |archiveurl=/web/20091030044754/http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full |archivedate=2009-10-30 |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> In 1985, the conservative political party then in control of the country’s education ministry added creationist explanations alongside the passages on evolution in the standard high school biology textbook. In Turkey, unlike in the US, the public school curriculum is set by the national government. In 2008, [[Richard Dawkins]]' website was banned in Turkey.<ref>{{cite news |last=Salter |first=Jessica |date=September 19, 2008 |title=Richard Dawkins website banned in Turkey |url=/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/2987807/Richard-Dawkins-website-banned-in-Turkey.html |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> However, the ban was lifted in July 2011.<ref>{{cite web |url=/articles/642074-rd-net-no-longer-banned-in-turkey |title=RD.net no longer banned in Turkey! |author=RDFRS UK |date=July 8, 2011 |website=RichardDawkins.net |publisher=[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] |location=Washington, D.C. |archiveurl=/web/20111105060322/http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642074-rd-net-no-longer-banned-in-turkey |archivedate=2011-11-05 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> In 2009, the Turkish government agency [[Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey]] (TÜBİTAK), publisher of the popular Turkish science magazine ''[[Bilim ve Teknik]]'' (''Science and Technology''), was accused of stripping a cover story about the life and work of Charles Darwin from the March 2009 issue of the Council's publication just before it went to press. The planned portrait of Darwin for the magazine's cover was replaced and the editor of the magazine, Çiğdem Atakuman, claims that she was removed from her post.<ref>{{cite web |url=/news/2009/090310/full/news.2009.150.html |title=Turkish scientists claim Darwin censorship |last=Abbott |first=Alison |date=March 10, 2009 |website=Nature News |publisher=Nature Publishing Group |location=London |doi=10.1038/news.2009.150 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 19, 2009 |title=Turkey censors evolution |url=/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/458259a.html |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |type=Editorial |location=London |publisher=Nature Publishing Group |volume=458 |issue=259 |doi=10.1038/458259a |issn=0028-0836 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=May 2009 |title=Evolution Stirs Tempest in Turkish Teapot |url=/publications/apsnews/200905/evolution.cfm |journal=APS News |type=News |location=College Park, MD |publisher=[[American Physical Society]] |volume=18 |issue=5 |issn=1058-8132 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 16, 2009 |title=Darwin issue ends in finger pointing |url=/english/domestic/11214930.asp?gid=244 |newspaper=[[Hürriyet Daily News]] |location=Üsküdar, Turkey |publisher=[[Doğan Media Group]] |issn=1300-0721 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> Most of the Turkish population expressed support for the censorship.<ref>{{cite news |last=Steinvorth |first=Daniel |date=March 17, 2009 |title=Darwin in Turkey: 'Most Express Sympathy for the Censorship' |url=/international/world/darwin-in-turkey-most-express-sympathy-for-the-censorship-a-613768.html |work=Spiegel Online |location=Hamburg, Germany |publisher=Spiegel Online GmbH |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> In 2012, it was found that the government's internet content filter, designed to prevent the public having access to pornographic websites, also blocked the words 'evolution' and 'Darwin' on one mode of the filter.<ref>{{cite news |last=Chivers |first=Tom |date=December 10, 2011 |title=Darwin censored by the Turkish government's porn filter |url=/news/tomchiversscience/100123035/darwin-censored-by-the-turkish-governments-porn-filter/ |work=Telegraph Blogs |type=Blog |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref>

Since the 1980s, creationism in Turkey has grown significantly and is now the government's official position on origins.<ref name="Bennett%2525204">{{cite news |last=Bennett |first=Drake |date=October 25, 2009 |title=Islam's Darwin problem |url=/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full |newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]] |location=Boston, MA |archiveurl=/web/20091030044754/http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full |archivedate=2009-10-30 |accessdate=2014-03-21}}</ref> In 1985, the conservative political party then in control of the country’s education ministry added creationist explanations alongside the passages on evolution in the standard high school biology textbook. In Turkey, unlike in the US, the public school curriculum is set by the national government. In 2008, [[Richard Dawkins]]' website was banned in Turkey.<ref>{{cite news |last=Salter |first=Jessica |date=September 19, 2008 |title=Richard Dawkins website banned in Turkey |url=/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/2987807/Richard-Dawkins-website-banned-in-Turkey.html |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> However, the ban was lifted in July 2011.<ref>{{cite web |url=/articles/642074-rd-net-no-longer-banned-in-turkey |title=RD.net no longer banned in Turkey! |author=RDFRS UK |date=July 8, 2011 |website=RichardDawkins.net |publisher=[[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] |location=Washington, D.C. |archiveurl=/web/20111105060322/http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642074-rd-net-no-longer-banned-in-turkey |archivedate=2011-11-05 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> In 2009, the Turkish government agency [[Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey]] (TÜBİTAK), publisher of the popular Turkish science magazine ''[[Bilim ve Teknik]]'' (''Science and Technology''), was accused of stripping a cover story about the life and work of Charles Darwin from the March 2009 issue of the Council's publication just before it went to press. The planned portrait of Darwin for the magazine's cover was replaced and the editor of the magazine, Çiğdem Atakuman, claims that she was removed from her post.<ref>{{cite web |url=/news/2009/090310/full/news.2009.150.html |title=Turkish scientists claim Darwin censorship |last=Abbott |first=Alison |date=March 10, 2009 |website=Nature News |publisher=Nature Publishing Group |location=London |doi=10.1038/news.2009.150 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 19, 2009 |title=Turkey censors evolution |url=/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/458259a.html |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |type=Editorial |location=London |publisher=Nature Publishing Group |volume=458 |issue=259 |doi=10.1038/458259a |issn=0028-0836 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=May 2009 |title=Evolution Stirs Tempest in Turkish Teapot |url=/publications/apsnews/200905/evolution.cfm |journal=APS News |type=News |location=College Park, MD |publisher=[[American Physical Society]] |volume=18 |issue=5 |issn=1058-8132 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 16, 2009 |title=Darwin issue ends in finger pointing |url=/english/domestic/11214930.asp?gid=244 |newspaper=[[Hürriyet Daily News]] |location=Üsküdar, Turkey |publisher=[[Doğan Media Group]] |issn=1300-0721 |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> Most of the Turkish population expressed support for the censorship.<ref>{{cite news |last=Steinvorth |first=Daniel |date=March 17, 2009 |title=Darwin in Turkey: 'Most Express Sympathy for the Censorship' |url=/international/world/darwin-in-turkey-most-express-sympathy-for-the-censorship-a-613768.html |work=Spiegel Online |location=Hamburg, Germany |publisher=Spiegel Online GmbH |accessdate=2014-03-24}}</ref> In 2012, it was found that the government's internet content filter, designed to prevent the public having access to pornographic websites, also blocked the words 'evolution' and 'Darwin' on one mode of the filter.<ref>{{cite news |last=Chivers |first=Tom |date=December 10, 2011 |title=Darwin censored by the Turkish government's porn filter |url=/news/tomchiversscience/100123035/darwin-censored-by-the-turkish-governments-porn-filter/ |work=Telegraph Blogs |type=Blog |location=London |publisher=Telegraph Media Group |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref>

===Australia===

===Australia===

====Brazil====

====Brazil====

[[Brazilians|Brazil]] has had two creationist societies since the 1970s—the Brazilian Association for Creation Research and the Brazilian Creation Society. According to a 2004 survey, 31% of Brazil believe that "the first humans were created no more than 10,000 years ago."<ref name="Numbers%202006" />

[[Brazilians|Brazil]] has had two creationist societies since the 1970s—the Brazilian Association for Creation Research and the Brazilian Creation Society. According to a 2004 survey, 31% of Brazil believe that "the first humans were created no more than 10,000 years ago."<ref name="Numbers%2525202006" />

====United States====

====United States====

"Creation science" could no longer be taught in public schools, and in drafts of the creation science school textbook ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'' all references to creation or creationism were changed to refer to intelligent design.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /> Proponents of the intelligent design movement organised widespread campaigning to considerable effect. They officially denied any links to creation or religion, and claimed that "creationism" only referred to young Earth creationism with Flood geology;<ref name="witt">{{cite web |url=/2005/12/post_6001764.html |title=Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design |last=Witt |first=Jonathan |date=December 20, 2005 |website=Evolution News & Views |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> but in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' the court found intelligent design to be religious, and unable to dissociate itself from its creationist roots, as part of the ruling that teaching intelligent design in public school science classes was unconstitutional.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" />

"Creation science" could no longer be taught in public schools, and in drafts of the creation science school textbook ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'' all references to creation or creationism were changed to refer to intelligent design.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /> Proponents of the intelligent design movement organised widespread campaigning to considerable effect. They officially denied any links to creation or religion, and claimed that "creationism" only referred to young Earth creationism with Flood geology;<ref name="witt">{{cite web |url=/2005/12/post_6001764.html |title=Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design |last=Witt |first=Jonathan |date=December 20, 2005 |website=Evolution News & Views |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle, WA |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref> but in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' the court found intelligent design to be religious, and unable to dissociate itself from its creationist roots, as part of the ruling that teaching intelligent design in public school science classes was unconstitutional.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" />

The percentage of people in the US who accept the idea of human evolution declined from 45% in 1985 to 40% in 2005.<ref name="Science%20survey" /> A [[Gallup (company)|Gallup]] poll reported that the percentage of people in the US who believe in a strict interpretation of creationism had fallen to 40% in 2010 after a high of 46% in 2006. The highest the percentage has risen between 1982 and 2010 was 47% in 1994 and 2000 according to the report. The report found that Americans who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view while those with a college education are more likely to hold a view involving evolution. 47% of those with no more than a high school education believe in creationism while 22% of those with a post graduate education hold that view. The poll also found that church attendance dramatically increased adherence to a strict creationist view (22% for those who do not attend church, 60% for those who attend weekly).<ref name="gallup">{{cite web |url=/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx |title=Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism |last=Newport |first=Frank |date=December 17, 2010 |website=Gallup.com |location=Omaha, NE |publisher=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup, Inc.]] |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref> The higher percentage of [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] who identified with a creationist view is described as evidence of the strong relationship between religion and politics in the US. Republicans also attend church weekly more than [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] or [[Independent (voter)|independent]] voters. Non-Republican voters are twice as likely to hold a [[nontheism|nontheistic]] view of evolution than Republican voters.<ref name="gallup" />

The percentage of people in the US who accept the idea of human evolution declined from 45% in 1985 to 40% in 2005.<ref name="Science%252520survey" /> A [[Gallup (company)|Gallup]] poll reported that the percentage of people in the US who believe in a strict interpretation of creationism had fallen to 40% in 2010 after a high of 46% in 2006. The highest the percentage has risen between 1982 and 2010 was 47% in 1994 and 2000 according to the report. The report found that Americans who are less educated are more likely to hold a creationist view while those with a college education are more likely to hold a view involving evolution. 47% of those with no more than a high school education believe in creationism while 22% of those with a post graduate education hold that view. The poll also found that church attendance dramatically increased adherence to a strict creationist view (22% for those who do not attend church, 60% for those who attend weekly).<ref name="gallup">{{cite web |url=/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx |title=Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism |last=Newport |first=Frank |date=December 17, 2010 |website=Gallup.com |location=Omaha, NE |publisher=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup, Inc.]] |accessdate=2014-03-09}}</ref> The higher percentage of [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] who identified with a creationist view is described as evidence of the strong relationship between religion and politics in the US. Republicans also attend church weekly more than [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] or [[Independent (voter)|independent]] voters. Non-Republican voters are twice as likely to hold a [[nontheism|nontheistic]] view of evolution than Republican voters.<ref name="gallup" />

Among US states, acceptance of evolution has a strong negative correlation with [[religiosity]] and a strong positive relationship with science degrees awarded, bachelor's degree attainment, advanced degree attainment, average teacher salary, and [[Gross domestic product|GDP]] per capita. In other words, states in which more people say that religion is very important to their lives tend to show less acceptance of evolution. The better the education of individuals, their educational system, or the higher their income, the more they accept evolution, though the US as a country has a comparatively well educated population but lower acceptance of evolution than other countries.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Heddy |first1=Benjamin C. |last2=Nadelson |first2=Louis S. |date=March 26, 2013 |title=The variables related to public acceptance of evolution in the United States |url=/content/6/1/3 |journal=Evolution: Education and Outreach |location=Heidelberg, Germany |publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media]] |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=1–14 |doi=10.1186/1936-6434-6-3 |issn=1936-6434 |accessdate=2013-03-28}}</ref>

Among US states, acceptance of evolution has a strong negative correlation with [[religiosity]] and a strong positive relationship with science degrees awarded, bachelor's degree attainment, advanced degree attainment, average teacher salary, and [[Gross domestic product|GDP]] per capita. In other words, states in which more people say that religion is very important to their lives tend to show less acceptance of evolution. The better the education of individuals, their educational system, or the higher their income, the more they accept evolution, though the US as a country has a comparatively well educated population but lower acceptance of evolution than other countries.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Heddy |first1=Benjamin C. |last2=Nadelson |first2=Louis S. |date=March 26, 2013 |title=The variables related to public acceptance of evolution in the United States |url=/content/6/1/3 |journal=Evolution: Education and Outreach |location=Heidelberg, Germany |publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media]] |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=1–14 |doi=10.1186/1936-6434-6-3 |issn=1936-6434 |accessdate=2013-03-28}}</ref>

[[File:Views on Evolution.svg|thumb|right|440px|Views on human evolution in various countries<ref>{{cite journal |last=Le Page |first=Michael |date=April 19, 2008 |title=Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution |url=/article/mg19826523.000-evolution-myths-it-doesnt-matter-if-people-dont-grasp-evolution.html |journal=[[New Scientist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Reed Business Information]] |volume=198 |issue=2652 |page=31 |doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7 |issn=0262-4079 |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Hecht |first=Jeff |date=August 19, 2006 |title=Why doesn't America believe in evolution? |url=/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html |journal=New Scientist |location=London |publisher=Reed Business Information |volume=191 |issue=2565 |page=11 |doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X |issn=0262-4079 |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref>]]

[[File:Views on Evolution.svg|thumb|right|440px|Views on human evolution in various countries<ref>{{cite journal |last=Le Page |first=Michael |date=April 19, 2008 |title=Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution |url=/article/mg19826523.000-evolution-myths-it-doesnt-matter-if-people-dont-grasp-evolution.html |journal=[[New Scientist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Reed Business Information]] |volume=198 |issue=2652 |page=31 |doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7 |issn=0262-4079 |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Hecht |first=Jeff |date=August 19, 2006 |title=Why doesn't America believe in evolution? |url=/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html |journal=New Scientist |location=London |publisher=Reed Business Information |volume=191 |issue=2565 |page=11 |doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(06)60136-X |issn=0262-4079 |accessdate=2014-03-27}}</ref>]]

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 (journal)|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.<ref name="Science%20survey" /> There seems to be no significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.<ref>{{cite web |url=/blog/2014/5/24/weekend-update-youd-have-to-be-science-illiterate-to-think-b.html |title=Weekend update: You'd have to be science illiterate to think 'belief in evolution' measures science literacy |last=Kahan |first=Dan |authorlink=Dan Kahan |date=May 24, 2014 |website=[[Cultural cognition#Cultural cognition project at Yale Law School|Cultural Cognition Project]] |publisher=[[Yale Law School]] |location=New Haven, CT |type=Blog |accessdate=2015-03-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Shtulman |first=Andrew |date=March 2006 |title=Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution |url=/science/article/pii/S0010028505000745 |journal=Cognitive Psychology |location=Amsterdam, the Netherlands |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=170–194 |doi=10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001 |issn=0010-0285 |accessdate=2015-03-23}}</ref>

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 (journal)|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.<ref name="Science%252520survey" /> There seems to be no significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.<ref>{{cite web |url=/blog/2014/5/24/weekend-update-youd-have-to-be-science-illiterate-to-think-b.html |title=Weekend update: You'd have to be science illiterate to think 'belief in evolution' measures science literacy |last=Kahan |first=Dan |authorlink=Dan Kahan |date=May 24, 2014 |website=[[Cultural cognition#Cultural cognition project at Yale Law School|Cultural Cognition Project]] |publisher=[[Yale Law School]] |location=New Haven, CT |type=Blog |accessdate=2015-03-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Shtulman |first=Andrew |date=March 2006 |title=Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution |url=/science/article/pii/S0010028505000745 |journal=Cognitive Psychology |location=Amsterdam, the Netherlands |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=170–194 |doi=10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001 |issn=0010-0285 |accessdate=2015-03-23}}</ref>

===Australia===

===Australia===

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.<ref name="pfaw">{{cite web |url=/pdf/creationism/creationism-poll.pdf |title=Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public Opinion |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 2000 |website=[[People For the American Way]] |publisher=People For the American Way |location=Washington, D.C. |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-28}}</ref>

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.<ref name="pfaw">{{cite web |url=/pdf/creationism/creationism-poll.pdf |title=Evolution and Creationism In Public Education: An In-depth Reading Of Public Opinion |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=March 2000 |website=[[People For the American Way]] |publisher=People For the American Way |location=Washington, D.C. |format=PDF |accessdate=2014-03-28}}</ref>

According to a study published in ''Science'', between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult [[North America]]ns 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%).<ref name="Science%20survey" />

According to a study published in ''Science'', between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult [[North America]]ns 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%).<ref name="Science%252520survey" />

According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in Creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.<ref name="Fox%20Creationism%20Poll">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 7, 2011 |title=Fox News Poll: Creationism |url=/us/2011/09/07/fox-news-poll-creationism/ |work=[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] |publisher=[[News Corporation]] |accessdate=2011-09-22}}</ref> 21% believe in 'the theory of evolution as outlined by

According to a 2011 Fox News poll, 45% of Americans believe in Creationism, down from 50% in a similar poll in 1999.<ref name="Fox%252520Creationism%252520Poll">{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 7, 2011 |title=Fox News Poll: Creationism |url=/us/2011/09/07/fox-news-poll-creationism/ |work=[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] |publisher=[[News Corporation]] |accessdate=2011-09-22}}</ref> 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).<ref name="Fox%20Creationism%20Poll" />

Darwin and other scientists' (up from 15% in 1999), and 27% answered that both are true (up from 26% in 1999).<ref name="Fox%252520Creationism%252520Poll" />

In September 2012, educator and television personality Bill Nye spoke with the [[Associated Press]] and aired his fears about acceptance of creationist theory, believing that teaching children that creationism is the only true answer and without letting them understand the way science works will prevent any future innovation in the world of science.<ref name="APNews-20120924" /><ref name="Youtube-20120823" /><ref name="NYT-20141103-JD" /> In February 2014, Nye defended [[Creation–evolution controversy|evolution in the classroom]] in a [[Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate|debate]] with creationist Ken Ham on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern, [[History of science#Modern science|scientific era]].<ref name="NBC-20140204">{{cite news |last=Boyle |first=Alan |authorlink=Alan Boyle |date=February 5, 2014 |title=Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate |url=/science/science-news/bill-nye-wins-over-science-crowd-evolution-debate-n22836 |work=[[NBCNews.com]] |accessdate=2014-02-06}}</ref><ref name="TG-20140204">{{cite news |last=Kopplin |first=Zack |authorlink=Zack Kopplin |date=February 4, 2014 |title=Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists |url=/commentisfree/2014/feb/04/bill-nye-science-guy-evolution-debate-creationists |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2014-02-06}}</ref><ref name="Debate-20140204">{{cite web |url=/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI |title=Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official) |last=Foreman |first=Tom (Moderator) |authorlink=Tom Foreman |date=February 4, 2014 |website=YouTube |publisher=Answers in Genesis |location=Hebron, KY |accessdate=2014-02-05}} Program begins at 13:14.</ref>

In September 2012, educator and television personality Bill Nye spoke with the [[Associated Press]] and aired his fears about acceptance of creationist theory, believing that teaching children that creationism is the only true answer and without letting them understand the way science works will prevent any future innovation in the world of science.<ref name="APNews-20120924" /><ref name="Youtube-20120823" /><ref name="NYT-20141103-JD" /> In February 2014, Nye defended [[Creation–evolution controversy|evolution in the classroom]] in a [[Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate|debate]] with creationist Ken Ham on the topic of whether creation is a viable model of origins in today's modern, [[History of science#Modern science|scientific era]].<ref name="NBC-20140204">{{cite news |last=Boyle |first=Alan |authorlink=Alan Boyle |date=February 5, 2014 |title=Bill Nye Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate |url=/science/science-news/bill-nye-wins-over-science-crowd-evolution-debate-n22836 |work=[[NBCNews.com]] |accessdate=2014-02-06}}</ref><ref name="TG-20140204">{{cite news |last=Kopplin |first=Zack |authorlink=Zack Kopplin |date=February 4, 2014 |title=Why Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to reason with America's creationists |url=/commentisfree/2014/feb/04/bill-nye-science-guy-evolution-debate-creationists |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |publisher=Guardian Media Group |accessdate=2014-02-06}}</ref><ref name="Debate-20140204">{{cite web |url=/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI |title=Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official) |last=Foreman |first=Tom (Moderator) |authorlink=Tom Foreman |date=February 4, 2014 |website=YouTube |publisher=Answers in Genesis |location=Hebron, KY |accessdate=2014-02-05}} Program begins at 13:14.</ref>