Changes

== Creationist categories ==

== Creationist categories ==

There are multiple different overarching categories and subcategories within the realm of Creationism, this list is not meant to be exhaustive but to deal with only the notable ones.

There are multiple different overarching categories and subcategories within the realm of Creationism, this list is not meant to be exhaustive but to deal with only the notable ones.

*Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] generally accept a literal or nearly literal interpretation of Genesis and insist that the world is around 6000 years old. Traditionally, [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism. [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp] In addition, a majority of the early [[church fathers]] supported the young earth creationist view.<ref>[http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm]</ref>

*Biblical [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] generally accept a literal or nearly literal interpretation of Genesis and insist that the world is around 6000 years old. Traditionally, [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp]</ref> In addition, a majority of the early [[church fathers]] supported the young earth creationist view.<ref>[http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm]</ref>

*[[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] do not take the Bible's creation account literally, and agree with the idea that the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years but generally do not accept the idea that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Old Earth Creationists generally interpret the Bible by suggesting that the days in chapter one of [[Genesis]] were not 24 hour days or by inserting gaps between various verses in the Bible. There is no general agreement among Old Earth Creationists on whether or not there was a global flood.

*[[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]] do not take the Bible's creation account literally, and agree with the idea that the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years but generally do not accept the idea that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Old Earth Creationists generally interpret the Bible by suggesting that the days in chapter one of [[Genesis]] were not 24 hour days or by inserting gaps between various verses in the Bible. There is no general agreement among Old Earth Creationists on whether or not there was a global flood.

*The [[Omphalos argument]] first expounded in a book titled Omphalos by [[Philip Henry Gosse]] (1857), argues that the universe was created young but with the appearance of age, much as Adam must have appeared to be fully grown even when he was but a single day in chronological age.  The theological objection to this argument is found in Romans 1:20 when Paul declares that the nature of God can be discerned by observing the universe, ''"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead..."''.  If the Omphalos argument is true, then not only is our evidence of the universe's great age untrustworthy, but the God revealed by examining this cosmic deception is untrustworthy as well.

*The [[Omphalos argument]] first expounded in a book titled Omphalos by [[Philip Henry Gosse]] (1857), argues that the universe was created young but with the appearance of age, much as Adam must have appeared to be fully grown even when he was but a single day in chronological age.  The theological objection to this argument is found in Romans 1:20 when Paul declares that the nature of God can be discerned by observing the universe, ''"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead..."''.  If the Omphalos argument is true, then not only is our evidence of the universe's great age untrustworthy, but the God revealed by examining this cosmic deception is untrustworthy as well.

A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity (possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatible with life.  

A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity (possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatible with life.  

Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a [[US Federal District Judge]], ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature.  The opinion met with wide accolades, but some criticism that it borrowed too heavily from the ACLU's briefs. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]  Nonetheless, it has been embraced by the legal community, and has quickly become the subject of renewed scholarship on the scope of the First Amendment.<ref>Richard B. Katskee, "Religion in Public Schools," 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006)</ref>

Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a [[US Federal District Judge]], ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature.  The opinion met with wide accolades, but some criticism that it borrowed too heavily from the ACLU's briefs. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]</ref> Nonetheless, it has been embraced by the legal community, and has quickly become the subject of renewed scholarship on the scope of the First Amendment.<ref>Richard B. Katskee, "Religion in Public Schools," 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006)</ref>

===Offensive Terminology===  

===Offensive Terminology===