Difference between revisions of "Creationism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by AmesG (Talk); changed back to last version by Conservative)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Creationism is a term with a variety of meanings. Most generally, creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God.[http://www.creationism.org/english/index.htm]. Creationism can also mean a belief in a creation according to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Some forms of creationism (especially the more literal forms) conflict with [[evolution|evolutionary ideas]] while others do not.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp].  Creationism is a valid religious belief, but not a valid scientific theory or construct.
+
Creationism is a term with a variety of meanings. Most generally, creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God.[http://www.creationism.org/english/index.htm]. Creationism can also mean a belief in a creation according to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Some forms of creationism (especially the more literal forms) conflict with [[evolution|evolutionary ideas]] while others do not.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp].  
  
 
== Types of Creationists ==
 
== Types of Creationists ==
Line 16: Line 16:
 
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 compatable 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]], a [[US Federal District Judge]] (the lowest level federal judge of a general jurisdiction court) ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature.  However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]
 
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 compatable 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]], a [[US Federal District Judge]] (the lowest level federal judge of a general jurisdiction court) ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature.  However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]
  
−
== Critiques & Fallacies in Creationism ==
+
== Attempts to Criticize Creationism ==
 +
<br>(1) Some critics of creationism assert that [[St. Augustine of Hippo]] disfavored some literal interpretations of the Bible.  For example, they claim that St. Augustine, in his [[On Christian Doctrine]], discussed the multiple layers that Biblical interpreters should sometimes engage in.  Under the view of these critics, the seven-day creation in the Book of Genesis should be taken as symbolic.
  
−
<br>(1) [[St. Augustine of Hippo]] disfavored a literal interpretations of the Bible.  For example, in his seminal work, [[On Christian Doctrine]], he discussed the multiple layers that Biblical interpreters should sometimes engage in.  Under the view of these critics, the seven-day creation in the Book of Genesis should be taken as symbolic, as he viewed the rest of creation.  Interestingly, Augustine's moderate theistic approach leaves way for fusion of religion and accepted science (evolutionary models & the [[Big Bang]]), suggesting that science and religion can truly play nicely.
+
<br>In fact, St. Augustine did not reject creation or creationism.  He did not propose or accept any view of man as anything other than a creation of God in the image of God, exactly as the Bible says.  
  
−
<br>(2) [[Young-earth creationism]], which holds that the earth is about 7,000 years old, is inconsistent with human history, which dates to at least 10,000 BC, with oldest ruins of [[Ancient Egypt]], and the first city of [[Ur]] in [[Mesopotamia]].  The [[fossil]] record also contradicts young-earth creationism, quite plainly.  Young-earth creationists suggest that both are fictions, or perhaps tests created by God to confound Man and test his faith. However, at some point [[Occum's Razor]] must kick in.
+
<br>(2) [[Young-earth creationism]], which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young [[moon]] and the Grand Canyon.  Opponents repeatedly attempt to censor the sale of publications by the U.S. Parks Service near the Grand Canyon containing differing views of its development.
  
−
<br>(3) Creationism is accepted by a good deal of Americans.  However, public acceptance alone does not indicate accuracy (if all the kids in junior high jumped off a bridge, would you?).  Instead, one should look to the seminal research institutions of the world, all of which harbor [[evolutionary biology]] departments, exemplum gratis [http://eeb.rice.edu/].  These institutions correctly recognize that [[evolutionary biology]], and not creationism, is the foundation of modern medicine and genetic science, all of which hold great promise for powering America's economy of knowledge into the 21st Century, unless restrained by petty [[politics]].
+
<br>(3) Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history.  Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old.
  
−
<br>(4) Creationism is not science.  It is religion.  To qualify as science, an intellectual structure must adhere to the basic [[scientific method]], entailing a hypothesis, observational and examinable (if not repeatable) proof, and then a [[theory]], which explains a facet of the scientific world.  Evolutionary theory is based on observation of a shifting fossil record over time, for example, from which complex biological theories are extracted, and then put to the test every day.  Evolution is observable & repeatable; for example, cold strains evolve resistance to [[antibiotics]].
 
−
 
−
<br>In contrast, Creationism is based on faith, and no observable facts.  This makes it an enthralling tale and a valid religious belief.  Tragically, though, it is bereft of scientific use.
 
−
 
−
<br>It should be noted that the scientific definition of "theory" contrasts with the common usage of the term: a scientific theory is a proven rule subject to modification by further experimentation.  Thus, a scientific theory is reliable, whereas a theory about who ate the last cookie is, well, not so reliable.  Exemplum gratis, the "theory" of evolution has in fact been proven time & time again.
 
  
  
Line 37: Line 33:
 
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki]
 
*[http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki]
 
*[http://www.reasons.org Reasons To Believe]
 
*[http://www.reasons.org Reasons To Believe]
−
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predynastic_Egypt]
 
−
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method]
 
  
 
==References and Footnotes==
 
==References and Footnotes==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>

Revision as of 06:42, February 27, 2007

Creationism is a term with a variety of meanings. Most generally, creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God.[2]. Creationism can also mean a belief in a creation according to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Some forms of creationism (especially the more literal forms) conflict with evolutionary ideas while others do not.[3].

Types of Creationists

There are many different types of creationism, and this list is not meant to be exhaustive but to deal with only the major categories.

  • 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. [4] In addition, a majority of the early church fathers supported the idea the young earth creationist view. [5] An example of a Young Earth Creationist ministry today is Answers in Genesis.[6]
  • Old Earth Creationists Agree with the common scientific age of the earth at around 4.5 billion years but generally do not accept that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Old Earth Creationists generally reconcile the age of the earth with Genesis by positing that the days in 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. An example of a major Old Earth Creationist ministry is Reasons to Believe [7].
  • Theistic Evolution is the belief that God created the universe and did not intervene directly in physical evolution. In general, theistic evolution accepts the age of the earth and common descent. Theistic evolutionists believe that at some point God intervened in a metaphysical fashion to give souls to some small group of human ancestors.

Controversial Classification

It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas. For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is Paul Nelson who a Young Earth Creationist, while Michael Behe, another major proponent, accepts common descent. William Dembski has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same[1] and that Intelligent Design is the Logos in terms of information theory[2], 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 compatable with life. Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the Dover trial, a US Federal District Judge (the lowest level federal judge of a general jurisdiction court) ruled as a one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. However, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by ACLU lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [8]

Attempts to Criticize Creationism


(1) Some critics of creationism assert that St. Augustine of Hippo disfavored some literal interpretations of the Bible. For example, they claim that St. Augustine, in his On Christian Doctrine, discussed the multiple layers that Biblical interpreters should sometimes engage in. Under the view of these critics, the seven-day creation in the Book of Genesis should be taken as symbolic.


In fact, St. Augustine did not reject creation or creationism. He did not propose or accept any view of man as anything other than a creation of God in the image of God, exactly as the Bible says.


(2) Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon. Opponents repeatedly attempt to censor the sale of publications by the U.S. Parks Service near the Grand Canyon containing differing views of its development.


(3) Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old.


External links

References and Footnotes

  1. ↑ What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki
  2. ↑ [1] Signs of Intelligence: A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creationism&oldid=16903"