Changes

Creationism is the belief that physical reality plainly reflects the work of invisible Divine power (Romans 1:20) and original causation of matter and life was by supernatural agency (Genesis 1:1; chapters 1 and 2). Universally, Creationism is the belief that a Creator is responsible for producing reality (general revelation) and that this revelation is the primary way of deducing the existence of said Deity.

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|evolution]] while others do not.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp].  Not all Christian denominations embrace creationism with the more literal Genesis interpretations, but nearly all embrace the [[Crucifixion]] of [[Jesus]] as a redemption for the sin of [[Adam]].  Many non-Christian sects believe in a form of creationism, including American Indian religions, Hindus, and the Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions.

== Types of Creationists ==

== Types of Creationists ==

== Controversial Classification ==

== 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 is also a Young Earth Creationist), while [[Michael Behe]], another major proponent, accepts common descent. A leading figure in the current intelligent design movement is [[William Dembski]], and he has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same.<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>  Dembski also connects Intelligent Design to be the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:

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<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref>  and that Intelligent Design is the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:

A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999</ref>, while he and others have given different definitions which do not include any specific theological references. But the common denominator of agreement among proponents is that biological reality is the product of intelligence and not blind anti-intelligent material processes. Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Federal District Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a evolutionist, disagreed. Jones ruled (in one of his findings) that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature.  The opinion met with wide accolades, but some criticism rightly pointed out that it borrowed too heavily from arguments made by the ACLU. [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>

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]], 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>

 

 

== See also ==

== See also ==