Creationism

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mike M (talk | contribs) at 20:11, April 8, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WARNING This page is temporarily unprotected, we will not hesitate to reprotect it if you remove information and try to make the theory sound like fact


Creationism is the "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."[1] More generaly, creationism is the belief that the earth and everything in it was created by God or some other supreme being. Those that hold the views of Creationism are referred to as Creationists.[2]

Creationism (especially the most literal forms) conflicts with the Theory of evolution.[3] Not all Christian denominations embrace creationism with the literal Genesis interpretations. Many non-Christian sects believe in a form of creationism, including American Indian religions, Hindus, and the Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions.

History

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.

  • Biblical Young Earth Creationists generally accept a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, insisting 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 young earth creationist view.[4]
  • Old Earth Creationists take the Bible's creation account less 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.

Controversy

Creationism and Intelligent Design

There is considerable disagreement on whether or not 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 Young Earth Creationist Paul Nelson, 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[5]. Dembski has also asserted that Intelligent Design is the Logos in terms of information theory[6], 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 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. [5] 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.[7]

Offensive Terminology

Some Young Earth Creationists say that the term Creationism is simply a false atheistic, Evolutionist perception, or pejorative assertion that believing in a God means that all science and intellectual thinking has to be left behind. They say that the perception finds no grounding in reality, other than as a rhetorical dramatization.

See also

External links

Young Earth Creationist Organizations

Old Earth Creationists

Reasons To Believe, an Old Earth Creationist Ministry

References and Footnotes

  1. ↑ American Heritage Dictionary
  2. ↑ "creationist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist>.
  3. ↑ [1]
  4. ↑ [2]
  5. ↑ What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki
  6. ↑ [3] Signs of Intelligence: A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July-August 1999
  7. ↑ Richard B. Katskee, "Religion in Public Schools," 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creationism&oldid=93639"